Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - October 22, 2018
-
(ACC Blog) Making Use of Every Molecule: Chemistry’s Contributions To Interior Design Highlighted In New Issue Of i+D Magazine
Oct 22, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
The sustainable green chemistry movement transforms molecules, moving beyond the lab to create a wide array of innovative interior products. -
PFAS Concern Sparks Warning Not To Eat Deer Near Former Base
Oct 22, 2018 | Associated Press (In E&E Greenwire)
Officials are urging people not to eat deer from near a marsh that borders a former military base in Michigan's northern Lower Peninsula due to potential contamination. -
Do We Need To Be Concerned About Asbestos Again?
Oct 22, 2018 | The Ecologist
By Emily Folk
The EPA in the US is planning to alter the current regulations on asbestos that may allow the harmful substance back into manufacturing. -
Member States Pressed To Reject Chromate Authorisation Applications
Oct 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A group of NGOs is calling on EU member states to either vote against applications to authorise various uses of chromates or back shortening the review period. -
Member States Host Events For EU Safety And Health At Work Week
Oct 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Member states are marking this year's European week of safety and health at work with a series of events across the EU. -
Hazy Prospects For Trump’s Infrastructure Package
Oct 22, 2018 | Politico
By Sara Mintz
... FRA Administrator Ron Batory met last week with positive train control system suppliers tied to the eight railroads at risk of not meeting the deadline to implement PTC or qualify for an extension, Progressive Railroading reported. After Dec. 31, the railroads will face fines of up to nearly $28,000 per day. “Railroads, PTC system suppliers, and other key stakeholders must seize the remaining fourth quarter with finely coordinated efforts in order to meet the statutory prerequisites of Dec. 31,” Batory said, according to the publication. -
Washington’s Carbon Tax: Take Two
Oct 22, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Baord
If Democrats retake Congress in November, a national carbon tax is likely to be part of their agenda. A referendum in Washington state next month is a test of public support. -
Seattle Times Opposes Wash. Carbon-Fee Ballot Initiative
Oct 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The Seattle Times' editorial board is urging Washington state voters to reject a landmark ballot initiative on imposing a carbon fee. -
Greens Sue Over EPA Denial Of Cross-State Ozone Petitions
Oct 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Eight environmental and public health advocacy groups are challenging EPA's rejection of bids from Maryland and Delaware for a federal crackdown on upwind power plant emissions from outside their borders. -
White House Pushed EPA For Bigger Methane Rule Rollback
Oct 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
White House regulatory officials pushed EPA to propose a more aggressive rollback of Obama-era requirements that oil and gas operators cut leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane, according to documents recently released into the regulatory docket. -
EPA's Carbon Rule Sparks Debate Over Cost-Benefit Analyses
Oct 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
Robin Lovett-Owen attended EPA's Chicago public hearing on the proposed replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan to remind the Trump administration that the plan's projected increases in premature mortality and asthma attacks were more than numbers.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Oct 22, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
The sustainable green chemistry movement transforms molecules, moving beyond the lab to create a wide array of innovative interior products.
“Making Use of Every Molecule,” an article in the latest issue of i+D magazine, the official magazine of the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) and the Interior Designers of Canada (IDC), explains how chemistry contributes to sustainable interior design. The article focuses on several specific innovations of chemistry in sustainability, “well building” design and the latest interior trends that enable smarter, more efficient homes, schools and workplaces.
Some of the highlighted materials in the “Chemistry” article include:“Greener,” bio-based carpet. DuPont’s Sorona co-polymer is used to create soft, stain-resistant carpets. The co-polymer that is used to create the soft carpet is made through a fermentation process using plant-based resources.Sustainable mattresses and furniture. Thanks to some breakthrough R&D at Covestro, the inert carbon dioxide molecule can be put to new, resourceful uses, creating flexible polyurethane foam for use in upholstered furniture, bedding and more.A textile that could help improve a person’s circulation. Surface materials company Designtex and technology company Hologenix have produced a responsive upholstery that could help combat some of the harm from sitting too much. The material works through its unique chemistry embedded into the core.Resilient flooring materials. Milliken & Company shared its process for creating an innovative commercial space at Chicago’s theMART, explaining how the company received the first WELL Platinum project certification in the Windy City. Flooring materials like luxury vinyl tiles helped pave the way.
Both chemistry and interior design share common goals for creating high-performing sustainable products that advance these professions. Read more in i+D magazine. (Permission granted by ASID.)
To learn more about how chemicals are the building blocks for many high-performing materials that contribute to the durability of carpeting and flooring, the comfort of furniture, the energy efficiency of lighting, the bright bold colors of paints and the aesthetics of stylish décor, visit BuildingwithChemistry.org.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/10/making-use-of-every-molecule-chemistrys-contributions-to-interior-design-highlighted-in-new-issue-of-id-magazine/
-
PFAS Concern Sparks Warning Not To Eat Deer Near Former Base
Oct 22, 2018 | Associated Press (In E&E Greenwire)
Officials are urging people not to eat deer from near a marsh that borders a former military base in Michigan's northern Lower Peninsula due to potential contamination.
The state departments of Health and Human Services and Natural Resources announced the advisory Friday after a deer about 2 miles from Clark's Marsh in Oscoda Township had high levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS. The advisory covers an area 5 miles from the marsh.
Officials tested 20 deer around the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base.
The area is among many in Michigan where toxins known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, turned up. PFOS is one type of PFAS. They were a component of firefighting foam used at the base.
The state DNR has been testing deer elsewhere.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/22/stories/1060103959
-
Do We Need To Be Concerned About Asbestos Again?
Oct 22, 2018 | The Ecologist
By Emily Folk
The EPA in the US is planning to alter the current regulations on asbestos that may allow the harmful substance back into manufacturing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States announced a proposed new rule, called a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), regarding asbestos in June.
The EPA claimed that the rule would increase restrictions, while critics - including some current and former EPA employees - worried it could open up loopholes. Others say it doesn't go far enough. The reality of what effect the law will have remains a little uncertain.
Asbestos is a type of naturally occurring mineral that was used widely in the United States and Europe until the 1970s, especially in the construction and automotive sectors.
Earlier rules
The material is resistant to fire and chemical corrosion and does not conduct electricity. It has been used in the production of cement, plastics, insulation, roofing shingles, floor tiles, paints and elsewhere.
Since the 1970s, however, the use of asbestos has declined significantly due to concerns about its health impacts. It is classified as a known human carcinogen and has been shown to cause mesothelioma and other forms of cancer.
The use of asbestos is banned in more than 60 countries, and the substance kills nearly 40,000 Americans a year, according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. It seems strange then that the EPA is proposing a rule that, if its critics are right, could bring more asbestos into the US. Here's the explanation.
There's room for such a rule because although the use of asbestos is restricted in the United States, it is not entirely banned.
Between 1970 and 1989, the US banned several specific uses of asbestos. In 1989, the EPA attempted to ban all new applications, meaning those developed before 1989 were exempt from the ban, except for those singled out and prohibited by earlier rules.
Boost asbestos
However, the US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned most of this ban in 1991. As a result, the only applications of asbestos the 1989 rules bans are new uses and five that the court did not overturn, which were already obsolete.
The new SNUR would require that certain non-banned uses of asbestos are subject to review by the EPA. Under the rule, companies wanting to use asbestos for these applications would have to notify the EPA, and the agency could decide to allow, regulate or prohibit the usage.
Specifically, the rule applies to what the EPA calls “currently unregulated former uses". These applications include those that had not been banned and were active at the time of the 1991 court ruling but are no longer in use.
Health concerns are the primary reasons these uses are no longer active. In the rule, the EPA lists 15 of these market uses. The EPA has noted that, without the new rule, companies could start using asbestos for these applications without notifying the EPA.
So, if the rule involves EPA reviews of asbestos uses, why do some believe it could boost asbestos use? The problems that critics point to include the language with which the agency wrote the SNUR and the way it plans to evaluate these applications. Some also believe that the proposal does not go far enough.
Stringent
According to internal EPA emails, some agency staff are worried that the language of the SNUR would allow some uses of asbestos to avoid review. Because the rule only lists 15 applications, currently unregulated uses that the EPA did not list could potentially avoid regulation.
Another concern is related to how the agency has indicated it will review the risks associated with asbestos. According to recently released EPA documents about how the agency plans to review potentially toxic chemicals, it will not consider the impacts of potential exposure due to a chemical's presence in the air, ground or water. It will instead look at risks associated with direct contact.
Critics say that this severely limits the scope of the review and would exclude the impacts of things like improper disposal.
The documents also narrow the definition of asbestos, meaning the EPA will not assess some asbestos-like fibers. It also will not review existing uses of asbestos or the disposal of asbestos and products containing it.
This limited scope suggests that any potential reviews of unregulated uses of asbestos likely won't be very stringent, according to critics.
Potentially harmful
The recent EPA actions, critics point out, represent a drastic change from the original intent of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a law directing the EPA to review potentially harmful chemicals including asbestos.
When Congress strengthened the TSCA in 2016, some lawmakers saw it as a chance to try again to ban asbestos broadly. The recent EPA actions do not seem to support this notion.
The impact of these actions, especially regarding asbestos, is somewhat uncertain. There's reason to believe, though, they will change little for the average American.
The SNUR deals mostly with market uses of asbestos that are already obsolete, primarily due to their associated health concerns. These applications have been unregulated for decades, but businesses have still opted not to use them.
Using them is not only a health risk, it would also be a tremendous financial risk for the companies due to potential lawsuits. An estimated 100 companies have been forced into bankruptcy proceedings due to asbestos liabilities.
What's really at stake is the larger role that the EPA will play in regulating chemicals, as the way that the agency handles asbestos may be an indication of how it will treat other potentially harmful substances.
https://theecologist.org/2018/oct/22/do-we-need-be-concerned-about-asbestos-again
-
Member States Pressed To Reject Chromate Authorisation Applications
Oct 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Safer alternatives exist for wool dyeing and decorative chrome plating, NGOs say
A group of NGOs is calling on EU member states to either vote against applications to authorise various uses of chromates or back shortening the review period.
This should be a maximum of four years, they said, to allow for the availability of alternatives to be "properly assessed" as soon as possible based on REACH Article 61(2b).
Members at the REACH Committee meeting on 25 October will discuss whether to endorse separate applications by Hansgrohe, Lanxess Deutschland and REACHLaw (acting as an only representative) for use of chromium trioxide in decorative plating.
In a letter ahead of the meeting, NGOs including ClientEarth, the European Environmental Bureau and the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) said that societal benefits of the uses, especially decorative ones, are "highly questionable". And alternatives are "clearly available" on the market as alternative providers have stated.
According to the manifesto of the Alliance of PVD Providers submitted to the REACH Committee last September, they said, alternatives for decorative plating already exist and have been "economically and technically feasible for at least the last two years".
Functional chrome plating with decorative character is an industrial process widely used in applications including:automotive;cosmetics; and furniture and household appliances.Wool
Member states will also discuss and possibly vote on an application by Ilario Ormezzano Sai for use of sodium dichromate:in repackaging for supply as a mordant in the dyeing of wool as sliver and/or yarn with dark colours in industrial settings; andas a mordant in the dyeing of wool as sliver and/or yarn with dark colours in industrial settings.
The NGOs said that as shown last year during the discussion of a similar application for authorisation submitted by Gruppa Colle, "safer alternatives made by Huntsman and Dystar are available on the market".
The applications "do not demonstrate that alternatives are unavailable", and therefore, they said, do not comply with authorisation requirements as established by REACH.
The group repeated calls for Echa’s Socio Economic Assessment Committee (Seac) assessment of alternatives "to be improved urgently in order to ensure a level playing field for companies providing safer alternatives".
Granting these authorisations, they added, "will fuel a growing problem" of toxic chemical exposure – the leading cause of occupational cancers. "Eighty-five per cent of cases come from exposure to only ten chemical agents, including chromium. With more than 100,000 deaths per year, occupational cancers are the leading cause of death in the EU."
https://chemicalwatch.com/71188/member-states-pressed-to-reject-chromate-authorisation-applications
-
Member States Host Events For EU Safety And Health At Work Week
Oct 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Member states are marking this year's European week of safety and health at work with a series of events across the EU.
The current campaign on managing dangerous substances in the workplace, was launched in April by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-Osha). And the week of activity, which runs from 22-26 October, will see workers, managers and occupational health and safety experts come together to raise awareness of the issues and exchange best practice.
Events planned include:seminars in countries across the EU from the Irish Republic to Bulgaria;conferences in member states ranging from Spain to Latvia;a conference and fair in Estoniaan awareness-raising exercise in the Netherlands;a workshop in Germany; anda shipyard visit in Finland.
And there are events outside the EU to mark the week in diverse countries including Serbia, Liechtenstein and the US.
Among the topics addressed will be the construction sector, occupational exposure to carcinogens, firefighting with hazardous substances, nanomaterials and cosmetics.
The scale of the problem was demonstrated by EU-Osha’s second European survey of almost 50,000 enterprises on new and emerging risks (Esener-2). According to EU-Osha Director Christa Sedlatschek, the 2016 survey showed that "dangerous substances are present in all sectors, for example in traditional industries such as construction and manufacturing, with over 50% of companies in the EU affected, and agriculture, with 62 % of EU enterprises affected.
The managing dangerous substances in the workplace campaign will run until November 2019. Chemical Watch’s sister publication Chemical Risk Manager is a media partner of the campaign.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71192/member-states-host-events-for-eu-safety-and-health-at-work-week
-
Hazy Prospects For Trump’s Infrastructure Package
Oct 22, 2018 | Politico
By Sara Mintz
DON'T BET ON IT: Basic math and the tortured history of past infrastructure initiatives suggest that President Trump and lawmakers are likely to wind up empty-handed again despite talk of cooperation on an infrastructure package next year. The fundamental problem, our Tanya Snyder reports, is that reaching the dollar amounts both have suggested would require some combination of tax increases, budget cuts or borrowing. "Neither party has shown much willingness to address that challenge in recent decades, even during the brief period of bipartisan optimism that infrastructure inspired before Trump's inauguration," Tanya writes. Read on for takes from K Street, Capitol Hill and beyond.
CAMPAIGN WATCH: Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), who’s in the running to lead Republicans on the House Transportation Committee if they maintain their majority, traveled to Arizona with President Donald Trump on Friday for a presidential memorandum signing. Aimed at sending more water to farmers in California’s Central Valley, the memo is “a major political gift for GOP incumbents in some of the most competitive House races in the country where water supply is a top campaign topic,” Pro Energy’s Annie Snider reports. Denham has made the water wars a priority issue in his tight reelection race, touting his efforts to secure the region’s water supply in campaign ads.
WELCOME TO MONDAY: Thanks for tuning in to POLITICO’s Morning Transportation, your daily tipsheet on all things trains, planes, automobiles and ports. Get in touch with feedback, tips or song lyric suggestions at smintz@politico.com or @samjmintz.
“And in the winter night sky ships are sailing, / Looking down on these bright blue city lights.”
LISTEN HERE: Follow MT’s playlist on Spotify. What better way to start your day than with songs (picked by us and readers) about roads, rails, rivers and runways?
POLITICO IS PARTNERING WITH THE MILKEN INSTITUTE to bring a special edition of the POLITICO Pulse newsletter to the Milken Institute Future of Health Summit. Written by Dan Diamond, the newsletter will take readers inside one of the most influential gatherings of global health industry leaders and innovators as they tackle today’s most pressing health challenges. The newsletter will run Oct. 23-24. Sign up today to begin receiving exclusive coverage on Day One of the summit.INFRASTRUCTURE
HELLO, GUVNAS: Infrastructure is playing a role in nearly every gubernatorial election this fall, but Democratic candidates look more poised to advance specific infrastructure proposals than their GOP counterparts, according to a report from the Brookings Institution. “If a ‘blue wave’ does in fact reach governors mansions, it could project a more forceful and expansive approach to statewide infrastructure over the coming four years,” the authors write. The report found that candidates in Michigan, Colorado and New Mexico were most engaged on infrastructure, covering the broadest range of issues and having the most detailed proposals.
BLESS THE BROKEN ROADS: The Episcopal Church is weighing in on infrastructure through its government relations arm, urging its followers to pray for progress — but also to push Congress to take action. In a fairly wonky release, the Episcopal Public Policy Network calls for support and more funding for the Federal Highway Administration, the Highway Trust Fund, TIGER grants, and water programs.AVIATION
TAKE THAT BACK: Drone manufacturer DJI criticized a recent video produced by the University of Dayton Research Institute that showed a drone striking the wing of a small plane and was widely picked up by news outlets. "It is ... distressing to see how the University of Dayton Research Institute has recklessly created and promoted a video that falsely claims to depict a dangerous condition posed by one of our products," DJI wrote in a letter to the university, which said the speed and altitudes of the two vehicles in the scenario were unrealistic.AUTOMOBILES
SAFETY REQUEST: The Center for Auto Safety filed a petition Friday asking NHTSA to require that companies submit safety information when testing self-driving technology. The group also wants that information public. “We filed this petition ... because this administration, from the White House to the Department of Transportation, has repeatedly demonstrated that it is committed to a cult of deregulation, even when obvious steps can be taken to provide needed safety information to the American people,” CAS Executive Director Jason Levine said.
** A message from Delta Air Lines: On Valentine’s Day, Delta shares in its success by paying out a portion of its profits to its employees, resulting in more than $5 billion over the past five years on this special day. Learn more about Delta’s position on people, policies, and partnerships on its new policy website www.deltatakingaction.com **
INNOVATION NATION: Placing tariffs on automotive imports is the wrong approach to strengthen the U.S.’ competitive position in developing autonomous vehicles, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation argues in a new report. To maintain an American advantage, which has grown in step with IT hardware and software in vehicles, lawmakers and the Trump administration should focus on keeping innovation policies up to date, the group says. Specifically, the report calls for continuing to tilt the regulatory system toward experimentation and testing and expanding a tax credit for R&D.RAIL
PTC TLC: FRA Administrator Ron Batory met last week with positive train control system suppliers tied to the eight railroads at risk of not meeting the deadline to implement PTC or qualify for an extension, Progressive Railroading reported. After Dec. 31, the railroads will face fines of up to nearly $28,000 per day. “Railroads, PTC system suppliers, and other key stakeholders must seize the remaining fourth quarter with finely coordinated efforts in order to meet the statutory prerequisites of Dec. 31,” Batory said, according to the publication.
NO RED CARPET FOR THIS ONE: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Friday put out his short film asking Trump to help fund the $13 billion Gateway project, a new tunnel between New Jersey and Penn Station. “Given your background in construction, I believe once you see the severity of this situation, it will speak volumes," he says in the video, POLITICO New York’s Dana Rubinstein reports. The tunnel has deteriorated so much that Amtrak will likely have to remove one or both of its tubes from service in the next few years, which would sever a key connection for NJ Transit and the Northeast Corridor.SECURITY
A LOSS AT TSA: Bob Burns, social media lead at the TSA, passed away suddenly on Friday. Commonly known as “Blogger Bob,” he started his career with TSA in 2002 as an airport screener in Kentucky, before moving to headquarters in 2008 to join the public affairs team. He was a driving force behind the agency’s popular Instagram account, which shares images of strange and funny objects people try to bring through security checkpoints. “Bob always reminded us of the importance of our mission and the importance of finding the humor as we carry out that mission. He reminded everyone that commonsense isn’t always evenly distributed, and showed the world that the security you provide is not ‘security theater,” wrote Michael Bilello, assistant administrator for public affairs, in a note to TSA employees.MAILBAG
Reps. Ralph Abraham (R-La.) and Steve Russell (R-Okla.) recently sent a letter to GAO backing a review by the agency related to fixed-base operators, which perform services like fueling and parking at airports. Among other issues, the lawmakers “are concerned that at many public use airports, airports having only one FBO have leased out all or substantially all of the ramp space for parking general aviation aircraft and the FBO is extracting fees and charges from pilots far in excess of the costs of the public use ramp,” according to the letter. “The FAA Airports office is responsible for exercising oversight of the [Airport Improvement] grant program at public use airports, but it appears to us there may be significant and serious lapses in the attention this FAA office is giving” to GA users, Abraham and Russell wrote. GAO told MT that it has been looking into issues related to fixed-base operators since the spring, at the request of House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.).THE AUTOBAHN
— “The future of transportation is being underwritten by Saudi Arabia.” The Verge.
— “Truck sales surge as HTF tax receipts increase 5 percent.” Eno Transportation Weekly.
— “What your car knows about you and who it’s telling.” WTOP.
— “At least 59 killed as train hits crowd in northern India.” Reuters.
— "Air wars: Hawley flies on lobbyist's plane after blasting McCaskill." POLITICO.THE COUNTDOWN
DOT appropriations run out in 47 days. The FAA reauthorization expires in 1,804 days. Highway and transit policy is up for renewal in 710 days.
** A message from Delta Air Lines: Want to know why Valentine’s Day is Delta Air Lines’ favorite day? Employees celebrate their outstanding performance and dedication to customers on this special day. Delta shares the company’s success by paying out a portion of its profits to employees, resulting in more than $5 billion over the past five years. Learn more about Delta’s position on people, policies, and partnerships on its new policy website www.deltatakingaction.com.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-transportation/2018/10/22/hazy-prospects-for-trumps-infrastructure-package-381411
-
Washington’s Carbon Tax: Take Two
Oct 22, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Baord
If Democrats retake Congress in November, a national carbon tax is likely to be part of their agenda. A referendum in Washington state next month is a test of public support.
Two years ago nearly 60% of Washington voters rejected a ballot initiative to impose a “revenue neutral” carbon tax. Green groups opposed the referendum because it wouldn’t generate money for environmental largess. Businesses said it would destroy jobs and increase energy prices, which is true.
Liberals have now fixed what they thought was the fatal flaw of the first referendum—namely, revenue neutrality. This year’s initiative would impose a $15 per ton carbon “fee” that would increase by $2 per year. The tax is designated a fee because the $2.3 billion in revenue it is projected to generate over the next five years would mostly be earmarked for “clean air and energy” programs—such as solar power and electric car subsidies—rather than general spending.
But revenues are fungible, and the carbon tax proceeds would invariably finance government spending in other areas. That has been the case in California where Democrats have used cap-and-trade revenue to finance the state bullet train, low-income housing and public transit in addition to green handouts.
The tax would raise gas prices by 13 cents a gallon in 2020 and 59 cents a gallon by 2035. Washington currently has the third highest gas prices in the country after Hawaii and California, and Seattle commuters won’t relish paying a few extra bucks every time they fill up. Electricity rates would rise modestly, largely because most of the state’s power is already generated by dams.
An analysis by National Economic Research Associates estimates that the tax would cost Washington households on average $440 in 2020 and would reduce state economic growth by 0.4% over the next two years. Not even Washington’s good liberals pretend low-income residents and workers will be held harmless.
Hence the referendum requires that 10% of revenues be spent on reducing energy costs for low-income residents. At least $50 million must also go to support imperiled workers in fossil fuels. Washington processes crude from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale and ranks fifth in the country in oil refining.
The kicker is that some 40% of the state emissions would be exempt including “energy-intensive trade-exposed” industries like aluminum production, diesel used in agriculture, fossil-fuel exports, and fuel purchased by local and state governments. Heaven forfend the tax could cost government union jobs. This political favoritism may mitigate the tax’s adverse economic effects and public opposition. But if liberals are really worried about climate change, why tolerate exceptions?
Washington’s tax might reduce global emissions by all of 0.02% in 2035, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently estimated a global carbon price of between $135 and $5,500 per ton would be necessary to forestall a climate apocalypse. This level of taxation would be a political nonstarter anywhere.
But if the Washington referendum passes, liberals will be emboldened to push carbon copies in other states and Congress. Some on the right advocate a national carbon tax along with a supposed “dividend” for taxpayers, but here all revenue is for Olympia politicians. The story in Washington shows that liberals care more about increasing tax revenue to spend than they do about reducing emissions.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/washingtons-carbon-tax-take-two-1540159445
-
Seattle Times Opposes Wash. Carbon-Fee Ballot Initiative
Oct 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The Seattle Times' editorial board is urging Washington state voters to reject a landmark ballot initiative on imposing a carbon fee.
In an editorial published Saturday, the Times acknowledged the need to fight climate change but called Initiative 1631 "expensive and unaccountable."
The initiative would slap a $15 fee on carbon emissions beginning in 2020, eventually topping out around $55 per ton. Seventy percent of the revenue would go toward pollution reduction, with other funding going to mitigation and helping low-income people address climate impacts.
If the measure passes, Washington would become the first state to adopt a carbon price at the ballot box. Voters rejected a similar proposal in 2016, and another carbon pricing proposal died in the Washington state Legislature earlier this year.
As for Initiative 1631, the Times took issue with the structure of the unelected board that would propose how to spend the billions in anticipated revenue from the carbon fee.
"The Legislature has the final say on appropriations," the editorial board wrote. "But the carbon board is structured to be a political juggernaut. Legislators might have difficulty mustering political will to change course."
The editorial mirrored many of the arguments made by the "No on 1631" campaign, which has taken in more than $25 million to date, mostly from the oil industry.
It cites concerns about high costs for consumers and emissions that are already in steep decline without the fee.
Nick Abraham, spokesman for the "Yes on 1631" campaign, said the ballot measure is aimed at charging polluters, not consumers, and that the state is still not on track to meet its emissions targets.
"This notion that we're already reducing pollution is not true," Abraham said. "We are missing all of our targets for how much pollution we want to reduce in the state."
The Times editorial could hold some sway with voters, but the political battle has largely played out in the fight between oil companies and farm groups backing the opposition campaign and the coalition of environmental and public interest groups supporting Initiative 1631.
The yes campaign has raised nearly $12 million in cash, with the largest amounts coming from the Nature Conservancy and the League of Conservation Voters. Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have also contributed $1 million each.
The yes campaign also boasts a bundle of endorsements, including from the Tacoma News Tribune and other newspapers, as well as from Gov. Jay Inslee (D).
Supporters see it as a progressive policy that will juice a growing green energy economy and direct money back to the communities most affected by climate change.
They also say it's a much better option than the revenue-neutral carbon pricing proposal that was on the ballot in 2016, which was rejected 59 percent to 41 percent.
The Times' editorial board, meanwhile, said the state's voters should push for a national carbon tax, rather than Initiative 1631.
"Global warming is critical," the board wrote. "But I-1631 is not do-or-die."
But Abraham said the argument that climate change should be addressed at the national level doesn't hold weight in a time when there is "zero hope for that" in Congress.
"The main crux of their opposition is that they don't think states should lead on this issue," he said. "And we fundamentally disagree with that.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/22/stories/1060103989
-
Greens Sue Over EPA Denial Of Cross-State Ozone Petitions
Oct 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Eight environmental and public health advocacy groups are challenging EPA's rejection of bids from Maryland and Delaware for a federal crackdown on upwind power plant emissions from outside their borders.
"The Clean Air Act is clear that EPA must protect downwind states from dangerous air pollution that is encroaching on them from coal plants in neighboring states," Graham McCahan, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a news release late Friday announcing the lawsuit filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lead plaintiff is the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Among seven others are EDF, the Clean Air Council, the Adirondack Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The two states petitioned EPA in 2016 to force coal-fired power producers in Pennsylvania and other states to curb releases of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that were allegedly making it harder for them to meet the 2008 ground-level ozone standard.
In a final decision published earlier this morning, EPA rejected both states' "good neighbor" petitions, partly on the grounds that its 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update was already addressing the problem.
The suit filed Friday does not spell out the grounds for the challenge. But in comments submitted to EPA last year, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation argued that tighter NOx curbs were warranted for some of the plants targeted in the petitions. The Environmental Defense Fund contended that both Delaware and Maryland had shown that out-of-state emissions were undercutting their efforts to comply with the 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of NOx and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. EPA has deemed significant parts of Maryland and Delaware in nonattainment for both the 75-ppb threshold and the more stringent 70-ppb limit set in 2015.
The suit comes days after Maryland also went to the D.C. Circuit to challenge EPA's denial of its petition (E&E News PM, Oct. 17). The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control is weighing its legal options, a spokesman said in an email last week.
The remaining organizations joining in the new suit are the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Environmental Integrity Project and the Sierra Club. Many of the same groups had previously banded together in a suit filed last fall in U.S. District Court to compel EPA to make a decision on Maryland's petition after the agency failed to act by a statutory deadline (Greenwire, Oct. 5, 2017). A federal judge later set a timetable requiring EPA to take action by last month.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/22/stories/1060103985
-
White House Pushed EPA For Bigger Methane Rule Rollback
Oct 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
White House regulatory officials pushed EPA to propose a more aggressive rollback of Obama-era requirements that oil and gas operators cut leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane, according to documents recently released into the regulatory docket.
Bloomberg has a story on the dynamic, writing that during interagency review of EPA's plan to weaken its new source performance standards (NSPS), White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) officials repeatedly urged the agency to maximize savings for the oil sector.
“Every move to dial back required inspections and reduce industry costs triggered a corresponding climb in projected methane emissions, a jump that appeared to trouble some EPA officials,” the story reports.
It cited one early draft of the planned changes to the NSPS that said EPA was “not proposing changes to the quarterly monitoring frequency requirement for the collection of fugitive emissions components located at compressor stations,” asserting that quarterly inspections are “cost effective.”
In the final plan, however, EPA proposed allowing just annual inspections for most sites, and once every two years for low-producing wells.
That came after OMB pushed back on the agency's earlier plan, with an OMB official in July emphasizing the White House stance. “We still feel that annual monitoring for compressors” is “the best option,” the official wrote, according to the article.
After EPA agreed to soften its early plan to a semi-annual inspection requirement, OMB again sought a yearly standard. The agency said its option could qualify as the “best system of emission reduction,” a term of art under the Clean Air Act.
“We can achieve greater emission reductions for a cost that is well within the acceptable cost of control,” one agency official told OMB.
Comments on the NSPS rollback are due Dec. 17, and EPA has said it hopes to finalize the measure by April.
In addition, EPA is slated to propose a separate measure in December that many expect to drop direct methane limits entirely, with officials relying on standards for conventional air pollutants that capture methane as a co-benefit. This would be an important change because it likely would preclude any standards for existing sources in the sector.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-white-house-pushed-epa-bigger-methane-rule-rollback
-
EPA's Carbon Rule Sparks Debate Over Cost-Benefit Analyses
Oct 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
Robin Lovett-Owen attended EPA's Chicago public hearing on the proposed replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan to remind the Trump administration that the plan's projected increases in premature mortality and asthma attacks were more than numbers.
The student at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago recalled in the Oct. 1 hearing the two children she had met while working as a chaplain in a city hospital's pediatric unit — a teenage athlete and a nonverbal 8-year-old — who both died from asthma attacks.
"It's hard to imagine what those numbers mean when you read them from the comfort of your desk. It's all too easy to imagine what they mean when you've met and mourned children like Xander and Trey," Lovett-Owens said at the only hearing EPA has scheduled on its proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule.
"The deaths of black children in Chicagoland may seem like a far cry from the deaths of white coal miners and their families in Appalachia, but they point to the same truth: The true cost of polluting our air is the deaths of the most vulnerable people in our country, whether they be children of color in urban areas or workers in the hollers of the Smoky Mountains."
Lovett-Owen — a native of coal mining country in east Tennessee — was among many people to point to the 1,400 premature deaths the EPA's analysis says the rule would cause by 2030. How, they asked, could the Trump administration approve a rule that increased the risk of harm?
The answer lies in how the Trump administration has been weighing the costs of implementing the rule against its potential benefits.
As President Trump presses to reduce regulations across the government, EPA has been reworking how it tallies regulatory costs and benefits. Last week, the White House released its report on its rule-slashing efforts that showed EPA planning to proceed with a plan to "clarify interpretations" of cost-benefit analysis with a notice of proposed rulemaking next May (Greenwire, Oct. 17).
William Buzbee, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said the administration is targeting a widely held assumption that regulations should prevent an increase in harm.
"It is rare that you see agency policy shifts that increase a risk," he said in a telephone interview.
Usually, federal agencies face legal hurdles to relaxing health protections. And states like California, known for strict environmental rules, tend to contradict any assertions that stricter standards aren't feasible.
Even businesses, Buzbee said, can undermine efforts to weaken standards by meeting pollution targets more cheaply and easily than expected.
"Why might you still see it? The reason why regulatory choices could lead to increased risks is that many statutes require consideration of a handful of factors, with health among them," he said.
"Health isn't the only criterion driving regulation," he said, but it "often is so central or an overarching goal that most agencies true to their congressionally assigned missions would on their own reject such a change."
Front and center in the Trump administration: the cost of regulating.
EPA released the proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule as the administration was in the midst of a sweeping effort to rein in regulatory spending.
Under Neomi Rao, the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), agencies have aggressively looked to cut regulatory costs in line with Trump's Executive Order 13771, which calls for eliminating costs of two regulations for every new rule enacted.
This fiscal year, agencies that succeeded at meeting that standard are being called on to push for even deeper reductions, cutting costs for three regulations for every rule enacted.
While not all federal agencies have kept that pace, the White House recently announced that in fiscal 2018, agencies cut about four significant regulations for every new significant rule put in place.
In a background press briefing last week, a senior administration official said the White House was "expressly focused" on reviewing significant rules that impose the greatest costs on the public.Playing up costs
Critics of Trump's executive order say it undercuts the cost-benefit analysis process by pushing agencies to focus on cost but saying nothing about preserving rules that provide vital public health and environmental protections.
Sally Katzen, the former head of OIRA under the Clinton administration, notes that the order mentions costs 17 times but never mentions the word "benefits."
"That's not analytically sound," she said. "Not surprisingly, this has energized the left as well as conventional conservative economists to say this is wrong — cost-benefit analysis includes consideration of both sides of the equation, benefits as well as costs."
The administration's focus on cutting regulations also could have an influence on how OIRA reviews EPA's analysis of the power plant rule, according to another former chief of OIRA, which is responsible for reviewing agencies' draft and final regulations.
"At OIRA, the regulatory-policy guidance from cost-benefit analysis will always take a back seat to presidential priorities that relate to specific campaign commitments," John Graham, who led OIRA under President George W. Bush, said in an email.
One of OIRA's "key objectives" was to ensure that agencies honored presidential priorities and policy preferences.
"Thus, the premature deaths that might be induced by a deregulatory action are more of a concern in the judicial review of a regulatory action than they are in OIRA review of a White House-urged deregulatory action," Graham said.
Georgetown University's Buzbee also warned that regulatory revisions that would increase pollution or increase health threats compared with a previous rulemaking are "at high risk of flunking judicial arbitrary and capricious review."
Alan Krupnick, senior fellow at Resources for the Future and former senior economist on the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, suggested that critics focusing on the increased risk of premature death under Trump's proposed power plant rule were taking a "strictly public health perspective," rather than looking at a cost-benefit assessment of whether the rule should go forward.
EPA in this case, he said, would look at the increased risk of death and put a dollar figure on it based on an estimate of "value of statistical life." Then that value, along with any other forgone benefits like reductions in emergency room visits or school absences, is compared with the cost savings of the rule to the power sector.
Those skeptical of the use of cost-benefit analysis to justify regulatory cuts say the administration's current approach has further eroded faith in that assessment tool.
"What we have seen in the economic analysis under this administration is that economic cost-benefit analysis is very easy to manipulate. That has been a clear takeaway," said Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen.
Narang suggested cost-benefit analysis should be used in an advisory way and agencies should use risk assessments that don't put a monetary value on life, because the methods of calculating that value are "barely transparent."
But Katzen stands by the analytical approach.
"Cost-benefit analysis is like democracy. It may have flaws, but it is better than anything else," she said. "It makes the decisionmaker consider all the consequences of a proposal in roughly comparable terms: apple and apples."
For Lovett-Owen, the woman preparing to be a Lutheran pastor, her hope was to make her testimony personal for the three EPA officials who oversaw the hearing.
Did she think her approach had an impact?
"When I said was from Appalachia, the man sitting in the middle gave me a thumbs-up and mouthed, 'Me, too,'" she said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/22/stories/1060103977
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested