Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - November 2, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) This PAC Is Trying to Get Scientists Elected
Nov 2, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
Climate change, offshore drilling, the regulation of toxic substances -- several science-related policy issues are at stake in the mid-term elections, and a new political action committee wants more scientists voting on them. -
Endocrine Society Experts Question FDA's Statement on BPA
Nov 1, 2018 | Medscape
By Kristin Jenkins
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "jumped the gun" when it recently announced that the "authorized use" of the food packaging compound bisphenol A (BPA) continues to be safe for consumers despite study findings to the contrary, scientists with the Endocrine Society say. -
Drop in Minks at Hudson River Could Be Linked to PCBs
Nov 2, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
Government trustees assessing harm to the Hudson River from polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) pollution say a study showing reduced mink populations along the waterway provides more evidence of contamination. -
(ACC Mentioned) Perry on the Move
Nov 2, 2018 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Kelsey Tamborrino
One day after the nation's largest power market rebuffed the rationale behind the Trump administration's stalled efforts to prop up coal and nuclear plants, one of the effort's loudest backers will have a chance to weigh in. -
Fracking Falls From Dems' Sights as They Eye Majority
Nov 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The last time Democrats controlled the House, "fracking" was better known as a cuss word on the science fiction show "Battlestar Galactica" than an oil drilling process. -
Exxon, Chevron Profits Soar as Big Oil Returns to Dominance
Nov 2, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson
Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. each reported their highest third-quarter profits in four years as the world’s largest oil companies appeared to have finally shaken off the malaise of a yearslong oil price crash. -
EPA Fast-Tracks Ozone Review Despite Ongoing Court Fight
Nov 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is pressing ahead with a fresh review of its ground-level ozone standard, even as lawsuits challenging the current threshold remain unsettled.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) This PAC Is Trying to Get Scientists Elected
Nov 2, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
Climate change, offshore drilling, the regulation of toxic substances -- several science-related policy issues are at stake in the mid-term elections, and a new political action committee wants more scientists voting on them.
Organizers formed 314 Action Fund -- the name comes from the first three digits for Pi -- after the 2016 election brought President Donald Trump and his planned regulatory rollback to Washington. Now, as Congress ponders legislation options that include defanging states’ product-labeling laws, the PAC has spent more than $1.7 million to back 13 congressional candidates who have science and technology backgrounds.
All of them happen to be Democrats -- though the group says it’s not a partisan organization.
“What is so troubling with the Trump administration is deregulation at all costs,” said Shaughnessy Naughton, founder and president of 314 Action, the non-profit affiliated with the fund. The Republican platform is “just in denial of the scientific consensus too often.”
The use -- and definition -- of science in public policy is playing out in races across the country, a signal that such issues may represent a growing political battlefield.
“Science should not be a partisan issue,” said Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, another new group, which advocates rolling back regulation. “It has obviously become one.”Chicago Showdown
Nowhere is it more intense than in a congressional district in suburban Chicago. There, incumbent Republican Representative Peter Roskam is backed by the chemical industry, while his challenger, Democrat Sean Casten, is a clean-energy executive endorsed by former President Barack Obama and 314 Action.
The district is also home to a sterilization facility that’s under fire for emitting ethylene oxide, a chemical that the Environmental Protection Agency said in 2016 was “carcinogenic to humans” and more dangerous than previously thought.
A bombshell report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this summer said the 19,721 people living within a mile of the Sterigenics facility were at an elevated risk for cancer. Four schools and a daycare center are also located within that one-mile radius. The chemical industry’s trade group, the American Chemistry Council, says the testing is flawed and has asked for the data to be corrected.
Also last summer, the ACC spent $82,250 on TV ads supporting Roskam, according to Kantar Media -- ads that were focused on Roskam’s support of the 2017 income-tax overhaul legislation. Scott Openshaw, a spokesman for the ACC, said the industry group has a long history of “periodically running issue ads thanking elected officials from both parties for their efforts to improve economic growth, job creation and overall U.S. economic competitiveness, including comprehensive tax reform.” Nationwide, the group spent about $2.2 million on such ads for 14 candidates, Openshaw said.Calls for Closing
Last month, the 314 Action PAC countered by spending $92,696 to oppose Roskam in direct-mail ads, federal records show.
Casten, the Democrat, whose background includes degrees in molecular biology and biochemical engineering, has called for halting production at the Sterigenics plant until further study. While Roskam also called for closing the plant last month, Casten says Roskam would have a hard time separating his constituents’ needs from the industry’s.
Roskam’s office didn’t provide comment for this story. He has voted with his party in favor of bills that have drawn the ire of environmental groups, including the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, which expands industry representation to panels that inform policymaking and makes it harder for academics to serve; and the Honest Act, which would bar certain data not publicly available or replicable. Critics say that would exclude epidemiological data that’s been used to demonstrate substances’ harm to populations. Both measures passed the House on near party-line votes.
The non-partisan Cook Political Report says the close Roskam-Casten race is leaning Democratic with just days to go before voters head to the polls. Casten said it’s important to get more science-minded people in policymaking roles.‘Institutional Knowledge’
“To the extent that you make government beholden to outsiders, you basically put all the institutional knowledge on K Street rather than in the government, and there’s a real problem there,” Casten said in an interview. “But here we’ve got something right in people’s backyards where we’re saying the data from the EPA science advisory board, which was a decade in the making, is pretty unambiguous.”
The 314 group is also backing 75 state-level candidates in Tuesday’s election and says it has raised as much as $5 million to fund its aims this cycle. As of Oct. 17, it had raised about $2.5 million for use in federal campaigns, according to its filings with the Federal Election Commission.
“What I realized was that we really need to get scientists to go beyond just advocacy and actually get involved in electoral politics, whether it’s to run for office themselves or support their colleagues,” said Naughton, a former chemist and breast-cancer researcher who ran unsuccessfully in two Democratic congressional primaries in Pennsylvania. When the group put out a call in January 2017 for scientists interested in running, 7,000 responded.
The group is what’s known as a “hybrid” super PAC, meaning it contributes directly to candidates but can also make “independent expenditures” that support candidates but can’t be coordinated with their campaigns. As of Wednesday, it had spent $1.5 million independently and contributed $231,500 directly to congressional candidates.
The outcome of those races matters when it comes to how Congress thinks about science, said Stier of the anti-regulation group Consumer Choice Center. Although that group doesn’t back candidates, it does work to promote its anti-regulatory positions, and it warns a Blue Wave could make it more burdensome on companies trying to keep costs to consumers down.
If Democrats advance, “there is going to be a move toward a European style regulatory approach that embraces the precautionary principle at the expense of consumer freedom, low priced, affordable and safe products,” he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-02/scientists-are-on-the-ballot-as-new-money-tries-to-shake-up-d-c
-
Endocrine Society Experts Question FDA's Statement on BPA
Nov 1, 2018 | Medscape
By Kristin Jenkins
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "jumped the gun" when it recently announced that the "authorized use" of the food packaging compound bisphenol A (BPA) continues to be safe for consumers despite study findings to the contrary, scientists with the Endocrine Society say.
What's more, the regulatory agency dismissed results from its own researchfindings in the Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity (CLARITY-BPA) study, according to Laura N. Vandenberg, PhD, associate professor and graduate program director, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Speaking at a news conference organized by the Endocrine Society on October 23, Vandenberg said that results from the FDA's investigation revealed significant low-dose effects in more than 20% of animals exposed to BPA compared with controls.
These effects included an increased incidence of mammary adenocarcinoma, nephropathy, and prostatic inflammation at the lowest doses tested, said Vandenberg, who is also a member of the Endocrine Disruption Chemical Advisory Group of the Endocrine Society.
"The reason that we decided to organize this webinar is that the FDA has repeatedly stated that the way that BPA is used in food containers is safe for humans," she said. "The problem with that statement is that it's based on incomplete data. Even with current data interpreted by the FDA as safe, scientists still disagree. Additional data is forthcoming."
Vandenberg also expressed concerns about the agency's approach to testing BPA. She notes that when ethinyl estradiol (EE) was used as a positive control, the effects were not reproducible even in studies conducted in the same laboratory with the same rats.
"There may be a much deeper story here," Vandenberg warned. "The way that regulatory agencies have been evaluating chemicals for safety using traditional methods of evaluating toxicity may not be reproducible."
On February 23, Stephen Ostroff, MD, deputy commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine at the FDA, posted an online statement about the draft report on BPA. In it, Ostroff noted that BPA is authorized for use in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins in certain food and beverage can linings.
"Given this interest," he wrote, "the FDA has routinely considered and evaluated the scientific evidence surrounding the use of BPA and continues to conclude that BPA is safe for the currently authorized uses in food containers and packaging."
As previously reported, CLARITY-BPA was designed to help regulators and scientists working at different universities achieve consensus about the public health impact of BPA exposure. Participants had agreed that the National Toxicology Program would integrate data from the FDA's study findings with the academic research results before the release of a single CLARITY-BPA study in the fall of 2019.
Then the FDA made its unexpected unilateral announcement. The announcement shocked the academic collaborators in CLARITY-BPA, who were conducting companion hypothesis-based research with identical BPA exposures and blinded samples supplied by the FDA.
"I share Dr Vandenberg's concern that FDA has put a stake in the ground declaring that BPA is safe," said Heather Patisaul, PhD, a CLARITY-BPA investigator and associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University in Raleigh.
As of 2014, nearly 100 published epidemiologic studies have linked BPA to health problems, including reproductive, behavioral, and metabolic disorders, she noted.
Patisaul, who is also member of the Endocrine Disruption Chemical Advisory Group of the Endocrine Society, called the study "the most ambitious project that's ever been done to examine the effects of any chemical." However, she also emphasized that the conflicting conclusions about the safety of BPA underscore the need to "get real" about updating toxicity testing strategies.
"The significant advantage of the CLARITY-BPA program is that we really got to test drive some of the endpoints and assays we think are going to be the most sensitive. The regulators need to use that information to update their toxicology testing system. We are in desperate, desperate need."
BPA is widely used to make polycarbonate plastic found in many beverage containers and infant bottles, compact disks, plastic dinnerware, impact-resistant safety equipment, automobile parts, and toys.
BPA is used in the epoxy resins lining metal food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes to keep them from corroding. Thermal paper — a material formulated to change color when exposed to heat — also contains BPA and is used in adding machines, cash registers, and credit card terminals.
Data from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that 93% of 2517 people age 6 years and older had detectable levels of BPA. Women had statistically higher BPA concentrations than men, and children had higher concentrations than adolescents or adults.
These findings led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conclude that BPA exposure in the general population is widespread.Toxicology Data Alarming
Vandenberg explained that the FDA studies included several investigations using one of two BPA exposures: continuous or stop dose.
In the continuous exposure studies, animals were given BPA by gavage, starting at day 6 of pregnancy, at doses of: 2.5 µg/kg/day, 25 µg/kg/day, 250 µg/kg/day, 2500 µg/kg/day, or 25,000 µg/kg/day. At birth, offspring were exposed to BPA continuously until euthanasia at 1 or 2 years of age.
A matched group of animals was exposed to continuous EE at two different doses (0.05 µg/kg/day and 0.5 µg/kg/day) or to vehicle.
The stop-dose studies looked at animals exposed to the same five continuous BPA dose groups from day 6 of gestation up to day 21 of life. There was an unexposed control but no group exposed to EE.
Overall, the FDA study results showed significant effects on numerous organs, including the ovary, testis, reproductive tract, mammary, liver, kidney, mammary, thyroid/parathyroid, and pituitary, in both males and females at different doses, Vandenberg said.
However, some of the very serious effects were seen at the very lowest doses of BPA (2.5 µg/kg/day) compared with controls, including the following:
Increases in the incidence of mammary cancer in more than 20% of animals exposed during gestational development and up to day 21 of life;
Inflammation of the dorsal and lateral lobes of the prostate in males exposed throughout life; and
Significant increases in nephropathy in females exposed throughout life.
In addition, changes were seen in the body weight of females continuously exposed to mid to lower doses of 250 µg/kg/day BPA compared with controls.
The FDA study also showed an increased incidence of mammary cancer in more than 15% of animals exposed to 2500 µg/kg/day BPA compared with controls. BPA has a nonlinear dose-response relationship shaped like an inverted U, explained Vandenberg. This is also seen with vitamins and other essential nutrients, as well as with many drugs and pharmacologic agents.
However, the FDA constructed its studies and analyzed the data based on the assumption that there is a linear dose-response relationship between BPA exposure and health effects. It looked at outcomes related to overt signs of toxicity at high doses, including extreme changes to organ weight, seizures, and changes to the number of pups born to exposed females.
Vandenberg noted that this approach doesn't fit the situation. This is appropriate for compounds that act strictly as a toxicant, but not for hormones and endocrine disruptors, she said.
In outlining results from the CLARITY-BPA academic studies, Patisaul said that most have been published and all show that at the lowest dose of 2.5 μg/kg/day, BPA exposure affects the prostate, ovary, heart, and immune system. Her three studies have been published and show low-dose effects of BPA on the brain.
"When you go back and look at available studies in the literature plus the academic studies in CLARITY-BPA, you see very clearly that there are effects on the brain, behavior, the female reproductive system, and on the cardiovascular system with low doses of BPA," she said.
"A major part of the problem has been who is reading the data, who is interpreting it, and how are they using it for decision-making," she added.Counseling Concerned Patients
For clinicians faced with concerned patients, a general discussion about chemicals in the environment as they relate to health can help increase awareness, Patisaul said. "It's really sad to say, but just because something is on a store shelf doesn't mean it's safe. So people need to become more proactive when they go shopping."
Since BPA dissipates from the body very quickly, advising patients to shift from plastics to glass is a good way to start to controlling exposure. Avoiding canned foods, especially canned tomatoes, which are acidic, will also reduce exposure.
Patisaul finds Internet tools, such as the Healthy Living app from the Environmental Working Group, particularly helpful. She said she uses it to navigate the grocery store and find safer cosmetics, cleaning products, and personal care products.
Even when consumer products are labeled "BPA-free," however, there may be cause for concern, Vandenberg said. Many of the chemicals used to replace BPA may be just as harmful to health, but very little is known about them, she explained.
"Scientists often refer to these chemicals as 'regrettable replacements,'" she said. "How long will it take us to study all of these replacements? It's mind-boggling to think about."
In Europe, the health effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals are estimated to cost between EU$157 billion and EU$270 billion annually. In the United States, studies show that the cost of exposures to endocrine disruptors is similar, Vandenberg said.
"Even though a 100% causal relationship between BPA exposures and health outcomes in humans has not been established, the best available evidence suggests that exposures to endocrine disruptors like BPA are costing us billions of dollars a year," she pointed out. "I think it's important to end on the idea that the decision to do nothing is a decision that costs us something."
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/904278
-
Drop in Minks at Hudson River Could Be Linked to PCBs
Nov 2, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
Government trustees assessing harm to the Hudson River from polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) pollution say a study showing reduced mink populations along the waterway provides more evidence of contamination.
The peer-reviewed study commissioned by the Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees concludes that about 40 percent fewer minks live along the Hudson River than the Mohawk River. Researchers identified individual minks through DNA analysis of scat.
General Electric completed removal of 2.75 million cubic yards of sediment contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls from the upper river in 2015 as part of a federal Superfund project.
The mink study was published this summer as the federal and state trustees assess GE's liability for harm done to the Hudson River's natural resources.
GE said the "limited" study does nothing to diminish the success of the river's cleanup. — Associated Press
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/02/stories/1060105027
-
(ACC Mentioned) Perry on the Move
Nov 2, 2018 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Kelsey Tamborrino
One day after the nation's largest power market rebuffed the rationale behind the Trump administration's stalled efforts to prop up coal and nuclear plants, one of the effort's loudest backers will have a chance to weigh in. Energy Secretary Rick Perry travels to Norfolk, Va., today where he will speak at the Virginia Energy and National Security Forum.
ICYMI, the PJM Interconnection released a study Thursday that said there was "no issues" with powering the grid network, even as it loses more than 15,000 megawatts through mostly coal and nuclear plant retirements. The study undercuts a core tenet of the Trump administration's argument to help those financially struggling coal and nuclear plants. Perry has spent more than a year pushing various plans that invoke both national and fuel security to force power companies to keep coal and nuclear afloat, though the effort has since stalled.
While ME doesn't know what Perry plans to discuss, our guess is he'll tout the national security benefits of coal and nuclear, as he has in the past, and we'll also be listening for any mention of climate change in a region where sea level rise is worrying local officials and military leaders. Before his speech, Perry plans to tour the USS John Warner, a nuclear-powered submarine, at the Naval Station Norfolk.
The event, which should be livestreamed here, is hosted by the Hampton Roads Chamber, Virginia Manufacturers Association and Consumer Energy Alliance.
Next week: Perry heads to Eastern Europe next week, meeting with government officials from Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and Czech Republic "to build on his recent efforts to elevate American energy partnerships in the region." Perry will be there to talk about a broad range of topics, including nuclear energy, cybersecurity and liquefied natural gas exports. He'll also tour the Trypilska Plant, a Ukrainian facility that received the first shipment of thermal coal from the U.S. last summer. Axios reports the Energy secretary will also announce a new LNG deal with Poland — solidifying an effort by President Donald Trump to help alleviate the region's dependence on Russia natural gas.
FINALLY FRIDAY! I'm your host, Kelsey Tamborrino. Andrew Fasoli from the American Chemistry Council was the first to correctly ID former first lady Abigail Fillmore as the first presidential spouse to earn a salary before marriage. Abigail Powers was a schoolteacher before she married Millard Fillmore. Today's question is a nod to Election Day (we're nearing the home stretch, folks!): What OECD country has the highest voter turnout of all recent nationwide elections across the globe? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
Election Day is almost here. Have you made your POLITICO Playbook Election Challenge picks yet? Don’t miss your chance to compete against the nation’s top political minds in the POLITICO Playbook Election Challenge by correctly picking the winning candidates in some of the most competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial races in the country. Win awesome prizes and eternal bragging rights. The contest closes at 6 a.m. on Nov. 6. Sign up today. Visit politico.com/playbookelectionchallenge to play.
UPTON UP AGAINST TOUGH CHALLENGER: GOP Rep. Fred Upton's bid for reelection is shaping up to be one of the most competitive he's had to face, Pro's Anthony Adragna reports this morning. The former Energy and Commerce chairman is now seeking his 17th term representing a southwest Michigan district, and has been touting his efforts to protect drinking water and save federal Great Lakes cleanup funding. But the Michigan Republican has had to defend his record on health care against his Democratic opponent, Matt Longjohn, a former national health officer for YMCA.
While election analysts say the race is still tilted toward Upton, a loss by the Republican would cost Congress an Energy Subcommittee chairman who has used his perch to help modernize DOE, as well as protect the resiliency and cybersecurity of the electric grid. Read more.
E&C DEMS SET SIGHTS ON POLICY, NOT SCANDAL: If the House flips in their favor next week, Democratic lawmakers on the E&C Committee say they'll focus their oversight of the Trump administration on issues like climate change, even as liberal groups pressure them to dig into the influence of coal industry leaders like Bob Murray at DOE, Pro's Eric Wolff reports.
Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone — the likely chairman of the committee should Democrats gain control — told Eric the committee would be "holding the Trump administration accountable" for moves that would worsen climate change. Committee Democrats would instead let their colleagues at the Oversight Committee and EPA's watchdog deal with the scandals that led to the departure of former EPA chief Scott Pruitt in July.
Related: Pallone, Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush, who is likely to lead the E&C Energy subpanel, and Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette sent a letter to Perry on Thursday demanding information on how the agency is handling energy efficiency standards.
YOU WEREN'T ALWAYS ON MY MIND: Four days to go until Election Day, and voters largely say energy will not be top-of-mind when they cast their votes next week, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found. Given a span of issues ranging from education to the economy, just 4 percent of voters ranked energy as the No. 1 issue on their mind when voting for federal offices. Of course, that doesn't mean voters don't care at all about the issue, but it comes as Democratic candidates are shifting their focus to embrace clean energy and climate change.
Fifty-three percent of respondents said they trust Democrats in Congress more to handle environment issues, while just 27 percent said the same about Republicans. Asked the same about energy issues, 46 percent said they trusted Democrats in Congress, while 33 percent said they trusted the GOP. The poll was conducted Oct. 25-30 among 2,543 registered voters.
That poll lands the same day three assistant professors of public affairs and political science — Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Matto Mildenberger and Leah Stokes — detail in The New York Times how lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have very little clue what the public wants them to act on. The trio asked senior staff members in Congress what they believed the public opinion was on a range of issues, and compared their responses with what constituents actually wanted via large-scale public polling.
"Across the board, we found that congressional aides are wildly inaccurate in their perceptions of their constituents' opinions and preferences," they write. In fact, aides largely underestimated support for issues, including regulating carbon emissions and addressing climate change.
Interest groups played a vital role in the misconception, too. "Aides who reported meeting with groups representing big business — like the United States Chamber of Commerce or the American Petroleum Institute — were more likely to get their constituents' opinions wrong compared with staffers who reported meeting with mass membership groups that represented ordinary Americans, like the Sierra Club or labor unions," they write.
ROYALTY DISBURSEMENTS RISE: Energy royalty disbursements from the federal government rose to $8.9 billion in fiscal year 2018, the Interior Department said Thursday, up $1.8 billion from the year prior. "Interior disbursed nearly $1.8 billion to 35 states, the department said in a press release. Another $1.2 billion went to Reclamation Fund, $1 billion to Indian tribes and $893 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund,” Pro's Ben Lefebvre reports.
INTERIOR ANNOUNCES NEXT REORG STEPS: Interior has moved to the latest phase of its reorganization effort by selecting so-called regional facilitators, who will lead "from the field," Interior said Thursday. The 12 regional facilitators will build out teams of subject-matter experts across recreation, conservation and permitting; as well as human resources, IT and "procurement of goods and services."
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told the regional facilitators "in very plain terms that while he would provide the broad direction, they will be the ones who implement the reorganization from the ground up," the announcement to DOI staff said. It also laid out a timeline for the reorganization: With the help of the facilitators, the 12 unified regions announced in August are set to be operational by July 1, 2019. By that time, each of the 12 unified regions will have an Interior regional director, DOI said, via a "standard process" that "will be used to select a career Senior Executive Service member who will serve" as the regional director.
SEE IT: Reminiscent of the campaign to oust Pruitt, papier-mâché heads with Zinke's likeness appeared outside of Interior headquarters Thursday, and Halloween-themed "Count Corruption" flyers depicting Zinke were also posted.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports the White House is growing increasingly concerned about Zinke and requested more information about his involvement in a Montana land deal with the chairman of Halliburton that POLITICO revealed earlier this year.
SPOTTED: Pruitt flying first class from Atlanta to DCA, via Playbook PM.
GETTYSBURG ADDRESSED: The superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park committed criminal violations by accepting more than $23,000 in meals, lodging, and other in-kind gifts from non-government organizations and by submitting false travel vouchers, the Interior Department's Office of the Inspector General found. The IG found that Ed Clark traveled 27 times to attend events organized by the Gettysburg Foundation, a non-government entity, from February 2014 to October 2016. Clark "violated laws and regulations by failing to obtain required supervisory and ethics approval prior to taking these trips and by failing to report expenses accurately following his trips," the IG said in a report released Thursday. The IG said it coordinated with the U.S. attorney's office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, but the office declined to prosecute.
SEE IT: Alternative energy groups have donated more money to political candidates this year than coal mining groups, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. But both industries are still being outspent by contributions from the oil and gas industry and from electrical utilities, the data show. View the full DataPoint graphic here. Want to add DataPoint to your Pro account? Learn more.
OH, CANADA: Canada's Encana Corporation and Texas-based Newfield Exploration Company announced this week they've entered a definitive agreement for Encana's acquisition of all "outstanding shares of common stock" of Newfield. The deal is valued at approximately $5.5 billion. Encana will also assume $2.2 billion of Newfield's net debt. Roy Martin, senior analyst on corporate upstream at Wood Mackenzie, said in a statement that "Encana has a long track record of ambitious acquisitions, but the Newfield purchase tops its US$7.1 billion Permian purchase of Athlon Energy in 2014." He added that the deal makes Encana "one of the top five unconventional producers in North America."
BOOK IT: Energy Innovation released a new book this week by CEO Hal Harvey and Robbie Orvis and Jeffrey Rissman, also from the policy firm. The book, titled "Designing Climate Solutions: A Policy Guide for Low-Carbon Energy," will look at technology and strategies available to stay below 2 degrees Celsius of warming. "The chapters thus serve as a handbook for policymakers on both national and subnational levels," former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz writes in the foreword.
Five Democratic governors committed Thursday to adopt the standards of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act under "cooperative federalism," regardless of what plays out at the federal level. "For the first time in history, these standards are being rolled back at the federal level, and we now face threats to the basic underpinnings of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act themselves," Govs. Kate Brown of Oregon, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, David Ige of Hawaii, Jay Inslee of Washington, and Jerry Brown of California write.
MOVER, SHAKER: Rich Alonso is joining Husky Energy as a senior manager for regulatory affairs. Prior to Husky, Alonso worked at Sidley Austin, Bracewell, and was a senior air enforcement counsel at EPA.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2018/11/02/perry-on-the-move-398199
-
Fracking Falls From Dems' Sights as They Eye Majority
Nov 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The last time Democrats controlled the House, "fracking" was better known as a cuss word on the science fiction show "Battlestar Galactica" than an oil drilling process.
Since then, the term has grown to be the poorly defined buzzword for the nation's oil and gas production boom, and an epithet for the environmental left. It's technically a nickname for hydraulic fracturing, a part of building and completing an oil or gas well, yet it's come to signify much more to many people.
But it's not a focus in this election year, and it does not appear to be on the agenda of a prospective Democratic House majority.
"The wind has gone out of the sails of anti-fracking as Democrats get closer to governing," said Paul Bledsoe, an energy fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and former adviser in the Clinton White House.
What appears more likely is efforts to reinstate Obama-era methane restrictions on new oil and gas wells, and oversight of EPA's jurisdiction over drilling.
"We need to have hearings on all of the attempts of the Trump administration to repeal the environmental rules of the Obama years," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the top Democrat on its Oversight Subcommittee.
DeGette would also support hearings on the exemption Republicans wrote into the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005 for hydraulic fracturing. It prevented EPA from regulating fracturing as underground injection for disposal. Critics call it the "Halliburton loophole" (Energywire, Aug. 18, 2015).
"No one has ever really had hearings on that," DeGette said.
She'd also like to get the committee to consider legislation she's pushed for years to federally mandate disclosure of the chemicals used in fracturing, called the "FRAC Act." The bill didn't get a hearing when Democrats last controlled Congress.
Serious consideration of that, however, falls well short of activist calls during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary to "ban fracking."
"My view has always been, if we're going to have fracking, we have to do it in an environmentally responsible way," DeGette said. "There are people who do want to ban it, but I don't think that's a majority."
Even the harder-line environmental groups aren't pushing for fracking bans. It's not that they oppose it, but in the Trump era, there are much bigger targets. Food & Water Watch and Climate Hawks Vote, for example, are putting their energy toward Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's "Off Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act."
As for the "FRAC Act," said Climate Hawks leader RL Miller, "It's not even on my radar."States rule when it comes to fracking
There's a number of reasons for the lack of interest, starting with the fact that Congress and the federal government haven't had much to do with hydraulic fracturing or the drilling boom, pro or con. States have much more authority. New York banned high-volume fracking. Texas and Oklahoma swept away local restrictions on drilling. And Tuesday will show what purple-state voters in Colorado think about the oil boom in their midst.
In the 2016 presidential election, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) called for banning "fracking" in his bid for the Democratic nomination. But it wasn't even clear what that meant (Energywire, July 8, 2016).
There are plenty of areas, though, where federal policymakers do have sway over oil and gas. The federal government permits and regulates many interstate pipelines, oversees national energy infrastructure and sets trade policy.
Oil and gas companies have moved on from debates about production, said one industry insider, and toward getting pipelines and export terminals permitted and built.
"We've fracked the wells we want to frack in most of these areas already," he said.
Environmentalists are pushing the other way in the pipeline fight. Scott Edwards, co-director of Food & Water Watch's climate and energy program, said another key focus will be oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Green groups contend the agency is too eager to approve any pipeline industry sends its way.
Bledsoe suggests that restoring restrictions on methane emissions from oil and gas wells might be one of the more achievable goals for Democrats. Not only is it good for the environment, but there's a return to taxpayers.
"The companies get it," Bledsoe said. "They're willing to deal."
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060104977
-
Exxon, Chevron Profits Soar as Big Oil Returns to Dominance
Nov 2, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson
Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. each reported their highest third-quarter profits in four years as the world’s largest oil companies appeared to have finally shaken off the malaise of a yearslong oil price crash.
Exxon’s net income rose 57% to $6.24 billion as improved operations helped the company reap the benefits of higher prices for drilling and better refining margins. Chevron’s profits doubled to $4 billion.
Both companies beat expectations and rallied Friday, following the performance of nearly all the world’s largest Western energy companies. BP PLC, France’s Total SA and Norway’s Equinor AS A have all fared well with investors in the past week after exceeding profit forecasts.
Big oil companies saw their profits slump following a world-wide plunge in oil prices that began in 2014 and lasted several years. But prices have recovered this year, and the companies saw a marked uplift to their profits as a result in the third quarter.
Investors had been underwhelmed with Exxon and Chevron’s performance in the past year. Before today, the companies’ stock prices had fallen by about 4% in the last 12 months even as oil prices rose by about 30%, reflecting the disappointment of some shareholders. Exxon in particular had faced operational challenges, and its quarterly production from April to June had reached the lowest level in a decade.
The company said it had made strides on those issues, and production reached about 3.8 million barrels a day, a slight decline from a year ago.
“Operational performance improved significantly versus the second quarter with lower levels of scheduled maintenance and reliability levels in line with our expectations,” Exxon Chief Executive Darren Woods said.
Chevron production set a company record of about 2.9 million barrels a day, including new output from giant natural-gas export projects in Australia and growth in North America.
“Our strong financial results reflect higher production and crude oil prices coupled with a continued focus on efficiency and productivity,” Chevron Chief Executive Michael Wirth said.
Exxon and Chevron continued to significantly ramp up operations in the Permian basin in Texas and New Mexico, one of the hottest oil fields in the world. Exxon now has 38 rigs running in the region, and the company unit responsible for shale production reported its third-straight quarterly profit.
Profit margins also rose in the refining sector for Exxon. The company was able to buy crude in some parts of the U.S. and Canada that sold at a discount because it was landlocked after production outstripped pipeline capacity.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-profits-rise-though-production-falls-slightly-1541161349
-
EPA Fast-Tracks Ozone Review Despite Ongoing Court Fight
Nov 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is pressing ahead with a fresh review of its ground-level ozone standard, even as lawsuits challenging the current threshold remain unsettled.
In a newly released draft plan, the agency fleshes out a proposed timetable for completing the review by late 2020, a deadline set earlier this year by then-Administrator Scott Pruitt.
That compressed schedule has no recent precedent; to meet it, EPA has incorporated several "efficiencies" to save time, the draft plan indicates.
A kickoff workshop has been replaced by a call for "policy-relevant" information. EPA also does not intend to produce a stand-alone version of a document known as a "risk and exposure assessment" that in essence sums up the hazards that current ozone levels pose to human health and the environment. Instead, that analysis will be telescoped into the "policy assessment" that will give EPA officials options to consider in deciding whether changes to the existing 70 parts per billion limit are warranted.
Starting this week, EPA has also been holding a series of webinars to discuss materials related to a forthcoming roundup of relevant research on ozone's impact on public health and the environment.
EPA set the 70 ppb standard in 2015. The deadline for public comments on the draft blueprint for the new review is Dec. 3, according to a Federal Register notice published today. Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler last month scrapped plans to assemble an expert panel to furnish outside advice in the course of the review. That task will instead be limited to the seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, now made up mostly of appointees with little direct background in research on ozone's health effects.
More broadly, the review will serve as a test run for new guidelines imposed by Pruitt for conducting the assessments of the national air quality standards for ozone and five other "criteria" pollutants named in the Clean Air Act.
In the May memo, Pruitt put top priority on completing those reviews within the five-year cycle set by the act; he also signaled that Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee will be expected to weigh in on any potential "adverse" economic or energy effects related to changing the standards. Under the draft plan released this week, EPA intends to offer a proposed decision on whether to revise the 70 ppb ozone benchmark by early 2020, with the final decision following late that year.
Ozone is a lung irritant formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight.
In a sequence of events that also appears to have no recent forerunner, agency officials launched the new review in June while fighting lawsuits from both industry groups who say the 70 ppb standard is unjustifiably strict and an environmental organization that contends the limit should be even tighter. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for Dec. 18, with a ruling likely coming sometime in early 2019.
Proceedings in the litigation were delayed for about 16 months after the Trump administration requested a pause to consider whether to keep defending the Obama-era standard.
The administration ultimately decided to stick with it. While there had been speculation that EPA might attempt to use the new review to return the standard to its previous 75 ppb level, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum in September downplayed that option.
"I'm not going to rule out the possibility that we would think about going higher," he told reporters, "but my own view is that there's not much likelihood we do that" (E&E News PM, Sept. 27).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/02/stories/1060105061
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested