Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - November 6, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ex-U.S. Trade Officials Trash Move to Exempt Canada from Investor-State Claims in New USMCA
Nov 1, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alexander Panetta
Former U.S. trade officials are criticizing the move to end investor-state protections with Canada in the new North American trade agreement. -
Trump Hedges Zinke Support Amid Probes
Nov 5, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Zack Colman, Eliana Johnson and Ben Lefebvre
President Donald Trump offered less-than-effusive praise Monday for embattled Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, while saying he might not “be happy” with the outcomes of the investigations into Zinke’s behavior. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Plans Upgrades to e-CDR Reporting Tool
Nov 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has outlined plans to modify its e-CDR software to "improve the reporting tool for future submission periods" of its chemical data reporting (CDR) rule. -
States Taking Matters into Own Hands on Chemical Regulation
Nov 5, 2018 | Rapid City Journal
By Samuel Blackstone
As attention on PFAS contamination grows, so too does funding for its study. In recent years, the science has evolved quicker than federal regulation, leading some states to take regulatory matters into their own hands. -
Protecting Tap Water from PFAS
Nov 6, 2018 | WNEM Saginaw
By James Felton
PFAS contamination in drinking water is something Anthony Spaniola has been telling people about for years. -
Denmark Mulls Action on Nine New Endocrine Disruptors
Nov 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy
Denmark is weighing action on hormone-disrupting chemicals after a study identified harmful properties in nine substances people come in contact with, the Environment Ministry told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 5. -
New CEN Standard Lowers BPA Migration Limit in Baby Soothers
Nov 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has published a second amendment to the safety standard for soothers for babies and young children. -
Energy Issues to Watch in Today's AG Races
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Today's election could usher in some formidable new opponents of oil and gas projects and policies at all levels of government. -
Democrats Eye Pickups in Oil and Gas States
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The surge in early voting among women, young people, African-Americans and Hispanics could wind up affecting governors' races and legislative seasons in oil- and gas-producing states. -
An Anti-Fracking Ballot Measure Has Split Democrats in Colorado
Nov 5, 2018 | Vox
By Umair Irfan
On Tuesday, Colorado voters will get to weigh in on a major ballot initiative, Proposition 112, that would drastically limit the use of hydraulic fracturing, a.k.a. fracking, for natural gas. -
Corpus Christi LNG Gets DOE Nod for Short-term Exports to Non-FTA Countries
Nov 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
In another step toward boosting U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, the Department of Energy (DOE) approved short-term exports of the super-chilled fuel to nonfree trade agreement (FTA) countries from Cheniere Energy Corp.’s Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project. -
DOE Says Natural Gas Trade Between U.S., Canada Slowed in 1H2018
Nov 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
Natural gas trade slowed down in both directions across the border between Canada and the United States during the first six months of this year, according to the latest scorecard compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy. -
Total, Sempra MOU a Step Forward for LNG Export Projects in Louisiana, Mexico
Nov 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Total SA, which is building out liquefied natural gas (LNG) stakes along the Gulf Coast, has entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to help Sempra Energy develop the Cameron, LA, facility, as well as the proposed Energia Costa Azul (ECA) project in Mexico. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Data Flawed, Chemical Plants Safe, Louisiana Chemical Association President Writes
Nov 5, 2018 | The Advocate
By Greg Bowser
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently published (The Advocate, Oct. 14) its 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), which includes a presentation about impacts of ethylene oxide (EO) emissions at various facilities around the country. -
State Cap-And-Trade Systems Offer Evidence That Carbon Pricing Can Work
Nov 5, 2018 | The Conversation
By Kelly Sims Gallagher
The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report argues that carbon pollution must be cut to zero by 2050 to avoid devastating levels of climate change. -
FERC Chairman Urges Caution on Trump Carbon Rule
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Hannah Northey
The nation's top grid regulator is urging his EPA counterparts to hold up revising the Obama-era Clean Power Plan until they've completed a "rigorous, detailed analysis of the possible unintended consequences" of regulating carbon as the power sector grapples with coal and nuclear plant closures. -
Washington State Carbon Tax Vote To Fuel Debate Over National GHG Policy
Nov 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Washington state's carbon “fee” ballot initiative is being closely watched nationally for its potential to set up a first-of-its-kind state carbon tax, though supporters of a federal approach would likely downplay the measure if it were to fail, given that the state policy omits assumed elements of a compromise many expect is needed for such a national plan. -
EPA Suggests Applying Steep Permit Deadline To States, Raising Fears
Nov 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA waste officials are suggesting that the agency may eventually apply its requirement setting a six-month deadline for all its permitting decisions to state-issued permits, prompting concerns from state officials who fear they would not be able to meet such a goal and fear it may undercut the quality of some permits. -
Phasing out HFCs Prevents Significant Warming — U.N. Report
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
Halting the production of common cooling and refrigerating chemicals may prevent a significant amount of global warming, a new United Nations report has reaffirmed. -
Committee to Focus on Green Issues If Dems Take over
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
If Democrats take over the House, the Energy and Commerce Committee will undergo a marked shift from focusing on energy needs to addressing environmental concerns. -
DOJ Signals Continued Push to Dismiss Youth Climate Case
Nov 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is signaling that it intends to continue to pursue additional appellate options to dismiss the constitutional climate change case brought against the U.S. government by 21 youths even after the Supreme Court rejected its second request to block the case. -
CASAC Schedules Meetings on Ozone, PM NAAQS Reviews
Nov 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's independent seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) will hold meetings in November and December to consider key documents that will inform the agency's review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM). -
Facing Climate Change, States and Cities Seek to Borrow Billions
Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amanda Albright
Dan Gelber, the mayor of Miami Beach, Fla., says climate change will be a homeowners’ worst nightmare.
Industry and Association News
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
-
Nov 1, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Alexander Panetta
Former U.S. trade officials are criticizing the move to end investor-state protections with Canada in the new North American trade agreement.
They said at a Washington trade event today that the Chapter 11 protections in NAFTA benefited American companies and repeatedly penalized Canada for discriminatory treatment.
That provision will be phased out over three years with Canada and limited with Mexico under a list of new constraints.
"It's very concerning to us that Canada has chosen to opt out," said Edward Brzytwa, a longtime former trade negotiator at the U.S. Department of Commerce and office of the U.S. Trade Representative, now director of trade policy at the American Chemistry Council. "We have a lot of investments in Canada. A number of the cases over the course of the history of NAFTA were with respect to measures in Canada."
Chemicals companies in his association operate abroad partly because they need to be close to raw materials and need to limit transit risks, he said at an event at the Washington International Trade Association.
Brzytwa disputed the view from the Trump administration that investor-state protections are driving outsourcing by providing legal certainty for American companies to move operations abroad.
Marney Cheek, former associate general counsel at USTR, said at the same event that the absence of Canada in the ISDS chapter is one of the big negative changes in the new USMCA deal.
"In my mind the most dramatic [effect] is U.S. investors have no ability to enforce these investment protections against Canada," said Cheek, now at Covington & Burling LLP. "More than half of the cases under NAFTA 1.0 were brought against Canada — where U.S. investors have repeatedly been successful. ... U.S. investors can no longer pursue their own revenue in a neutral forum."
Brzytwa said he fears a domino effect into future trade deals: "As an ex-negotiator I think about how little leverage the U.S. would have in future trade negotiations where a trading partner said, 'Well, we don't really want ISDS. You gave this deal to Canada. So therefore you set a precedent.'"
A paper by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives this year found that nearly half of all NAFTA Chapter 11 cases, and almost three-quarters of recent cases, were against Canada, requiring the country to pay out C$219 million in damages, and C$95 million in legal fees.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/canada/whiteboard/2018/11/ex-us-trade-officials-trash-move-to-exempt-canada-from-investor-state-claims-in-new-usmca-2147536
-
Trump Hedges Zinke Support Amid Probes
Nov 5, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Zack Colman, Eliana Johnson and Ben Lefebvre
President Donald Trump offered less-than-effusive praise Monday for embattled Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, while saying he might not “be happy” with the outcomes of the investigations into Zinke’s behavior.
“I'm going to look at any reports, I'll take a look,” Trump told reporters when asked if he was troubled by recent news reports about Zinke, which have included a potential Justice Department criminal investigation and growing scrutiny of a land deal involving the chairman of Halliburton. “Certainly, I would not be happy with that at all. But I will take a look. But he has done a very good job as secretary."
Trump’s words fell short of the glowing tributes he offered last spring to a similarly troubled Cabinet member — Scott Pruitt, then the leader of the Environmental Protection Agency — whom he credited with achieving “Record clean Air & Water” and saving taxpayers “Billions of Dollars.” And they come amid growing signs that Zinke’s hold on his job may be as tenuous as it was for Pruitt, who resigned in July under multiple inquiries into his spending, tight relations with lobbyists and reliance on government perks.
Allies inside and outside the administration have begun to distance themselves from Zinke. But even as those problems mushroomed, a former White House official told POLITICO on Monday, Zinke continued to pitch himself for more prominent jobs in Trump’s administration — including as a possible replacement for Pruitt at EPA.
The White House and the Interior Department did not respond to further questions Monday, although the former official said Trump still likes Zinke’s bluntness and charisma.
Even so, people in the industry said Monday that they’re starting to assume his time at Interior will be limited.
“It seems to me like this is one of those walking dead situations and there’s something there that hasn’t come out yet,” said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and CEO of oilfield services company Canary LLC.
Some in the industry also said the horse-riding former Montana congressman has proved mildly disappointing as Interior secretary — that while he came into the job as a somewhat known commodity, he turned out to have fewer energy contacts and less knowledge than they would have hoped.
“Even people out [West] are, like, we don’t actually know him that well,” said a person in the industry who works with companies that operate on federal land Interior oversees, who requested anonymity to avoid jeopardizing clients' business and relationships with the agency. “But he looks like us, he talks likes us, he wears the same clothes as us and he came in pretty fast and picked some good people. There’s a perception that he worked really quickly and for a while there was a reputation that he had the ear of the president.”
Multiple sources described the Navy veteran as an ambitious Cabinet member who has long been eyeing his next gig as he tries to implement Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda, chiefly by removing regulations on drilling, mining and fracking. Allies have said he also may be interested in running for higher office in coming years — and the Montana governor’s seat will come up in 2020.
The investigations may pose an unknown threat to all that. Those include one probe that, according to news reports, the Interior Department’s inspector general referred late last month to the Justice Department, which could weigh whether to bring criminal charges.
The IG’s office and DOJ have declined to comment on the referral. But potential subjects include a Montana real estate development that involves a Zinke-created foundation and Halliburton Chairman David Lesar, whose company stands to gain from Interior’s decisions to expand onshore and offshore drilling. POLITICO first reported on that deal, as well as on a meeting that Zinke had with Lesar at Interior Department headquarters last year before discussing the development project over dinner.
Zinke continued to contact a Whitefish city planner about the land in question even after becoming secretary, a potential breach of his ethics pledge, The Washington Post reported Monday based on a newly released email.
The IG has also been examining Interior’s refusal to grant a casino license to two Native American tribes in Connecticut, a move that followed lobbying from MGM Resorts International and its supporters in Congress.
A recent inspector general report also found that Zinke tried to make his wife, Lola, a “volunteer” at Interior so she could travel with him for free at department expense. In addition, Zinke took political donors on official tours and cost taxpayers $25,000 by bringing a security detail on a vacation with his wife to the Mediterranean region, according to the report.
Lola Zinke’s frequent travel on official Interior business had caused staffers other problems.
In one previously unreported incident from May 28, 2017, Interior travel scheduler Timothy Nigborowicz canceled a charter flight scheduled for the next day to take Zinke from McKinley National Park Airport to Anchorage, according to emailsPOLITICO obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.
In the emails, Nigborowicz said no reason was given for the cancellation. But an email from Interior employee Tim Fox a month later says it was because of issues getting clearance for Zinke’s wife to board the flight.
“I was at the [Interior’s Alaska regional director] meeting yesterday and learned that the flight was cancelled because Sec. Zinke’s wife was going to travel with him and there was no way to do that with the [solicitor’s office] approval,” Fox wrote to department flight coordinator Shari Moultrie in a June 2017 email. “They ended up driving which added about 6 hours to the trip.”
Interior spokeswoman Faith Vander Voort dismissed the email as “just gossip between two people who weren’t involved in the decision-making process.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/11/trump-hedges-zinke-support-amid-probes-927527
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Plans Upgrades to e-CDR Reporting Tool
Nov 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has outlined plans to modify its e-CDR software to "improve the reporting tool for future submission periods" of its chemical data reporting (CDR) rule.
The agency’s commitment is in response to comments submitted by the American Chemistry Council on an information collection request (ICR) renewal for the TSCA CDR rule.
The rule requires companies to submit, every four years, quantity and use information for substances produced in and imported into the US. But in comments, the ACC criticised the existing reporting tools, and called for "significant upgrades for a variety of reasons in order to ensure a less burdensome, more accurate CDR reporting process".
The agency did not revise its cost burden estimates as a result of these concerns. But it did publish a ‘response to comments’ document, in which it noted several aspects of its reporting tools that it hopes to update ahead of the next 2020 reporting period, in response to the issues raised.
Updates to the e-CDR the EPA says it is considering include:investigating updating the application to a new platform to "improve the speed and flow of the data entry";examining the possibility of allowing users to populate their forms more easily, such as by pre-populating them with information submitted in previous reporting periods;offering improved functionality around substantiating confidential business information (CBI);"exploring ways" to allow a passphrase to be reset; andupdating its guidance and instructions to address reporting issues resulting from inactivity periods and pop-up blockers on common web browsers.Other concerns
The agency, however, was less accepting of other comments it received in response to the ICR.
Specialty chemicals group Socma had asked the agency to consider changing the CDR rule’s lower reporting threshold imposed on substances that are subject to significant new use rules (Snurs), given how many new chemicals are being regulated through this mechanism since passage of the Lautenberg Act.
In its response, however, the EPA said that it "continues to have an interest" in keeping the reporting threshold lower.
And it added: "While EPA recognises the commenter's strong interest in changing the lower reporting threshold, there is no information provided that provides a basis for modifying this ICR renewal."
The agency agreed the issue "merits discussion", however, and said it would consider the comments as part of its broader efforts to update the CDR rule.
With regard to Socma’s request to finalise a revised small business standard for TSCA reporting purposes, the agency pointed to plans published in its semiannual regulatory agenda to complete such a rulemaking. It did not, however, modify the ICR in response to this suggestion.
The agency also dismissed the Color Pigment Manufacturers Association (CPMA) request not to require reporting for substances that pose a low risk. "A determination of risk," said the EPA, "is made after an evaluation of a chemical substance's hazard and exposure."
The EPA also said that CDR data can be useful, even for substances that are not a high priority for evaluation, to monitor for changes to exposure conditions.
It suggested that the CPMA look to the petition process to seek exemptions for individual substances that could be of low current interest to the agency.
Federal collection of information is regulated by the Paperwork Reduction Act. ICRs are used to demonstrate that the collection is necessary and justifiable, and must be renewed every three years.
The CDR ICR has been submitted to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for final approval.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71615/us-epa-plans-upgrades-to-e-cdr-reporting-tool
-
States Taking Matters into Own Hands on Chemical Regulation
Nov 5, 2018 | Rapid City Journal
By Samuel Blackstone
As attention on PFAS contamination grows, so too does funding for its study. In recent years, the science has evolved quicker than federal regulation, leading some states to take regulatory matters into their own hands.
In Vermont, any company responsible for contamination above 20 parts per trillion (ppt) for five PFAS compounds is required to pay for the cleanup, monitoring and drinking water of those affected.
Minnesota recently set a 35ppt limit for PFOA and 27ppt limit for PFOS in 2017, giving the state power to compel the contaminator to mitigate and/or remediate the contamination.PauseCurrent Time0:00/Duration Time0:00Stream TypeLIVELoaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00Fullscreen00:00Mute
Washington just became the first state to pass a partial ban of PFAS, prohibiting food packaging containing PFAS, effective July 1, 2022. Training with PFAS-laden foam is now banned and the manufacture, sale and distribution of that foam is banned, effective July 1, 2020.
In California, public drinking-water systems are required to report results that exceed 14ppt for PFOA and 13ppt for PFOS. The state also added PFOA and PFOS to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity.
New York and New Jersey are currently working toward setting a statewide drinking-water standard, while others — Hawaii, Indiana, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Virginia and West Virginia — have adopted the EPA’s 70ppt level, giving them the power to compel liable parties to certain responses when the level is exceeded.
https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/states-taking-matters-into-own-hands-on-chemical-regulation/article_53918e9c-cbd7-5f9f-890b-26403fb5431d.html
-
Protecting Tap Water from PFAS
Nov 6, 2018 | WNEM Saginaw
By James Felton
PFAS contamination in drinking water is something Anthony Spaniola has been telling people about for years.
Spaniola lives on Van Etten Lake near Wurtsmith Air Force in Oscoda. Thick white foam has been seen there. Foam that Spaniola believes is associated with PFAS.
It turns out Oscoda may not be the only trouble spot.
"It's a problem that affects everyone," Spaniola said.
According to its website, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is investigating 32 PFAS sites statewide. Twelve of those locations can be found in Mid-Michigan, including high concentrations of PFAS in the old Buick City site in Flint and the old Roosevelt Refinery location in Mt. Pleasant.
Spaniola fears more residents across the state will learn they have PFAS in their own backyard.
"I feel really badly for them because I know how they feel," Spaniola said.
PFAS was used during the past century in manufacturing, firefighting, and thousands of consumer products. In the last few years scientists have raised concerns on how high levels of PFAS can affect humans.
Tom Bruton is with the Green Science Policy Institute in California. He has a PhD in environmental engineering and has researched PFAS for years.
"PFAS, or at least the ones that have been studied the most, are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, reproductive problems, high cholesterol, and one that's really interesting is decreased immune function in children. It's going to be extremely difficult to eliminate PFAS from our environment because they are pervasive, they don't break down, they've spread throughout the globe," Bruton said.
Despite that, Spaniola believes there is more the state can do. Starting with lowering the safe level of PFAS in drinking water from 70 parts per trillion down to one part per trillion.
"The fact that they've continued to cling to a standard of 70 parts per trillion for drinking water I think has been very ill advised. Not in keeping with the science although they like to say that it is," Spaniola said.
Genesee County Commissioner David Martin represents Richfield Township. A shuttered landfill there is one of the 32 PFAS sites the state is investigating. Martin believes the state is doing what it can.
"The state is probably doing as much as possible with the science they have. The science of repairing the whole issue and mediating PFAS out of the environment is going to take a much larger scale than the state might be able to provide, " Martin said.
TV5 has sent several emails requesting an interview with the state's director of the PFAS Action Response Team, Carol Isaacs. But our most recent emails have gone unanswered.
In October, her boss Gov. Rick Snyder issued a directive to develop a PFAS readiness and response plan. Snyder released a statement about his directive.
"Michigan is leading the nation in addressing this emerging contaminant. To ensure we continue to lead on this issue and protect all Michiganders we need a framework that allows agencies to respond quickly and effectively to contamination in our communities. Under this directive, Michigan will have a readiness plan in place to ensure a timely and successful response to PFAS threats."
Congressman Dan Kildee represents many citizens who live near PFAS sites.
"I wish the state were more aggressive. The initial signs were that they were going to be," Kildee said.
Last month, Kildee secured a $1 million federal grant to help Oscoda residents switch from well water to clean municipal water.
Kildee said while he believes the state can do more, leaders at the federal level need to roll up their sleeves and do their part.
"This problem is a big problem. It's a national problem and it's going to have to be addressed on a national scale," Kildee said.
As for Spaniola, he said early on he was viewed as an alarmist when he tried to make the public aware of PFAS contamination. Now he hopes everyone is getting his message.
"We can mollify ourselves and hope that it goes away, but all we're doing is impacting our children, our grandchildren, and we need to put a stop to it," Spaniola said.
So what's next? Right now the MDEQ is testing all municipal water systems throughout the state for PFAS.
https://www.wnem.com/news/protecting-tap-water-from-pfas/article_17ee5bac-e171-11e8-b0b5-73c49466e20a.html
-
Denmark Mulls Action on Nine New Endocrine Disruptors
Nov 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy
Denmark is weighing action on hormone-disrupting chemicals after a study identified harmful properties in nine substances people come in contact with, the Environment Ministry told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 5.
A ministry-commissioned study published last week claimed “solid evidence” of endocrine disruption—or harms to growth, development, and reproduction—in chemicals commonly used in products such as pesticides, plasticizers, and skin creams.
Denmark could now pursue Europe-wide classifications for the chemicals, domestic listing, and controls.
Among the nine substances is triclocarban, a chemical used in personal care products and several pesticides.
In addition, bisphenol AF (BPAF) is listed. It is a substitute for the widely used bisphenol A (BPA). The European Union lists BPA as a known endocrine disruptor prompting searches for cost-effective substitutes. None of the substances have previously been classified as harmful.
The Technical University of Denmark (DTU)—one of the research bodies responsible for the study—issued a statement Oct. 31, saying that evidence indicated that more chemicals could potentially be defined as endocrine disruptors.
According to information provided to Bloomberg Environment by the university, the nine identified substances and their common uses are:
Prochloraz (Chemical Abstract Service No. 67747-09-5)—a fungicide used on wheat, barley, mushrooms, cherries, turf on golf courses, and in flower production.
Triclocarban (CAS No.101-20-2)—an antimicrobial agent used widely in various personal hygiene products including soaps, toothpaste, and shampoo.
Octamethylcyclo-tetrasiloxane (D4) (CAS No. 556-67-2)—used in the synthesis of larger silicone polymers and organosilicon as well as in consumer products such as cosmetics and personal care products, washing and cleaning products, polishes, and wax blends.
Tris(methylphenyl) phosphate (CAS No. 1330-78-5)—used in the manufacture of plastics, organophosphate flame retardants, and solvents.
Salicylic acid (CAS No. 69-72-7)—used in many skin-care products for the treatment of acne, psoriasis, callouses, keratosis pilaris, and warts.
Fenitrothion (CAS No. 122-14-5)—an insecticide for mites and ticks.
Di-n-pentyl phthalate (CAS No. 131-18-0)—a phthalate used as a plasticizer.
Bisphenol AF (CAS No. 1478-61-1)—broad applications including as a cross-linking reagent in the production of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers and as a monomer in the production of many polymers.
Isobutyl paraben (CAS No. 4247-02-3)—used as preservatives in foods, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics.
On Nov. 5, Danish Environment Ministry Academic Officer Karen Krzywkowski told Bloomberg Environment that Denmark was “considering its options for potential follow-up” on the named substances and would have reached an overview by the end 2018.
As an EU member, Denmark could potentially nominate the substances as harmful under the REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals), a process that could take several years. It also could seek to introduce domestic restrictions.
Risk Depends on Several Factors“All chemicals have the potential to be harmful, whether bisphenol AF or oxygen or water,” Alana Collis, technical policy manager at the U.K.-based Institution of Chemical Engineers, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 5.
“It is often dependent on the concentration and level and nature of exposure. If restrictions on bisphenol AF come into place, industry would usually know they are coming and have the opportunity to adapt and identify other options.”
She added that “the health concerns over bisphenol A have been widely publicized and the industry is making a move to being BPA free. Bisphenol AF is likely to be considerably more expensive to produce and therefore may not be the first compound of choice.”
While it did not wish to comment directly on the Danish study, the European Chemical Industry Council said in a Nov. 5 statement that it was “supportive of Denmark’s efforts to regulate the production and use of substances with[endocrine disrupting] properties.” In cases where substances are nominated as hazardous under REACH, the statement added, all stakeholders are given an opportunity to provide comment and information.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/denmark-mulls-action-on-nine-new-endocrine-disruptors
-
New CEN Standard Lowers BPA Migration Limit in Baby Soothers
Nov 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has published a second amendment to the safety standard for soothers for babies and young children.
The new standard – EN 1400:2013+A2:2018 – contains a number of changes, including a lower migration limit for bisphenol A (BPA) of 0.01mg/l, compared with 0.125mg/l previously.
This was revised to take into account the European Food Safety Authority's (Efsa) 2015 Opinion on BPA, a spokesperson at the British Standards Institution (BSI) said. Testing for BPA is now required for polycarbonates and polysulfones.
Other key changes include:an amendment of the overview of the requirements and related test methods for different materials. The category ‘thermoplastics’ is divided into two new categories: ‘all thermoplastics’ and ‘polycarbonate and polysulpfone’;expansion of the list of soluble elements to 19 from 17;migration of total chromium divided into two types: chromium III and chromium VI. A new migration limit for chromium VI and a new entry for organic tin have been added; andnew migration limits for arsenic, barium and nickel. For nickel, the limit has been strengthened nearly four-fold, whereas those for arsenic and barium have become less stringent.
All conflicting standards are to be withdrawn from March 2019 at the latest, CEN has said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71618/new-cen-standard-lowers-bpa-migration-limit-in-baby-soothers
-
Energy Issues to Watch in Today's AG Races
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Today's election could usher in some formidable new opponents of oil and gas projects and policies at all levels of government.
Thirty states are holding elections today for their chief legal officers, and 13 of those races are wide open, with no incumbent running. Democratic attorneys general in California and New Mexico — two of the most active participants in battles against President Trump's handling of energy development on public lands — are up for re-election but appear safe in their positions.
But a handful of toss-up elections and open seats in key states could alter the legal landscape on issues like federal, state and local climate regulation; pipeline oversight; and energy development.
"One of the most consistent areas where attorneys general have had a major presence has been on energy and the environment," said Paul Nolette, an associate professor at Marquette University and author of "Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America." "As attorneys general have become even more prominent in bringing multistate litigation, they've become even more important — not just on energy and the environment, but this continues to be one of the more important issues."
Republicans currently hold the majority of attorney general positions across the country. That matters because although it only takes a single state attorney to start a legal battle against the federal government, multistate challenges are on the rise, Nolette has found in his research.
"A bigger number of state challengers gets more attention and can serve as a signal about how nationally important an issue is," he said.
Backers of Democratic candidates for state attorney general are hoping to flip many of the 18 GOP-held seats that are up for grabs in today's election. If Democrats win those contests, they could pursue major legal battles against the Trump administration (E&E Daily, Nov. 5).
"Right now, state attorneys general are the only elected officials with the power to push back on the Trump administration's dangerous policies that put our clean air, clean water — our future at risk," Lizzie Ulmer, spokeswoman for the Democratic Attorneys General Association, wrote in an email. "Voters need to understand what is at stake and where candidates stand on energy issues."
GOP state attorneys have played a crucial role in supporting the administration's priorities, the Republican Attorneys General Association says.
"Energy issues impact all Americans and our economy. A state attorney general has an obligation to defend the rule of law and ensure unelected bureaucrats in Washington do not pre-empt state laws and trample on the Constitution," said Zack Roday, spokesman for the association. "Our founding fathers believed in enumerated powers and allowing each state to determine the best course for their residents. We should all demand this fair and consistent approach from our federal government.
"We have not seen such a bright line difference — in approach to the office — as we do now between Republican attorneys general and Democratic attorneys general."
Here are some of the most important energy issues to watch in today's state attorney general races.New York: Leading the charge
Although Democrat Letitia "Tish" James is expected to win her bid to replace acting Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D), the New York race is important to watch because of the state's critical role in courtroom battles over national energy and environmental policies.
Underwood and her predecessor, Eric Schneiderman (D), took 81 actions against the Trump administration's climate, energy and environmental leadership, according to tracking by the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center. That's more than any other state, except for California.
Last week, Underwood and 18 other state attorneys pledged to take Trump's EPA to court over its proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule, which would replace former President Obama's Clean Power Plan (Energywire, Nov. 2).
At the state level, James has indicated that she would like to expand New York's ban on hydraulic fracturing by blocking any new oil and gas infrastructure in the Empire State.
"Companies in New York still contribute to the production of shale gas and feed an industry that is contributing to the destruction of our natural environment," James, who currently serves as New York City public advocate, wrote as part of her clean water platform.
Republican Keith Wofford has secured the endorsement of the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York, which has called the state fracking ban an "unconscionable assault." Wofford, an attorney for the law firm Ropes & Gray LLP, criticized Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) for fostering an adversarial business environment in the state.
"Recent AGs have twisted New York's laws, strong-armed companies to settle flimsy lawsuits, and used New York companies as a piggy bank," Wofford's campaign website says. "This has driven away jobs and investment. And the cost falls upon ALL New Yorkers, who are denied jobs and opportunity — because businesses refuse to invest here, or simply leave."Colorado: Local control
The Republican hopeful to replace outgoing Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) has said he will not follow in the footsteps of New York and other coastal states in challenging the Trump administration.
States like California and Massachusetts have mounted a "hyper-liberal pursuit of legislation through litigation," District Attorney George Brauchler wrote as part of his "Colorado First" campaign promise. "I will not accomplish by lawsuit that which the legislature refuses to enact."
Democrat Phil Weiser, who formerly served in Obama's Justice Department, said a win for him in Colorado's toss-up election would represent a departure from Coffman's approach on energy issues. He criticized Coffman for challenging the Clean Power Plan and for attempting to block the federal government from adopting methane standards inspired by Colorado's model.
"I am committed to addressing climate change, and it was leadership by state attorneys general, in Massachusetts v. EPA, who established the important precedent that, under the Clean Air Act, the federal government is required to address carbon as harmful to human health," Weiser said in a statement.
If elected, Weiser said he would set up a special unit to assist local officials in their dealings with oil and gas firms.
Coloradans are currently grappling with several energy issues, including a proposed 2,500-foot setback for oil and gas facilities and a state Supreme Court case concerning regulators' consideration of climate impacts in approving energy projects.Illinois: Climate challenges
Attorney General Lisa Madigan's (D) decision not to seek a fifth term will erase a key climate activist from the nation's ranks of state attorneys general.
In the close race to replace Madigan, Democrat Kwame Raoul appears poised to follow in her footsteps.
The state senator said he supports "bold action" on climate change and supports adopting a 100 percent clean energy strategy by 2050.
In comments opposing the Trump EPA's approach to evaluating cost-benefit analyses for new regulations, Madigan joined several other states in their warning that the federal government would prioritize industry interests above human health.
"As with EPA's other pending proposals initiated by former Administrator [Scott] Pruitt that threaten to undermine the integrity of EPA's science- and data-based decision making ... the Administrator's notice signals yet another unsupported attempt to undermine EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment," they wrote.
During her House bid in 2014, Republican candidate Erika Harold called for a measured approach on regulations to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
"Changes in climate can be caused by numerous factors," she said in an interview with the Champaign News-Gazette.Michigan: Pipelines
The winner of the race to become Michigan's next attorney general will have an influential voice in development of Enbridge Inc.'s Line 5 oil project.
Democrat Dana Nessel has pledged to shut down the pipeline and any other project that could harm the Great Lakes.
"My first act in office would be to immediately file suit in the court of claims to seek an immediate injunction to shut down Enbridge Line 5," Nessel said in a statement.
Tom Leonard (R), current speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, has touted his role in working with Gov. Rick Snyder (R) to build an underground tunnel around the aging pipeline.
"There are tens of thousands of residents here in the Upper Peninsula that depend on the propane that comes through that line to heat their homes," he said in a statement to a local ABC affiliate. "I would never support a plan that's going to leave tens of thousands of citizens here in the Upper Peninsula without the ability to heat their homes."
Current Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) is running for governor.Arizona: Proposition 127
Arizona's incumbent Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) has been pulled into a dispute over a renewable energy ballot initiative.
Proposition 127 would push the state's regulated utilities to generate at least half of their annual electricity sales from renewable sources by 2030. The group Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona called out Brnovich for ballot language that implied the measure would impose costs on customers rather than save them money (Energywire, Oct. 15).
They linked the changes to Brnovich's receipt of campaign funds from Arizona Public Service Co.'s parent company.
Brnovich has sued the clean energy group for interfering with his bid for re-election against Democrat January Contreras.Florida: A new coalition leader?
Under Republican Attorney General Pam Bondi, Florida hasn't been involved in multistate challenges of the Trump administration's energy policies.
That could change if the state elects state Rep. Sean Shaw (D) as Bondi's replacement, Nolette said.
During the Obama years, former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) led multistate battles over the Affordable Care Act. Nolette suspects that the Sunshine State under a Democrat could once again serve as a coalition leader.
"I think a Democratic attorney general would potentially play a big role in environmental issues, given that they affect Florida so directly," he said.
Governing magazine rates the Florida race a toss-up between Shaw and his Republican opponent, former Circuit Judge Ashley Moody.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/11/06/stories/1060105239
-
Democrats Eye Pickups in Oil and Gas States
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The surge in early voting among women, young people, African-Americans and Hispanics could wind up affecting governors' races and legislative seasons in oil- and gas-producing states.
Voting turnout has surpassed previous midterm records in states around the country. Polls show Democrats have a chance to win governors' races in New Mexico and Ohio, both of which have had Republican governors for eight years. In Colorado, the Democratic front-runner is likely to move the state to the left on energy issues.
Democrats could also make some gains in the state legislatures in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania, although they're unlikely to break the Republicans' control.
If it happens, the impact on energy policy will be almost a side effect, because most voters appear to be motivated by immigration, education and other hot-button issues, said Spencer Kimball, who leads Emerson College's polls.
"Energy policy wasn't on the front of minds of those voters," Kimball said, citing polling data in Texas.
In New Mexico, which is the third-biggest oil-producing state, two sitting members of Congress are running to replace Gov. Susana Martinez. Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) holds a 53-44 percent edge over Rep. Steve Pearce (R), according to Emerson's Oct. 28 poll.
Pearce has an edge among men and voters aged 35-54, Kimball said, but Grisham is leading among women, young voters and Hispanics, who make up 49 percent of the state's population.
Grisham, while not hostile to the drilling industry, has proposed a statewide regulation on methane emissions from oil and gas production (Energywire, Oct. 26).
That would be a sharp change from Martinez's tenure, which saw state regulators roll back rules on the pits used to store oil and gas wastewater. The state has only rarely enforced fines against polluters because of a 2009 court case that hobbled the state Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources (Energywire, Nov. 14, 2013).Differences on drilling
The governor's race is more competitive in Ohio. Richard Cordray (D), a former state attorney general, leads the race against former U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine (R), 49 percent to 46 percent, according to Emerson's Oct. 29 poll. The state's black vote is trending 68 percent to 29 percent for Cordray, and he's getting strong support from women and younger voters, Kimball said.
Ohio's gas production has doubled since 2015, making it the fifth-largest gas-producing state. Republican Gov. John Kasich has promoted fracking in the Utica Shale field but has also imposed a statewide methane rule and pushed unsuccessfully for a higher tax on drilling.
Both Cordray and DeWine have embraced the state's gas industry. DeWine said, though, that he'd be unlikely to continue Kasich's push for a higher gas extraction tax, according to radio station WOSU.
Cordray, as attorney general, filed a string of suits in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis against banks and other firms that recovered $2 billion on behalf of Ohio's employee pension funds. He went on to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the Obama administration.
Cordray told WOSU that fracking has brought jobs to eastern Ohio, but "we need to monitor any kind of extractive industry very carefully to make sure it's not imposing externalities and burdens on our communities."
In Colorado, U.S. Rep. Jared Polis is on track to replace fellow Democrat John Hickenlooper as governor. He has a 47.5 percent to 41 percent lead over Republican state Treasurer Walker Stapleton, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls.
But where Hickenlooper has supported oil and gas drilling, Polis has campaigned for statewide limits on the industry. This year, though, he's opposed to a ballot initiative, Proposition 112, that would impose a 2,500-foot setback between well sites and surrounding buildings (Greenwire, Oct. 8).
Polis has said he wants Colorado to get all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2040, but he's also said he wants to invest in education and infrastructure, particularly in Colorado's rural areas. That's heartening for the state's oil and gas producers, who have argued Proposition 112 and other anti-drilling measures would cut into the state's revenue.
"We certainly hope that he tacks back toward the middle and understands the value that our oil and natural gas industry provides to Colorado," said Dan Haley, president of the state Oil and Gas Association.Eyes on legislatures in Pa., Okla.
In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) spent his first term locked in a stalemate with the Republican-controlled Legislature over environmental regulations and a proposal to tax the state's natural gas industry.
Wolf has a 19.6-percentage-point lead in his race for re-election over Republican state Sen. Scott Wagner, according to RealClearPolitics. But Democrats are projected to pick up only a handful of legislative seats, which won't be enough to break the deadlock on energy policy, said Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin & Marshall College poll.
As in Ohio and New Mexico, though, Democrats have been energized by their opposition to Trump.
"Right now, oil and gas issues have not been center stage in [Pennsylvania's] Harrisburg," Madonna said.
In Oklahoma, Republican Kevin Stitt has a narrow lead in his first campaign for office over former Attorney General Drew Edmondson. But the election could still reshape the state Legislature.
The GOP holds a 72-27 majority in the state House and a 38-8 majority in the Senate. But the Legislature was bogged down several times this spring as it tried to raise oil and gas taxes to resolve a yearslong shortfall in education funding. Lawmakers finally passed a budget in April after thousands of teachers walked out of their classes and crowded into the halls and galleries of the state Capitol (Energywire, April 11).
Since then, about 70 current and former educators have filed for office as both Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps more significantly, 10 of the roughly 20 Republicans hard-liners who opposed the budget deal opted not to run for re-election, and of the rest, only two survived primary challenges, said Bill Shapard, director of the Sooner Poll.
"Republicans will still have a supermajority, but the Democrats will still be able to have some victories," Shapard said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/11/06/stories/1060105231
-
An Anti-Fracking Ballot Measure Has Split Democrats in Colorado
Nov 5, 2018 | Vox
By Umair Irfan
On Tuesday, Colorado voters will get to weigh in on a major ballot initiative, Proposition 112, that would drastically limit the use of hydraulic fracturing, a.k.a. fracking, for natural gas. It’s shaping up to be a hugely divisive issue in a purple state, and it’s a microcosm of the energy and climate fights taking shape across the country.
Colorado is a major fossil fuel producer, ranking 11th in coal, sixth in crude oil, and sixth in natural gas. The oil and gas sector contributes more than $31 billion to the state’s economy and employs more than 232,000 Coloradans. At the same time, Colorado has a booming renewable energy sector employing 17,000 workers and is home to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
But Colorado also generated nearly $50 billion in revenue from outdoor recreation and tourism last year. Some of this tourism, like skiing, is threatened by climate change.
For the state’s 5.6 million residents, this mix of competing interests is reflected in its politics. The Colorado General Assembly’s Senate is led by Republicans, its House by Democrats. The state has a Democratic governor and has sent four Republicans and three Democrats to the House, as well as a Democrat and a Republican to the Senate.
So it’s not too surprising that Proposition 112, which pits the state’s energy industry against its environmental interests, has turned out to be contentious. (You can listen to an episode of the Vox podcast Today, Explained on Proposition 112 here.)
The proposal increases what’s called a “setback distance” for hydraulic fracturing, a technique used to extract oil and natural gas from shale rock formations. Currently, drilling operations have to be kept at minimum 500 feet away from vulnerable locations like schools, homes, and water sources. Proposition 112 would increase that distance to 2,500 feet to limit health and safety risks from potential hazards like chemical leaks and explosions.
According to Colorado Rising, a group campaigning in favor of the proposal, there are more than 50,000 active oil and gas wells throughout the state. Last year, a home less than 200 feet away from an aging well in Firestone, Colorado, exploded and killed two men.
So the main argument behind Proposition 112 is that it would enhance public safety. However, “It would also help prevent climate change by making oil and gas harder to access,” wrote former NASA scientist James Hansen in an editorial in the Denver Post.
While methane, the main component of natural gas, burns much cleaner than coal and produces half the greenhouse gas emissions, the gas itself is a major heat trapper. Leaks from natural gas drilling operations could offset many of the gains natural gas provides in shrinking the carbon footprint of energy production. Scientists found earlier this year that global methane emissions are on the rise. And even if all the leaks are sealed, burning natural gas still produces greenhouse gases, so relying on natural gas may not move the planet fast enough to limit global warming to less dangerous levels.
The oil and gas industry has launched a $20 million campaign against Proposition 112, arguing that it would effectively end new drilling in the state since huge swaths of land would suddenly be off-limits. For environmental campaigners, this is a welcome side effect.
It’s also caused some odd political fractures. The Democratic candidate for Colorado governor, Jared Polis, opposes the measure, as does the outgoing incumbent, Democrat John Hickenlooper. Hickenlooper is considering holding a special legislative session if voters pass the setback measure for hydraulic fracturing. He said it would trigger an economic recession if passed.
Opponents say that Proposition 112 would hurt a major industry in the state, with dire consequences for employment. “First and foremost, the intent of this ballot measure is to ban oil and gas development in the state,” Karen Crummy, a spokeswoman for the industry-funded group Protect Colorado, told Colorado Public Radio.
Meanwhile, there’s at least one Republican running on his support for Proposition 112: Eric Rutherford, who is running for state House.
According to an October 22 poll from the Denver Post, 52 percent of Colorado voters are in favor of Proposition 112. If it passes, it would take effect immediately after the governor certifies the election.
The proposition is just one of many energy and environmental fights across the United States that will come to a head on November 6. The state of Washington, for example, is voting Tuesday on Initiative 1631, which would tax carbon dioxide emissions.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/5/18064604/colorado-fracking-proposition-112-elections-2018
-
Corpus Christi LNG Gets DOE Nod for Short-term Exports to Non-FTA Countries
Nov 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
In another step toward boosting U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, the Department of Energy (DOE) approved short-term exports of the super-chilled fuel to nonfree trade agreement (FTA) countries from Cheniere Energy Corp.’s Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116372-corpus-christi-lng-gets-doe-nod-for-short-term-exports-to-non-fta-countries
-
DOE Says Natural Gas Trade Between U.S., Canada Slowed in 1H2018
Nov 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
Natural gas trade slowed down in both directions across the border between Canada and the United States during the first six months of this year, according to the latest scorecard compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116374-doe-says-natural-gas-trade-between-us-canada-slowed-in-1h2018
-
Total, Sempra MOU a Step Forward for LNG Export Projects in Louisiana, Mexico
Nov 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Total SA, which is building out liquefied natural gas (LNG) stakes along the Gulf Coast, has entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to help Sempra Energy develop the Cameron, LA, facility, as well as the proposed Energia Costa Azul (ECA) project in Mexico.
Total is a 16.6% stakeholder in Cameron LNG, acquired last year through its takeover of the Engie LNG portfolio.
According to terms of the MOU, Total may take up to 9 million metric tons/year (mmty) of combined offtake from the Cameron project and the ECA facility planned for Baja California, Mexico. A final investment decision (FID) on ECA, part of Sempra’s Infraestructura Energética Nova unit, is expected next year.
"The U.S. is increasing its global leadership position in the production of oil and natural gas,” Sempra CEO Jeffrey W. Martin said. “In large measure, the next step in fulfilling our country’s energy potential is the development of critical export infrastructure for LNG.
“Sempra Energy has a long-term goal of developing more than 45 mmty of LNG export capacity in North America. That is why our relationship with Total is so important. We plan to leverage the competitive strengths of both companies to accelerate development of North American LNG exports to global markets.”
Sempra also is developing the Port Arthur, TX, LNG export project, a facility with two liquefaction trains capable of producing 11 mmty.
“The Sempra relationship will support our goal of building a diverse portfolio of LNG supply options that offers our customers flexibility, reliability and low-cost North American natural gas,” Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné said. The collaboration would “extend the Cameron LNG project,” as well as help develop “export capacity on the West Coast of Mexico, which will benefit from synergies with existing infrastructure and from a significant shipping cost advantage for customers in Asia.”
The $10 billion Phase 1 of the Cameron LNG joint venture, now under construction,includes three liquefaction trains with about 14 mmty of export capacity. Commissioning of the first train is underway; all three trains are expected to be producing LNG in 2019.
Phase 2 of Cameron LNG, already authorized by FERC, encompasses up to two additional liquefaction trains and up to two additional LNG storage tanks with about 9 mmty of capacity.
Sempra on Friday (Nov. 2) said construction at the Cameron site was completed, with commissioning underway of the project in Hackberry, LA. Sempra indirectly owns 50.2% of Cameron LNG. Besides Total, partners are Mitsui & Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Corp. and NYK Line.
In Phase 1 of ECA, to be supplied with U.S. natural gas, a one-train facility would have total export capacity of 2.5 mmty, using the existing LNG receipt terminal’s tanks, loading arms and berth. ECA Phase 2 is expected to have additional export capacity of 12 mmty.
Total, headquartered in France, has a variety of gas projects underway around the world. It already has a 23% stake in Tellurian Inc.’s proposed Driftwood LNG project that would have capacity to export up to 27.6 mmty. An FID for Driftwood has not yet been announced.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116365-total-sempra-mou-a-step-forward-for-lng-export-projects-in-louisiana-mexico
-
Nov 5, 2018 | The Advocate
By Greg Bowser
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently published (The Advocate, Oct. 14) its 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), which includes a presentation about impacts of ethylene oxide (EO) emissions at various facilities around the country. The impacts the report suggests are fundamentally inaccurate and rely on faulty numbers that dramatically overstate risks. No change to any federal or state emissions limit has been proposed based on the IRIS value.
The NATA presentation’s conclusions are based on a number calculated by the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) that is meant to signal risk of health impacts. NATA combines that number with expected emissions to suggest risks in general areas.
However, the number IRIS calculated is drastically lower than commonly accepted studies, so the NATA’s suggestions are dramatically inflated.
In fact, a peer-reviewed scientific study determined IRIS’s risk value is 19,000 times lower than the naturally occurring levels of EO created by our bodies and much lower than levels found in clean, ambient air. That means the IRIS number suggests normal human metabolism and breathing clean, ambient air could be sufficient to cause risk of health impacts.
After the NATA report was published, the Ethylene Oxide Panel of the American Chemistry Council reviewed its suggestions and found many errors with its scientific methods and information. In response, the ACC filed a formal Request for Correction with EPA in late September petitioning the agency to replace the IRIS risk value with an alternative number supported by the best available science and correct the NATA presentation’s suggestion of impacts in communities around the country.
Many chemical manufacturing facilities around the United States, including several in Louisiana, have safely produced and used EO, an intermediate product used to make plastics, polyester fibers, household cleaners and other products, for decades. Emissions limits for facilities in Louisiana are set by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and based on its annual ambient air standard for EO, 1 microgram per cubic meter, which is more stringent than many other states’ limits. The IRIS-recommended exposure level is an average of .003 microgram per cubic meter over a lifetime.
Over the past 40 years, the Louisiana Tumor Registry has compiled cancer incidence and mortality rate information in each parish across the state. The tumor registry released its latest report on cancer in Louisiana in September, which concluded that there are not more incidences of cancer in the 7-parish industrial corridor including Ascension, Iberville, East Baton Rouge, St. Charles, St. James, St. John and West Baton Rouge Parishes compared with the Louisiana average. Historically, cancer incidence along the industrial corridor has not differed significantly from statewide rates.
LCA will continue to work with ACC, LDEQ and EPA to correct inaccuracies in the NATA presentation and ensure any risk value for ethylene oxide is based on best available science and protective of human health.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_cda74c22-dec6-11e8-93bf-3795b1085485.html
-
State Cap-And-Trade Systems Offer Evidence That Carbon Pricing Can Work
Nov 5, 2018 | The Conversation
By Kelly Sims Gallagher
The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report argues that carbon pollution must be cut to zero by 2050 to avoid devastating levels of climate change.
Achieving that goal will require swiftly transforming the energy, transportation, housing and food industries, and more. Although these tasks are daunting and the Trump administration is dismantling federal regulations aimed at reducing climate-changing emissions, cost-effective policy tools that could help do exist. And individual U.S. states and regions are using them to make significant progress to reduce emissions.
I led a Fletcher School Climate Policy Lab team that reviewed carbon pricing policies in 15 jurisdictions to see how they work in the real world, not just in theory. We found that in all cases carbon pricing seems to be a cost-effective method to cut carbon pollution.
Emissions trading
States including New York, Delaware and California are keeping up the experiments with carbon pricing they began as many as nine years ago.
Along with the results from similar efforts in Europe, Asia and Latin America in more than 40 countries, these policies have amassed ample evidence about what works in practice, what doesn’t and why.
As my team explained in Climate Policy, an academic journal, there are two basic flavors of carbon pricing: cap-and-trade – otherwise known as emissions trading systems – and carbon fees or taxes. Some jurisdictions also use hybrid blends of the two approaches.
U.S. carbon emissions trading until now has been limited to the Northeast, some mid-Atlantic states and California. But many countries, including Canada, Mexico, China and the entire European Union, are levying carbon taxes, running emissions trading systems or using a mix of the two. Washington State’s citizens will soon vote on a ballot initiative that would impose a carbon pollution fee on major emitters and collect revenue to be mostly spent on clean air and clean energy investments.
Emissions trading systems cap the total emissions allowed at a certain level. The government then allocates emissions permits to factories, utilities and other polluters either for free or through auctions.
Each permit usually covers 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide. Permit holders, typically, may buy and sell their permits as needed.
Companies capable of cutting their own emissions may choose to do so, and then sell their permits to other polluters to make money. Conversely, businesses can buy permits at the prevailing market price to avoid having to directly cut their own emissions in their business operations.
As you might expect in carbon markets that depend on willing buyers and sellers, the cheapest emissions reductions usually happen first.The American track record
The results look promising so far.
In the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which includes nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states like Delaware, Massachusetts and Maine, carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by 36 percent between 2005 and 2015, the most recent comprehensive data available.
More recent data shows that carbon emissions allowed under the cap imposed by regulators will have fallen from 188 million metric tons in 2009 to 60.3 million metric tons by the end of 2018, representing a 68 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector in this region.
One reason for this progress may be that utilities operating in this region have found that pricing carbon has shifted what the industry calls the “power plant dispatch order.” That is, sources of power like wind and natural gas that emit less carbon than coal are tapped first.
And California’s carbon emissions are on track to fall to 1990 levels by 2020.
In no jurisdiction anywhere in the world that we studied did emissions increase as a result of carbon pricing.Faster improvements
With subsidies, tax incentives, regulatory policies, fiscal incentives, innovation investments and other efforts to slow the pace of climate change being deployed at once, it is hard to know which of them is best at reducing emissions.
But it is possible to see that the two regions that have implemented carbon pricing have often reduced their emissions faster or in greater absolute terms than regions that have not. Massachusetts and New York, for example, reduced their emissions by more than 20 percent overall between 2000 and 2015, about twice the U.S. average of 10.3 percent.
Carbon pricing policies can help governments raise money. But revenue from carbon taxes or the proceeds from permit auctions can be returned to taxpayers as well.
All of the states and countries using carbon pricing policies also have additional policies working alongside the carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs to reduce emissions, ranging from performance standards for energy efficiency to tax incentives. These policies can also work well, but they can be more expensive approaches to reduce emissions, and sometimes they even undermine the carbon pricing policy.
The federal tax credits for wind and solar energy, for example, cost taxpayers an estimated US$3.4 billion in 2016.No toll on growth
What’s more, statewide economies do not appear to suffer from carbon pricing.
California’s economy expanded an average rate of 5.2 percent between 2012 and 2017, faster than the national annual 3.7 percent average. In July 2018, California’s emissions fell below 1990 levels for the first time, representing a 13 percent reduction from their 2004 peak even while the California economy grew 26 percent.
The Northeastern states averaged 3.2 percent annual growth between 2012 and 2017 – near the U.S. norm. But their Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative led to $1.4 billion of net positive economic activity because of the reinvestment of the auction proceeds in activities that generate economic benefits for the region between 2015 and 2017, a recent study found.
Critics of emissions trading policies have argued that the prices that have emerged in these systems are too low to spur emissions reductions. The evidence presented above shows that, in fact, they do cause pollution to decline. If advocates prefer steeper emissions reductions, then the emissions cap must be tightened.
Alternatively, governments can switch to carbon fees or taxes, which creates greater price certainty in the market – and which can also be ratcheted up as desired to achieve faster cuts in pollution. Either way, I believe that it is now clear that carbon taxes and emissions trading programs create a long-term signal for the marketplace that induces changes in consumer and firm behavior.
Given the strong real-world record on the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies and the fact that they don’t have to cost taxpayers or take a toll on the economy, I expect more states will adopt them in the coming years.
A federal approach would of course be much more efficient and effective. But it would require congressional action and a presidential signature, neither of which appear to be imminent especially when President Donald Trump says he is not even sure that climate change is man-made.
http://theconversation.com/state-cap-and-trade-systems-offer-evidence-that-carbon-pricing-can-work-101428
-
FERC Chairman Urges Caution on Trump Carbon Rule
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Hannah Northey
The nation's top grid regulator is urging his EPA counterparts to hold up revising the Obama-era Clean Power Plan until they've completed a "rigorous, detailed analysis of the possible unintended consequences" of regulating carbon as the power sector grapples with coal and nuclear plant closures.
Neil Chatterjee, speaking as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in comments to EPA said any rule with far-reaching effects on the bulk power system should be underpinned by deep analysis.
He then pitched for FERC to do the work, saying it has the staff, authority and expertise to compare the effects of the now-stalled Clean Power Plan and the Trump administration’s proposal revisions, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.
While Chatterjee in the letter to EPA offered blistering criticism of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, he also stopped short of offering a full-throated endorsement of the ACE rule. Chatterjee noted FERC had not yet conducted a full analysis of the proposal but that upon initial review it appears to "cure" some of the "potential deficiencies" of the sidetracked Obama EPA plan.
His cautionary comments also said the Obama EPA overstepped its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in its 2015 Clean Power Plan, echoing a common policy complaint by conservative Republicans.
"[A]s originally proposed, the Clean Power Plan would have allowed the Agency to impose sweeping changes in the composition of the nation's bulk-power system through administrative action without a clear statutory directive or limiting principle," he wrote, before suggesting a possible requirement for congressional action on the power plant carbon issue — a policy area marked by total political deadlock.
"To the extent the resolution of these issues presents an impassable 'regulatory gap' that neither agency can overcome while remaining within its bounds as a 'creature of statute,' then it may be necessary to request specific guidance from Congress through appropriate legislation," he wrote, referring to FERC and EPA.
The letter is likely to be parsed for clues on how Chatterjee will use his role as commission chairman to shape FERC's response to the stalled push by Trump and the Department of Energy to deliver subsidies to coal and nuclear plants to strengthen grid security.
FERC unanimously rejected a prior Energy Department proposal to help coal and nuclear operators, and then opened a comment docket that drew a large response but has not yet led to any new action by FERC.
DOE has called for a two-year study of how cyber or physical attacks on U.S. gas pipelines and other critical infrastructure could jeopardize electricity supply that increasingly depends on natural gas. The DOE plan would subsidize an undisclosed number of coal and nuclear plants to keep them from closing before the two-year study was completed.
Chatterjee appeared in the letter to also be hitting the "pause" button.
"Any regulatory promulgation that will have profound effects on the bulk-power system should be supported by a detailed engineering-driven analysis of its impact," Chatterjee wrote. "The Commission has the statutory authority, staff expertise, and resources to provide that analysis."'Independent FERC campaign'
Chatterjee's comments are dated Oct. 31, the same week the new chairman and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed to keep politics out of the agency.
But some questioned whether the chairman's comments aligned with that stated intent.
John Moore, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Sustainable FERC Project, said it's rare but perhaps not unprecedented for a FERC chairman to weigh in with his own views, not those of the commission. An alternative route, Moore added, would have been for FERC to hold a technical conference and go from there.
"I don't think it helps terribly his independent FERC campaign, mainly because it attacks a plan that's a few years old now and represents his views and not those of the commission," said Moore.
Moore also disagreed with Chatterjee's assertion that the Obama EPA plan would have triggered sweeping changes on the grid, saying the original rule would have had relatively incremental effects on the pace of reductions.
Chatterjee's comments joined thousands of reactions to EPA's revised rule, including personal pleas to cut air pollution. In other comments, opponents called for stricter climate action while others faulted EPA for drafting a rule at all (Climatewire, Nov. 1).
The ACE rule would cut carbon emissions by making power plants increase the efficiency of their operation and give states broad discretion to determine how much to regulate. The proposal also includes a parallel measure that would change when plant modifications trigger permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program.
If implemented, ACE would be a marked change from the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which gave states a variety of options for cutting carbon and set an overall nationwide target of reducing power plant emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The Trump plan does not propose any target for carbon emissions reductions from power plants.Walking a fine line
Alison Silverstein, a grid consultant and former senior adviser to FERC Chairman Pat Wood, said in an interview that Chatterjee's letter appeared to walk a fine line.
"I don't read the letter as supporting the new plan. He seems to be heaping dirt on the old Clean Power Plan but not saying the new one is wonderful, based on independent analysis of its own merit," she said.
"Frankly, it's too late for FERC to perform impact analyses of the CPP," she said. "Time and circumstances have moved on." A lot of the power plants that CPP critics said might retire because of the plan have already closed "because of bad economics," Silverstein said.
She said because of good grid management, "we have exceeded many of the [generator] retirement numbers in the CPP 'sky is falling' scenarios without significant or drastic reliability and performance issues."
But Silverstein said she didn't see Chatterjee's comments as overt support of a financial lifeline for coal or nuclear.
"I take him at his word that he recognizes FERC's independence, and the fact that this letter is so clearly framed as an historical issue and material rather than forward looking supports that," she said.
Silverstein questioned Chatterjee's apparent readiness to give FERC a central role in analyzing the impact of coal and nuclear plant retirements on grid operations, noting the FERC chairman's mention of a "detailed engineering-driven analysis of any regulatory changes" affecting the grid.
Silverstein said there are other entities paid to perform such work, namely the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and grid reliability coordinators.
"They do this every day, and their analysis is telling us that to date, significant changes in the power system are not creating grid reliability issues," she said. "They have much more practice with these high stakes, engineering analyses than FERC — and with living with the consequences."
FERC, she said, should be spending more time helping the operators plan, react to and manage the markets rather than trying to gear up for analyzing data that "may not be as well informed and up-to-date" as the operators' information.
Grid operators' comments have backed up Silverstein's point.
Andrew Ott, president and CEO of PJM Interconnection, the nation's largest grid operator, said during a media briefing last week that grid disruptions are at least five to six years out (Energywire, Nov. 2).
"We think government intervention is unnecessary," Ott said.
Grid operators must remain alert to new threats to grid reliability from a number of directions, including accelerated plant retirements and vulnerabilities of power plant fuel supplies, Ott advised.
Rather than a top-down national plan as the Trump administration has been drafting, FERC should respond to requests from grid operators like PJM for clearer authority to deal with particular reliability issues that the operators have pinpointed, Ott testified last month before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
PJM has formally asked FERC to declare a policy that regional grid organizations like PJM are responsible for determining "resilience" vulnerabilities of their systems to cyberattacks and extreme natural disasters. It should also order gas pipeline operators to provide more operational information about their security issues. That would address the difference in the mandatory cyber rules that FERC issues to grid companies and the voluntary pipeline cyber guidelines overseen by the Transportation Security Administration.
"We've put in quite a few suggestions to FERC, realizing they are a busy organization, we really need to move forward with some of these issues," Ott said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/11/06/stories/1060105259
-
Washington State Carbon Tax Vote To Fuel Debate Over National GHG Policy
Nov 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Washington state's carbon “fee” ballot initiative is being closely watched nationally for its potential to set up a first-of-its-kind state carbon tax, though supporters of a federal approach would likely downplay the measure if it were to fail, given that the state policy omits assumed elements of a compromise many expect is needed for such a national plan.
The Nov. 6 ballot in the state includes an initiative that would impose a new carbon “fee” on most of the state's economy, amounting to another attempt to enact the policy after the state legislature failed to pass it earlier this year and a differently structured proposal failed in 2016.
As such, the election night result will likely set up a political Rorschach test for where one stands on the issue. Both supporters and opponents of carbon controls are likely to accentuate the positive in any result, though it is almost certain that carbon tax backers would rather win than lose at the ballot box.
“At a very high level, if it passes, it would be proof of concept that a carbon tax can pass” after years of national policy gridlock on climate issues,” says one industry source tracking the initiative.
Climate policy “needs a ballot box political victory,” added a former Capitol Hill staffer recently in remarks to Inside EPA.
Initiative 1631, as it is known, would cover most of the state's economy, and would establish a “fee” starting at $15 per ton, increasing by $2 annually until 2025. Unlike the 2016 proposal in Washington state, it is not billed as a revenue-neutral measure. Rather it would direct carbon tax proceeds to an array of purposes, including 70 percent of revenues for renewable energy and much of the rest for water and forest-related investments.
The effort is the latest attempt by proponents of action on GHGs -- including Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) -- to advance carbon tax or similar legislation. It is being billed as a fee for a number of reasons, including the fact that the notion of “taxes” is politically fraught, but also because it makes it easier under state law to direct the resulting revenues for specific purposes.
The measure has spawned national attention and a backlash of spending against the initiative, with the Washington Post recently reporting that the oil sector has poured at least $26 million into efforts to derail the plan, compared to roughly $14.8 million from proponents of the initiative.
A yes vote on the initiative would be an obvious victory for carbon tax supporters and those who more generally back carbon controls, setting up the country's first state carbon fee and potentially giving momentum to efforts to pass similar measures in other Democratic-leaning states.
Key Differences
However, there are key differences between the state policy and the ongoing push for a carbon tax at the national level.
The industry source says that a loss would trigger a round of news coverage that carbon tax policy remains a third rail of American politics -- after both a revenue-neutral approach and competing approaches failed in the state. But the source argues against concluding that any loss spells yet more trouble for a national carbon policy.
“I agree that would be the headline,” the source says. But the politics of a national carbon tax push are different, the source argues.
Proponents of a carbon tax have long assumed that enacting a national policy would require a level of energy industry buy-in not present in Washington state, as well as concessions to bring both Republican and Democratic lawmakers on board, the source says.
For the former group, carbon tax backers assume that this would mean new constraints on EPA's GHG authority.
The industry source also cites Washington state's initiative as an example of how pressure to act on climate change continues to “find its way to state efforts [and] local initiatives,” if the federal government continues to back away from the issue. Some of these will be “directly related to climate policy,” while others would presumably be more indirect, including “keep it in the ground” efforts to restrict fossil fuel development.
“I understand the the desire to make progress in jurisdictions where progress can be made,” but the solution remains a federal policy, the source says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/washington-state-carbon-tax-vote-fuel-debate-over-national-ghg-policy
-
EPA Suggests Applying Steep Permit Deadline To States, Raising Fears
Nov 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA waste officials are suggesting that the agency may eventually apply its requirement setting a six-month deadline for all its permitting decisions to state-issued permits, prompting concerns from state officials who fear they would not be able to meet such a goal and fear it may undercut the quality of some permits.
“We do anticipate this [requirement] moving over to state-issued permits at some point,” Amanda Kohler, permitting branch chief in EPA's Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery (ORCR), told the Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials' (ASTSWMO) annual meeting in Bethesda, MD, Oct. 26.
But, she added, it is unclear what form that will take. “I'm not sure if that six-month goal will be the same. I really don't know what's coming, except that it might be coming.”
EPA's six-month goal for completing work on permit applications is part of the Trump administration's broader effort to speed permit processing and modifications with the goal of giving businesses more certainty and boosting the economy.
Under EPA's fiscal year 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, issued last February, the agency committed to a strategic measure that requires it to reach “all permitting-related decisions within six months.” In addition, the agency set a “priority goal” to “accelerate permitting-related decisions” so that by September 2019, “EPA will reduce by 50 percent the number of permitting-related decisions that exceed six months.”
The agency has already hinted that it may extend the deadline to states, as it noted in the Strategic Plan that delays in state, federal and other permit decisions contribute to economic uncertainty and delay key projects. “Delays in the approval of permits and modifications by federal, state, or tribal permitting authorities can postpone or prevent manufacturers from building, expanding, or beginning operations, even if the affected operations ultimately may be deemed suitable as proposed,” EPA said.
And it noted that officials will also “work with states and use Lean techniques to streamline the review of state-issued permits. Solutions may include conducting earlier triage and communications, conducting Agency reviews in parallel with public reviews, and/or focusing reviews where they add the most value.”
But during the ASTSWMO session, one state representative pressed Kohler on whether she believed that states will be subject to the six-month deadline and raised concerns about the measure EPA planned to use to determine when the six-month clock begins. “We're not really in control of whether we get a complete application so when does that time-frame start?” he said.
Kohler responded that EPA is also not in control over when a complete permit application is received. As it stands, she said the six-month clock starts ticking when an application is received, rather than when the application is deemed complete.
She noted that “every single permitting program” raised concerns over that issue. She said she does not know how that measure would translate to states.
And she noted that the goal for EPA is “certainly a challenge” especially in the case of permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),” but added, “we're going to try our best to get to that goal.”
Significant Deliberation
Sonya Sasseville, ORCR director of program implementation and information division, added that when the issue was raised internally about moving the start-time to “application-complete,” rather than “application-received,” there was significant deliberation on the issue but the initial decision stuck.
She said officials rejected calls to change the approach because they believed there is “room for improvement” after an application is received. In other words, she said, what can the agency do to work with applicants to ensure the permit application is correctly filled out and submitted the first time around.
A state official from Indiana noted that ASTSWMO wants to work with EPA on the permitting process, bringing to the table what states have learned. But she questioned the ability to turn around permits within six months, even with tools such as a checklist generated by Texas regulators to speed permitting.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has an electronic permit application checklist for RCRA permits intended to offer clarity and ease to permit applicants and lower deficiencies in applications, according to an EPA compendium of next generation compliance examples.
Kohler responded that the agency is “well aware that a RCRA permit certainly exceeds six months, realistically, right now,” noting these are “shooting-for-the-moon goals, and we're going to try our hardest to get there.” That said, she said the average length of a RCRA renewal was four-and-a-half years -- something she said the agency could certainly improve upon.
She also said that EPA anticipates working on new initiatives to help expedite permitting, adding that there are some agency-wide initiatives being considered although nothing has been finalized.
Kohler said that the Trump administration is currently very focused on EPA-issued permits, with the agency currently tracking initial permits it has to issue. Of these regional-based initial RCRA permits, EPA had just four before it, and of those, two were signed last month, she said. The agency may now switch to tracking applications for modifications next, and possibly renewals in the future, she said.
During the question-and-answer session following Kohler's talk, Terri Goldberg, executive director of Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA) -- an interstate group representing environmental agency programs -- raised concerns about the quality of permits that may be on a fast track.
She said NEWMOA and EPA Region 1 have convened a series of meetings and workshops over the past year with permit writers and enforcement staff. “I think there's a lot of concern about how rapidly these permits are being issued.” She added that “a lot of our conversation is actually on the quality of the permits.”
In particular, she said, their discussions have focused on waste analysis plans, and whether facilities are understanding their permits. She said state permit writers in the region have formed a workgroup to continue those discussions, and to share language for inclusion in permits that states believe will be more effective in addressing problems raised by inspectors on-site.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-suggests-applying-steep-permit-deadline-states-raising-fears
-
Phasing out HFCs Prevents Significant Warming — U.N. Report
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
Halting the production of common cooling and refrigerating chemicals may prevent a significant amount of global warming, a new United Nations report has reaffirmed.
By reducing and eventually eliminating the use of hydrofluorocarbons, nations can avoid about 0.5 degree Celsius, or 0.9 degree Fahrenheit, of warming. Put another way, scientists estimate that doing nothing about hydrofluorocarbons could cause that much extra warming to occur.
The findings were included in the latest Scientific Assessment on Ozone Depletion released yesterday by the U.N. Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. The report evaluates the health of the ozone layer and provides scientific updates on the factors that may affect it. A new report has been released every three or four years since 1985, when the infamous Antarctic ozone hole was discovered.
In 1987, world leaders adopted the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out the production of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer — mainly chlorofluorocarbons, previously the dominant chemicals used in cooling and refrigeration. The efforts have been hugely successful so far. As the report notes, the ozone hole is now in recovery and is expected to return to its pre-1980s condition within 40 or 50 years.
Now, many nations are planning to adopt a new amendment to the Montreal Protocol, this time targeting hydrofluorocarbons, which were originally substituted for CFCs after the Montreal Protocol went into effect.
Scientists have since discovered that although HFCs have a minimal effect on the ozone layer, they have a dark side. They act as powerful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, even more potent than carbon dioxide or methane in the same volumes.
As a result, the amendment to the Montreal Protocol — known as the Kigali Amendment — is aimed more at protecting the climate than the recovering ozone layer. Similar to the original Montreal Protocol, it calls for nations to phase out their use of HFCs starting in 2019, when the amendment goes into effect.
The estimate of 0.5 C in avoided warming has been touted for several years now. It's mainly based on two scientific papers — one published in 2013 and the second in 2015.
The new U.N. report suggests that this estimate is "substantial" in the context of the Paris climate agreement, which aims to keep global temperatures well below a 2 C warming threshold, or a 1.5 C threshold if possible. And the latest report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which explores the actions necessary to meet the 1.5 C target, reiterates that HFCs and other non-CO2 emissions can have a significant impact on the Earth's remaining carbon budget and peak warming.
That said, the phaseout of HFCs is in many ways well-integrated into the Paris Agreement already. Multiple nations have already cited reductions in HFCs in their individual commitments to Paris, meaning they're already accounted for in scientific calculations of how much warming to expect under current Paris pledges and how much stronger the pledges need to be to meet the temperature targets.
Fifty-eight parties have ratified the Kigali Amendment so far. The United States is not one of them, and it remains unclear what the Trump administration — which announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement last year — intends to do.
Earlier this year, EPA announced its intent to relax certain rules on the production or the leaking of HFCs from appliances. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year also knocked down an Obama-era rule for phasing out HFCs.
The administration may still decide to send the amendment to the Senate for ratification. But even if it doesn't, some U.S. manufacturers have already signaled their intent to voluntarily reduce the production of HFCs. And several states, including New York, Maryland, Connecticut and California, have also moved to ban HFCs in new appliances.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/11/06/stories/1060105229
-
Committee to Focus on Green Issues If Dems Take over
Nov 6, 2018 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
If Democrats take over the House, the Energy and Commerce Committee will undergo a marked shift from focusing on energy needs to addressing environmental concerns. Still, committee lawmakers from both sides of the aisle also say there will be room for common ground.
E&C Committee members interviewed in recent weeks said concerns such as drinking water safety, environmental justice and climate change would get far more attention under a Democrat-controlled House.
They note that many of the expected top Democrats on the committee — including Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, who is in line to be chairman — view themselves as environmentalists.
"If the Democrats control the House, it won't be an energy Congress, it'll be an environmentally focused Congress," predicted Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), a longtime panel member who is set to retire.
Democrats said a shift in policy direction would be guaranteed, but they conceded that more modest initiatives are more likely than major environmental legislation, especially if the GOP keeps the Senate and with President Trump in the White House.
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), the vice ranking member of the committee, said oversight of administration energy policies would be a priority. She said Democrats could push back on White House efforts to prioritize fossil fuel energy sources, especially coal.Climate
Castor said Democrats also would focus more attention on global warming, an issue the committee has largely sidestepped in recent years.
"People understand the challenges of the changing climate, the cost of the changing climate, and I think the committee is going to have a new focus on what we can do to decarbonize the atmosphere," she said.
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), an E&C member, said to expect more modest steps on the climate as opposed to sweeping legislation. He said an obvious step would be to reverse some of Trump's regulatory rollbacks, especially on methane venting.
"I have talked to oil and gas executives about if they want to make the argument that natural gas burns cleaner than coal, that's fine, but you have to deal with methane emissions. I think methane at least among Democrats will be among the highest priorities," Peters said.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said reversing all of Trump's environmental moves won't be easy. For example, she said, the president is poised to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord.
One potential speed bump is the suggestion by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week that she would bring back the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming if Democrats win back the House (E&E News PM, Oct. 31).
The select panel would likely be used primarily for messaging and hearings about climate science. But it could suck some jurisdiction away from E&C or open up lanes for the committee to pursue other Democratic priorities, such as health care.Bipartisanship
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), who currently serves as the Subcommittee on Environment's ranking member, emphasized more modest bipartisan moves if Democrats take over. He suggested energy grid modernization and creating more charging stations for electric cars.
Committee Republicans, who were reluctant to concede they may not be in the majority come January, also said there are some areas where they can work with Democrats.
"It will be a challenge" if Democrats win, said Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), a committee member. "They don't like coal, they only like oil a little more, but natural gas seems to hit a sweet spot."
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who co-chairs the Congressional Natural Gas Caucus, said energy producers would face more obstacles with Democrats in control, noting they have advocated for "onerous rules."
But, Johnson said, he also believes there are some Democrats who understand the importance of "putting American energy first."
Several Republicans lamented the pending retirement of pro-energy Democrat Gene Green of Texas, a senior committee member who has often been a partner on energy legislation.
But they also mentioned Democratic committee members they expect to work with, including Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania on natural gas and Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon on hydropower.
Barton said the "good news" is even if there is a Democratic takeover, years of deregulation and the lifting of the ban on crude oil exports have left the energy industry in a strong position.
"The future is very bright for us in this country. We are in a really good situation in terms of energy vis-a-vis the rest of the world," he added.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/11/06/stories/1060105249
-
DOJ Signals Continued Push to Dismiss Youth Climate Case
Nov 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is signaling that it intends to continue to pursue additional appellate options to dismiss the constitutional climate change case brought against the U.S. government by 21 youths even after the Supreme Court rejected its second request to block the case.
“The Supreme Court order is without prejudice and recognizes ongoing appellate proceedings in the lower courts. We are pleased that it sets a path for the Justice Department to continue efforts toward dismissal of this improper case,” a DOJ spokesman told Inside EPA in a Nov. 5 statement.
The statement comes in response to the high court's surprise Nov. 2 order that rejected the department's request for a petition for a writ of mandamus to halt the case, clearing the way for a trial in a federal district court in Oregon while also leaving the door open for DOJ to continue to fight it.
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs in Juliana, et al. v. United States, pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, have already filed a petition asking Judge Ann Aiken to set an immediate pre-trial conference and commencement of trial. The attorneys say they hope to get the case “back on track for trial in the next week.”
The high court's order reversed a temporary stay that Chief Justice John Roberts had granted last month, postponing the Oct. 29 scheduled start of the trial.
On the same day as the high court issued its denial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit again rejected DOJ's mandamus petition to that court, finding that Roberts' temporary stay made the government's identical petition to the 9th Circuit moot. The court also reprimanded DOJ for not notifying it that it had filed with the high court. The rejection marks the third time the circuit has denied DOJ requests for mandamus relief.
DOJ is pursuing these appeals after Aiken rejected two procedural motions to dismiss the case and also denied its request for interlocutory appeal.
In the novel yet high-profile case, filed in 2015, the plaintiffs argue the government's actions to promote fossil fuels and inaction addressing climate change is a violation of their due process rights under the Constitution and of the public trust doctrine.
They are asking the court to order the government to draft and implement a climate protection plan that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels scientists deem safe.
But DOJ argues it will face irreparable harm if the case goes to trial, citing a host of arguments including that it is a violation of separation of powers and that the issue of how to address climate change is a political question not suitable for the judiciary branch. They also argue the youth lack standing, that there is no constitutional right to a livable atmosphere and that the public trust doctrine does not exist under federal law.
Two other federal district judges have recently agreed with similar arguments made by oil companies in a separate slew of cases brought mostly by county and municipal governments under common law tort claims. A judge in New York and a judge in California both dismissed cases based on those arguments, and they are being appealed. A third federal judge in California agreed with plaintiffs that those cases belong in state court, and industry is appealing that decision.
But Aiken already rejected Obama administration arguments to dismiss the case based on similar procedural arguments and wants the case to go to trial.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/doj-signals-continued-push-dismiss-youth-climate-case
-
CASAC Schedules Meetings on Ozone, PM NAAQS Reviews
Nov 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's independent seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) will hold meetings in November and December to consider key documents that will inform the agency's review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM).
In notices scheduled for publication in the Nov. 6 Federal Register, EPA announces that CASAC will on Nov. 29 hold a teleconference to discuss the draft Integrated Review Plan (IRP) for EPA's review of the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), and will on Dec. 12 and 13 meet in person to discuss EPA's draft integrated science assessment (ISA) for the PM NAAQS review.
EPA's current schedule calls for the review of ozone standards to be complete by Oct. 1, 2020, and the PM review to conclude by December of that year. This ambitious timetable will be challenging to meet, sources say, and EPA is following an accelerated review process with fewer steps and less consultation of CASAC in order to meet its deadlines.
CASAC will further be reviewing both NAAQS without expert sub-panels that it has used in previous reviews to grapple with technically complex issues.
The Clean Air Act requires the agency to review its six NAAQS every five years, but EPA typically fails to meet this deadline. Agency air policy chief Bill Wehrum has made a priority of meeting the deadline, at least for the ozone NAAQS, which EPA last reviewed in 2015. The Obama EPA tightened the standard from a prior limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) set in 2008 down to 70 ppb.
EPA last reviewed the PM NAAQS in 2012, tightening the annual primary, or health-based, NAAQS for fine PM (PM2.5) down from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 12 ug/m3. The next review was therefore due in 2017.
The ozone IRP lays out a timeline for EPA to produce and CASAC to review key documents, including the integrated science assessment (ISA) synthesizing the latest science on ozone's health effects and a policy assessment (PA) giving the agency administrator options for either leaving the NAAQS unchanged, or modifying the standard.
The draft PM ISA includes some newer scientific studies that show adverse health effects from exposure to PM2.5 at levels below the existing PM2.5 NAAQS. While this might add pressure to tighten the NAAQS again, possibly to a level in the single digits, Wehrum's deputy in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, Clint Woods, has expressed skepticism that a tougher standard would be technically feasible to implement.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/casac-schedules-meetings-ozone-pm-naaqs-reviews
-
Facing Climate Change, States and Cities Seek to Borrow Billions
Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amanda Albright
Dan Gelber, the mayor of Miami Beach, Fla., says climate change will be a homeowners’ worst nightmare.
“If you own a home and you find that your roof has a problem or you find out there’s a termite infestation, you have to take care of it,” he said. “That’s what climate change is. Sea level rise has created challenges that have to be addressed. For local governments, they don’t go away unless you do something about them.“
That’s why Miami Beach, where frequent flooding prompted by high tides have illustrated the risks of climate change, is asking residents for the power to pump more money into environmentally-friendly sidewalks, parks, and neighborhood improvements. The $439 million bond proposal would use a fourth of the proceeds to address the effects of climate change.
Nationwide, states and local governments are asking voters to approve billions of dollars of debt for environmental projects, including those aimed at protecting against the impact of rising global temperatures.
In California, which was hit hard by a years-long drought that began in 2011, voters will consider $8.9 billion of bonds for water projects. Austin, Texas, voters will also consider borrowing to improve water quality. A 100-year-old seawall in San Francisco could get a $425 million repair job to make sure it protects the city from rising sea levels and floods.
“It signals that you do have a lot more states and localities taking some of the environmental, social, and governance risks much more seriously,” said Tom Schuette, co-head of investment research and strategy at Gurtin Municipal Bond Management.
Climate change poses a major financial threat to some U.S. cities by threatening to reduce property values they rely on for much of their tax base and leaving them dealing with costly natural disasters.
’Apolitical’ IssueSome of the proposals may be prompted by lack of action by President Donald Trump’s administration, said Mitchell Moss, an urban policy and planning professor at New York University. Trump announced in June 2017 that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris climate accord that was signed by almost 200 countries after years of negotiations, arguing that the pact’s carbon-cutting commitments would punish American industry. He’s also failed to deliver on his promises to increase spending on local infrastructure projects.
“Environmental values today are so very central to certain states,” Moss said. “They’re going to naturally go to the financing of infrastructure as the federal government cuts back.“
Protecting the environment is an “apolitical” issue in Montana’s Missoula County, said Amber Sherrill, executive director of the Five Valleys Land Trust, a nonprofit. The county is asking voters to approve $15 million worth of bonds to conserve fish and wildlife habitats and to protect scenic views. The Northern Rockies locality has built up tourism around camping and hunting.
“It’s an economic driver for our county as well,” she said. “That clearly crosses political lines.“
Gelber, the Miami Beach mayor, said the projects financed by the bonds, such as adding water retention features to parks, will make the city “greener.” Residents he’s talked to have been supportive of the bond issues, given the steps the city has made to make the process transparent, such the creation of an advisory board to help pick projects, he said.
The debt measures would provide money to plant up to 5,000 trees to provide shade and to move the city to more energy efficient street lights. It would also raise city seawalls.
“I don’t think we can wait,” Gelber said. “It’s really easy for a local government to say, ’We’re going to kick it down the road because the federal government’s going to come rescue us.’ But that’s just not the way it happens.“
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/facing-climate-change-states-and-cities-seek-to-borrow-billions
Industry and Association News
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