Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/8/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) DowDuPont Plastic Spinoff Vows Growth Despite Pollution Fear
Nov 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
DowDuPont Inc. sought to reassure investors that its planned spinoff of one of the world’s biggest plastic makers will be unscathed by a groundswell of global concern about pollution. -
All Eyes on Top Democrat to Bring Science Back to Science Committee
Nov 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Environmentalists are hoping that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) will bring science back to the House science committee when she takes over as chair in the next Congress. -
Trump Suggests He'll Weigh in on Embattled Interior Secretary's Future Next Week
Nov 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The political future of embattled Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke may be determined as early as next week, President Trump said on Wednesday. -
Canada-US Regulatory Cooperation Consultation Extended
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has extended its consultation on how the federal government can reduce or eliminate unnecessary regulatory differences between the US and Canada. -
US NGOs Press for Extended Consultations on TSCA Risk Evaluations
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Four NGOs are pressing the US EPA to take the maximum time permitted under TSCA for completing its first ten risk evaluations under the reformed law. -
US FDA Proposes Cosmetics Allergens Consumer Survey
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking public comment on a proposed consumer survey about allergens in cosmetics. -
EU Seeks Coherence in Treatment of Endocrine-Disrupting Substances
Nov 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
BASF SE, Bayer AG, Syngenta AG, and other pesticide manufacturers shouldn’t expect changes anytime soon to European Union rules that prohibit using endocrine-disrupting chemicals as ingredients in their products, the European Commission said. -
JRC Backs EU Nanomaterials Inventory as ‘Global Platform’
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) is encouraging global nanotechnology environmental health and safety (nanoEHS) stakeholders to adopt an EU inventory of tools to assess the safety of nanomaterials. -
Industry Backs Parliament Subcommittee Call for Brexit REACH Clarity
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
National trade bodies have welcomed a report by a British House of Lords subcommittee that calls on the government to provide clear answers on plans for a UK REACH regime in the event of a no-deal Brexit. -
Energy Industry Triumphs in Washington, Colorado, but Gas Tax Stands in California
Nov 7, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
Two energy-related propositions that saw the oil and gas industry pump tens of millions of dollars into Washington state and Colorado were defeated Tuesday, while a rollback on California's gas tax was voted down. -
Colorado, New Mexico Wins Expand Democratic Control in the Oil Patch
Nov 7, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
Democrats are set to expand their reach into the U.S. oil patch after Tuesday's election, potentially turning Western states into a testing ground for new oil and gas regulation. -
Up Against Big Oil in the Midterms
Nov 8, 2018 | New York Times
By Bill McKibben
The victories in the midterm elections were real and sweet for environmentalists and progressives: There will be at least 119 women in Congress, and for the first time their ranks will include a Muslim (two, actually) and a Native American (at least two). -
Elections Herald Federal Oversight and Project Battles
Nov 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Tuesday's election results will translate to greater pressure on the federal agency that oversees pipeline safety, while individual oil and gas projects saw mixed results. -
End Is Near for ‘Frack Holiday’ as Permian Readies for 2019 Boom
Nov 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley and David Wethe
The oil fields of West Texas don’t sit still for long. -
U.S. Oil Output Could Rise This Year by the Most Ever: EIA
Nov 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Summers
The U.S. government is forecasting the biggest yearly increase in domestic crude production. -
Benefits of Rules Outstrip Savings in Trump Rollback — RFF
Nov 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Trump administration is forgoing billions of dollars in health and environmental benefits in its quest to roll back regulations on oil and gas production, according to Resources for the Future. -
Rush Plans to Ramp up Oversight of Trump Energy Officials
Nov 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who's expected to lead House Energy and Commerce's energy panel, is planning to dig into Trump administration energy policies next year when Democrats take control of the House. -
Stung by Failed Carbon Fee, Greens Focus on Renewables
Nov 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Climate hawks began to shift their focus yesterday from a defeated carbon fee referendum in Washington state to boosting renewables in states where Democrats wrested control of legislatures and governors' mansions from Republicans. -
New Maine Governor Seen as Providing Big Boost to Renewables
Nov 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Maine’s reputation for being unfriendly to renewable energy will end when Democratic Gov.-elect Janet Mills takes office, environmentalists, lawmakers and renewable business executives said. -
Clean Energy Tax Gets Thumbs Up From Portland, Ore., Voters
Nov 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Portland, Ore., voters decided by an almost two-to-one margin to tax revenue from retail sales to pay for climate adaptation programs. -
Hopes Run High as Pelosi, Mcconnell Seek 'Common Ground'
Nov 7, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow
President Trump's much-touted $1 trillion infrastructure plan failed to clear Congress last year, but next year could be different. -
Infrastructure a Priority for House Transport Panel (Corrected)
Nov 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Shaun Courtney, David Schultz and Tiffany Stecker
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s ranking member and heir apparent to lead the panel in January, has been clear about his priorities: a “real” infrastructure bill with “real money,”... -
EPA 'Aggregation' Policy Shift May Help Facilities Avoid Strict NSR Permits
Nov 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is reverting to a 2009 definition of “project aggregation” for Clean Air Act permitting that may help facilities avoid stringent new source review (NSR) permits, because the revived policy uses several tests that make it easier to argue that facility activities should not be aggregated... -
EPA Clears Advisory Panel to Review Standards
Nov 7, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A month after acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler shook up the membership of a key advisory committee, the agency has cleared the panel to proceed with two reviews of national air quality standards. -
House Democrats Face Tightrope Walk Addressing Climate Change, 2020
Nov 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
As Democrats prepare to re-take control of the House following their Nov. 6 midterm victories, party leaders are pledging to intensify a focus on climate change but they must also perform a tricky balancing act between responding to pent-up pressure for legislation... -
Voters Put a Check on the Trump Administration's Reckless Environmental Policies
Nov 7, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Fred Krupp
Last night, the American people voted to put a check on the excesses of the Trump administration. The voters are clearly demanding changes in Washington, a return to common sense policies, and greater accountability from their elected leaders. -
Green Groups’ Big Win on Candidates Outshines Drilling Curb Loss
Nov 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Environmental groups are finding it’s easier to get votes for candidates than for causes. -
Climate Progressives and Initiatives Fighting Big Oil Won Big in Midterms
Nov 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By May Boeve
The climate movement is celebrating the passage of groundbreaking ballot initiatives on Election Day to stop offshore oil drilling in Florida and to tax corporations to fund programs and job training that will meet clean energy goals in Portland.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) DowDuPont Plastic Spinoff Vows Growth Despite Pollution Fear
Nov 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
DowDuPont Inc. sought to reassure investors that its planned spinoff of one of the world’s biggest plastic makers will be unscathed by a groundswell of global concern about pollution.
Jim Fitterling, who will lead the new company as chief executive officer, waved away worries that protests against plastic trash will weigh on the new stand-alone operation’s growth plans. He also outlined financial targets for the company, to be known as Dow, which include paying the highest dividend in the chemical industry as a share of earnings.
“The growth trends are going to continue,” he said in New York on Wednesday ahead of an investor presentation. “We’ve seen these challenges since the ’80s and we are still growing” at 1.4 times global gross domestic product, he said.
Plastics are facing pressure in both the near and long term. The company last week said it expects earnings from making polyethylene, where Dow is a global leader, to drop by more than half in the fourth quarter amid surplus production and volatile feedstock costs. Meanwhile, images of plastic debris clogging the ocean and harming marine life have inspired cities and countries to ban some plastic products such as straws and to enact recycling mandates around the world.
DowDuPont advanced 3.1 percent to $59.83 at the close in New York amid a broad market rally. The shares have fallen 16 percent this year, compared with the 7.5 percent drop of a Standard & Poor’s index of materials companies.
Tighter Focus
As of its April 1 separation from DowDuPont, Dow will be a smaller company more tightly focused on manufacturing, with packaging and plastics accounting for half of revenue. The seed and pesticide division that formed part of its predecessor will be spun off separately as Corteva Agriscience.
Dow, already the world’s largest producer of polyethylene, used in grocery bags and food containers, expects to boost plastics production by 1.4 million tons a year. The increased revenue will contribute to its plan to boost earnings by about $3 billion with the help of plant expansions and cost cuts, Fitterling said. Polyethylene plants globally will run harder over the next two years to meet rising demand, Diego Donoso, plastics business president, told investors Wednesday.
Dow aims to return 65 percent of net income to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks.
“Dow will be the best dividend payer,” among companies on a Standard & Poor’s benchmark index for the chemical industry, Fitterling said.
The European Union this year required all plastic packaging to be recycled by 2030, and the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, has set a goal of recycling all U.S. packaging by 2040. Plastic bans in India are already eroding demand, said Robin Waters, a director at IHS Markit and co-author of a study on plastics sustainability.
‘Something Different’
The blowback may slow growth in demand for prime resin, mostly because of increased recycling, although gains will still outpace the global economy, Waters said. While there have long been efforts to reduce plastic waste, “something is different this time,” he said, noting the role of social media in drawing attention to environmental harm.
Plastics demand will continue to grow as electric-vehicle makers replace metals to improve mileage and as a growing middle class consumes more packaged foods. About 275 million tons of plastics will be used in packaging annually by 2040, said Paul Bjacek, principal director of chemical research at Accenture, a consultancy.
But as plastics demand triples over the coming decades, half the growth forecast by Accenture may come from recycled resins rather than the virgin materials Dow has invested billions of dollars to produce, Bjacek said.
Staying Flexible
Fitterling said he “doesn’t imagine” Dow becoming a recycling company. Still, the company is exploring ways to adjust. Dow already makes chemicals to help recycled resins to be used more widely, and it’s developing catalysts and processes that allow food pouches to be made from one polymer, rather than the eight layers often used now. That would make food packaging as easily recyclable as a polyethylene grocery bag, the CEO said.
Dow is also among those working on ways to break plastics back down into basic chemicals that could then be reused as feedstocks for making virgin plastics. The cost is currently too high to be economically viable, though, “I think it’s very possible,” Fitterling said.
Plastics will always be in demand because their light weight relative to strength make the environmental footprint smaller than any competing products, such as metal and glass, he said. With 1.5 billion people forecast to be added to the planet and a rising middle class consuming more packaged goods, Fitterling said plastics are essential for meeting the United Nations sustainable development goals.
Plastic bans are ineffective because they target a “very small fraction of the problem,” he said. About 90 percent of the marine debris that makes headlines comes from 10 rivers in Asia, particularly the Yangtze in China, he said. Improving waste management on land and cleaning up the ocean garbage patch should be the priority, and Dow is among those working to solve the problem, he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/newdowemerges-as-plastics-giant-amid-rising-worry-on-pollution
-
All Eyes on Top Democrat to Bring Science Back to Science Committee
Nov 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Environmentalists are hoping that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) will bring science back to the House science committee when she takes over as chair in the next Congress.
Johnson, if elected chair, will be the first woman with a degree in a STEM field to hold the position since 1990. She was the first registered nurse elected to Congress when she won her first term in 1993, and she’s served as ranking member on House Science, Space and Technology Committee since 2011.
The Democrat will represent a significant shift from the previous chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
Smith introduced controversial bills including the Secret Science Reform Act and worked in tandem with the Trump administration to introduce heavily criticized policies on science transparency to the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department.
Smith's legislation failed to make it past the House. Both the bill and the agency rules aimed to make it so scientific studies, of which's data was not made public, were banned from being used to draft new regulations. Scientists argued the idea would be extremely limiting to the number of scientific studies that could be used, since the data in most public health studies is confidential.ADVERTISEMENT
“I think it will be quite dramatic,” Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said of the power shift.
“She wants to restore the focus of the science committee and the real culture of the committee is working in a bipartisan fashion. These things aren't inherently partisan unless someone like Lamar Smith makes them so.”
Johnson released a statement Tuesday night promising to restore “the credibility of the Science Committee as a place where science is respected and recognized as a crucial input to good policymaking.”
“I know that there is much that we can accomplish as Democrats and Republicans working together for the good of the nation,” Johnson said.
Johnson has previously focused on efforts to expand science education competitiveness.
She’s introduced versions of the STEM Opportunities Act in the past four Congresses and helped pass the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act which pushes additional research for cybersecurity and cryptography.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/415589-all-eyes-on-top-democrat-to-bring-science-back-to-science-committee
-
Trump Suggests He'll Weigh in on Embattled Interior Secretary's Future Next Week
Nov 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The political future of embattled Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke may be determined as early as next week, President Trump said on Wednesday.
Speaking at a White House press conference, the president said he will likely have a better sense in a week's time about Zinke's role as head of the agency that oversees public lands and endangered species management.
"We’re looking at that and I do want to study whatever is being said," Trump said in response to a reporter's question. "I think he’s doing an excellent job, but we will take a look at that in a very strong -- and we’ll probably have an idea about that in about a week."
The president's comments come a day after Democrats took back control of the House, a change that many Zinke critics are hoping will place new pressure on the secretary.
Zinke has been enshrouded by controversy following reports that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating a real estate deal he made with the chairman of Halliburton -- an oilfield service company -- in Zinke's hometown of Whitefish, Mont.
Interior's inspector general (IG) referred the investigation to the DOJ shortly before it was announced that a Trump political appointee would be replacing the top watchdog at the IG office. Administration officials later said the replacement announcement was a communication error.
Trump for weeks has been indicating that there may be changes to his Cabinet following the midterms. Zinke, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Secretary of Defense James Mattis are considered to be up for possible replacement.
Trump on Wednesday said the changes could still come, but said he was generally happy with the Cabinet.
"You know, it’s very common after the midterms. I didn’t want to do anything before the midterms. But I will tell you that, for the most part, I’m extremely happy with my Cabinet," he said.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/415524-trump-promises-answer-on-future-of-interior-secretary-early-as-next
-
Canada-US Regulatory Cooperation Consultation Extended
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has extended its consultation on how the federal government can reduce or eliminate unnecessary regulatory differences between the US and Canada.
Comments on the request for information (RFI) will now be accepted until 10 December, according to an email sent to stakeholders by the US Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration.
The effort to reduce regulatory divergences comes under the two countries’ Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), which was established in 2011.
The next RCC stakeholder event is scheduled for 4-5 December in Washington, DC.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71714/canada-us-regulatory-cooperation-consultation-extended
-
US NGOs Press for Extended Consultations on TSCA Risk Evaluations
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Four NGOs are pressing the US EPA to take the maximum time permitted under TSCA for completing its first ten risk evaluations under the reformed law.
The request came in a 30 August letter in which the organisations cautioned EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler that the risk evaluations will "fall short under TSCA and seriously damage EPA’s credibility if they are not based on the best available science".
The groups are urging the EPA to allow 120 days for comments on the draft evaluations, which are set to be released in late 2018 or early 2019. And they say that EPA should take advantage of its statutory authority to extend its three year completion deadline by an additional six months, which would mean finalising the evaluations by 30 June 2020.
Such an extension, they say, "would provide additional breathing space for the public comment and peer review process, increasing the likelihood that EPA receives high-quality comments and giving the reviewers the time necessary for an in-depth examination of draft evaluations and preparation of detailed reports".
The letter also makes several recommendations around the peer review process, including around grouping the review of substances with common issues, offering opportunities for the public to weigh in, and the need for conflicts of interest and bias analysis for potential reviewers.
The letter was co-signed by:
· Safer Chemicals Healthy Families;
· Environmental Health Strategy Center;
· Natural Resources Defense Council; and
· Earthjustice.
The organisations are among several in the consumer advocacy community that have raised concern over the narrowed scope of the EPA’s reviews, as detailed in the substances’ problem formulation documents.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71708/us-ngos-press-for-extended-consultations-on-tsca-risk-evaluations
-
US FDA Proposes Cosmetics Allergens Consumer Survey
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking public comment on a proposed consumer survey about allergens in cosmetics.
This is the first survey on consumer perceptions of cosmetics the FDA has conducted since 1975.
The purpose of the survey is to collect information to improve the FDA’s understanding of adverse events caused by allergens in cosmetics, according to a notice in the Federal Register.
The agency also hopes to better grasp "consumer perceptions and awareness as well as consumer behavior regarding allergens in cosmetics". This includes decisions to purchase specific products or to avoid certain ingredients, when to contact a health care provider, and when to report an adverse event.
"Gathering information about consumer experiences with cosmetic products, especially adverse reactions such as irritated skin or an allergic reaction, is critical to the FDA’s ability to effectively conduct surveillance and oversight of these products," said Scott Gottlieb, the agency’s commissioner.
The information is "an important step in advancing a process for reducing exposure to allergens in vulnerable individuals", he added.
In order to move the survey forward, the FDA must receive approval from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The first step in that process is to hold a public consultation.
Comments will "help ensure we are collecting all relevant information", added Dr Gottlieb. The agency will be accepting these for 60 days.
If the FDA obtains OMB’s permission, it plans to begin conducting the survey in 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71713/us-fda-proposes-cosmetics-allergens-consumer-survey
-
EU Seeks Coherence in Treatment of Endocrine-Disrupting Substances
Nov 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
BASF SE, Bayer AG, Syngenta AG, and other pesticide manufacturers shouldn’t expect changes anytime soon to European Union rules that prohibit using endocrine-disrupting chemicals as ingredients in their products, the European Commission said.
The commission, the EU’s executive arm, said Nov. 7 it would start a broad-ranging review of different EU laws containing requirements on endocrine disruptors, or substances that trigger hormonal responses affecting growth, development, and reproduction.
The aim of the review would be to come up with recommendations on making treatment of endocrine disruptors in EU law more coherent, the commission said. Currently, separate laws on sectors including industrial chemicals, biocidal products, pesticides, cosmetics, and toys contain provisions on endocrine disruptors.
In two cases—biocides and pesticides—the laws forbid authorization in the EU of products containing endocrine disruptors. In other cases—such as for cosmetics—endocrine disruptors can be used unless they are specifically prohibited.
“There should be coherence in the treatment of endocrine disruptors across different policy areas. But before proposing changes to the legislation, one needs to see whether changes are necessary,” European Commission Spokeswoman Anca Paduraru told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
The review will include a public consultation but the commission was unable to say Nov. 7 when this would start. “We will see how much time we will need for the whole process to be finalized,” Paduraru said.
Hazard vs. RiskPesticide manufacturers shouldn’t expect the review to result in revisions to the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation ((EC) No 1107/2009)—which forbids authorization of endocrine disruptors—so that the substances can be authorized if their risks can be managed.
Most EU countries are happy with the current situation and there was no desire to change the approach to endocrine disrupting pesticides, a commission official speaking on condition of anonymity told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
Although the review could lead to a recommendation to change the approach on pesticides, this was highly unlikely, the commission official said.
Coming SoonEU provisions on the criteria to be used when identifying endocrine disruptors in pesticides will take effect Nov. 10.
Under these provisions, “between 10 percent and 40 percent of substances are at risk of removal from the market” as they come up for reauthorization, Graeme Taylor, director of public affairs for the European Crop Protection Association, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
“Farmers are going to be significantly impacted. We still fundamentally believe that endocrine disruptors can be regulated like any other substances of potential concern, and be subject to risk assessment which considers both hazard and exposure,” Taylor said.
“A risk-based approach is the correct one for regulatory decision taking,” and the commission should “reconsider the application of the hazard criteria in the plant protection legislation” as part of the endocrine disruptors review, BASF spokesman Christian Bohme told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
Bayer spokesman Utz Klages referred a request for comment to the European Crop Protection Association. Syngenta didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The commission “could of course conclude that the current regulation of pesticides is overly burdensome” and relax the authorization prohibition on endocrine-disrupting pesticides, Pelle Moos, health team leader with the European Consumer Organization told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7. The European Consumer Organization favors tighter controls on endocrine disruptors.
The result of the review could mean that the approach taken for pesticides is extended to other EU laws, and “if it is an endocrine disruptor, it should not be used,” Moos said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-seeks-coherence-in-treatment-of-endocrine-disrupting-substances
-
JRC Backs EU Nanomaterials Inventory as ‘Global Platform’
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) is encouraging global nanotechnology environmental health and safety (nanoEHS) stakeholders to adopt an EU inventory of tools to assess the safety of nanomaterials.
In a recent paper, JRC scientists said the international nanoEHS community should "use, adopt, update and extend" the NANoREG Toolbox inventory.
This includes 544 tools, developed in Europe and globally, and classifies them according to their purpose, type and regulatory status.
The toolbox was developed with support from the EU NANoREG project, which aimed to improve understanding of the environmental, health and safety aspects of nanomaterials in a regulatory context. It ended in February 2017.
The inventory could become "an up-to-date and harmonised database, maintained by international community effort and benefiting all stakeholders in the field", the JRC said.
Published last year in the JRC Data Catalogue, it is the "first-ever freely accessible inventory", according to the paper.
The paper described and discussed its structure and content, also providing a quantitative overview of the tools at time of publication.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71718/jrc-backs-eu-nanomaterials-inventory-as-global-platform
-
Industry Backs Parliament Subcommittee Call for Brexit REACH Clarity
Nov 8, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
National trade bodies have welcomed a report by a British House of Lords subcommittee that calls on the government to provide clear answers on plans for a UK REACH regime in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The report, Brexit: chemical regulation, followed its inquiry earlier this year.
Peter Newport, CEO of the Chemical Business Association, said the report "underlines exactly" what the association has been telling the government through meetings with different departments and through a recent letter to junior environment minister Thérèse Coffey.
The government’s current proposals to transpose the EU’s REACH provisions into UK law in the event of a no-deal Brexit are "unworkable, unsustainable, and will certainly damage the UK chemical supply chain and many manufacturing industries relying on chemicals for their products and processes", he added.
Roz Bulleid, head of climate and environment policy at manufacturers’ organisation EEF, said the government is making progress on preparing a post-Brexit regulatory regime and has listened to industry and other stakeholders calls for continuing close alignment with the EU.
"However, we would very much agree with the committee on the significance of this issue and would urge government to step up communication with its stakeholders around a no-deal Brexit. Companies need more detail now on what that would entail and how they should be preparing."
Industry effort
The Chemical Industries Association said businesses have already spent "in excess" of £550m (€630m) gathering, accessing and sharing information on chemicals.
The government’s current no-deal solution for a UK REACH "does nothing to better our environment and the safe use of chemicals, but undermines our global competitiveness and may well result in the UK losing significant businesses across many sectors", the CIA said.
The report "once again highlights the huge complexities, cost and effort that would be required" under this scenario, Susanne Baker, head of environment and compliance for techUK, said.
Despite government progress in addressing some of the concerns highlighted in the report since the publication of the government’s no-deal technical notice, she said there remains some "significant" areas of concern:
· the deadline for submitting full registrations into a UK system will be "extremely challenging"; and
· there will be "low awareness" amongst businesses about new obligations, particularly among those downstream users that will become registrants under a UK/EU REACH system.
It is vital, Camilla Alexander-White – senior policy advisor at the Royal Society of Chemistry – said, that there are structures in place to ensure chemicals regulation is informed by "excellent and relevant science, including discussion of the scientific evidence". There are "several unanswered questions" regarding how this would be accomplished with or without a deal, she added.
And Kate Young, Brexit and chemicals campaigner for NGO CHEM Trust, said the EU27 gets "clear benefits" from allowing the UK associate membership of Echa, as long as Britain commits to the three "sensible preconditions likely to be set" by the EU – to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction, forfeit voting rights and remain aligned with EU chemicals laws.
"Echa membership should be dealt with independently from other Brexit-related discussions on the internal market because, as Article 1.1 of REACH states its ‘purpose is to ensure a high level of protection of public health and the environment’," she said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71722/industry-backs-parliament-subcommittee-call-for-brexit-reach-clarity
-
Energy Industry Triumphs in Washington, Colorado, but Gas Tax Stands in California
Nov 7, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
Two energy-related propositions that saw the oil and gas industry pump tens of millions of dollars into Washington state and Colorado were defeated Tuesday, while a rollback on California's gas tax was voted down.
A carbon fee in Washington that could have raised billions of dollars for renewable energy and other investments and the extension of oil and gas drilling setbacks from homes and businesses that would have blocked most drilling in Colorado's were rejected by voters. In Washington 56.3 percent voted against a proposed carbon fee, while 56.8 percent of Coloradans rejected increasing setbacks for oil and gas drilling to 2,500 feet.
Texas' oil and gas industry pumped tens of million of dollars to fight the Washington and Colorado propositions. Some claimed the Colorado measure would effectively kill the oil and gas industry in the state, and in Washington that the carbon fee -- which would have taxed the worst carbon polluters and used the money for renewable energy investments and other uses -- would have cost the state jobs.
In California 55.3 percent of voters chose to uphold an increased fuel tax that increases tax on gas and vehicle registration fees to pay for maintenance on existing roads and bridges and add to transportation options.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Energy-industry-triumphs-in-Washington-Colorado-13370789.php
-
Colorado, New Mexico Wins Expand Democratic Control in the Oil Patch
Nov 7, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
Democrats are set to expand their reach into the U.S. oil patch after Tuesday's election, potentially turning Western states into a testing ground for new oil and gas regulation.
Colorado and New Mexico elected Democratic governors who ran on promises to expand clean energy production and crack down on methane emissions from drilling rigs. Democrats also won unified control of the legislatures in both states, giving the party an opportunity to pursue new rules for oil and gas companies even as the Trump administration has pushed in the opposite direction in D.C. The two states accounted for a combined 9 percent of U.S. oil and gas production in 2017.
“The deregulatory push currently taking place in Washington by the Trump administration, this is a repudiation of that,” Jon Goldstein, director of regulatory and legislative affairs at Environmental Defense Fund said of the election results in the two states.
Colorado, under Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, already had some of the strictest rules governing methane emissions from drilling operations on state lands. The rules served as a model for the Obama administration’s own regulations, which were eventually repealed by the Interior Department under Trump.
But with liberal Rep. Jared Polis moving into the governor's mansion next year and the General Assembly now in line for full Democrat control, the government there is expected to back a shift toward more renewable energy even more strongly and possibly revisit rules increasing the distance oil and gas wells have to be from occupied structures. Colorado voters rejected a ballot measure that would have required 2,500-foot setbacks, but the relatively narrow margin of defeat despite a more than 40-to-1 spending advantage by industry-funded opposition groups has left some oil allies in the state worried about what comes next.
Polis promised to transition the state‘s energy consumption to 100 percent renewable energy by 2040 by easing the permitting process for solar, wind and geothermal projects on public lands. And he has said he is open to new rules on setbacks, although he opposed the ballot measure and pledged to look for "common ground" with the industry.
In New Mexico, Democratic Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s victory in the governor’s race and Democrat Stephanie Garcia Richard winning a surprise victory as state land commissioner will also almost certainly lead to stricter methane regulations and increased renewable energy investments, analysts said.
Lujan Grisham campaigned on increasing investment in solar and wind projects in the state and creating a statewide rule to reduce methane leaks from new and existing oil and gas wells.
Drilling in the Permian Basin shale formation has contributed to New Mexico's increase in oil and gas production in recent years that has propelled it to becoming the country’s third-largest oil producer. But outgoing Republican Gov. Susana Martinez's opposition to tighter regulations helped lead to a backlash among voters, said Jenny Rowland-Shea, senior policy for public lands at Center for American Progress.
New Mexico “has been trying to get more oil and gas companies, and they’ve been coming in faster than regulations could catch up,” Rowland-Shea said. “New Mexico voters saw that.”
There may be less for state Democrats to do in New Mexico, as nearly two-thirds of the oil production there is on federal land, said Rene Santos, senior director of exploration and production analysis at Platts S&P Global. But the industry should still look to more regulation than they may have been used to in the state.
“A new land commissioner who will pose tougher regulations on methane leaks will not result in lower oil or gas production in the state,“ Santos said. “However, depending on the type of regulations, it will end costing producers more to operate oil and gas wells.“
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/11/state-democrats-win-a-chunk-of-oil-patch-936701
-
Up Against Big Oil in the Midterms
Nov 8, 2018 | New York Times
By Bill McKibben
The victories in the midterm elections were real and sweet for environmentalists and progressives: There will be at least 119 women in Congress, and for the first time their ranks will include a Muslim (two, actually) and a Native American (at least two).
Some of those candidates were talking about a Green New Deal, like the one put forward by the soon-to-be-youngest member of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that would rapidly reduce the nation’s fossil fuel use while preparing the country for climate change. The fact that the Democrats now control one house of Congress means that President Trump’s pillage of environmental regulations will at least proceed under the spotlight of investigation. Half a dozen new states now have governors and legislatures willing to consider cutting greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
And yet I confess I came away from Tuesday night feeling unsure that there really is the political space to get done what needs doing in the time that we have left. Last month, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that we had perhaps a dozen years to really turn the planet around by substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It’s not that we won’t see real change eventually. The new governor of Colorado, for instance, announced the most ambitious targets in the nation for converting to 100 percent renewable power by 2040. That’s wonderful — but it’s also in one state, and still slow, at least when compared with the timetable laid out by the United Nations’ climate panel.
The new head of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is likely to be Eddie Bernice Johnson, a black woman who — and this is a large change — actually believes in science. That’s wonderful too, but new legislation emerging from the House would have to somehow get through the Senate, which became redder on Tuesday, and through the president, and then it would somehow have to survive review by the courts, which the president can continue to pack with hard-right ideologues.
And most devastatingly, in those places where activists tried to take matters into their own hands and pass truly serious changes, the money power of Big Oil simply crushed them.
I can’t find the words sufficient to praise activists in Washington State who worked tenaciously to get a carbon tax on the ballot, or those in Colorado who fought their hearts out for modest setbacks for new oil and gas projects, including fracking wells, so that drill rigs wouldn’t loom over people’s houses. In both cases early polling showed substantial leads for the proposals. Heck, that noted radical, Bill Gates, came out for Washington’s carbon tax. But then Big Oil simply overwhelmed the efforts with money.
Spending on the Washington initiative broke all records in the state. In Colorado activists were outspent 40-1. Every time you turned on the TV in those states, a commercial warned that these ballot measures would destroy the economy. There apparently wasn’t enough airtime available to soak up all the money, so if you were driving the highways around Denver you’d pass trucks towing billboards denouncing any effort to restrict fracking.
Even where climate campaigns were well-funded (the billionaire Tom Steyer poured at least $17 million into an effort for more renewable powerin sunny Arizona), the industry spent substantially more, and that spending was enough to defeat change. Most places, though, the money was virtually all on one side, and there was just so much of it. San Luis Obispo County in California has less than 200,000 registered voters and yet the oil industry spent more than $8 million to beat a fracking ban. In one county.
So one message is clear. Along with working hard in states from Maine to New Mexico where progress is far more possible after Tuesday’s legislative gains, environmentalists will have to figure out how to focus fire on the fossil fuel industry itself, to see if somehow its political power can be broken.
Some of that is already underway. A divestment movement that I’ve helped to direct has grown rapidly, with endowments and financial portfolios worth $6 trillion joining in. But such efforts need to keep growing, to call to account the banks and insurance companies that bankroll the coal, oil and gas investments that science tells us we can no longer afford to be making. Investors can theoretically move more nimbly than politicians, so it makes sense to pressure them, even as we continue working for a political realignment.
Every election cycle brings wins and losses. But every election cycle also brings us two years further down the path of irrevocable climate change. That’s why even a mixed result can seem bruising.
Bill McKibben teaches environmental studies at Middlebury College and is the author of the forthcoming book “Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/climate-midterms-emissions-fossil-fuels.html
-
Elections Herald Federal Oversight and Project Battles
Nov 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Tuesday's election results will translate to greater pressure on the federal agency that oversees pipeline safety, while individual oil and gas projects saw mixed results.
Even before the election results started rolling in, oil and gas pipeline companies were bracing for pressure from Congress.
Natural gas distribution companies have been watching for updates from an investigation of explosions that rocked several Boston suburbs this fall, when faulty work practices were at least partly to blame for blasts that killed one person and left dozens of homes without gas or power.
"I'm assuming that Congress will want a fix for what happened in Massachusetts," Christina Sames, the vice president of operations and engineering for the American Gas Association, told a gathering of state pipeline regulators last month (Energywire, Oct. 18).
Many lawmakers had already lost patience with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the federal agency charged with pipeline safety oversight.
PHMSA faces reauthorization next year and will surely be called to task on Capitol Hill for its failure to complete numerous rulemakings, studies and other requirements contained in the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act and the 2016 PIPES Act, as well as requirements imposed by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Government Accountability Office.
A chart on PHMSA's webpage shows the agency has completed 33 of 42 mandates contained in the 2011 law; it does not publicly track progress on all of the unfilled requirements.
At a June hearing, Democrats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials lit into PHMSA Administrator Skip Elliott over the delays.
"I'm a little bit more than frustrated, to be honest with you. I'm kinda angry. I would rather be sitting here fighting with you about the substance of your regulations that maybe I don't like or whatever, but I can't even do that," Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said during the session.
Capuano, who currently leads that subcommittee, will not be returning to Capitol Hill in January after losing in his primary to Ayanna Pressley, who will head to Washington as the first African-American congresswoman from Massachusetts.
Other committee members will be ready to take up the thread of pressuring the agency about its new and unfinished business, though they may struggle to find pressure points on an agency that is sometimes described as unresponsive and unwilling to impose costs on the industries it regulates.
Enbridge Line 5
At the state level, pipeline projects that are likely to be shaped by the election results saw a mixed bag.
In Michigan, Democrat Dana Nessel was voted in as attorney general with a pledge to shut down Enbridge Inc.'s Line 5 pipeline, which runs along the floor of a waterway connecting lakes Michigan and Huron.
Line 5 is vulnerable to damage from passing ships and other hazards that could lead to a disastrous leak of crude oil into the Great Lakes; Coast Guard leadership testified in Congress last year that the agency is not prepared to handle such a spill.
Last month, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced that the state had reached a deal to move forward on a plan to build a tunnel for a replacement line, but details remain to be worked out (Energywire, Oct. 4).
With Nessel's election as attorney general, the state's plan could fall apart.
"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 before the election (Energywire, Nov. 6).
Keystone XL
In Nebraska, TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline continues to hang in limbo as legal challenges proceed in the state Supreme Court over whether the state erred in approving a route for the pipeline that had not been thoroughly studied. TransCanada has delayed a public announcement of whether it has sufficient shipper interest to justify the pipeline.
If the project is pushed back to the Public Service Commission for a new round of consideration, the balance on that five-person board could prove crucial to the project's outcome.
Bold Nebraska, an advocacy group founded in opposition to the pipeline that argues against it on environmental, property rights and other grounds, campaigned heavily for a Democrat to join the commission.
That candidate, Christa Yoakum, ran for the seat being vacated by a retiring Republican who earlier voted with the majority to approve the pipeline in a 3-2 decision.
Yoakum lost her race to state Sen. Dan Watermeier, a Republican from Syracuse who supports the pipeline.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/11/08/stories/1060105487
-
End Is Near for ‘Frack Holiday’ as Permian Readies for 2019 Boom
Nov 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley and David Wethe
The oil fields of West Texas don’t sit still for long.
Take Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc.’s operations, for instance. Just three months after moving drill rigs out of the Permian Basin because of pipeline shortages, the Houston-based explorer is already talking about bringing them back in the middle of next year.
That’s one of several signs the end may be near for a self-imposed slowdown executives call a “frack holiday.”
The result: Carrizo will reach an “inflection point” in 2019 where both production and cash flow begin to rise together, Chief Executive Officer Chip Johnson said on a Nov. 6 conference call. In other words, things will soon be booming again.
Carrizo is among many smaller operators forced to slow activity in the U.S.’s biggest oil field towards the end of this year after the Permian’s rapid production growth overwhelmed pipelines. The lack of conduits left oil almost trapped, lowering in-basin prices to almost $18 a barrel, or 26 percent, below the U.S. benchmark in September.
But with at least three major pipeline projects scheduled to come online next year, producers are now seeing the problem as a mere footnote in the basin’s ongoing story of surging production growth.
“It will be a series of events throughout 2019 that occur” to ease the bottleneck, Halliburton Co. Chief Executive Officer Jeff Miller told Bloomberg TV this week. “It’d be easy to see, as we finish the year, things being perfectly normal.”
This year, the number of wells drilled but waiting to be fracked has increased 50 percent to 3,722, indicating a new wave of production is set to be unleashed once the pipes are ready, spending budgets are approved and frack crews are available.
This matters to world oil markets. West Texas Intermediate has tumbled almost 20 percent since the beginning of October as fears over U.S. sanctions against Iranian ease. Added production from the Permian would further this trend. Indeed, it bolsters the view that American oil production is in an exponential growth phase.
The U.S. surpassed Russia in August to claim the title of the world’s top oil producer after posting the largest year-on-year output increase in its history. The Permian accounts for about a third of the country’s output and is the world’s fastest-growing major oil field. Consultant Rystad AS sees U.S. production climbing another 45 percent to as much as 16.5 million barrels a day by 2030.
Permian legend Mark Papa, who was a pioneer of U.S. shale as CEO of EOG Resources Inc. from 1999 to 2013, agrees that pipeline shortages “should go away by year end 2019” and may even turn into a surplus.
However it’s not all plain sailing thereafter, Papa, who’s now CEO of Centennial Resource Development Inc, said in an interview last month.
“Some of the other issues like personnel and water handling issues are some of the more long term issues,” he said. There are “insufficient people to get the work done.”
—With assistance from Rachel Adams-Heard.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/end-is-near-for-frack-holiday-as-permian-readies-for-2019-boom
-
U.S. Oil Output Could Rise This Year by the Most Ever: EIA
Nov 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Summers
The U.S. government is forecasting the biggest yearly increase in domestic crude production.
Oil output will average 10.9 million barrels a day in 2018, up from 9.35 million a day last year, the biggest increase on record, according to the Energy Information Administration. That is after the U.S surpassed Russia in becoming the world’s top oil producer in August.
“U.S. production has exceeded EIA’s previous expectations and, as a result, the short-term outlook now forecasts U.S. crude oil production to exceed 12 million barrels per day in 2019,” EIA Administrator Linda Capuano said in a statement.
U.S. output soared to a record 11.346 million barrels a day in August, climbing a record 2 million barrels in the previous 12 months. At the same time, Russia only pumped 11.21 million, according to its energy ministry.
While bottlenecks in the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico remain a lingering threat to domestic output, explorers have been looking to other basins for better and cheaper drilling opportunities, according to Morningstar Inc. At the same time, Halliburton Co. sees constraints in America’s busiest oil field to be relieved by the end of next year.
The EIA sees domestic crude output averaging 12.06 million barrels a day next year, up from 11.76 million a day estimated previously, according to the agency’s Short-Term Energy Outlook released Nov. 6. Its 2018 estimate was raised from 10.74 million previously.
The agency raised its global production forecast for next year to 102.14 million barrels a day from 101.84 million previously. Yet, it sliced its world demand estimate for 2019 to 101.51 million barrels a day from 101.56 million.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/us-oil-output-could-rise-this-year-by-the-most-ever-eia
-
Benefits of Rules Outstrip Savings in Trump Rollback — RFF
Nov 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Trump administration is forgoing billions of dollars in health and environmental benefits in its quest to roll back regulations on oil and gas production, according to Resources for the Future.
Rolling back the Bureau of Land Management's regulations to control methane emissions from oil and gas production on federal land, for instance, would save the drilling industry an estimated $1.9 billion over 10 years. But it would forgo about $2.7 billion in social benefits, according to "The Economics of Regulatory Repeal and Six Case Studies," published by the Washington-based think tank.
Rolling back regulations has been a highlight of the Trump administration. Shortly after he was elected, the president ordered federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation they proposed, and individual departments repealed several high-profile rules that the Obama administration proposed (Greenwire, July 20, 2017).
To be sure, the benefits of regulations are spread across society and are essentially theoretical, while the industry costs are measured in hard dollars. But the research could prove timely for congressional Democrats, who want to challenge the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda, said lead author Alan Krupnick, a senior fellow at RFF.
"They certainly could hold hearings on these regulatory rollback activities and on the executive orders that are guiding a lot of these effort — the emphasis on reducing the cost to industry without factoring in the cost in human health and environmental damages," said Krupnick.
Overall, the paper estimated that repealing all six rules would save the industry $9 billion over 10 years, while forgoing $11 billion in benefits. Only one of the six regulations — the offshore well control rule that the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement has sought to roll back — would produce a net positive impact if it were repealed.
In addition to the BLM methane rule and the BSEE offshore rule, the report also analyzed BSEE's Arctic drilling rule, EPA's methane regulations for new oil and gas wells, and regulations of gas distribution pipelines and oil-carrying rail tanker cars proposed by the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
RFF chose the six rules it analyzed because they drew lots of comments from the industry, and they were designated as economically significant, meaning they'd produce more than $100 million in costs or benefits.
The report builds on previous research that RFF conducted on each regulation. To make valid comparisons, the authors recalculated the costs and benefits and compared them over the same 10-year period. The original analyses conducted by the federal agencies covered a variety of time periods.
The new calculations, which relied on many of the same assumptions that the Obama administration used when it wrote the rules, highlight how differently the Trump administration approaches the costs of new rules.
The Obama administration estimated the "social cost" of methane emissions far higher than the Trump administration, according to RFF's underlying paper on the BLM rule. That's because the Obama administration calculated the effects worldwide, while the Trump administration calculated the effects just on the U.S.
So although the two administrations varied somewhat on the cost of complying with the regulations, they were far different in their estimates of the benefits of cutting emissions — $2.7 billion for the Obama administration versus $1.1 billion for the Trump administration.
The report concluded that it's important for the administration to show how it's calculating the costs and benefits of its proposed rollbacks and cautioned that the results often vary based on the underlying assumptions.
"There is still a fair amount of art to this science," the report said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/11/08/stories/1060105489
-
Rush Plans to Ramp up Oversight of Trump Energy Officials
Nov 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who's expected to lead House Energy and Commerce's energy panel, is planning to dig into Trump administration energy policies next year when Democrats take control of the House.
Rush “wants Congress to start fulfilling its Constitutional duty of providing oversight over the executive branch and he intends to hold public officials accountable at agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Energy Subcommittee,” Rush spokesman Ryan Johnson said in a statement.
Outside groups hope the Energy and Commerce Committee will probe the Department of Energy’s close relationship with industry, especially coal magnate Bob Murray, who is widely seen as the architect of the administration's efforts to keep struggling coal power plants from closing.
Johnson said anything within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction “is on the table.“ The panel has a broad reachover energy issues, including oversight of the DOE, FERC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rush will seek to develop an infrastructure package that would include resources for "modernizing the electric grid, as well as upgrading the nation’s natural gas and lead water pipelines,” he said in the statement.
Rush will also try again to advance a bill that promotes diversity in the energy workforce, and will aim to promote microgrids, electric vehicles and clean energy.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Stung by Failed Carbon Fee, Greens Focus on Renewables
Nov 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Climate hawks began to shift their focus yesterday from a defeated carbon fee referendum in Washington state to boosting renewables in states where Democrats wrested control of legislatures and governors' mansions from Republicans.
Heading into Tuesday's midterms, greens had hoped a win in Washington, where a ballot initiative asked voters to approve a fee on carbon emissions, would propel a series of state carbon-pricing plans nationwide.
But with the carbon fee headed for a resounding defeat, environmentalists said they would pursue smaller policy initiatives to boost renewable energy, spur adoption of electric vehicles and revamp building codes.
"I think the top-line story in the West is there is significantly more opportunity, and even a mandate, to move on clean energy and climate than before the election," said Noah Long, who oversees the Natural Resources Defense Council's energy and climate program in the Rockies and Pacific Northwest.
Some of the Democrats' biggest wins came west of the Rockies. The party seized control of all three branches of state government in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada; padded its legislative majorities in Washington; and returned a climate champion to the governor's office in Oregon, where Gov. Kate Brown (D) easily prevailed in what had once appeared a closer-than-expected contest.
Democrats also picked up gubernatorial seats in Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan and Wisconsin. In New York, Democrats took control of the state Senate, giving the party control of all three chambers in Albany.
Boosting renewable energy production was a campaign staple across those states. Democratic gubernatorial victors in Colorado, Maine and Illinois campaigned on 100 percent renewable pledges, while the winners in Nevada and New Mexico voiced support for 50 percent renewable portfolio standards by 2030.
"That is huge. If these states come together, they're going to have very pro-climate policy," said Joe Nyangon, an energy researcher at the University of Delaware's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy.
The impact could be considerable, he said, especially if the new Democratic governors commit their states to the 26 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions sought by the Paris climate accord. The seven states where Democrats picked up governorships account for more than 12 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, Nyangon said.
But even as environmentalists plotted to green their states, they faced questions about whether their efforts would be enough.
Economists have long pushed carbon prices as the most effective means of achieving emissions reductions because they provide a powerful incentive for consumers across all sectors of the economy to choose cleaner alternatives.
Renewable portfolio standards, by contrast, deliver carbon reductions in the power sector, an area where states have already had success. Transportation emissions, meanwhile, are slowly increasing and are the largest source of greenhouse gases nationally. Emissions associated with residential heating and cooling have also stymied would-be carbon cutters.
'Nibbling'
Constantine Samaras, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted states would increasingly implement tax incentives to deploy electric vehicles. Cities are likely to explore more stringent building codes. And cities and states are likely to continue to push for emissions reductions from their operations, providing a road map of sorts for wider societal carbon cuts.
"These are all great and important climate policies, but still are nibbling at the edge of a giant problem," he said.
That doesn't mean carbon pricing is the silver bullet, Samaras said. A carbon price won't work if it's not politically acceptable.
"Economists are not wrong to push for a carbon price. But the reality of the carbon emissions reductions we have to achieve by midcentury and our political economy is there needs to be a multi-policy approach to achieve the emission reductions that are necessary," Samaras said.
Washington's failure to pass a carbon fee represented the third time in three years the state has failed to put a price on carbon. A legislative effort championed by Gov. Jay Inslee (D) and a 2016 ballot initiative each failed prior to Tuesday's vote.
But that doesn't mean Washington's efforts are a complete failure, said Anne Kelly, a senior policy director at Ceres, a nonprofit that works with businesses to green the economy. Washington greens succeeded in building a coalition that included businesses like Microsoft Corp. and labor and minority groups.
"They helped to normalize the notion of a carbon fee more than anyone else has done at the state level," Kelly said.
Nor is carbon pricing at the state level dead. The Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed a carbon fee earlier this year, and greens there have pledged to revive the idea in 2019. In Oregon, Brown has pledged to sign a cap-and-trade bill and make her state the first to link with California's emissions reduction program.
Still, state-level environmentalists were already starting to cast their gaze elsewhere in the wake of Tuesday's results. They acknowledged the limitations of pursuing policies like renewable portfolio standards but pledged to forge ahead, saying that such measures are politically viable avenues to significant carbon reductions.
In Nevada, where Democrat Steve Sisolak bested Republican Adam Laxalt in the gubernatorial contest, environmentalists were already talking of sponsoring a bill to complement a ballot question calling for renewables to constitute half of the state's electricity sales by 2030.
The ballot question passed Tuesday with nearly 60 percent of voters in favor, but because it calls for enshrining the mandate in the state's constitution, it will need to be approved by voters a second time to go into effect in 2020.
Sisolak was a vocal supporter of the proposal on the campaign trail, and his victory removes one of the last impediments to boosting the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, last year vetoed a bill to increase the state's RPS from 25 percent in 2025 to 40 percent in 2030.
Supporters of the ballot question made clear they welcomed a legislative solution.
"We believe no one in this state should wait for more clean, cheap energy," said Kyle Roerink, a spokesman for the Yes on Question 6 campaign. "We support all efforts to increase our current standard."
Solar coffee
Renewables were at the forefront of the gubernatorial campaign in Colorado, where Rep. Jared Polis (D) rode to a resounding victory over Republican state Treasurer Walter Stapleton. Polis, who kicked off his campaign at a coffee shop that uses solar power to roast its beans in the southern Colorado community of Pueblo, made a 100 percent renewable pledge central to his campaign.
Polis' victory was complemented with wins by five female Democratic state Senate candidates, giving Democrats a two-seat majority in a chamber where Republicans had boasted a one-seat advantage. All those candidates have strong environmental credentials and helped offset any disappointment that greens might have felt at the defeat of Proposition 112, which sought to boost the minimum setback distance between oil and gas drilling rigs and dwellings.
"The way I interpret what happened yesterday is Coloradans expressed clearly they want action on climate and clean energy," said Erin Overturf, deputy director of Western Resource Advocates' Clean Energy Program. "There is definitely a hunger among people in this state to act boldly. I think we will have new opportunity to do that in the coming years."
It was a similar story in New Mexico's gubernatorial race, where Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) won by 14 points over Republican Rep. Steve Pearce. She campaigned on a promise to push the state's RPS to 50 percent by 2030 and to mitigate methane emissions from New Mexico's prolific oil and gas fields.
Her victory means Democrats will take over the governorship from Susana Martinez, a Republican who is close to the oil and gas industry. And just like in Colorado, Democrats added to their majorities in the Legislature, where clean energy advocates picked up seats.
"I think there is a new day in New Mexico," said NRDC's Long. "I am a very hopeful that New Mexico will rise quickly from the very back of clean energy to the very top in the next months."
In Illinois, Democrat J.B. Pritzker soundly beat Gov. Bruce Rauner (R). The victory was particularly significant because it gives Democrats control of all three branches of government in one of America's largest coal-burning states.
Pritzker campaigned on a 100 percent renewable pledge, though he offered few details of how he planned to meet that target. His win means the Illinois Pollution Control Board is unlikely to act on a Rauner proposal to weaken Illinois' air quality rules governing coal plants. The board had rejected Rauner's plan but then put forward a compromise solution of its own.
"Governor-elect Pritzker will have opportunity to sit down with his new EPA director and say, 'Let's take another hard look at this and not simply do what was done before," said Howard Learner, founder, president and executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.
Jack Darin, executive director of the Sierra Club's Illinois chapter, said Pritzker's policies should build on the state's clean energy efforts to date, including the passage in 2016 of the Future Energy Jobs Act, a law supported by the Rauner administration.
"Pritzker understands the tremendous promise the clean energy economy holds for all of Illinois, but particularly communities burdened by poverty and pollution, and those needing to make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy," Darin said in a statement.
Climate gains were not limited to Democratic victories. In Massachusetts, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker cruised to re-election. His victory was punctuated by his endorsement of a regional cap-and-trade program for the transportation sector in his last debate with Democratic challenger Jay Gonzalez.
His comments were widely seen among greens as a boost for the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), a group of Northeastern states seeking to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
The Massachusetts governor has been joined in that effort by Govs. Larry Hogan and Phil Scott, Republicans who won second terms in Maryland and Vermont, respectively, said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center, which is facilitating the initiative.
All three have been supportive of TCI and of regional efforts to oppose President Trump's rollback of environmental rules, she said. While Democratic wins elsewhere may ease the way for climate policy, it is important to note where Republicans are also contributing, Arroyo said.
"Some of these states have been as engaged as any," she said.
Reporter Daniel Cusick contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/11/08/stories/1060105553
-
New Maine Governor Seen as Providing Big Boost to Renewables
Nov 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Maine’s reputation for being unfriendly to renewable energy will end when Democratic Gov.-elect Janet Mills takes office, environmentalists, lawmakers and renewable business executives said.
Mills, who won against Republican Shawn Moody, 50 percent to 43 percent, ran on a platform that included ramping up renewable energy in the state. The state Senate also flipped to Democratic control, putting the party in charge of the state Legislature.
Gov. Paul LePage (R), in office since 2010, has been outspoken about his lack of enthusiasm for, and sometimes outright antipathy toward, public subsidies and other programs to boost the development of renewable energy in the state. As a result, Maine is near the bottom of the nation among states in terms of the amount of solar power generated.
“My administration will chart a new direction—one that will see Maine reclaim its place as a national leader in energy efficiency and renewable energy,” Mills said on her campaign website.
A year-long moratorium prevents the siting of onshore wind turbines. In addition, a promising floating offshore wind pilot project, Aqua Ventus, has been in limbo since LePage’s Public Utilities Commission yanked the draft contract the project would use to negotiate its financial terms with electric distributor Central Maine Power, owned by Avangrid Inc.
State Ready for Change“Maine is clearly ready for a major course correction on energy,” Rep. Seth Berry (D), chairman of the House Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
Mills was elected with “a real mandate to take that challenge head-on,” Berry said.
“LePage stopped even the smallest, common-sense initiatives on solar, and he took repeated actions to stop the growth of offshore wind energy,” Dylan Voorhees, a director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
The vote for Mills shows that “there’s a strong appetite in Maine to move forward with clean energy,” Voorhees said.The LePage administration declined to comment about its renewable energy policies.
“There’s not a point to me responding to criticism,” Julie Rabinowitz, press secretary for LePage, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7. “The policies will obviously change under the new governor.”
Unique Energy ProfileMaine has a strong portfolio of renewable energy on which to build, Voorhees said. For about 30 years, the state has obtained 30 percent of its electricity from in-state hydropower.
Six biomass-woodchip plants produce another 10 percent of the state’s power.
Because of the strong winds, wind farms are plentiful and together produce 1,000 megawatts of power, more wind than all of the other New England states combined, Voorhees said.
Mills wants to revamp the state’s solar rules to deliver more compensation for those with rooftop solar, she said during her campaign. Mills also wants to encourage larger solar farms, including solar installations that entire neighborhoods can buy into, called community solar.
It’s welcome news to solar energy businesses, which have been fighting an uphill battle with the state’s current policies, Vaughn Woodruff, president of Insource Renewables, a solar installation company in Pittsfield, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
“Janet Mills’ outspoken support for modernizing Maine’s solar energy policy and correcting some of the mistakes we’ve made definitely sets the stage for having a rational conversation about what solar policy we want in Maine,” Woodruff said.
One tool Mills has for encouraging wind and other renewable projects in Maine is to influence the makeup of the powerful Public Utilities Commission. The commission reviews energy project proposals in the state and is widely viewed as working in LePage’s shadow. One of the three seats will expire in 2019.
Also, it’s not out of the question that Mills would add more seats to the commission, to bring the number up to five, which is similar to many other states, Habib Dagher, head of the Aqua Ventus floating wind turbine project, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 7.
Floating Wind Project StalledThe 12-megawatt pilot project is the first floating wind turbine venture in the U.S. Floating turbines have an advantage over others in that they can be sited in deep, and often, windier waters far offshore. When up and running, it will power about 9,000 homes, Dagher said.
“There’s a lot of interest in the project by investors across the world,” Dagher said.
The Aqua Ventus won a competitive, $40 million grant from the Department of Energy in 2017 and four years ago, the Public Utiltiies Commission approved the project’s draft “term sheet” for how it would deliver energy to electric distributor Central Maine Power, owned by Avangrid Inc. Aqua Ventus and Central Maine Power finalized a power purchase agreement early this year.
But under pressure from LePage, the commission earlier this year reopened its review of the Aqua Ventus’ term sheet. The project can’t move forward until the PUC finishes its review and approves it, Dagher said.
“The election last night will allow us to move quickly” and get the review wrapped up, Dagher said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-maine-governor-seen-as-providing-big-boost-to-renewables
-
Clean Energy Tax Gets Thumbs Up From Portland, Ore., Voters
Nov 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Portland, Ore., voters decided by an almost two-to-one margin to tax revenue from retail sales to pay for climate adaptation programs.
The Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Initiative will fund efforts to reduce climate change impacts on low-income residents and communities of color. The initiative, also known as Measure 26-201, won 65 percent of the vote with 35 percent voting no, according to midday numbers Nov. 7 from the Oregon secretary of state’s office.
The measure imposes a 1 percent surcharge on gross revenue from sales by large retailers with gross revenue exceeding $1 billion nationally and $500,000 in the city.
The projected $30 million of annual revenue will go for programs such as housing weatherization, renewable energy infrastructure, and the planting of trees to shade against the summer sun.
Retailers Fail to Kill MeasureCorporate opponents of the measure raised $582,000 to defeat it with several well-known names including Amazon.com Service LLC, Kroger/Fred Meyer, Home Depot Store Support LLC, Macy’s/Bloombingdale’s, and Target Corp., each contributing $20,000. Local companies giving $40,000 each included the Pape Group Inc., the Greenbrier Companies Inc., and Oregon Business & Industry Issues PAC, a statewide business association.
Proponents raised $326,000 with the top contributor being the Green Advocacy Project at $100,000, Verde at $55,000 and the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon at $30,000. Sierra Club gave $15,000 and union affiliated Local 48 Electricians PAC gave $10,000.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/clean-energy-tax-gets-thumbs-up-from-portland-ore-voters
-
Hopes Run High as Pelosi, Mcconnell Seek 'Common Ground'
Nov 7, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow
President Trump's much-touted $1 trillion infrastructure plan failed to clear Congress last year, but next year could be different.
Since the midterm election results started coming in, leaders of both parties have signaled they are ready to work together on infrastructure.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said yesterday that he had already spoken with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about infrastructure (Greenwire, Nov. 7).
Pelosi, who's now facing a battle for the House gavel, said today that the new Democratic House majority would seek bipartisanship.
"We believe that we have a responsibility to seek common ground where we can," Pelosi said during a news conference this afternoon. "Openness and transparency, accountability and bipartisanship [are] a very important part of how we will go forward."
Pelosi said that she spoke with Trump last night and that "one of the issues that came up was part of our For the People agenda, building the infrastructure of America."
"I hope we can achieve that," she said, noting that infrastructure legislation could address surface transportation, water systems, broadband and high-speed internet.
Infrastructure "has not been a partisan issue," she added.
A leadership shake-up on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee could also give the issue a boost.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) trounced challenger Art Robinson in election returns last night. He's set to replace retiring Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
DeFazio said on a press call this afternoon that he hopes to push through infrastructure legislation in the first six months of the next Congress — in other words, before Democrats start focusing their attention on the next presidential election.
"I would hope that we could get a package through the House before we get into the silliness" of the 2020 election, DeFazio said.
DeFazio said Trump would need to help drum up support among Senate Republicans for an infrastructure plan.
"The president is going to need to take a leadership role because the Senate is still controlled by Republicans, and there are Republicans who will be reluctant," he said. "I think if the president's on board, then we can get the Senate on board."
Still, it will be a heavy lift. Even with the GOP controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, Trump's plan failed to gain traction.
Questions also remain about whether Republicans would agree on funding mechanisms for infrastructure legislation. Pay-fors were a perennial problem that dogged Trump's plan.
When asked about pay-fors, DeFazio said he had discussed raising the federal gas tax with Trump. The current tax of 18.4 cents per gallon hasn't been raised since 1993.
Trump surprised a group of lawmakers in February by saying he supported raising the gas tax (E&E News PM, Feb. 14). But the president has yet to endorse the idea publicly.
In response to a question from E&E News, DeFazio said Trump's public support would go a long way. "If we're going to raise the federal gas tax, the president would have to be leading and on board," he said.
The gas tax was on the ballot in several states yesterday, with mixed results. In California, voters rejected a repeal of a 2017 gas tax increase. And a gas tax increase in Missouri failed to pass.
It remains unclear who will claim the No. 2 spot on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), a subcommittee chairman, appeared to be eking out a victory over Democratic challenger Josh Harder, but the race was too close to call this afternoon.
If Denham pulls off a win, he will face off against Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) to be ranking member.
In addition to the T&I Committee, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) is pushing for the creation of an infrastructure subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/07/stories/1060105477
-
Infrastructure a Priority for House Transport Panel (Corrected)
Nov 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Shaun Courtney, David Schultz and Tiffany Stecker
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s ranking member and heir apparent to lead the panel in January, has been clear about his priorities: a “real” infrastructure bill with “real money,” and oversight of President Donald Trump’s management of General Services Administration property in the Trump Hotel in Washington.
“I have assurances from the current leadership that infrastructure is at the top of their agenda,” DeFazio said in an interview during the summer.
The bigger question mark has long-been who will lead Republicans on the committee, given the retirement of Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.). Rep. Sam Graves(R-Mo.) breezed through an easy election and has spent the better part of the last year preparing to make the pitch to become chairman. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) also sought the gavel, but the race in his Central Valley district is still too close to call, with Denham holding a lead of less than one percent over his Democratic challenger.
If Denham can eke out a win, it would set up a long-anticipated race for the top Republican committee spot with Graves. Denham has not spent as much time as Graves to push for the chairmanship, given his tight race, but finds a close ally in fellow Californian and would-be leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).]
All three think infrastructure should be the Transportation Committee’s top priority in the new Congress. They’ll just need to negotiate key policy differences on how to pay for that infrastructure.Highway Trust Fund
The Highway Trust Fund, which finances most federal government spending for highways and mass transit, faces a funding shortfall after 2020. Congress will need to come up with a solution as part of a new surface transportation authorization bill to replace the 2015 FAST Act ( Public Law 114-94 ).
“We don’t need much more policy changes. We have pretty good policy in the FAST Act. It’s just inadequate funding,” DeFazio said in an interview.
DeFazio backs increasing the gasoline tax through a plan he calls A Penny for Progress, which would cap an annual gas tax increase at 1.5 cent-per-gallon and which House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) also supports. DeFazio would also like to see Congress create hundreds of billions of dollars in bonds for infrastructure and paying it back.
“No new unpaid for debt,” he said in an interview.
Graves, however, says Congress should move more quickly towards an alternative infrastructure financing tool—vehicle miles traveled (VMT)— rather than patching the gas tax for another few years.
“We’re going to have to turn right back around and spend that political capital to try to replace it because the gas tax is going away. We simply have more and more vehicles on the road that don’t use gas,” Graves said in an interview.
Denham also expressed an interest in VMT among other financing options. Congress needs to work towards “capturing revenue not being captured today,” from electric vehicles, hybrids and others, he said in an interview.
DeFazio, whose home state is part of a vehicle miles traveled pilot project stemming from the FAST Act, says the the tool isn’t ready yet, calling it an “artful dodge.”
He plans to work with his colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee to move quickly on infrastructure financing.
“They want to have a select subcommittee that will be holding hearings starting almost immediately on a wide-range of infrastructure issues, everything from Superfund to clean water to transportation, infrastructure, aviation, harbors and all that,” DeFazio said.
Water and EnvironmentRep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) will likely be the new leader of the subcommittee on water resources and the environment. One of her top priorities will be to make sure the Environmental Protection Agency is making progress on cleaning up contaminated federal property, she said in an interview.
“We need to give the EPA more money to do things they’re supposed to do in cleaning up contaminated federal sites,” Napolitano said. “I’ve asked for a report on all federal sites that have languished.”
Napolitano represents a district about 20 miles east of downtown Los Angeles that includes San Jose Creek and Walnut Creek, two tributaries of the San Gabriel River that are littered with hazardous waste sites, according to EPA maps.
The current chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), will now likely become its ranking member. His top priority would be to continue the process of reorganizing the Army Corps of Engineers out of the Department of Defense, he said in an interview. The Pentagon isn’t the right place for an agency with a backlog of $100 billion of civilian infrastructure projects, he said.
“These are important projects,” he said. “We have got to get the project delivery mechanism fixed.”
Other SubcommitteesRep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) will likely keep his aviation subcommittee, moving over to chairman.
“There’s plenty of work to do, not everything that we do is writing legislation, a lot of it is oversight,” he said in an interview. Oversight would include implementation of the Federal Aviation Administration authorization (Public Law 115-254 ), implementation for NextGen air traffic control, and exploring new areas like commercial space and drones, he said.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), the second highest ranking committee Democrat, expects to lead the surface transportation committee, she told a gathering of school children during a Walk to School Day celebration in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington. She told the gathering she would work to make cities more walkable.
“If you keep setting the example, we’ll bring home the funds,” she said.
(Corrects location of Jeff Denham's district in third paragraph.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/infrastructure-a-priority-for-house-transport-panel-corrected
-
EPA 'Aggregation' Policy Shift May Help Facilities Avoid Strict NSR Permits
Nov 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is reverting to a 2009 definition of “project aggregation” for Clean Air Act permitting that may help facilities avoid stringent new source review (NSR) permits, because the revived policy uses several tests that make it easier to argue that facility activities should not be aggregated, or combined, and therefore are exempt from NSR permits.
In a pre-publication Federal Register “final action” notice released Nov. 7, EPA ends an Obama-era stay of the 2009 policy that the previous administration imposed while it reconsidered the policy, which affects when industrial projects at facilities are “substantially related” and therefore eligible to be aggregated. The Trump administration says its decision completes the lengthy reconsideration process by reinstating the 2009 policy.
Aggregation is a major issue for companies because combining several pollution sources at a facility can push their combined emissions over the threshold for triggering NSR, which can require strict permits that mandate installation of expensive air pollution control technology. As a result, companies aim to avoid aggregation where possible and have been pushing the Trump administration to take steps to ease their ability to not trigger NSR.
“Nonattainment” NSR applies to new or modified sources in areas not meeting federal air quality standards, while prevention of significant deterioration permits are required for such sources in areas meeting federal air limits.
The American Wood Council, which represents the wood manufacturing sector, is already praising the Nov. 7 decision as “lifting some unnecessary red tape,” according to a statement from the group's President and CEO Robert Glowinski. “Until today, it’s become standard practice that multiple projects’ emissions needed to be aggregated in the permitting process, leading to inappropriate reviews, delays and expenses,” he said.
The decision is the latest in a series of actions seen as easing companies' ability to avoid aggregation of individual pollution sources, following a September draft guidance written by EPA air policy chief Bill Wehrum that restricts the factors the agency will consider when determining whether sources are adjacent.
In October, EPA also refined its guidance on when industrial facilities can be considered under “common control,” narrowing the scope for deeming them one source for air permitting purposes.
Environmentalists are likely to fault the latest action, because it revives the 2009 policy that the Obama EPA had put on hold while it weighed their concerns that the policy could worsen air pollution. And the Trump administration's decision to reinstate the policy might heighten those fears by boosting companies' ability to avoid NSR.
The now-revived 2009 policy creates a “rebuttable presumption” that activities taking place three or more years apart are not “substantially related,” and therefore should not be considered part of the same project.
Further, it affirms that timing alone should not be a basis for aggregating projects because “the appropriate basis for aggregation is whether there is a substantial technical or economic relationship."
The three-year presumption is, however, not absolute and regulators may depart from it should they have sufficient reason to do so if a project is phased over more than three years, EPA says.
'Basic Purpose'
The policy also states that “changes are not required to be aggregated simply because they support the plant’s overall basic purpose,” according to a fact sheet EPA released along with the new action.
For example, a plant making different products in different process lines need not aggregate changes to both lines simply because both support the plant's broad overall function.
EPA's 2009 action did not change the agency's NSR regulations, but rather altered the agency' interpretation of them. As such, it is not a rule and is nonbinding on state air regulators, EPA says in the new final action. Due to Supreme Court precedent applicable in 2010, EPA then felt it necessary to solicit public comment on the 2009 action as if it were a “legislative rule,” the agency says. But since then, high court precedent has shifted, making it unnecessary for EPA to treat the “action” as an administrative rule, the agency now says.
Nevertheless, “because the EPA has been using notice-and comment rulemaking procedures up to this point, the EPA believes it is prudent, but not required, in order to retain the interpretation of the NSR regulations with regard to project aggregation that we published in 2009, that we publish this notice in the Federal Register."
A key question EPA says it will address in a forthcoming rulemaking is the relationship between the reinstated policy on project aggregation, and the Trump EPA's March 13 guidance memo on “project emissions accounting."
That memo, issued by former Administrator Scott Pruitt, sought to make it easier for industry sources to truncate NSR reviews by counting both projected emissions increases and emissions decreases from a “project” at the first step of NSR. This makes it easier for project developers to avoid exceeding regulatory air pollutant thresholds and triggering the need for more in-depth “project netting” taking into account all activities at a plant, in order to determine whether fresh emissions controls are required.
Because the March memo gives plants broad leeway to define a “project,” it has implications for the NSR aggregation policy, EPA acknowledges. Environmentalist critics of the memo say it allows plants to define “project” in such a way as to avoid further NSR review and more pollution control obligations.
In the memo, “EPA broached the question of whether it might also somehow be possible for a source to circumvent NSR through some wholly artificial grouping of activities to include decreases in emissions as part of Step 1 of the NSR applicability analysis,” EPA says in the new action. “While we have been mindful of this question in deciding to employ the project aggregation criteria described in this action, we intend to address more fully this scenario in the context of a subsequent rulemaking action on the topic of project emissions accounting."
Pending that new rule, “Our current view is that the concerns regarding the real possibility that NSR might be circumvented through some artificial separation of activities where it would be unreasonable to consider them separate projects -- i.e., the concerns which the 2009 NSR Aggregation Action is intended to address -- are not so obviously presented by the situation where a source itself is choosing to group together, as a single project, activities to which a projected emissions decrease is attributable,” EPA says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-aggregation-policy-shift-may-help-facilities-avoid-strict-nsr-permits
-
EPA Clears Advisory Panel to Review Standards
Nov 7, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A month after acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler shook up the membership of a key advisory committee, the agency has cleared the panel to proceed with two reviews of national air quality standards.
Under "determinations" posted online today, an EPA official found no expertise or impartiality concerns that would disqualify any of the seven members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) from conducting the reviews of the ozone and particulate matter standards.
There "is no reason to believe that CASAC members would not be objective and open-minded and able to engage in deliberative discussions with scientists who may have disparate points of view on the matter before the committee," the two memos read.
The determinations are a required feature of the review process, which is overseen by EPA's Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
But they follow Wheeler's decision last month to replace five committee members and to dissolve an auxiliary panel made up mostly of academic researchers that had been expected to shoulder much of the scientific spadework in the assessment of the particulate matter standards (Greenwire, Oct. 12).
Instead, Wheeler is leaving that task solely to the CASAC. A copy of the announcement is attached to today's memo for the particulate matter review, along with a similar determination made three years ago for the now-disbanded auxiliary panel.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is supposed to assess — and, if needed, revise — the air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other "criteria" pollutants every five years to ensure they're adequately protecting public health and the environment, based on what's known about their effects.
These two reviews, however, are now supposed to proceed under "back-to-basics" guidelines laid out in May by Wheeler's predecessor, Scott Pruitt. Those guidelines put a high priority on completing reviews within the five-year window; they also signal that the committee will be expected to provide feedback on potential economic or energy consequences stemming from any changes to air quality standards.
While that requirement is embedded in the Clean Air Act, critics fear the Trump administration will use it as backdoor route to including compliance costs as a factor, even though public health considerations are supposed to guide the reviews.
The CASAC, which is now made up primarily of state and local regulators with little direct background in research on the health impacts of ozone and particulate matter, is scheduled to hold a Nov. 29 teleconference to discuss a draft plan for the ozone standard review. It will be followed by a face-to-face meeting Dec. 12 and 13 to consider a draft roundup of research on the health effects of exposure to particulates.
Click here for EPA's determination for the ozone standard review.
Click here for EPA's determination for the particulate matter standards review.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/11/07/stories/1060105473
-
House Democrats Face Tightrope Walk Addressing Climate Change, 2020
Nov 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
As Democrats prepare to re-take control of the House following their Nov. 6 midterm victories, party leaders are pledging to intensify a focus on climate change but they must also perform a tricky balancing act between responding to pent-up pressure for legislation against the steep odds of enacting a major measure and the possibility for electoral blowback in 2020.
President Donald Trump's administration has strongly promoted fossil fuels and downplayed climate change risks, and the GOP-controlled Congress has done little to push back -- other than a handful of largely symbolic measures.
House Democrats, including newly elected progressives, will now seek to elevate the issue in the next Congress starting in January by focusing on legislation in the Energy & Commerce Committee and restarting a select climate committee that Democrats launched in 2007 and was killed by the GOP after the party took over the chamber in 2011.
Sources have also noted that House Democrats plan aggressive oversight of Trump administration rollbacks of Obama-era climate rules, including pending measures to scale back greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, power plants and the oil and gas sector.
But the incoming majority must walk a “fine line” leading up to the 2020 elections on climate issues, says Anna Burhop, a Bracewell attorney and former Senate environment committee GOP staffer, during a Nov. 7 post-election webinar. That includes delivering on climate-related campaign promises in a divided Congress while not interfering with the chamber's ability to get things done, she said.
Burhop added that while Democrats have long included climate action in their campaigns, they did so even more this year in response to Trump's anti-climate positions. Part of the party's focus on climate will be making the long-term public case for additional steps to curb greenhouse gases.
Democrats can “have as many messaging hearings as their little hearts desire,” to underscore looming climate risks such as wildfires, hurricanes and sea level rise, she said.
Virtually no observers expect a comprehensive climate change bill to be enacted next Congress, due to continued resistance to carbon controls from Republican lawmakers and Trump. And it is far from clear how detailed Democrats will get in the legislation that they do float, out of concern of giving Republicans concrete policy on which to run against in 2020.
“We are in a place at the federal level where we have the ability now to be represented in one of the branches of government but have no ability to pass legislation,” said billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer during a Nov. 7 press conference.
Additionally, former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) -- who chaired the House Energy & Commerce Committee a decade ago and was a primary co-sponsor of failed cap-and-trade legislation -- told the Washington Examiner that the party should not overreach on climate.
“Democrats ought to pay a lot of attention to the issue of climate change because the American people are starting to demand it,” he said. “But it’s hard to imagine a big proposal getting passed. Democrats should be afraid to vote for a bill that’s not going anywhere, and take all the potential losses from people who will distort their vote with negative campaigns. They don’t need to do that.”
Many experts say the cap-and-trade bill contributed to Democrats' major losses in the 2010 election, and many moderates tried to run from the issue -- to the point where then Senate candidate Joe Manchin (D-WV) ran an infamous TV ad showing him shooting a hold in the legislation. "I'll take dead aim at the cap-and-trade bill," he said.
'Highest Priority'
But some in the party are urging a bolder strategy to push back on the Trump administration's climate stance.
“Climate change has to be one of our highest priorities. We should be voting on a bold new green deal to tackle climate change as one of the first things we do during our first 100 days,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) told the Examiner.
During the midterms, the House Democratic caucus will now add several progressive climate hawks who might call for stronger action, including Reps.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (MN), Rashida Tlaib (MI), and Antonio Delgado (NY).
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), who is likely to become House Speaker in the next Congress, will have to balance their interests with moderates' views in the run-up to 2020, especially given that the Senate and Trump remain staunchly opposed to nearly all major climate efforts. One aide told Politico that Pelosi does not want to box candidates and the party into politically perilous positions and stressed there is no Democratic climate bill.
Pelosi has said the soon-to-be revived select climate committee would “prepare the way with evidence” for energy conservation and climate mitigation legislation, as well as use the issue to help the party defeat Trump in 2020.
But even if Democrats try to advance legislation, they will likely lack support from Republicans -- even those who may have supported such efforts in the past.
ClearView Energy Partners writes in a Nov. 7 analysis that moderates will be in short supply in the Republican caucus given that many of that party's losses came from lawmakers who were willing to compromise on climate issues, including Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), who had been serving as co-chairman of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus.
“We would not look for a climate bargain to emerge from the lower chamber. By our (cursory) calculations, Democrats unseated 16 GOP members of the bipartisan climate caucus, leaving behind a more conservative Republican residual.”
However, Jim Matheson, the CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and a former Democratic congressman from Utah, says Democrats' relatively thin majority means that moderate voices will become even more important.
Democrats are on pace to secure just shy of 230 seats -- about a dozen more than is needed for a majority -- though some close races have still not yet been called, so the exact split is unclear.
Matheson tells Inside EPA Nov. 7 that the party's relatively small majority puts "moderates in a fascinating position" because they can offer a more pragmatic voice to reach out to Republicans. He sees this opportunity on a number of issues including energy and infrastructure, but says he does not know if it will occur.
He also declined to specifically outline how climate debates might play out, but says the issue “is on a lot of folks' minds. . . . There is actually a lot of bipartisan interest to further the issue" and have constructive conversations. However, he cited the wide gulf between the parties on the issue, adding it is "hard to see a lot of things moving along."
'Target-Rich Environment'
While moving legislation faces hurdles, one former Hill aide says Democrats have a “target-rich environment” for oversight of a range of Trump administration rollbacks. The EPA and Transportation Department vehicle GHG proposal is an obvious example of something that is both “time sensitive and hugely important,” given that the administration is working to finalize the plan and that there are signs of a “broken” relationship between the agencies.
With respect to GHG legislation, this source says there is no shortage of potential policies, including clean energy standards, cap-and-trade, carbon taxes or “something new.” The source adds that Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), who is slated to take over the Energy & Commerce environment panel, previously tried to solicit stakeholder ideas on a comprehensive climate bill.
However, such a bill would be crafted with leadership input and “obviously it is not going anywhere in the Senate. The question would be whether they want to own a particular approach and what kind of a position does that put members in.”
This source says there will “obviously be hearings. [But] will they do some kind of a message bill saying, 'This is our new take on climate legislation'? Or will they choose not to do that?”
Meanwhile, Ben Finzel, a former congressional staffer who now focuses on advancing renewable energy, floated areas of bipartisan progress on environmental and energy issues in a Nov. 7 blog post.
Such areas include legislation supporting carbon capture and sequestration, adopting an international treaty to curb refrigerants that act as potent GHGs, passage of a long-stalled Senate energy efficiency bill, energy storage legislation, clean water policy, and pushback on administration efforts to boost energy development on federal lands.
Along these lines, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski on the environmentalist press call sought to temper expectations of major legislation, citing an immediate priority of “intensive oversight” of Trump administration deregulatory efforts.
One area of possible “offense” on climate change could be a “smart infrastructure package” that encourages clean energy and builds a new economy, he said.
Similarly, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), who chairs the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, told the Examiner, “We aren't going to be able to pass a massive new environmental overhaul, but we can certainly set the intellectual groundwork for it and lay down the science-based foundations it, and hopefully voters notice in 2020.”
But one GOP strategist downplays the significance of the change in leadership in the House largely because the expected chairs of key committees are not the savvy strategists of past years of Democratic control. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who is in line to take over the gavel of Energy & Commerce, is "not John Dingell or Henry Waxman," the source says. He is "not terrifying."
This source also cites Democrats' slim majority as preventing them from doing much as well as their lack of experience running committees.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-democrats-face-tightrope-walk-addressing-climate-change-2020
-
Voters Put a Check on the Trump Administration's Reckless Environmental Policies
Nov 7, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Fred Krupp
Last night, the American people voted to put a check on the excesses of the Trump administration. The voters are clearly demanding changes in Washington, a return to common sense policies, and greater accountability from their elected leaders.
The results were also a rebuke to the current leadership of the House of Representatives, which has voted repeatedly to undermine science, roll back environmental safeguards and allow more pollution.
Pro-environmental candidates and climate champions were on the ballot in hundreds of elections at the federal, state and local levels. Many winning candidates made environmental protection central to their campaigns; and many who reject climate science were defeated.
Even in races where pro-environment candidates did not prevail, clean air, clean water and climate change were issues both sides attempted to claim.
The election results will bring welcome oversight and accountability to the Trump administration. We will continue to work with members of both parties to make progress toward climate solutions, defend the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, protect American families from dangerous chemicals, and strengthen our core environmental laws and regulations.
Beginning in January, Washington – and state houses around the country – will see a growing chorus of new young leaders demanding action on climate change and adequate protections from pollution. The House of Representatives will see a record number of women, many strongly pro-environment.
As a result, this election gives us an opportunity to check the excesses of this administration, and hold it accountable for undermining health and environmental safeguards. Everyone who voted for a cleaner, healthier, more prosperous future must now join together to make it happen.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/11/07/voters-put-check-trump-administrations-reckless-environmental-policies
-
Green Groups’ Big Win on Candidates Outshines Drilling Curb Loss
Nov 8, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Environmental groups are finding it’s easier to get votes for candidates than for causes.
At least that’s the approach that national environmental groups are taking in the age of Trump, as they strategize about how best to counter Republican Party leadership that’s dismissive of global warming and sees the development of fossil fuels as key to the nation’s financial future.
Anti-drilling ballots in Colorado and California could have changed the strategy, analysts say, but the losses—compared with overwhelming Democratic candidate wins in both states—are a signal to groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council that while voters don’t have much appetite for fracking fights, they do want political change.
“Ballot initiatives are notoriously difficult to nail down in my experience,” said Emily Gedeon, a program director for the Sierra Club’s Colorado chapter. But the election of a more progressive Democratic governor is giving the group new confidence that oil and gas companies will be held “accountable” moving forward.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
Unsupported
Proponents of the Colorado measure say they didn’t get much support from national environmental groups from the start. The League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club both focused their resources on candidates during the latest election cycle.
Colorado Rising, the group pushing Proposition 112, raised just $1.3 million and didn’t win endorsements from the largest green groups.
“It was very difficult. We had very little support from the Big Greens,” said Anne Lee Foster, lead organizer for the group. “No Tom Steyer, no ‘Gang of Four’,” she said, referring to multimillionaires Jared Polis, Pat Stryker, Tim Gill, and Rutt Bridges who together played a pivotal role in the Colorado elections.
The lack of establishment support for the initiative is in line with environmental groups’ changing priorities, said James Lucier, an analyst with Capital Alpha in Washington. While fracking fights loomed large earlier in the decade, “they’ve really become less of a priority for the national environmental groups,” he said. “Their focus since has been on line infrastructure—the pipelines that bring the product to market.”
Political Bellwether
Colorado, a reliably purple state, has long been a bellwether for political causes. Had the drilling measure passed, environmental groups might have tried to replicate it elsewhere, said Katie Bays, head of energy at Height Securities LLC. Now, probably not.
“It’s fair to say that a successful initiative would have been contagious to states with similar politics, like New Mexico,” Bays said. “And the failure implies that initiatives like this won’t see sustained support from national environmental groups outside of Colorado.”
The focus on candidates over causes is largely a response to what green groups see as President Donald Trump’s unchecked power in Washington, which had led to the rollback of numerous environmental regulations. National green groups spent about $28 million on candidates in this year’s midterm elections, more than during the 2016 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
“There is a triage analysis that environmental groups have to do on a national basis,” according to Bays. “You look at measures that are likely to be successful and you go after the low hanging fruit.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/greengroups-bigwin-on-candidates-outshines-drilling-curb-loss
-
Climate Progressives and Initiatives Fighting Big Oil Won Big in Midterms
Nov 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By May Boeve
The climate movement is celebrating the passage of groundbreaking ballot initiatives on Election Day to stop offshore oil drilling in Florida and to tax corporations to fund programs and job training that will meet clean energy goals in Portland.
Dozens of candidates with strong climate platforms also won Tuesday, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Deb Haaland. These historic wins for women of color bring bold and powerful new progressive voices into our legislative process. We saw record voter turnout demonstrating an inspiring wave of people power that helped restore Democratic control of the House and States Houses around the country and land critical wins for progressive climate-conscious candidates.
It’s organizing from the ground up to protect our communities and planet from greedy fossil fuel corporations that secured these wins.
The task ahead of our newly elected lawmakers and us is clear: we must fight the fossil fuel industry and their oppressive grip on our democracy. As we saw in Washington, Colorado, and Arizona, Big Oil and their allies will spend whatever it takes to protect their profits. It’s our job to build a political movement so large that our voices can finally drown out their dirty money. We may never be able to outspend the fossil fuel industry, but organizing communities has brought us close to victory, and it will take us over the finish line as the fight goes on. Over 800,000 people in both Washington and Colorado respectively voted to stand up against Big Oil. Washington is still counting votes on the carbon fee ballot initiative. This significant demonstration of power shows that our organizing must continue urgently for the sake of people and the planet.
In order to move forward real climate action, we need public officials who refuse to be bought and paid for by Big Oil and can stand up for groundbreaking climate policy like a Green New Deal. It’s time to say “no” to fossil fuel money and invest in renewable energy solutions that put millions to work in family-supporting union jobs. When it comes to uprooting the corporate stranglehold on our political system and preventing the worst impacts of climate change, there’s not a moment to lose. The fossil fuel industry will not make this easy; they are the avowed enemies of climate science. But we can beat them.
The signs of our progress are already visible. More than 1,200 candidates and elected officials signed the “No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge,” rejecting donations from the oil, coal, and gas corporations fueling climate chaos.
Even more inspiring, thousands of volunteers worked countless hours, knocking on doors, calling voters, and holding rallies to inform the public and stand up against tens of millions in dirty spending by big polluters seeking to undermine science and democracy across the nation. They think they can rig our elections and our democracy as they always have, but the true bedrock of the nation, people power, shows us that another world is possible.
Having flipped the House, Democrats must now align their policies with science and the moral imperative of the present. That means working to enact a Green New Deal to put millions to work in good, union jobs building the 100 percent renewable energy-powered world we need. It means ensuring that those who’ve contributed most to the climate crisis -- especially coal, oil, and gas executives who have spent fortunes and decades misleading the public about the dangers of their business activities -- pay their fair share to the planet and the public. The revenues raised from these common-sense climate policies must be reinvested into the frontline communities, tribes, and working families endangered and left behind by the fossil fuel economy.
Real leaders must be willing to take on the fossil fuel corporations responsible for the climate crisis, and empower communities and local people to build the solutions we need: renewable energy, locally-driven planning that births solar and wind projects, and other green initiatives to help communities flourish. Climate justice is economic justice is racial justice. We can reign in emissions, close the racial wealth gap, provide secure jobs to workers and restore sovereignty to Indigenous nations. We are tired of being told that we must choose.
If intensifying wildfires and devastating storms weren’t evidence enough, the recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report confirmed that the next 10 years will be critical to slow the climate crisis — and if we don’t we’re in trouble. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Trump administration continues to deny the scientific truth of climate change, gutting common-sense climate and environmental regulations while allowing big coal, oil and gas companies to loot taxpayers and our public lands. Yet, on Election Day, voters showed that we can rebuke the big polluter agenda through supporting progressive candidates who are strong on climate and other issues of justice.
I’m proud of what we accomplished this past Tuesday. Monumental shifts like this happen when everyday people get involved and lead the way. Passing climate ballot initiatives this election is a victory worth celebrating. The work of building a more just and equitable world, for our climate and communities, continues.
May Boeve is the executive director of 350 Action, which mobilizes voters across the country to elect progressive climate champions at all levels of government.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/415578-climate-progressives-and-initiatives-fighting-big-oil-won-big-in
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested