Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 25/10/18
-
EPA Issues TSCA 'Not Likely' Finding for Polymer
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published a TSCA "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" finding for a new polymer, which will allow it to come to market without restriction. -
California Committee to Determine Carcinogenicity of Two Substances
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
California's Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) has announced plans to consider whether two substances – gentian violet and n-nitrosohexamethyleneimine – meet Proposition 65 carcinogenicity criteria. -
EPA Trumpets Lead Enforcement Actions
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA has completed 141 enforcement actions in the past year to make sure contractors, landlords and others comply with regulations related to lead paint, the agency announced today. -
Photoinitiators to Form Trade Group to Handle REACH, FCM Issues
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Important players in the manufacture, import and downstream use of photoinitiators have set the wheels in motion to form a trade group they hope will present a public and unified voice for the industry. -
Echa Round-Up
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa is to begin manually checking all new registrations where the registrant has chosen to opt out of the data submitted jointly by co-registrants to see whether they include a proper justification as required by REACH. -
EU Bodies Accused of 'Ping-Ponging' on REACH Compliance 'Scandal'
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
European authorities and member states must stop blaming each other for the high levels of non-compliance in REACH registration dossiers and decide "where the buck stops", MEPs say. -
Ex-McConnell Aide Leads Energy Panel as Chairman Steps Down
Oct 25, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Daly
A former aide to Senate Majority Leader McConnell is again leading the federal agency that oversees the nation’s power grid after the agency’s chairman stepped down for health reasons. -
The Anti-Fracking Initiative In Colorado Is Bad Policy
Oct 25, 2018 | Forbes
By Michael Lynch
It’s funny that in the 1970s, the advent of cable TV was thought likely to lead to a decline in “quality” television. -
Saudi Drama Means It's Time to Unleash US Energy Dominance
Oct 25, 2018 | The Washington Examiner - Opinion
By Dan K. Eberhart
Oil markets were already on a knife’s edge before the controversy surrounding the Oct. 2 disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. -
Oil Industry Sticks With Saudi Arabia Through Khashoggi Scandal
Oct 25, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Rory Jones, Nicolas Parasie, and Summer Said
With its investment prospects rocked by the killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia turned this week to its most trusted business ally—the oil industry. -
Lawmakers at Odds Over Safety Program Reauthorization
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
A decade-old Department of Homeland Security program designed to prevent terrorist attacks on chemical facilities is set to expire in January, and lawmakers are at odds about plans to reauthorize it. -
Chevron to Boost Refinery Safety in Settlement
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal and state officials have reached a settlement with Chevron Corp. over a series of accidents at the company's petroleum refineries. -
Exxon Is in Trouble Over Climate Change
Oct 25, 2018 | Bloomberg - Opinion
By Matt Levine
Yesterday New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a securities-fraud lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. -
Mounting Urgency, Bills Drive Environmental Lobbying Surge
Oct 25, 2018 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon
Environmental groups that focus on land conservation ramped up spending in 2018 to back major public land bills that moved out of committee in October and September. -
This Year’s Greenbuild Works to Make Sustainable Buildings Accessible to Everyone
Oct 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ellen Bell
This is my fifth year attending Greenbuild and I am excited that my hometown of Chicago will again host the green building conference.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
EPA Issues TSCA 'Not Likely' Finding for Polymer
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published a TSCA "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" finding for a new polymer, which will allow it to come to market without restriction.
The TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determination was based on a risk assessment conducted during review of the substance’s pre-manufacture notice (PMN). This identified low environmental hazard, but the potential for developmental toxicity from metabolic products of the low molecular weight fraction.
The risk assessment concluded that this hazard does not present a concern for workers, because the calculated margin of exposure (MOE) exceeded the benchmark MOE for dermal exposures. Risks to workers via inhalation exposure were not evaluated because this was not expected under the conditions of use. Risks to consumers were not assessed for the same reason.
The EPA’s review of the new substance – 2,5-furandione, polymer with 2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol, 3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-inden-5(or 6)-yl ester, ester with 2,3-dihydroxypropyl neodecanoate – began on 6 November last year. The EPA issued its decision on 2 October, but published it on its website some three weeks later.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71292/epa-issues-tsca-not-likely-finding-for-polymer
-
California Committee to Determine Carcinogenicity of Two Substances
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
California's Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) has announced plans to consider whether two substances – gentian violet and n-nitrosohexamethyleneimine – meet Proposition 65 carcinogenicity criteria.
The CIC, an advisory board to the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha), will meet on 1 November to make determinations on whether the substances are carcinogenic. If it does, this will begin the process for Oehha to add them to the list of some 900 substances on Prop 65. Listing would require warnings be provided to people being exposed above 'safe harbour' threshold levels.
Gentian violet, also known as crystal violet, is an antifungal and dye. N-nitrosohexamethyleneimine is a chemical intermediate and used as an explosive in ejector seats in military jet fighter planes.
Back in August the CIC released hazard documents that outlined evidence on their carcinogenicity. These came after an April request for data, to which Oehha received no submissions.
Also at the 1 November CIC meeting, the group will discuss potential Prop 65 listings via the administrative listing mechanism, as well as recent litigation, according to a tentative agenda.Amendments to clear and reasonable warnings: residential rental properties
In a separate notice, Oehha has proposed clarifying changes to how 'clear and reasonable warning' is provided for residential rental properties.
Comments on the amendments will be accepted until 7 November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71289/california-committee-to-determine-carcinogenicity-of-two-substances
-
EPA Trumpets Lead Enforcement Actions
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA has completed 141 enforcement actions in the past year to make sure contractors, landlords and others comply with regulations related to lead paint, the agency announced today.
"EPA's work to enforce federal lead paint laws helps protect communities across the country," Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Assistant Administrator Susan Bodine said in a statement. "These cases also hold violators accountable for their actions and help maintain a level playing field for companies that follow the rules."
The cases include civil administrative settlements, civil complaints and default orders by EPA, and civil judicial settlements and criminal prosecutions by the Department of Justice.
Many of the settlements require alleged violators to pay penalties. All told, the government collected $1.2 million in fines this year.
EPA's announcement about lead enforcement successes comes as the agency has been pushing back against criticism for placing the head of EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection on administrative leave.
Ruth Etzel says superiors sidelined her following disagreements with political appointees over the federal lead strategy, while EPA officials say it was because of allegations over mismanagement.
This week is National Lead Poisoning Prevention Week, and EPA has used the opportunity to tout its action in the area (E&E News PM, Oct. 22).
EPA's press office did not respond to requests for comparison figures between this year's completed enforcement actions and those completed during prior administrations. The press office also did not reply when asked how many of the 141 actions completed this year began under the Trump administration.
At least some of them date back to the Obama years. That includes a settlement reached this year with the New York City Housing Authority after 19 children associated with Housing Authority apartments were diagnosed with elevated blood lead levels.
New York City agreed to having an independent federal monitor help the city authority comply with lead paint requirements and provide at least $1.2 billion to address infrastructure issues.
The investigation into the NYC Housing Authority began in late 2015, according to the complaint filed in federal court this June.
Similarly, Stephen Craig, who owned a lead abatement company in Boston, was sentenced to six months in prison and three years supervised release and ordered to pay $20,000 in December 2017. His case began in 2011, when an undercover EPA agent attended a lead abatement course Craig was offering.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/25/stories/1060104395
-
Photoinitiators to Form Trade Group to Handle REACH, FCM Issues
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Important players in the manufacture, import and downstream use of photoinitiators have set the wheels in motion to form a trade group they hope will present a public and unified voice for the industry.
Half a dozen companies – including producers and distributors – are understood to have expressed interest in the project. Their number includes Europe's largest producer of the substances used in coatings and inks, including those used for sensitive packaging applications.
The moves come at a time when the European Commission is in the process of evaluating the EU's food contact materials legislation. The industry is also aware that photoinitiators are about to come under scrutiny under REACH.
A spokesperson for the proposed consortium told Chemical Watch: "It was felt necessary to join forces as Echa is now looking into substances in a category approach; that is to say targeting particular classes of chemicals, as opposed to individual substances, all at once.
"One advantage will be the possibility to undertake research at a fraction of what it would cost an individual operator."
There is also a demand from downstream users for more communication on toxicology with the industry, the spokesperson added. A particular interest is in measuring the potential of intentionally and non-intentionally added substances (Ias/Nias) to migrate through packaging substrates into food and other sensitive products, in light of the EU’s upcoming review.
Articles of association have been drawn up, for what will become known as the Photoinitiators Platform. It will be registered in Belgium, though aims to be a global organisation. The initiative will be funded by its members, producers and distributors, in proportion to their worldwide turnover.
Photoinitiators are used extensively in combination with crosslinkable monomers and oligomers in ultra-violet-curable inks and coatings, adhesives and many other products. There are 15 main manufacturers globally, with most production carried out in China.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71278/photoinitiators-to-form-trade-group-to-handle-reach-fcm-issues
-
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Manual checks of justification for opt-outsEcha is to begin manually checking all new registrations where the registrant has chosen to opt out of the data submitted jointly by co-registrants to see whether they include a proper justification as required by REACH.
The checking will begin on 1 December. Echa says if a registrant wants to submit all of their data on their own, or if there is disagreement with the lead registrant on access to the joint submission, they should contact the agency. If the request is justifiable it will grant access to the joint submission.
Dossiers relying entirely on the registrant's own data are prioritised for compliance check, the agency says.Response to Ueapme position paper
Echa has responded to a position paper from Ueapme, the European trade body for SMEs, on its suggestions for making REACH more workable for small and medium-sized companies. The agency addresses points raised on registration, authorisation, communication in the supply chain, Brexit, intermediates, nanomaterials, interaction with occupational safety and health and balancing financial and administrative burdens.Four substances added to draft Corap list
Four more substances have been added to Echa's draft list of substances to be evaluated under the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2019-2021. The agency previously announced that there would be 96 substances on the list. This has now been increased to 100. Of these substances, 31 are currently planned for evaluation in 2019. The final plan will be published next MarchSubstance evaluation conclusion for 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenol
A substance evaluation conclusion document is available on Echa's website for 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenol. It was added to the Corap list in 2017 and evaluated by Belgium.Iuclid 6 upgrade
The latest Iuclid version, 6.3.1, is now available to download from the Iuclid website. New features include an optional web-based interface, which Echa says provides "a more streamlined user experience". There are also changes to the format, which cover, for example, the latest versions of the OECD harmonised templates, specific elements for microorganism datasets and support for European poison centre notifications.
Echa is running a webinar on the changes to help users on 31 October. The agency recommends its Iuclid Cloud Services for users with a small number of registrations. These always automatically updates to the latest version.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71258/echa-round-up
-
EU Bodies Accused of 'Ping-Ponging' on REACH Compliance 'Scandal'
Oct 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
European authorities and member states must stop blaming each other for the high levels of non-compliance in REACH registration dossiers and decide "where the buck stops", MEPs say.
Wednesday's plenary session of the European Parliament centred on a major study published last month on non-complaint REACH dossiers.
One MEP called the study findings the "Dieselgate of the chemicals industry"—alluding to German carmaker Volkswagen's admission in 2015 that it rigged millions of diesel vehicles worldwide to thwart emissions tests—and accused the authorities of "washing their hands off it".
The study, carried out by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and Environment Agency (UBA), investigated more than 3,800 dossiers submitted across the EU. Some 32% of substances at tonnage levels of 1,000tpa and above were found to be non-compliant.
The results triggered highly critical NGO reports saying the European authorities were "blindly" allowing harmful substances on the market.
In an angry address, Bas Eickhout, a Dutch MEP and member of the GreenLeft, accused the Commission and the Council of "pointing fingers at each other" about missing data, which he said was one of the most important issues on human health.
"The non-compliance is there because the data is not there, but (the substance) is on the market," he said. "The member states do know it. What are they going to do to those companies who are non-compliant?"
German Green MEP Martin Häusling called the compliance study findings a "scandal" for the chemicals industry.
There are more than 600 chemicals on the European market without proper checks, he said. "We need to say who is not providing the right documents", Mr Häusling added. "Where does the buck stop? We need to find who is behind this and make sure they pay the price."
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) said the data gaps were partly due to confusion about non-animal testing methods—one of the objectives of REACH.
While compiling dossiers, Cefic said, "it appeared that there were various interpretations on how to use these methods." It is working with Echa and member states to develop a common approach to alternative methods.Call for transparency
MEPs also criticised the low level of dossier rejections—just four of about 40,000 dossiers registered with Echa have been revoked since 2010—and called for more transparency around non-compliant companies.
French MEP Younous Omarjee, from the Confederal Group of the European United Left, Nordic Green Left, said the list of companies not fulfilling data requirements must be published.
Phil Hogan, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, said the Commission was "aware" of the report’s findings. He spoke on behalf of Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella, who could not attend the plenary.
"I can assure you we are not ping-ponging at all about the issue," Mr Hogan said, pointing to the publication of 16 actions the Commission suggested to improve implementation of REACH after its second Review of the Regulation.
One of the actions called for Echa to "significantly increase" the efficiency of the dossier evaluation procedures by 2019, Mr Hogan said. The Commission is also looking at "incentives" for companies to review their dossiers and update them when necessary, and it is considering an implementing Act to support Article 22, he added.
Some member states and Norway have called for the Act to clarify conditions set out in Article 22 and ensure companies regularly review and update dossiers.
The EU executive will also consider further measures to improve enforcement in the first quarter of 2019, Mr Hogan added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71293/eu-bodies-accused-of-ping-ponging-on-reach-compliance-scandal
-
Ex-McConnell Aide Leads Energy Panel as Chairman Steps Down
Oct 25, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Daly
A former aide to Senate Majority Leader McConnell is again leading the federal agency that oversees the nation’s power grid after the agency’s chairman stepped down for health reasons.
President Donald Trump tapped former Republican Senate staffer Neil Chatterjee to chair the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Chatterjee replaces lawyer Kevin McIntyre, who is stepping aside as chairman as he undergoes treatment for a brain tumor.
McIntyre, a Republican, will remain on the commission, which currently has two Republicans and two Democrats.
Trump has nominated Republican Bernard McNamee, head of the Energy Department’s Office of Policy, to fill the vacancy on the five-member panel. FERC oversees the power grid, interstate pipelines and other projects.
Chatterjee led FERC for four months last year before McIntyre became chairman in December.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/ex-mcconnell-aide-leads-energy-panel-as-chairman-steps-down/2018/10/25/f5de5ea2-d86c-11e8-8384-bcc5492fef49_story.html?utm_term=.49dc2150803d
-
The Anti-Fracking Initiative In Colorado Is Bad Policy
Oct 25, 2018 | Forbes
By Michael Lynch
It’s funny that in the 1970s, the advent of cable TV was thought likely to lead to a decline in “quality” television. I was reminded of this when watching “American Experience” on PBS recently, still one of the best programs around. (True, there are plenty of Ancient Aliens-type series, but they have been additive rather than replacing good documentaries.) An episode on the Eugenics movement in the United States was both informative and disturbing, to say nothing of being relevant, especially in the way many thought Eugenics was scientific and beneficial to society. The scientific nature came from the “links” between undesirable characteristics such as drunkenness and criminality and certain ethnic groups, mostly those not from Northwest Europe.
The operative word here is “linked,” which refers not to science but statistics. Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, while tomatoes are “linked” to arthritis. (Googling “tomatoes linked to arthritis” gets 6.7 million hits, but prominently includes sites discussing food myths.)
Generally, the term “linked” is used to mean that there is no hard evidence, just a circumstantial relationship, and it should be taken as no more than vaguely interesting. No one thinks that, since Nicholas Cage movies have been linked to drowning deaths in pools, he should be banned from Hollywood (not for that reason, at least). If all foods that had been ‘linked’ to negative results were banned, starvation would be widespread.
Opposition to fracking is a mix of bad science (like opposition to vaccinations) and prejudice (hatred of fossil fuels, modern technology, etc.) and seeks a rationale that appears logical rather than emotional. Thus, despite the fact that tens of thousands of wells are drilled and fracked every year in the United States without anything more than occasional rather banal problems, opponents will note that fracking is ‘linked’ to low infant birth rates, increased sexually transmitted diseases, precancerous lesions in mice, earthquakes, infertility, miscarriages, and low-birth weight, breast cancer, and colon cancer, and, of course, crime in Blackpool.
(Actually, that story should say “opposition to fracking is linked to rise in Blackpool crime” because it argues that diversion of police resources to protect a fracking site from protests was possibly responsible for higher crime levels. Not the first time a headline misrepresented a story’s content.)YOU MAY ALSO LIKEGrads of Life BRANDVOICEWhy It Makes Sense To Build Bridges Between Employers And Workers When The Economy Is StrongCivic Nation BRANDVOICEHow YouTube Creators Are Empowering Our Youth To #VoteTogetherUNICEF USA BRANDVOICETake Action To Support Refugee And Migrant Children
All too often, people accept without question arguments that confirm their own prejudices. It is not politically correct to do that with regard to ethnic or religious groups, but blind opposition to chemicals or specific industries (read: oil companies) are still acceptable targets of attack in certain social spheres.
But public policy should not be based on fears. Perhaps the most teachable moment occurred when the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor and found the military had grouped its airplanes together out of fear of the Japanese—that is, saboteurs amongst the Hawaiian population.
Of course, anti-fracking activists receive at last passive support from members of the public who feel they won’t be affected by a ban. If someone warns that cellphones appear linked to brain cancer, no one listens because prohibiting cellphones would have a direct cost to the broader public. A fracking ban, on the other hand, is perceived as ‘only’ hurting the oil industry without thinking of how the area economy will take a big hit, with lost jobs and tax revenue. It sounds rather like the many people in England who voted for Brexit believing the only effect would be to reduce immigration. And Coloradans are likely to regret it afterwards as well.
I spent nearly 30 years at MIT as a student and then researcher at the Energy Laboratory and Center for International Studies. I then spent several years at what is now IHS Global Insight and was chief energy economist. Currently, I am president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc., and I lecture MBA students at Vienna University. I've been president of the US Association for Energy Economics, I serve on the editorial boards of three publications, and I've had my writing translated into six languages. My book, "The Peak Oil Scare and the Coming Oil Flood" was just published by Praeger.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2018/10/25/the-anti-fracking-initiative-in-colorado-is-bad-policy/#2608da1b3738
-
Saudi Drama Means It's Time to Unleash US Energy Dominance
Oct 25, 2018 | The Washington Examiner - Opinion
By Dan K. Eberhart
Oil markets were already on a knife’s edge before the controversy surrounding the Oct. 2 disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But if the chances of oil prices spiking to $100 a barrel was high before, it may be inevitable now with Saudi Arabia making thinly veiled threats to use its unrivaled oil production capacity as a political weapon as the Khashoggi matter keeps twisting and turning.
Reports out of Turkey that Khashoggi, a U.S.-based Washington Post columnist and Saudi government critic, was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul have the potential to roil oil markets that were already on the cusp of exploding because of imminent U.S. sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and the continued meltdown in Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia, at the behest of President Trump, has been dutifully pumping more oil in recent months to keep a lid on oil markets, where benchmark Brent crude is about $76 a barrel. The kingdom planned to produce a near-record 10.7 million barrels a day this month and had indicated it was prepared to use its full capacity of 12 million barrels a day if necessary as the Trump administration seeks to bury Iran’s oil exports starting Nov. 5 when sanctions kick in.Register for Washington Examiner’s Sea Island Political SummitWatch Full Screen to Skip Ads
Suddenly this no longer looks like a sure bet. Trump has warned that Riyadh could face “severe punishment” if it is implicated in Khashoggi’s disappearance or murder, while a group of U.S. senators has called for an investigation, triggering a process that could eventually require the White House to decide on whether to sanction members of the Saudi government.
The Saudi leadership, meanwhile, has denied any wrongdoing and says sanctions will be met by “even stronger measures.” Riyadh specifically notes that the “kingdom’s economy has an influential role in the global economy.” Given that the kingdom's economy is almost wholly dependent on oil revenues, this is a threat to use its oil supplies as a political weapon.
Confounding matters further, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih used a speech in New Delhi on Monday to try to soothe markets, assuring “petroleum consumers around the world that we want to continue to support the growth of the global economy, the prosperity of consumers around the world.”
Oil markets are left to make sense of this “good cop, bad cop” routine, amid Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman calling Khashoggi's killing a " heinous crime."
Trump meanwhile seems increasingly less inclined to take a hard line, downplaying the prospect of sanctioning Saudi Arabia or limiting U.S. arms sales to the kingdom, citing the potential for “rogue killers” after a phone conversation with King Salman.
How that position would play at home politically for Trump’s GOP, with the impending midterm elections, remains to be seen.
But the episode serves as a good reminder of the pitfalls of relying too heavily on Saudi Arabia and OPEC for affordable energy. It was not long ago the U.S. was the focus of global oil markets, with shale production growing so rapidly that experts believed there would be a $50-$60 a barrel cap on oil prices for the foreseeable future. But all that changed when Trump vowed to reduce the exports of Iran, some 2.2 million barrels a day, to zero after pulling the U.S. out of a nuclear deal with OPEC’s third-largest producer. Venezuela’s meltdown, also hastened by U.S. policy, has further stoked fears of supply shortages in the future.
The reality is that the U.S. now depends on Saudi Arabia to manage the global oil market. Lest it also not be forgotten that U.S. refiners still import more than 850,000 barrels a day of Saudi oil — a heavy, sour blend that shale formations don’t produce.
Despite Riyadh’s bold talk about economic and social reforms, the Khashoggi incident is another sign that change is often one step forward, two steps back in the kingdom. The Saudi leadership’s crackdown and shakedown of political opponents last December was an early red flag for investors contemplating participation in “Vision 2030,” Crown Prince Mohammed’s broad economic reform plan aimed at diversifying away from petroleum and bringing in more foreign investment. The subsequent decision to delay the IPO of state oil giant Aramco indefinitely was another hint Saudi Arabia is closed for business, and oil policy decisions would remain in the royal court.
The Trump administration can’t forget what kind of partner it has in Riyadh. It must get the diplomacy right while remembering that some things never change. The White House would be wise to focus on what it can control to keep energy prices under control in the near term. Taking Iran’s exports all the way to zero isn’t necessary to inflict severe economic pain on Tehran. Granting sanctions waivers to some Asian allies would keep some Iranian oil flowing and help keep prices in check.
Meanwhile, it’s time to put U.S. “energy dominance” back at the top of the agenda, particularly if countries like Russia and possibly Saudi Arabia will use it as a political weapon. U.S. oil and gas production and exports have grown to the point where infrastructure bottlenecks are slowing the pace of growth. Trump has promised a $1 trillion infrastructure program, financed by public-private partnerships, but has yet to deliver. Such a program could go a long way to unleash more U.S. energy into global markets, leaving America less vulnerable to power plays by Mideast states with poor human rights track records.
Dan K. Eberhart is CEO of Canary, LLC, a Phoenix-based drilling-services company and one of the largest private oiifield services companies in the United States.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/saudi-drama-means-its-time-to-unleash-us-energy-dominance
-
Oil Industry Sticks With Saudi Arabia Through Khashoggi Scandal
Oct 25, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Rory Jones, Nicolas Parasie, and Summer Said
With its investment prospects rocked by the killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia turned this week to its most trusted business ally—the oil industry.
Saudi officials said agreements totaling over $55 billion were struck in the energy, transportation and petrochemicals sectors during a three-day conference in Riyadh that ended Thursday. The mostly nonbinding pacts were striking for their focus on oil at a conferencethat is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s main showcase for his efforts to diversify the kingdom’s oil-dependent economy into technology, entertainment and arms production.
Why U.S.-Saudi Economic Ties Complicate DiplomacyThe web of economic ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is so complex that it can complicate diplomacy in times of turmoil. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday looks at the various ways the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are economically intertwined.
Most Western executives in those sectors canceled their appearances this year at the conference, known as the Future Investment Initiative, in the wake of the killing of Mr. Khashoggi on Oct. 2 inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Saudi prosecutors said Thursday the killing appeared to be premeditated, contradicting a prior statement that said he died after a brawl. Saudi Arabia initially said Mr. Khashoggi had left the consulate.
The uproar didn’t faze oil-industry executives. The chief executives ofTotal SA, Baker Hughes , Schlumberger Ltd. and Trafigura Group Pte. Ltd. all attended. Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne was given a prominent speaking role at a panel with the Saudi oil minister, Khalid al-Falih, and offered a robust defense of engaging with the Saudis.
“We see what partnership means when you have difficult times,” Mr. Pouyanne told the audience.
Mr. Pouyanne’s company has a lot at stake in Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, among the world’s largest. This year, Total and Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Aramco, signed a $5 billion deal to build a large petrochemicals complex in the kingdom. The company also agreed this week to a role in Saudi Arabia’s fuel-station market.Priming the PumpWestern oil-services firms have helped SaudiArabia beef up its drilling operations.Saudi Arabia's active oil rigsSource: Baker HughesNote: Monthly data
2013’14’15’16’17’18020406080100120140
Feb. 7, 2014x93
Mr. Falih told a Saudi television station that the kingdom planned to buy 30% of a Russian liquefied-natural gas project in the Arctic, a deal that, if completed, would allow the kingdom to burn that fuel to produce electricity and export some of the crude oil it has been using.
Earlier this week, Aramco said it had signed 15 agreements potentially worth $34 billion if they are all seen through, including with Total, Halliburton, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes.
“The United States will remain a key part of the Saudi economy because the interests that tie us are bigger than what is being weakened by the failed boycotting campaign of the conference,” Mr. Falih said. He added that companies that skipped the conference had called him to apologize.
The emphasis on energy this week was a departure for the conference. Last year, Prince Mohammed unveiled plans to build a $500 billion city populated by robots called Neom and spun a vision of Saudi Arabia as a technology and investment hub in the Middle East.RELATED COVERAGE
Saudi Arabia Says Evidence Points to Premeditated Killing of KhashoggiSaudi Crown Prince Pledges Justice for Journalist’s DeathU.S. Takes Diplomatic Action Against Saudis Believed Tied to Journalist’s Killing‘Everybody Is Talking About’ Khashoggi at Saudi ConferenceSoftBank CEO Cancels Speech at Saudi Investment ConferenceJamal Khashoggi’s Death Fuels a Middle East Information War
Those plans are part of a larger initiative known as Vision 2030, which aims to ease the kingdom’s dependence on oil revenue and which economists say is now endangered because of a series of disruptive Saudi moves that have spooked investors.
Those moves include not only Mr. Khashoggi’s killing but also Saudi Arabia’s severing of ties with Qatar and Canada and a crackdown on alleged corruption that included the detentions of hundreds of business people.
Instead of showcasing Saudi Arabia’s future, this year’s conference demonstrated how tied it remains to the oil industry, said Robin Mills, chief executive of Dubai-based Qamar Energy and former Middle East executive for Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
Oil companies are “not put off by negative PR because they are not consumer facing companies,” Mr. Mills said.
Vision 2030 now looks far harder to pull off as Western firms shun the kingdom and governments seek punitive penalties. Mr. Khashoggi’s death is likely to force the kingdom to pay higher borrowing costs, stunt foreign investment in sectors outside the oil industry, and further complicate the path to a long-delayed public listing for Aramco, said economists and analysts.
“It does quite serious harm to Vision 2030 plans,” Jason Tuvey, an economist at London-based Capital Economics said of Mr. Khashoggi’s death. “Especially given how much emphasis MBS has put on attracting foreign investment as a driver of diversification,” he added, using a nickname for crown prince.
The government also tried to highlight reasons to invest. Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan in a panel discussion Thursday announced his ministry had increased non-oil revenues 48% in the third quarter, compared with the year before, and promised record spending next year to spur economic growth.The emphasis on energy this week was a departure for the Future Investment Initiative conference. PHOTO: FAISAL AL NASSER/REUTERS
Russian and Chinese investors flocked to the conference in search of partnerships with Saudi Arabia. Kirill Dmitriev, the chief executive of Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund, held a news conference Tuesday, praising Saudi Arabia as an investment destination.
“The Saudi market is more attractive now than it was three or four years ago, and I don’t think there has been any change over recent weeks,” Mr. Dmitriev said standing outside a small exhibition of works by Russian artists including Wassily Kandinsky that had been shipped to Saudi Arabia. He added that it was too early to talk of a “shortfall in Western investment.”
But foreign investors so far have fled, divesting more than $700 million from the Saudi stock exchange since Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance. Foreign direct investment remains at historically low levels in Saudi Arabia.
“The recent incident has shaken foreign investors’ confidence,” said Garbis Iradian, chief economist for the Middle East and North Africa at the Institute of International Finance, a global trade group for banks in Washington.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-industry-sticks-with-saudi-arabia-through-khashoggi-scandal-1540483223?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
Lawmakers at Odds Over Safety Program Reauthorization
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
A decade-old Department of Homeland Security program designed to prevent terrorist attacks on chemical facilities is set to expire in January, and lawmakers are at odds about plans to reauthorize it.
In a letter sent to key House lawmakers this week, Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) urged passage of legislation Johnson introduced last month.
The bill, S. 3405, would reauthorize and reform the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program (E&E Daily, Sept. 6).
One sentence near the end of Johnson and Capito's letter drew a sharp response from Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
"If Congress fails to reform the CFATS program, we believe the program should expire and not continue to be reauthorized via annual appropriations," the letter states.
In a statement, Thompson said he was "shocked" that the senators would "flippantly suggest" allowing the program to expire. The letter "essentially issued an ultimatum," he said.
CFATS currently regulates more than 3,000 chemical facilities in the United States.
The Senate legislation would create a "CFATS Recognition Program" to provide "regulatory recognition to covered chemical facilities that meet industry best practices," according to the bill text.
Thompson criticized those changes.
"The legislation that the Senators are promoting would make a series of substantial fundamental changes that, to my knowledge, lack wide bipartisan support and would overhaul the program in ways that could have significant security ramifications for years to come," he said in a statement.
Johnson and Capito's letter says their proposal would bring "much-needed regulatory relief to the U.S. chemical industry while effectively balancing safety and security."
The bill "provides a path for the CFATS program to continue for an additional five years without inflicting burdensome and duplicative regulations on DHS's industry partners," the letter says.
Johnson's committee passed the bill on a voice vote in late September. Two days later, Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.) introduced companion legislation, H.R. 6992.
At a CFATS roundtable held this summer, Johnson declined DHS's request that the program be made permanent.
"Permanency is, from my standpoint, off the table," he said. He also emphasized his focus on streamlining the program (E&E Daily, June 13).
A Johnson aide today said "reforms were informed by the committee’s roundtable and based on work to identify areas of bipartisan agreement. The senator looks forward to working with the members of the House and Senate to improve and reauthorize the CFATS program before it expires.”
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/25/stories/1060104403
-
Chevron to Boost Refinery Safety in Settlement
Oct 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal and state officials have reached a settlement with Chevron Corp. over a series of accidents at the company's petroleum refineries.
The Justice Department, EPA and Mississippi yesterday announced a deal with the fossil fuel giant to make improvements to its fleet of facilities across the country.
The proposed settlement comes after a federal investigation into a 2012 fire at the company's Richmond, Calif., refinery, which caused 15,000 local residents to seek medical attention, according to EPA.
While the agency looked into the fire, two other Chevron facilities had accidental chemical releases: a 2013 explosion and fire in Pascagoula, Miss., that killed an employee, and a 2013 rupture in El Segundo, Calif. The incidents caused chemical releases that violated the Clean Air Act, EPA said.
Under the proposed agreement — which is open to public comment and must be approved by a judge — Chevron USA Inc. will spend about $150 million to make safety improvements to all its refineries. The company also will pay a nearly $3 million civil penalty and implement environmental projects worth $10 million.
"Today's action, taken jointly with our enforcement partners at EPA and the State of Mississippi, strengthens emergency prevention and response systems at Chevron's U.S. refineries, which will help to protect their workers and the communities in which they live from dangerous chemical accidents," Jeffrey Wood, acting head of DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a statement.
EPA and DOJ say the overall value of the settlement — more than $160 million — makes it the largest ever under the Clean Air Act provision addressing chemical accident prevention.
"This case demonstrates the importance of performing equipment inspections and maintenance in accordance with environmental regulations," EPA enforcement chief Susan Bodine said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/25/stories/1060104387
-
Exxon Is in Trouble Over Climate Change
Oct 25, 2018 | Bloomberg - Opinion
By Matt Levine
Yesterday New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a securities-fraud lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. “alleging that the company misled investors regarding the risk that climate change regulations posed to its business.” We have been talking about this case since 2015, when it was first reported that Underwood’s predecessor was looking into it. In the intervening years I have often had occasion to remark that everything is securities fraud: Whenever a public company does a bad thing without immediately disclosing it to shareholders, it is arguably deceiving the shareholders about its business and prospects, and an enterprising securities regulator can go after it for fraud. It is often easier to go after a company for securities fraud than for the underlying bad thing, and so in practice regulators have a tendency to punish pollution or sexual harassment or carelessness with customer data or orca abuse or slowing down iPhones or really the whole gamut of objectionable behavior as securities fraud.
I keep saying it, but it keeps being weird. One thing that is weird about it is that securities regulation isn’t designed to protect the planet or harassment victims or customer data or orcas; it is designed to protect shareholders. As I wrote in 2015:
For one thing, if you actually think that Exxon Mobil is engaged in a diabolical conspiracy to suppress climate science to wring extra profits out of an earth-destroying business, the last people you should be worried about are Exxon's shareholders. They're the ones profiting from all that destruction! For another thing, if you are concerned about those shareholders, the last thing you should do is fine Exxon a lot of money. They're the ones who will ultimately have to pay that money!
But the other weird thing about regulating everything indirectly as securities fraud is that it gives up on regulating things directly. You can accomplish a lot of the expressive-emotional-political aims of punishment by punishing polluters for securities fraud. “Pollution is bad,” you say, and then “we have punished the polluters,” and everyone is vaguely satisfied. But you haven’t actually regulated pollution! You haven’t done the hard work of figuring out the problem and building consensus on addressing it and going through the democratic process and building a regulatory scheme and doing the cost-benefit analysis and writing the regulations.
So I come to a securities fraud lawsuit about climate change with a fair amount of skepticism. But the New York complaint is quite well done. It just reads like a securities fraud complaint, you know? There is no stray rhetoric about pollution or climate change or any of the substantive issues lurking behind this securities-fraud complaint. It’s just: Exxon allegedly kept one set of numbers internally but showed another one publicly, and it knew that the public set was false. (Exxon disagrees, saying that the complaint’s “baseless allegations are a product of closed-door lobbying by special interests, political opportunism and the attorney general’s inability to admit that a three-year investigation has uncovered no wrongdoing.”)
Now, it is an alternate-universe kind of securities fraud. Exxon is accused of lying not in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings—its 10Ks and 10Qs—but in a completely different set of public reports with names like “Outlook for Energy” and “Energy and Climate” and “Managing the Risks.” It is accused of lying not about its financial results—its actual revenues and costs—but about a hypothetical set of numbers called “proxy costs.” The proxy costs were meant to represent Exxon’s estimate of the cost per ton of carbon that would be imposed by potential future regulation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”). Exxon just made them up: There’s not really a way to know the regulatory cost of producing a ton of carbon emissions in 2040, so you guess.
The problem is that Exxon is accused of making up one set of numbers in its public disclosures and another for its internal planning purposes. In public, Exxon said that it used high proxy costs in modeling the future: It would only pursue projects that would be profitable in the long term even in the face of much stricter future regulation of carbon emissions. From the complaint:
Exxon represented in Managing the Risks that it “rigorously consider[s] the risk of climate change in [its] planning bases and investments” by “requir[ing] that all significant proposed projects include a cost of carbon – which reflects [its] best assessment of costs associated with potential GHG regulations over the Outlook period – when being evaluated for investment.” … Based on this analysis, Exxon assured investors that it was “confident that none of [its] hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become ‘stranded,’” and that “the company does not believe current investments in new reserves are exposed to the risk of stranded assets.”
Long-term investors, alleges Underwood, found this material and reassuring:
On May 26, 2016, Wells Fargo equity research analysts hosted a group of investors at Exxon’s corporate headquarters to discuss “climate risks including stranded assets.” According to the equity research report in which Wells Fargo summarized the meeting, Exxon stated that it “places a proxy cost of carbon on all of its future developments. Depending on the project and its location, the proxy cost of carbon ranges from $20 to $80 per ton by 2040.” Wells Fargo concluded that “[t]his approach reduces the risks associated with future CO2 emissions and incentivizes [Exxon] to reduce overall emissions of all future projects. Thus we believe ExxonMobil is ahead of the curve on pricing in climate risks.”
But in its internal modeling, Exxon allegedly used much lower proxy costs, or just left them out entirely:
For major projects, rather than applying a proxy cost, Exxon assumed, contrary to its representations, that existing climate regulation would remain in place, unchanged, indefinitely into the future. In these cases, Exxon applied a much lower cost per ton to a small percentage of GHG emissions based on existing regulation, held flat indefinitely. This conduct was directly contrary to Exxon’s public representations that it applied escalating proxy costs as a stand-in for the effects of expected future GHG regulation.
The alleged result is that, despite its public statements, Exxon did regularly develop projects that would be less economical in a world with stricter emission regulations. Sometimes those projects wouldn’t make sense at all; here is Underwood on a Canadian oil sands project called Kearl:
By applying existing legislated costs instead of the publicly represented proxy cost to Kearl, Exxon reduced the projected undiscounted costs of GHG emissions for that asset by approximately 94%, or $14 billion CAD ($11 billion USD). Depending on Exxon’s assumption about the future price of oil, this additional cost had the potential to change the cash flow projections for Kearl as a whole from positive to negative, with concomitant reductions in associated reserves.
It is all recognizable securities fraud stuff: A company told investors it was investing their money in profitable projects, but secretly in its internal modeling it knew that they were unprofitable. Except that the words “profitable” and “unprofitable” there are used not in the normal financial accounting senses, but as “profitable or unprofitable after taking into account hypothetical carbon costs.”
This very normal securities fraud approach is what makes the complaint compelling. As I often write, it is a bit silly to think of Exxon shareholders as the primary victims of Exxon’s alleged deception on climate change. But the right way to read Underwood’s complaint is not as a defense of shareholders (who cares? 1 ), or a defense of the environment (not what securities regulation is about), but as a defense of efficient capital allocation. The real problem with securities fraud is that it is better when investors invest their money in projects that are good than in projects that are bad, and if people can attract investment to bad projects by just lying about them then that makes it harder to find the good ones. If you say your business makes $100 million a year, and you get people to invest in it, and really it loses $100 million a year, then the harm to society is not so much that your investors lost their money as it is that they invested it in your nonsense instead of something useful.
Exxon makes money. But the point of Underwood’s complaint is that it doesn’t make as much money as it says it does, if you account for the future costs of climate change, and that it told shareholders that it was accounting for those costs when it really wasn’t. Shareholders thought: “We are investing in an oil company that takes into account the costs of climate change, that only pursues projects that are economical despite those costs, and that tries to mitigate those costs by reducing emissions.” Because of this, they bought Exxon stock. This didn’t fund Exxon’s projects directly—Exxon has been a huge net repurchaser of stock for many years—but it kept up the stock price and rewarded management and generally sent the signal that Exxon was doing the right thing and should continue investing in its business.
But, argues Underwood, shareholders were deceived. Had they known the truth about how Exxon was accounting for carbon, they wouldn’t have bought the stock; had Exxon accounted for carbon the way it said it did, it wouldn’t have invested in the projects it did. The fraud, she argues, caused Exxon to emit more greenhouse gases:
Exxon’s failure to abide by its representations has also had the effect of moving the company’s investments toward more GHG-intensive assets, and away from emissions-reducing investments. As a result, Exxon has brought and will bring more GHG-intensive oil and gas to market, such as its GHG-intensive oil sands assets, than it would have if it had abided by its representations. This trend is borne out by the increasing GHG intensity of Exxon’s upstream assets over the past decade. In addition to having negative environmental consequences, the increased GHG intensity of Exxon’s assets exposes the company to greater risk from climate change regulation than Exxon represented to investors.
This is the best argument I have seen for regulating everything as securities fraud. The deep theory is that a well-informed market is the best regulator of everything: Securities markets allocate capital to its best uses, and if they have complete truthful information they will take into account all manner of badness in deciding what uses are best. Excessive pollution and sexual harassment are bad, and so shareholders will not allocate capital to them if they know the truth. You don’t need to address specific problems through the democratic process; you can address them through the capital markets, and just use securities regulation to make sure that those markets are fully informed.
I said it’s the best argument, not that you’d find it convincing. You probably think that government is better at regulating pollution and sexual harassment and consumer privacy and animal abuse than the capital markets are! You’re probably right! But perhaps you despair a little of government effectiveness, of the possibility of addressing large difficult sensitive problems through the democratic process. The market may not be the ideal regulator, but if it’s the only one we’ve got, we might as well make sure it’s informed.
Still this theory is particularly odd when applied to proxy costs. Proxy costs are just made-up estimates of the hypothetical future costs of climate regulation. Exxon allegedly made up higher numbers in its public reports and lower numbers in its internal planning, but Underwood can’t prove—and doesn’t even allege—that the high numbers were right and the low ones were wrong. Nobody knows, yet.
But also consider the alternative to using proxy costs. Exxon allegedly sometimes neglected them altogether and just projected existing environmental regulation indefinitely into the future: There are rules regulating pollution and carbon taxes and so forth, and Exxon can calculate their cost, and then it can apply that cost to its future projects. This, argues Underwood, is illegitimate, because Exxon ought to know—and indeed often says publicly—that climate-change regulation will get stricter over time and those costs will go up.
But for that to be true, regulators need to get stricter about climate change. Budgeting with zero proxy costs accurately reflects the current state of regulation. Governments need to change how they regulate carbon emissions for the proxy costs to be accurate or economically meaningful.
In a sense, by suing Exxon for ignoring proxy costs, Underwood is demanding that Exxon do the government’s work for it. If governments took stronger actions to address climate change, that would impose more costs on Exxon, and those costs would flow through Exxon’s financial statements. If they don’t, though, those costs will only be hypothetical, and will only flow through Exxon’s alternative reports as proxy costs. Underwood wants Exxon to take those government actions seriously and treat them as real costs—but she can’t be sure that the government actions will ever happen. If you can’t get governments to do something, you can’t really expect the markets to act like they will.
One share one vote.
When a company goes public, it raises money by selling stock to a bunch of different investors. You could imagine a world in which this proceeded by individual negotiation: The company goes to Fidelity and negotiates to sell it 100 shares with 2 votes each for $18, and then it goes to BlackRock and negotiates to sell it 70 shares with 3 votes each for $19, and so on down the line. But this is not how our world works, for a variety of very good reasons: Corporate structure is easier with only one or a few classes of shares, stock trading works best if the shares are all the same, nobody wants to buy if they think they’re getting a worse deal than someone else, etc. And so when a company goes public, for the most part, it sells one type of shares with one set of rights at one price to a bunch of different investors.
But investors want things. They have price preferences, certainly; they also have views on voting rights and corporate governance and other features of public companies. If a company wants to go public with two share classes—giving public shareholders low-vote shares so that its founders can keep control with high-vote shares—and some investors dislike that, they can complain, and maybe call up the company and say “we would prefer a single share class.”
But there is no mechanism for them to actually get that. Either the company issues dual-class stock or it doesn’t; it can’t negotiate one structure with some investors and another with others. If the company is dead-set on issuing dual-class stock, then investors who do not want dual-class stock have only two choices:Buy it anyway; orDon’t buy it.
If you think that dual-class stock is a bad form of governance but also that the company’s stock will go up, you should probably buy it anyway, because otherwise you will underperform your competitors. And so Snap Inc. went public with shares that have no votes at all, and investors complained bitterly and then bought the stock anyway. On the other hand, if you think that your competitors also won’t buy the stock, then you should refuse to buy the stock, because then no one will buy the stock, and then the company will be forced to scrap its dual-class plans and issue the single-class stock that you really want.
Many big investors dislike dual-class stock, or at least they dislike perpetual dual-class stock that gives founders and their heirs control of a company forever. You could imagine them all getting together and saying “we refuse to buy dual-class stock”; if they could all credibly commit to doing that, then companies would probably stop issuing dual-class stock, because they’d know that no one would buy it.
And so here is a statement from the Council of Institutional Investors—as its name implies, a group of big investors—saying that perpetual dual-class stocks are bad and that companies that go public with multiple share classes should “include in their governing documents provisions that convert the share structure within seven years of the initial public offering (IPO) to ‘one, share-one, vote.’”
But the statement does not go on to say “… and if you don’t, we’ve all agreed not to buy your stock.” There are a number of reasons for this, but let me point out two big ones. First, these big institutional investors have fiduciary duties to theirinvestors, and if they conclude that a company with dual-class stock is nonetheless a good investment, they’d have trouble refusing to buy it on principle if buying it would be better for their investors. Second, when a bunch of gigantic companies to get together in a room and agree to boycott some products in order to advance their commercial interests, that does seem like an awkward antitrust problem.
Instead, the statement asks the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq to change their listing rules to implement CII’s demands. BlackRock Inc. and T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the other big institutional investors endorsing CII’s statementcan’t credibly commit not to buy perpetual dual-class stock, but Nasdaq and NYSE can easily commit—in their public, binding listing requirements—not to list dual-class stock. And if they don’t list it, those big investors really won’t buy it. So if both NYSE and Nasdaq change their rules to ban dual-class listings, then companies that want to go public will be stuck with their own simple hard choice:Sunset their dual-class stock (or just go public with a single share class); orNot go public (or go public in a foreign jurisdiction that is friendlier to dual-class stock).
In 2018, choice 2 is not obviously terrible; capital markets are global and private capital is abundant. Still it seems reasonable to assume that, if both of the big U.S. listing exchanges ban dual-class stocks, many companies that would otherwise have gone public with perpetual founder control will still go public, but without perpetual founder control. The big institutional investors will get to invest in companies they like, but without the voting structures they dislike.
I’m not sure the exchanges will bite:
Nasdaq President Nelson Griggs said his company is a “firm believer in the flexibility of share structure,” but he left the door open for future changes.
“We consider the input of all stakeholders when establishing and modifying listing standards,” Griggs said in a statement. “We will continue to review our listing standards to make sure they protect investors, while also allowing those investors access to innovative companies.”
But the point is that much of the process of companies going public is about solving the coordination problem among investors. The investors can’t just get together to demand the rights and protections that they want, and credibly commit not to buy stocks without those rights and protections. Instead they rely on intermediaries to make those demands for them.
The classic intermediary is the underwriter: Investment banks that take companies public will tell them, no, you can’t do that, that’s not market and investors won’t buy it. (Generally speaking investors will accept all sorts of off-market things if companies really insist—the Snap IPO and Spotify Ltd.’s direct listing are good illustrations of that—but the job of the investment bank is to keep the companies from insisting.) A popular modern intermediary is the index provider: Big indexed investors will convince index providers to leave companies with bad provisions out of their indexes, because then bankers can tell companies “you can’t have that provision, it will get you left out of the index and reduce demand for your stock.”
But the stock exchanges are also useful intermediaries: Their listing standards have a lot of clout, and are supposed to reflect investor consensus around what sorts of companies can and can’t be public. The investors may not be able to express that consensus directly, by just deciding which stocks to buy. But they can always write the stock exchanges a letter.
Wu-Tang altcoins.
I don’t know, man. There’s a Wu-Tang Coin, which does not appear to be affiliated with the Wu-Tang Clan. There’s a Cream Coin, which does appear to be affiliated with the Wu-Tang Clan, in that it is backed by Ghostface Killah. I once wrote about it:
The history of the Great Crypto Boom of '17 will include a whole chapter on Wu-Tang-themed coins, and that chapter will have multiple independent narratives. Really I would not have predicted in 1994 how much of 2017's financial news would involve the Wu-Tang Clan. They really rule everything around cash.
Well now there is O.D.B. Coin, another cryptocurrency that is affiliated with the Wu-Tang Clan, in that it is backed by Ol’ Dirty Bastard. The fact that O.D.B. is dead does not, of course, stop him from launching a cryptocurrency project. Why would it? It is on the blockchain. I’m sure if you Google the names of other Wu-Tang members or buzzwords plus “coin” you will dig up a few more of these things. “Chessboxing coin,” I typed into my computer, and I did not get any results, and I felt a momentary sense of relief and decided not to push my luck.
Anyway if you want whatever it is that O.D.B. Coin is, you could probably buy it, though I’m not even sure about that and don’t want to find out, please do not tell me.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-25/exxon-is-in-trouble-over-climate-change
-
Mounting Urgency, Bills Drive Environmental Lobbying Surge
Oct 25, 2018 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon
Environmental groups that focus on land conservation ramped up spending in 2018 to back major public land bills that moved out of committee in October and September.
The increases show heightened bipartisan attention on two public lands initiatives pending on the House and Senate floors, including bills to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, and to use fees for mining and drilling for energy resources on federal lands to attack the Interior Department’s $12 billion deferred maintenance backlog at the nation’s national parks.
It’s also a sign of the growing momentum for a public lands package before the end of the year — a notion endorsed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah.
Leading the spending in the third quarter was the Nature Conservancy. The group made a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund a priority by spending $380,000 in the third quarter on lobbying, up $130,000 from the same time frame in 2017. The LWCF’s program authorization expired at the end of September despite strong bipartisan support behind the project.
The group actually spent more in the first and second quarters, at $426,000 and $617,135, respectively, bringing its year-to-date spending to $1.4 million, a pace that would surpass its 2017 total of $1.7 million.
[Google Still K Street’s Top Tech Spender]
“Our science shows that we have a limited time to make big changes in the world needed for people and nature to both thrive, and we know that we’ll need policy changes to have an impact at the scale we need,” the Nature Conservancy’s Kameran Onley, director of U.S. government relations, said about the third-quarter lobbying strategy, which also included attention to the farm bill and water resources authorization bill.
The lobbying investment by environmental advocates pales in comparison to spending by energy industry companies and groups. Leading oil companies usually spend in a quarter more than what some of the environmental groups spend in a year. Netherlands-based Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company led oil company lobbying in the third quarter with $3.1 million. Houston-based Exxon Mobil Corp. spent $2.2 million.
The National Parks Conservation Association also boosted its lobbying spending in the third quarter. The group spent $199,450, up nearly $60,000 or about 30 percent from the same period in 2017. The NPCA has so far spent $512,904 in 2018, almost matching the entirety of 2017 when it spent $584,135.
Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox
The focus of the NPCA’s attention has been legislative efforts to address the national parks’ deferred maintenance backlog. That increased lobbying activity focused on “the deferred maintenance legislation by both our staff in DC, as well as out in our regional offices, located across the country,” NPCA spokeswoman Angela Gonzales said in an email.
The parks bill would dedicate mandatory spending of revenues derived from energy activities on public lands that do not have other federal financial obligations. The bill would cap the funding at $1.3 billion each year for five years to provide money specifically for maintenance. The mandatory spending provision raised concerns about the need for offsets, which had not been identified by the bill’s backers.
The League of Conservation Voters said the conservation program push was a part of its slight uptick in lobbying spending, but the vast majority of the spending went to “defensive” efforts to beat back a series of environmental policy riders attached to the House Republican fiscal 2019 Interior-Environment spending bill.
In total, the group spent $130,000 on lobbying in the third quarter, bringing its year to date total to $255,000. In all of 2017, the group spent $275,000, with $30,000 being spent in the third quarter of 2017.
“I think it’s both,” said LCV’s Alex Taurel, the group’s conservation program director. “Defense remains our overarching priority in the current anti-environmental Congress that we have, but we do have a proactive priority in the public lands space in saving the Land and Water Conservation Fund.”
In July, the LCV announced a $1 million campaign to push lawmakers to reauthorize the LWCF ahead of its Sept. 30 deadline, including ad campaigns targeted at vulnerable House lawmakers and digital ads to raise awareness.
“LCV is all-in to save America’s best parks program after the GOP-led Congress let this bipartisan program expire,” Taurel said. “In addition to educating the public, running advertisements and holding anti-parks members of Congress accountable, we have also increased lobbying on this campaign.”
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/conservation-bills-help-drive-environmental-lobbying-uptick
-
This Year’s Greenbuild Works to Make Sustainable Buildings Accessible to Everyone
Oct 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ellen Bell
This is my fifth year attending Greenbuild and I am excited that my hometown of Chicago will again host the green building conference. I have come to appreciate the educational value and community that Greenbuild provides more and more each year, and I’m delighted Chicago will get to add to the tradition once more.
Greenbuild’s theme this year, Humans by Nature: The Intersection of Humanity & the Built Environment, covers a wide array of topics that define how we relate to the world we live in. One of these topics is enhancing building efficiency and performance, an ongoing mission that is at the very core of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and Greenbuild.
Moreover, the mission statement highlights the importance of making sustainable buildings and environments accessible to everyone. As one of the founding cities of the BIT Building energy efficiency program, Chicago reflects these ideals, and the BIT Building program is a clear example of accessibility in action.
Improving building performance
Developed in partnership with the Clinton Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund and Seventhwave, BIT is a framework that assists building owners and operators in making incremental performance-driven improvements in energy, water and waste. Starting with measurement and benchmarking of key performance metrics, operators are guided through a set of 16 proven best practices to meet savings goals of 10 percent, 20 percent and even 30 percent over their current usage.
BIT is targeted to small and medium-sized buildings where operators are rarely incentivized or guided toward continuous improvement of operational energy. Typically, well-known efficiency certifications like LEED are out of reach for these buildings.
This year’s Greenbuild works to make sustainable buildings accessible to everyoneCLICK TO TWEET
The program works to empower all stakeholders with an understanding of the cost and energy saving benefits of building performance, helping to overcome barriers and drive improvements in a streamlined and flexible way that reduces the upfront cost and commitment for owners and operators and targets the main drivers for improvement.
BIT Building will now be managed by Southface Energy Institute, a fantastic organization for the skills and resources needed to take the program to the next level.
If we are to truly reduce carbon pollution, every community must be engaged in the adoption of vetted climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and solutions. Fortunately, green design and technology where we live, work and learn can make a community more efficient, economically viable and resilient. BIT Building can help communities get there.Ready to register? Learn more about why you should attend, and then register for a four-day or three-day conference pass. Or, explore the floor, courtesy of EDF! Use code GB18REGMBRS10 at registration to claim your complimentary expo hall pass.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2018/10/25/this-years-greenbuild-works-to-make-sustainable-buildings-accessible-to-everyone/
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested