ACC AM 13/12/18

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Top Lobbyists 2018

   Dec 13, 2018 | The Hill

   Welcome to The Hill’s Top Lobbyists 2018.
2. (ACC Mentioned) North American Capacity Boost

   Dec 13, 2018 | Petroleum Economist

   Operators responded to the soaring production in North America in 2018 with a flurry of pipeline projects, and one of the most important of them commenced full operations in October—Williams' $3bn Atlantic Sunrise project began full operations October, adding 1.7bn cf/d of long-awaited pipeline takeaway capacity from the Marcellus Basin and boosting design capacity of the nation's largest-volume natural gas pipeline system by 12pc.

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

3. (ACC Mentioned) European Court Denies Appeal to Disclose Testing Information Related to Glyphosate Authorization

   Dec 13, 2018 | The National Law Review

   By Lisa M. Campbell
   
   
   On November 21, 2018, in Court of Justice of the European Union (EU), the Fourth Chamber of the General Court (General Court/Fourth Chamber) issued a judgment in the appeal case T-545/11 RENV that denied all three pleas on appeal and prevented applicants Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (Applicants) from receiving certain documents containing confidential information relating to the first authorization of the placing of glyphosate on the market as an active substance, specifically the complete list of all tests submitted by the operators seeking the inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I to Directive 91/414.
4. (ACC Mentioned) Two American Grocery Chains Pledge Action on PFAS Takeout Packaging

   Dec 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin
   
   
   Major American grocery retailers Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe’s have committed to taking steps to remove takeout packaging containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
5. Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s Pledge Initial Action on Toxic PFAS

   Dec 12, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

   By Mike Schade and Laurie Valeriano
   
   
   Yesterday, our new report revealed that toxic PFAS chemicals are hiding in common takeout packaging and other food contact materials at some of the nation’s largest and most popular grocery stores.
6. Bill Would Authorize Funding for PFAS Testing

   Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Daily

   By Courtney Columbus
   
   
   Two House lawmakers from Michigan yesterday introduced a bill that would authorize funding to test for toxic chemicals that have turned up in drinking water.
7. Markey Hints Wright May Win Approval Without Formaldehyde Study

   Dec 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

   Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is reiterating his push to force EPA to release its long-delayed assessment of the risks of formaldehyde, suggesting that Peter Wright, the Trump administration's nominee to lead EPA's waste office, may win Senate approval even though the agency has not followed through on its pledge to release the assessment.
8. Why Hasn't the US Banned Asbestos?

   Dec 13, 2018 | The Ecologist

   By Emily Walsh
   
   
   There are many natural and chemical toxins that are dangerous to human health.
9. EU Move to Restrict Chemical Phthalates Sparks Blood Bag Concern

   Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Gardner
   
   
   Companies that make blood bags and other medical equipment would have to change the composition of their products under a draft European Union rule on phthalates.
10. Echa Round-Up

    Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    Echa has opened a public consultation on a proposal for the harmonised classification and labelling of seven borates, including:tetraboron disodium heptaoxide, hydrate; andorthoboric acid, sodium salt.

Energy News

11. Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming Oil, Gas Permitting Soars in November

    Dec 12, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Carolyn Davis
    
    
    U.S. oil and natural gas permitting during November increased 60% from a year ago and was up by almost one-third month/month (m/m), aided by strong gains in Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming, according to Evercore ISI.
12. 7 Signs the Global Energy Economy is in Transition

    Dec 13, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Nat Keohane
    
    
    As negotiators from 197 nations are meeting here in Poland this week to discuss ways to stop runaway climate change – amid reports about rapidly rising emissions – there are also significant market and technology trends bringing positive news.
13. U.S. Oil is Surging. Here's What It Means for the Climate

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

    By Benjamin Storrow
    
    
    America is closer than ever to energy independence.
14. Big Oil Can’t Beat Rhode Island Water Contamination Claims

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Peter Hayes
    
    
    ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Atlantic Richfield, and other oil and chemical companies couldn’t convince a federal court to dismiss claims by Rhode Island over contamination of the state’s waters with the gas additive MTBE.
15. Investors Call on BP, Exxon, Shell to Defend EPA Methane Regulations

    Dec 13, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund (Blog)

    By Kate Gaumond
    
    
    Last week, investors representing $1.9 trillion assets under management called on 30 oil and gas companies, urging them to publicly oppose the EPA’s proposed weakening of its methane rules.
16. DRBC Given 104,000 Signatures for Full Fracking Ban

    Dec 12, 2018 | The Intelligencer

    By Chris Ullery
    
    
    Members of 15 environmental organizations delivered its petition to the Delaware River Basin Commission asking for a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction.
17. Pipeline Industry’s Problems Seen Bigger Than Policy, Structure

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rachel Adams-Heard
    
    
    The pipeline industry’s problems go beyond the tax changes and complicated partnership structures that helped send the companies’ stock prices plunging, Deloitte LLP said in a new report.
18. OSHA to Investigate Worker Injuries at Mariner East 2 Pipeline

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Sam Pearson
    
    
    Federal worker safety officials are investigating after two workers were injured Dec. 10 while constructing Dallas-based Energy Transfer LP’s Mariner East 2 natural gas pipeline in western Pennsylvania.
19. Mich. Governor Signs Bill Allowing Great Lakes Oil Tunnel

    Dec 13, 2018 | AP (In E&E Energywire)

    By John Flesher
    
    
    Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed legislation yesterday establishing a panel to oversee construction of an oil pipeline tunnel in the waterway linking Lakes Huron and Michigan, while opponents insisted the battle isn't over and could widen from the state Capitol to the courts.

Chemical Security News

20. Auto Parts Distributor Cited for Storage, Chemical Hazards (1)

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Chris Marr
    
    
    A Georgia auto and truck parts distributor allegedly failed to give employees information on chemical hazards and continued to use damaged storage racks, according to federal safety citations announced Dec. 12.
21. Don’t Flush Your Drugs, EPA Tells Healthcare Facilities

    Dec 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By David Schultz and Sylvia Carignan
    
    
    Unused drugs and other pharmaceutical waste don’t belong in the sewer system.
22. Final EPA Rule Narrows Definition Of Pharmaceuticals Subject To RCRA

    Dec 12, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Suzanne Yohannan & Lara Beaven
    
    
    Over industry's strong objections, EPA's final hazardous waste pharmaceutical rule retains a proposed Obama-era definition that prescription pharmaceuticals sent from healthcare facilities to reverse distributors are regulated as solid waste, but the rule now excludes non-prescription medication sent to reverse logistics centers from the definition.
23. Study: Valve Hole Set Off Refinery Blast, Fire in Wisconsin

    Dec 12, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)

    A hole in a valve was the source of an April explosion at a Husky Energy refinery in northwestern Wisconsin that injured 36 people and required the evacuation of a large part of the city of Superior, according to findings of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board presented Wednesday.
24. 'Disruptive' Virus That Hit Oil and Gas Companies Resurfaces

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    A crippling computer virus that wiped out tens of thousands of computers at Saudi Aramco six years ago has resurfaced, security researchers say.
25. Superior Residents Ask Feds to End Use of Toxic Chemical at Refinery

    Dec 12, 2018 | MPR News

    By Dan Kraker
    
    
    Federal officials heard an earful Wednesday at a public meeting in Superior, Wis., about the explosion and fire at the nearby Husky Energy refinery that injured 36 people and forced the evacuation of much of the city last spring.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

26. Hill Weighs Common Ground, Hurdles in New Congress

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Daily

    By Geof Koss
    
    
    The obstacles to a bipartisan deal are many, but possible areas of agreement on an infrastructure package in the 116th Congress are starting to emerge — including on policies that meet the top Democratic demand of curbing climate change.

Environment News

27. (ACC Mentioned) Wehrum Says ACE NSR Changes Won't Expand to Other Sectors

    Dec 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

    EPA air chief Bill Wehrum says the agency does not currently plan to extend its proposed power sector-specific Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) alternative emissions test to other industries, even as the agency moves to ease separate NSR mandates for other sectors.
28. Capacity Limits May Hinder EPA Plan To Finish PM NAAQS Review By 2020

    Dec 12, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    Members of EPA's overhauled Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), dozens of former panelists, clean air advocates and even some major industry groups are warning that CASAC lacks the capacity to properly review the agency's federal particulate matter (PM) standards, hindering EPA's plan to finish the review by 2020.
29. House Climate Change Panel Won't Likely Pass Bills

    Dec 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
    
    
    A growing number of House Democrats are backing the idea to create a special committee to fight climate change next year, but it likely won’t have the authority to pass any bills.
30. John Kerry: If We Fail on Climate, It Won’t Be Just Trump’s Fault

    Dec 13, 2018 | The New York Times - Opinion

    By John Kerry
    
    
    This week is the third anniversary of the Paris climate agreement. The Trump administration marked it by working with Russia and Gulf oil nations to sideline science and undermine the accord at climate talks underway in Katowice, Poland.
31. Voters Shrug as Energized House Democrats Vow Action on Climate

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Ari Natter and Anna Edgerton
    
    
    Polls show climate change still lags behind health care, jobs, immigration, and the federal budget deficit among voters’ priorities.
32. Michigan Republicans Seek Ban on Stringent Environmental Rules

    Dec 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Alex Ebert
    
    
    Michigan Republicans are pushing limits on state environmental policies stricter than federal rules. just as a Democratic governor who ran on environmental issues is set to take office.
33. EPA Advisory Panel Gets Earful at Public Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E News PM

    By Sean Reilly
    
    
    An embattled EPA advisory committee held a public hearing in Washington today, with members getting two broad strains of feedback.
34. 'Green New Deal' Efficiency Goals 'Reasonable' — Feds

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Daily

    By Christa Marshall
    
    
    Energy efficiency goals in the proposed "Green New Deal" are "reasonable," representatives from the Department of Energy and other federal agencies told House lawmakers yesterday.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Top Lobbyists 2018

   Dec 13, 2018 | The Hill

   Welcome to The Hill’s Top Lobbyists 2018.

   Here you’ll find the most distinguished and accomplished professionals from the influence world who are on the front lines of the nation’s most consequential political and policy battles.

   The lobbying world faces new pressures and is under greater scrutiny than ever. But the select few on the list have demonstrated their ability to wield influence and deliver results on Capitol Hill and in the administration on behalf of clients and groups seeking a voice in Washington.ADVERTISEMENT

   Many of the advocates on the list don’t fit the traditional definition of a lobbyist, and only a portion are registered as such. Some are known as “hired guns,” who are brought on in times of crisis, while others represent the nation’s most iconic companies, industries and unions, as well as grassroots groups.

   The nation’s capital is teeming with lobbyists and influencers, but when the stakes are at their highest, these are the players at the top of their game, known for their ability to successfully navigate the byzantine and competitive world of federal policymaking.

    

   Corporate

   Jane Adams, Johnson & Johnson

   Cory B. Alexander, UnitedHealth Group Inc.

   Bryan Anderson, Southern Co.

   Bill Barloon, Sprint Nextel Corp.

   Wayne Berman, Blackstone Group LP

   Karan Bhatia, Google LLC

   Ruchi Bhowmik, PepsiCo Inc.

   Abigail Blunt, The Kraft Heinz Co.

   Dwayne Carson, The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

   Maria Cino, Hewlett Packard Enterprise

   Peter Cleveland and Norberto Salinas, Intel Corp.

   Kenneth W. Cole, Pfizer Inc.

   Mo Cowan, General Electric Co.

   Terri Fariello, United Airlines

   Bob Filippone, Merck & Co.

   Tucker Foote and Nichole Francis, Mastercard Inc.

   Maggie Gage, Credit Suisse Group AG

   Matt Gelman and Fred Humphries, Microsoft Corp.

   Bruce Harris, Walmart Inc.

   Robert Helm, General Dynamics Corp.

   Brian Hendricks, Nokia Corp.

   Guy Hicks, Airbus Group

   Ed Hill, Bank of America Corp.

   Robert Hoffman, Accenture

   Jessica Hogle, PG&E Corp.

   Brian Huseman, Amazon

   Alethia Jackson, Walgreen Co.

   Lesley A. Kalan, Northrop Grumman Corp.

   Joel Kaplan, Facebook Inc.

   Timothy Keating, Boeing Co.

   Heather Kennedy, The Home Depot Inc.

   Laura Lane, Dontai Smalls and Mike Kiely, United Parcel Service Inc.

   Melissa Lavinson, Pepco Holdings

   Matt Lavoie, Koch Companies

    Chris Leahy, Intuit Inc.

   Curt Magleby, Ford Motor Co.

   Meagan McCanna, Airbnb Inc.

   Tim McKone, AT&T Inc.

   Jake Menefee, Marathon Petroleum Corp.

   Jeanne Mitchell, Exxon Mobil Corp.

   Mara Motherway, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

   Michael Moran, Zurich North America

   Chandler Morse, Workday Inc.

   Christopher Myers, Caterpillar Inc.

   Sarah Novascone, The Travelers Companies Inc.

   Chris Padilla, IBM Corp.

   Dean Pappas and Steve English, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

   Michael Paese and Michael Thompson, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

   Adam Peterman, Marie Sylla-Dixon and Michelle Persaud, T-Mobile US Inc.

   Mike Parrish, Bayer Corp.

   Robert Rangel, Lockheed Martin Corp.

   Louis Renjel, Duke Energy Corp.

   Isaac Reyes, Target Corp.

   Mitch Rose, Comcast Corp.

   Brian Smith, Regions Bank

   Matt Stanton, Under Armour

   Lynn Starr, Ericsson

   Ryan Stenger, TimkenSteel Corp.

   Jonathan Weisgall, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co.

   Candi Wolff, Citigroup Inc.

   Molly Wilkinson and Nate Gatten, American Airlines Inc.

   Cherie Wilson, General Motors Co.

   Heather Wingate, Delta Air Lines Inc.

    

   Grass roots

   Brandon Arnold, National Taxpayers Union

   Lauren Augustine, Student Veterans of America

   Matt Bennett, Third Way

   Michael Breen, Human Rights First

   Garrett Bess, Heritage Action for America

   Ana Unruh Cohen and John Bowman, Natural Resources Defense Council

   Ken Cook, Environmental Working Group

   Chris Cox, National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action

   Andrea Delgado, Earthjustice

   Steve Ellis, Taxpayers for Common Sense

   Marvin Feuer, American Israel Public Affairs Committee

   Karen Hobert Flynn and Aaron Scherb, Common Cause

   Lily Eskelsen García, National Education Association

   Leo Gerard, United Steelworkers

   Vanita Gupta, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

   Joshua Habursky, Grassroots Professional Network

   Mary Kay Henry, Service Employees International Union

   Craig Holman and Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen

   Frederick Isasi, Families USA

   Gary Jones, United Auto Workers

   Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund

   Nancy LeaMond, AARPADVERTISEMENT

   Joanne Lin, Francisco Bencosme and Ryan Mace, Amnesty International USA

   Meredith McGehee, Issue One

   Bill McKibben and May Boeve, 350.org

   Ed Mierzwinski, U.S. Public Interest Research Group

   Eric Mitchell, Adtalem Global Education

   RaShawn Mitchell, National Wildlife Federation

   Janet Murguía, UnidosUS

   Katie Murtha, Environment America and U.S. Public Interest Research Group

   Matthew Myers, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

   Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform

   Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity

   Melinda Pierce, Sierra Club

   Paul Rieckhoff, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

   Andrew Roth, Club for Growth

   Lee Saunders, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

   Thomas Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste

   Faiz Shakir, American Civil Liberties Union

   Christopher Shelton, Communications Workers of America

   Tiernan Sittenfeld, League of Conservation Voters

   Richard Trumka and Bill Samuel, AFL-CIO

   Heather Valentine, Bread for the World

   Fred Wertheimer, Democracy 21

   Dylan Williams, J Street

    

   Associations

   Dana Atkins, Military Officers Association of America

   Greg Baer and Anthony Cimino, Bank Policy Institute

   Mitch Bainwol, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

   Mark Baker, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

   Meredith Attwell Baker, CTIA

   Greg Barnes, Digital Media Association

   Tori Barnes, U.S. Travel Association

   Michael Beckerman, Internet Association

   Kenneth Bentsen Jr., Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

   B. Dan Berger and Brad Thaler, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions

   Joshua Bolten, Business Roundtable

   John Bozzella, Global Automakers

   Kevin Burke and Annie Russo, Airports Council International — North America

   Steve Caldeira, Household & Commercial Products Association

   Nicholas Calio, Christine Burgeson and Sean Kennedy, Airlines for America

   Chase Cannon and Matt Willette, American Optometric Association

   Robert Cresanti, International Franchise Association

   Geoff Cooper, Renewable Fuels Association

   Greg Crist, AdvaMed

   Chester “Chip” Davis Jr., Association for Accessible Medicines

   Jeffrey D. DeBoer, The Real Estate Roundtable

   Richard Deem, American Medical Association

   Cal Dooley and Bryan Zumwalt, American Chemistry Council

   Roger Dow, Tori Barnes and Jonathan Grella, U.S. Travel AssociationJuanita Duggan, National Federation of Independent Business

   Martin Edwards, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

   Eric Fanning, Aerospace Industries Association

   Jennifer Fisher, American Dental Association

   Geoff Freeman, Grocery Manufacturers Associations

   David French, National Retail Federation  

   Lee Fuller, Independent Petroleum Association of America

   Dean Garfield and Ricky Le, Information Technology Industry Council

   Marco Giamberardino, National Electrical Contractors Association

   Elizabeth Goodman, America’s Health Insurance Plans

   Chet Thompson, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers

   Mark Gorman and David Culver, Distilled Spirits Council

   Kate Gould, Friends Committee on National Legislation

   Jimi Grande, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

   James Greenwood, Biotechnology Innovation Organization

   Edward Hamberger, Association of American Railroads

   Jason Hartke, Alliance to Save Energy

   Jerry Howard, National Association of Home Builders

   Erik Huey, Entertainment Software Association

   Richard Hunt, Consumer Bankers Association

   Chip Kahn, Federation of American Hospitals

   Heather O’Beirne Kelly and Karen Studwell, American Psychological Association

   Maria Korsnick, Nuclear Energy Institute

   Thomas Kuhn and Brian Wolff, Edison Electric Institute

   Linda Lipsen, American Association for Justice

   Katherine Lugar, American Hotel & Lodging Association

   Gail MacKinnon and Patrick Kilcur, Motion Picture Association of America

   Dave McCurdy and George Lowe, American Gas Association

   Shannon McGahn, National Association of Realtors

   Nancy McLernon, Organization for International Investment

   Mark Merritt, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association

   Linda Moore, TechNet

   Susan Neely, American Council of Life Insurers

   Rob Nichols, American Bankers Association

   Rich Nolan, National Mining Association

   Jim Nussle and Ryan Donovan, Credit Union National Association

   Stacy Papadopoulos, Sara Slane and Chris Cylke, American Gaming Association

   Mark Parkinson, American Health Care Association

   Bob Pease, Brewers Association

   Richard Pollack, American Hospital Association

   Michael Powell, NCTA — The Internet & Television Association

   Craig Purser and Laurie Knight, National Beer Wholesalers Association

   Rebeca Romero Rainey and Paul Merski, Independent Community Bankers of America

   Bree Raum, American Wind Energy Association

   Dan Roehl and Matt Walker, National Restaurant Association

   John Rother, National Coalition on Health Care

   Bob Rusbuldt and Charles Symington, Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America

   ADVERTISEMENT

   Jennifer Safavian, Retail Industry Leaders Association

   Stephen Sandherr, The Associated General Contractors of America

   J.C. Scott, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association

   Gary Shapiro, Consumer Technology Association

   Emily Skor, Growth Energy

   Gordon Smith, National Association of Broadcasters

   Mike Sommers, American Petroleum Institute

   Jonathan Spalter, USTelecom

   Kristen Swearingen, Associated Builders and Contractors

   Scott Talbott, Electronic Transactions Association

   Jeff Tassey, Electronic Payments Coalition

   Mary Kay Thatcher, Syngenta

   Jay Timmons and Aric Newhouse, National Association of Manufacturers

   Stephen Ubl and Lori Reilly, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

   Dirk Van Dongen, National Association of Wholesale-Distributors

   Andrew Walmsley, R.J. Karney and Scott Bennett, American Farm Bureau Federation

   Kirsten Wegner, Modern Markets Initiative

   Nathaniel Wienecke, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America

   J. Stephen Zielezienski, American Insurance Association

    

   
   Hired Guns

   Josh Ackil and Matt Tanielian, Franklin Square Group

   Kai Anderson, Barry Rhoads and Jordan Bernstein, Cassidy and Associates

   Andy Barbour, Smith-Free Group  

   Haley Barbour, Lanny Griffith, Ed Rogers and Loren Monroe, BGR Group

   Doyle Bartlett, Eris Group

   Bethany Bassett, Rasky Partners

   Jennifer Bell, Chamber Hill Strategies

   Kirk Blalock and Kirsten Chadwick, Fierce Government Relations

   John Blount, Ervin Hill Strategy

   Dan Boston, Health Policy Source

   Chuck Brain, Capitol Hill Strategies  

   Paul Brathwaite, Federal Street Strategies

   Rob Chamberlin and Sam Whitehorn, Signal Group Consulting

   Rob Collins and Mike Ference, S-3 Group

   Justin Daly, Daly Consulting Group

   Tom Daschle and Nathan Daschle, The Daschle Group

   Licy Do Canto, The Do Canto Group

   Michael Drobac, Robert Wasinger and Mona Mohib, McGuireWoods Consulting

   Ken Duberstein and David Schiappa, The Duberstein Group

   Ingrid Duran, D&P Creative Strategies

   Missy Edwards, Missy Edwards Strategies

   Steve Eichenauer, Public Strategies Washington Inc.

   Steve Elmendorf and Jimmy Ryan, Subject Matter

   Holly Fechner, Howard Berman, Bill Wichterman and Muftiah McCartin, Covington & Burling LLP

   John Feehery, EFB Advocacy

   Mitchell Feuer and John Anderson, Rich Feuer Anderson

   Camden Fine, Calvert Advisors LLC

   Jeff Forbes and Dan Tate Jr., Forbes Tate Partners

   Jim Flood, Crowell & Moring

   Omar Franco, Becker

   Elizabeth Frazee, TwinLogic Strategies

   Kimberley Fritts, Cogent Strategies

   Sam Geduldig, John Stipicevic and Mike Catanzaro, CGCN Group

   Chris Giblin, Moses Mercado and Karissa Willhite, Ogilvy Government Relations

   Nicholas Giordano, Washington Council Ernst & Young

   Rich Gold, Kathryn Lehman and David Whitestone, Holland & Knight

   Micah Green, Jason Abel and Luis Fortuño, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

   Gregg Hartley and Andy Blunt, Husch Blackwell Strategies

   Ralph Hellmann and David Lugar, Lugar Hellmann Group

   Michael Herson, American Defense International

   Mike Hettinger, Hettinger Strategy Group

   Susan Hirschmann, Williams & Jensen

   Josh Holly, Holly Strategies

   Mike House, Hogan Lovells

   Steven Irizarry and Vin Roberti, Roberti Global

   Joel Johnson, The Glover Park Group

   Matt Keelen, The Keelen Group

   Ken Kies, The Federal Policy Group

   Israel Klein and Matt Johnson, Klein/Johnson Group

   Lisa Kountoupes, Lori Denham and Julie Hershey Carr, KDCR partners LLC

   Chris Lamond and Andy Rosenberg, Thorn Run Partners

   Marc Lampkin and Al Mottur, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

   Blanche Lincoln, Lincoln Policy Group

   Robert Livingston, The Livingston Group LLC

   Esteban López-Rosado, LGA Strategies

   Trent Lott, John Breaux and Jack Kingston, Squire Patton Boggs

   Patrick Martin, Cozen O’Connor

   Bruce Mehlman, David Castagnetti, Lauren Aronson, Dean Rosen and David Thomas, Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas

   Jeff Miller, Miller Strategies

   Kim Monk, Capital Alpha Partners

   Majida Mourad, Tellurian

   Kyle Nevins and Steve Stombres, Harbinger StrategiesLarry O’Brien, The OB-C Group

   Tom O’Donnell, Gephardt Government Affairs

   Kevin O’Neill, Eugenia Pierson, Greg Louer and Dana Weekes, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer

   Manuel Ortiz, VantageKnight

   Scott Pastrick and Charlie Black, Prime Policy Group

   Ilisa Halpern Paul and Jodie Curtis, District Policy Group

   Jeff Peck and Andrew McKechnie, Peck Madigan Jones

   Steven Phillips, DLA Piper

   Jim Pitts and Chris Cox, Navigators Global

   Heather Podesta, Invariant

   Brian Pomper, Hunter Bates, Scott Parven, Arshi Siddiqui and Geoff Verhoff, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

   Lendell Porterfield, Dwight Fettig and Dawn Sears, Porterfield, Fettig & Sears LLC

   Thomas Quinn, Venable LLP

   Robert Raben, The Raben Group

   John Raffaelli, Shannon Finley, Warren Tryon, Ann Jablon and Jeffery Walter, Capitol Counsel

   Bob Rapoza, Rapoza Associates

   Mark Rayder, Alston & Bird

   Chuck Rocha, Solidarity Strategies

   ADVERTISEMENT

   Emanuel Rouvelas, Darrell Conner, Bart Gordon and James Walsh, K&L Gates

   John Russell and Sander Lurie, Dentons

   Scott Segal and Dee Martin, Bracewell

   Rhod Shaw and Jason Schendle, Alpine Group

   Michaela Sims, Sims Strategies

   Mike Smith and Jim Richards, Cornerstone Government Affairs

    Charlie Spies and Kevin Kelly, Clark Hill

   Tracy Spicer, Avenue Solutions

   David Tamasi, Chartwell Strategy Group

   Linda Tarplin, Tarplin, Downs & Young LLC

   Carl Thorsen and Alec French, Thorsen French Advocacy

   David Urban and Manus Cooney, American Continental Group

   Stu Van Scoyoc, Van Scoyoc Associates

   Nicole Venable, Bockorny Group

   Stewart Verdery, Monument Policy Group

   Jack Victory and Rick Shelby, Capitol Hill Consulting Group

   Alex Vogel, The Vogel Group

   Henry Waxman, Waxman Strategies

   Scott Weaver, Wiley Rein LLP

   Vin Weber and Bryan Lanza, Mercury

   Wintta Woldemariam, King & Spalding

   Jonathan Yarowsky and Rob Lehman, WilmerHale

   https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/top-lobbyists/421128-top-lobbyists-2018
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) North American Capacity Boost

   Dec 13, 2018 | Petroleum Economist

   Operators responded to the soaring production in North America in 2018 with a flurry of pipeline projects, and one of the most important of them commenced full operations in October—Williams' $3bn Atlantic Sunrise project began full operations October, adding 1.7bn cf/d of long-awaited pipeline takeaway capacity from the Marcellus Basin and boosting design capacity of the nation's largest-volume natural gas pipeline system by 12pc.

   An expansion of Williams' Transco system, Atlantic Sunrise, included the construction of 300km of greenfield pipe within Pennsylvania, directly connecting Marcellus gas supplies in the northern part of the state with markets as far south as Alabama via the Transco mainline. It also added 19km of pipe looping, two new compressor stations and included compressor station modifications in five states.

   The project increases Transco's total capacity to 15.8bn cf/d while strengthening and extending its bi-directional flow. It is significant for natural gas-consuming markets all along the East Coast, alleviating infrastructure bottlenecks and providing millions of consumers direct access to one of the most abundant, cost-effective natural gas supply sources in the country.

   While Atlantic Sunrise adds takeaway capacity for Marcellus producers, there is still a need for more. The Appalachian region already represents about 27pc of total US natural gas production, and Navigant Research predicts that production could reach 38bn cf/d by 2040 to claim a remarkable 34pc of total production.

   Williams has already announced another expansion to connect 580mn cf/d of Marcellus production with Atlantic Seaboard demand centers.

   In another demonstration of strong demand, Transco secured binding 15-year commitments on 100pc of new capacity from its proposed Leidy South project, which includes compression and looping of existing Transco facilities in Pennsylvania and lease agreements with National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. and Meade Pipeline on the Central Penn Line.

   Williams is requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to give permission to start the pre-filing process in hopes that Leady South could be in service by late 2021.

   As other Marcellus projects near completion, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that up to 23bn cf/d of takeaway capacity would be added in 2018, including 3bn cf/d from Transco's Atlantic Sunrise, Mountain Valley and Equitrans projects, as well as:Columbia Pipeline's Leach Xpress, which added 1.5bn cf/d of capacity from West Virginia on 1 January, and Mountaineer Xpress, which will add 2.7bn cf/dUp to 2bn cf/d via expansion projects on TCO's Columbia Gulf and WB Xpress pipelines.Rover Phase 2, which adds 3.25bn cf/d to the Midwest and Ontario, and NEXUS Pipeline, which follows a similar route to Rover with 1.5bn cf/d of new capacity.

   Due to the shale gas boom, the US has also witnessed a renaissance in its domestic petrochemical industry. Cheap, readily available shale gas feedstock has allowed the country to become one of the world's lowest-cost ethylene producers. In turn, the US is building millions of tonnes of additional ethylene and ethylene derivatives production capacity. According to the American Chemistry Council's Mid-Year 2018 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook, US chemical production is set to increase 3.4pc in 2018 and 3.6pc in 2019.

   From 2017-2019, ethane consumption in the US is forecast to increase from 1.2mn bl/d to 1.6mn bl/d, according to the EIA. By the end of the decade, the US is forecast to add more than 10mn t/y of new ethylene capacity. This boom in ethylene capacity includes more than 9mn t/y of grassroots facilities, as well as more than 1.2mn t/y in ethylene capacity expansion projects. Most of the country's grassroots facilities will include derivative units. In total, US petrochemical producers will invest nearly $20bn in new ethylene capacity by 2020.

   http://www.petroleum-economist.com/articles/upstream/exploration-production/2018/north-american-capacity-boost
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

3. (ACC Mentioned) European Court Denies Appeal to Disclose Testing Information Related to Glyphosate Authorization

   Dec 13, 2018 | The National Law Review

   By Lisa M. Campbell

   On November 21, 2018, in Court of Justice of the European Union (EU), the Fourth Chamber of the General Court (General Court/Fourth Chamber) issued a judgment in the appeal case T-545/11 RENV that denied all three pleas on appeal and prevented applicants Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (Applicants) from receiving certain documents containing confidential information relating to the first authorization of the placing of glyphosate on the market as an active substance, specifically the complete list of all tests submitted by the operators seeking the inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I to Directive 91/414.

   The judgment provides a detailed history of the case, beginning in 2010, when Applicants requested access to the documents in question.  In this initial case, the Secretary General of the Commission agreed with the Federal Republic of Germany’s decision to refuse access to the documents (contested decision) on the basis that disclosure in Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 would undermine protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person.  In upholding Germany’s decision, the Secretary General found that there was “no evidence of an overriding public interest in disclosure” within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001, and also that the information “did not relate to emissions into the environment” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No. 1367/2006 concerning public disclosure of information on the environmental effects of glyphosate.  As such, “protection of the interests of the manufacturers of that substance had to prevail.” 

   The Applicants brought an action for annulment of the contested decision to the Registry of the General Court.  After one of the documents at issue (a draft assessment report issued by Germany prior to the initial inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I to Directive 91/414) was produced to the court (but still not released to the Applicants), the General Court ruled to annul the contested decision.  The Commission appealed this annulment, stating that the General Court erred in its interpretation of the term “information [which] relates to emissions into the environment.”  The Court of Justice was persuaded by this argument, set aside the initial judgment, and referred the case back to the General Court.  The case was then assigned to the Fourth Chamber.  The dispute was limited to the part of the document at issue that “contains information on the degree of purity of the active substance, the ‘identity’ and quantities of all the impurities present in the technical material, the analytical profile of the batches, and the exact composition of the product developed.”

   The Applicants put forward three pleas in law in support of their action.  The pleas, and the basis for the General Court/Fourth Chamber’s rejections of those pleas, are as follows:Failure to Take Account of the Scope of Article 4(5) of Regulation No. 1049/2001:  Article 4(5) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 provides that a Member State may request an institution not to disclose a document originating from that State without its prior agreement.  Applicants submitted that Article 4(5) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 does not constitute a right of veto for a Member State and that the Commission may not rely on the Member State’s opinion regarding the application of an exception provided for by Article 4(2) of that Regulation.  The General Court/Fourth Chamber stated that “the argument put forward cannot succeed, since Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is not the basis on which the Commission refused access to that document.  Consequently, the first plea in law must be rejected.”  Instead, Article 4(2) was the basis for Germany’s decision, and the Commission verified that Germany’s reasons for that decision were “prima facie, well founded.”Overriding Public Interest In Disclosing Information Relating to Emissions Into the Environment:  Applicants maintained that the exception to the right of access designed to protect the commercial interests of a natural or legal person must be waived, because of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested, which relates to emissions into the environment.  Specifically, Applicants argued that information related to the identity and quantity of impurities present in glyphosate and related test information must be disclosed so that it could be determined “which toxic elements are emitted into the environment and are liable to remain there for some time.”  With regard to the concept of “information relating to emissions into the environment,” the General Court/Fourth Chamber rejected arguments that the provision must be interpreted restrictively to mean only direct or indirect release of substances from installations.  The General Court/Fourth Chamber also found, however, that the concept cannot be interpreted in a way that would “deprive of any practical effect the possibility” that a Member State could refuse to disclose environmental information or “jeopardise the balance which the EU legislature intended to maintain between the objective of transparency and the protection of [commercial] interests.”  In rejecting the second plea, the General Court/Fourth Chamber states:

   Since the use, the conditions of use and the composition of a plant protection product authorised by a Member State on its territory may be very different from those of products evaluated at EU level during the approval of the active substance, it must be held that the information in the document at issue does not relate to emissions whose release into the environment is foreseeable and has, at the very most, a link to emissions into the environment. Accordingly, such information is excluded from the concept of “information relating to emissions into the environment,” in accordance with paragraph 78 of the judgement on appeal.Alleged Infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 and Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention: Applicants argued that the contested decision is not in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 and Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, on the ground that the Commission did not evaluate the actual risk of damage to the commercial interests invoked.  The General Court/Fourth Chamber stated that it must be held “that the Commission correctly weighed up the relevant interests, having set out precisely and specifically the way in which the commercial interests of producers of glyphosate or plant protection products containing it would be jeopardised by the disclosure of the document at issue.”

   After rejecting all three pleas, the General Court/Fourth Chamber held that the action must be dismissed in its entirety, and ordered Applicants to pay the costs relating to the various proceedings.Commentary

   This case has been monitored closely because of the potential implications for companies that have submitted data or other information claimed as confidential that could be disclosed based on “overriding public interest.”  The American Chemistry Council (ACC), CropLife America, CropLife International (CLI), the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), the European Crop Care Association (ECCA), the Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) all intervened in support of the form of the order sought by the Commission.  The decision, and, in particular, the limitations placed on the scope of what is to be considered “information on emissions into the environment” provides helpful guidance and ensures that the exceptions provided for disclosure do not swallow the general rules under which institutions must refuse access to documents. 

   https://www.natlawreview.com/article/european-court-denies-appeal-to-disclose-testing-information-related-to-glyphosate
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. (ACC Mentioned) Two American Grocery Chains Pledge Action on PFAS Takeout Packaging

   Dec 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin

   Major American grocery retailers Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe’s have committed to taking steps to remove takeout packaging containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).

   The pledges have come in response to a report issued by the Mind the Store campaign of US NGO Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, in conjunction with Toxic-Free Future. This highlighted the use of PFASs in certain grocers’ food contact materials (FCMs), like single-use plates and bakery papers.

   In response, Whole Foods Market – a grocery chain owned by Amazon with roughly 500 stores in the US and the UK – made a written commitment to the NGOs to pull the products called out in the report.

   The company said: "Whole Foods Market introduced compostable containers to reduce our environmental footprint, but given new concerns about the possible presence of PFAS, we have removed all prepared foods and bakery packaging highlighted in the report."

   "We’re actively working with our suppliers to find and scale new compostable packaging options," it added.

   Trader Joe’s, meanwhile, said it is "asking its vendors to avoid the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in packaging for our products." The retailer, which has about 500 locations across the US, did not have any materials identified as likely to contain PFASs in the report.NGO report

   The NGO report, Take Out Toxics: PFAS Chemicals in Food Packaging, tested food contact paper samples from 20 stores across 12 US states for the presence of fluorine, to determine if they were likely treated with PFASs.

   The majority of tested products – 68 out of 78 – were found to be PFAS-free. But five of eight of tested paper takeout containers, like those used at self-serve salad bars and buffets, contained elevated levels of fluorine. And 11% (four of 38) of tested bakery and deli papers were also flagged up.

   The authors cite concern with the potential for the persistent substances to leach out of packaging and to get into the food, people, compost and the environment.

   And they say the findings indicate that retailers could reduce such exposures by replacing treated items with PFAS-free items.

   The NGOs have called for grocery chains and other retailers to:adopt a public policy with quantifiable goals and timelines for reducing and eliminating PFASs in private label and brand name FCMs;agree to "meet the new Washington State ban on PFAS use in food packaging", not just in Washington, but across the US;develop a comprehensive safer chemicals policy to reduce and eliminate other chemicals of concern, such as ortho-phthalates, in FCMs.Reactions

   The NGOs behind the report applauded the grocery stores’ actions as an "important step in the right direction."

   But it pressed for action on PFASs in all food contact materials, and also called on other major retail chains named in the report – Kroger, Albertsons, and Ahold Delhaize (owner of Food Lion, Stop & Shop and others) – to act.

   The American Chemistry Council’s FluoroCouncil, meanwhile, criticised the report as "misleading in its unfounded health and safety claims".

   "The use of PFAS in food packaging is strictly regulated by the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration], which has determined the specific PFAS currently used are safe for their intended use," said the group in a statement. "A robust body of scientific data demonstrates these FDA-reviewed PFAS substances do not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment."

   The FluoroCouncil also took issue with how the groups portrayed "the possibility of a ban in the state of Washington as a benchmark for others to follow."

   Earlier this year, Washington passed into law a requirement for the state to ban PFASs in FCMs by 2022, provided the state’s Department of Ecology can identify a safer substitute through an alternatives assessment process.

   The city of San Francisco, California and New York have also posed restrictions on the substances’ use.

   The campaigners are urging other states to follow suit.

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s Pledge Initial Action on Toxic PFAS

   Dec 12, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

   By Mike Schade and Laurie Valeriano

   Yesterday, our new report revealed that toxic PFAS chemicals are hiding in common takeout packaging and other food contact materials at some of the nation’s largest and most popular grocery stores.
   

   When used in food packaging, these harmful chemicals can leach out of the packaging and get into the food they contain as well as people, compost, and the environment. PFAS have been found in drinking water all around the U.S., and exposure has been linked to cancer, liver damage, and immune suppression.
   Take Out Toxics: PFAS chemicals in food packaging

   We found that nearly two-thirds of paper takeout containers, like those used at self-serve salad and hot bars, contained elevated levels of fluorine, indicating they were likely treated with PFAS. Eleven percent of tested bakery and deli papers, such as a bakery bag or a sandwich wrapper, were also likely treated with PFAS.
   

   We published the report to shine a light on this hidden hazard that grocery chains must address. Just like many have worked to drive BPA out of canned foods, grocery chains should ensure that food contact materials don’t contain highly persistent and toxic PFAS chemicals. 
   Whole Foods takes initial action on products we sampled

   Of the five retailers’ food contact materials that we evaluated, Whole Foods Markets’ materials fared worst. This is largely because, of the retailers whose products we tested, Whole Foods offers the largest variety of paper takeout containers and most of these were likely treated with PFAS. 
   

   To its credit, after we shared the results with the company, Whole Foods Market made a written commitment that we cited in our release. The company stated:
   

   “Whole Foods Market introduced compostable containers to reduce our environmental footprint, but given new concerns about the possible presence of PFAS, we have removed all prepared foods and bakery packaging highlighted in the report.

   We’re actively working with our suppliers to find and scale new compostable packaging options.”(emphasis added)A step in the right direction, more action needed

   We give Whole Foods kudos for taking this notable initial action. We think this is an important step in the right direction. 
   

   However, it falls short of a full ban of all PFAS-containing food contact materials, as PFAS  are likely hiding in other products and packaging found at Whole Foods and other grocery stores. Whole Foods has not publicly shared any details on what alternative material it is switching to and how the company is verifying that materials are free of PFAS and safer.
   

   We hope Whole Foods will take the next step and be the first American grocery chain to make a public commitment to ban PFAS in all food contact materials while ensuring that substitutes are safe and disclose its timeline for doing so.
   Trader Joe’s also pledges action

   Bloomberg News was one of the first outlets to cover our report and Whole Foods’ commitment.  Bloomberg reported that Trader Joe’s also has committed to act on PFAS, stating:
   

   “Trader Joe’s is asking its vendors to avoid the use of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in packaging for our products. In addition, Trader Joe’s does not have food bars or delis, so takeout food containers are typically not found in our stores,” a spokeswoman for the grocer said in an email. (emphasis added)
   

   This is another good first step.
   

   We thank Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s for taking these initial steps and urge them to finish the job by making public commitments with clear timelines to ban the entire class of PFAS chemicals in all food contact materials and to ensure substitutes are truly safe. We can’t keep playing the “whack-a-mole” game.
   The need for leadership from grocery chains and states

   This isn’t just a problem for any one grocery store. It’s an industry-wide problem, and other major chains, such as Kroger, Albertsons, and Ahold Delhaize (owner of Food Lion, Stop & Shop and others), should also take action to phase out PFAS in all food contact materials. Our report found some of their products and packaging are also likely treated with PFAS.  Grocery retailers should step up to safeguard our health and “mind the store.”
   

   At a time when we are learning more and more about the dangers of these and other chemicals like phthalates in food, federal agencies are rolling back crucial public health and environmental protections.  
   The good news is that Washington recently became the first state in the country to ban PFAS in food packaging.  Other states should follow suit and adopt laws to restrict these chemicals in food packaging to protect all consumers from PFAS chemicals.

   https://saferchemicals.org/2018/12/12/whole-foods-trader-joes-pledge-initial-action-on-toxic-pfas/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Bill Would Authorize Funding for PFAS Testing

   Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Daily

   By Courtney Columbus

   Two House lawmakers from Michigan yesterday introduced a bill that would authorize funding to test for toxic chemicals that have turned up in drinking water.

   Reps. Dan Kildee (D) and Jack Bergman (R) introduced the "PFAS Detection Act" to authorize $50 million in funding over the next five years for air, soil and water testing for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

   PFAS have been widely used for decades in consumer and industrial products from firefighting foam to nonstick cookware.

   The bill would direct the U.S. Geological Survey to test for PFAS in surface water nationwide, including in lakes, streams and wetlands, as well as aquifers.

   And the legislation calls for the prioritization of testing of drinking water sources near sites with known or suspected PFAS pollution.

   Drinking water at several sites in Michigan has been found to be contaminated with PFAS. The chemicals have also been detected in waters near sites such as the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base, where PFAS-containing firefighting foam was used.

   Drinking water in states including North Carolina and Pennsylvania has also been found to be contaminated with the chemicals.

   "In order to speed up clean-up efforts and protect our communities, we need to first identify PFAS sites that exist in Michigan and around the country," Kildee said in a statement. "This bill is an important first step in making sure that state and federal governments have the proper resources to clean up PFAS contamination."

   In a statement, Bergman said limited data on PFAS pollution have left families uncertain about the safety of their drinking water.

   This bill "takes the necessary steps to begin identifying the areas affected by these chemicals and allows for appropriate remediation plans to be set in place," he said.

   The legislation also calls for a report on the sampling results to be provided to two Senate committees and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as to the senators from each state where sampling was done and House members representing districts where sampling was carried out.

   It would direct that sampling data be provided to EPA and be provided on request to other federal and state regulatory agencies.

   Several other House lawmakers have signed on to the bill, including Michigan Democratic Reps. Debbie Dingell and Sandy Levin.

   Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced a companion, S. 3382, in the Senate in August (Greenwire, Aug. 24).

   https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/12/13/stories/1060109503
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Markey Hints Wright May Win Approval Without Formaldehyde Study

   Dec 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

   Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is reiterating his push to force EPA to release its long-delayed assessment of the risks of formaldehyde, suggesting that Peter Wright, the Trump administration's nominee to lead EPA's waste office, may win Senate approval even though the agency has not followed through on its pledge to release the assessment.

   “No matter the final disposition of Mr. Wright’s nomination, the EPA should keep its promise and move forward with the release of the long-overdue formaldehyde report,” Markey says in a Dec. 10 press statement.

   “EPA has succumbed to pressure from industry for far too long, endangering the public’s health. I urge the EPA to ensure that there are no more efforts to delay or block the publication of this assessment,” he added.

   Markey's spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

   While Wright's nomination was approved by the Senate environment committee earlier this year, the full Senate has yet to confirm him.

    Republicans on the committee -- on which Markey also serves -- complained at a hearing last September that Democrats are blocking Wright from confirmation, but Democrats denied they have placed a hold on Wright.

   A spokesman for EPW Republicans tells Inside EPA that Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) has placed a hold on Wright.

   Markey explains in the statement that during Wright's confirmation process, “EPA made a commitment to abide by the normal [Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)] process and timeline.”

   Markey's statement, however, suggests that something has changed with the status of EPA's commitment.

   Last May, Markey and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Tom Carper (D-DE), the committee's ranking member, wrote a letter to former Administrator Scott Pruitt urging him to release the draft assessment. They said they had learned the draft was completed “during the fall of 2017,” and reiterated EPA's controversial finding in a 2010 draft assessment that formaldehyde exposure can result in leukemia.

   Markey has also sought to garner a commitment from EPA on the formaldehyde assessment in the ongoing process to advance the nomination of Alexandra Dunn, Trump's nominee to lead EPA's toxics office. Dunn sidesteppedMarkey's request during her Nov. 29 confirmation hearing, telling Markey she would “immediately find out the status of the formaldehyde work, why it is not completed along the time frame that you had heard it should be and getting right back to you what time frame it will be on.”

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/markey-hints-wright-may-win-approval-without-formaldehyde-study
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Why Hasn't the US Banned Asbestos?

   Dec 13, 2018 | The Ecologist

   By Emily Walsh

   There are many natural and chemical toxins that are dangerous to human health. Materials can be  harmful to individuals  if they are simply inhaled, ingested, or mishandled.

   One of those many hazardous materials is asbestos. With scientific evidence proving the substance causes disease over time and many real-life examples to prove this case, scientists and health professionals alike have come out to say that asbestos is a dangerous carcinogen.

   Most nations have taken this warning seriously and have banned it completely, but countries like the United States still allow for legal asbestos use within their nations borders. 

   What is asbestos?

   Asbestos has been used in many different types of housing insulations as well as other consumer products, but do you know what it really is?

   Asbestos is made of six natural fibers that have heat resistant, fire resistant, and electricity protecting properties, all of which makes the material a versatile resource. 

   In the mid-twentieth century it was discovered that asbestos was a cancer causing agent. If broken or disturbed, it can become airborne which then poses serious threats to the body. Due to its fibrous nature, inhaled or ingested asbestos can cling to the tissue inside the lung or abdomen.

   Around thirty years after exposure, asbestos can cause serious ailments including pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma.  Workers in fields such as construction, automotive repair, and commercial product manufacturing are at risk if and when exposed to disrupted asbestos. 

   The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure, however there are some 30 million pounds of asbestos used in the U.S. every year. While there is no ban in the US, more than 50 countries, including Australia, India, and all 28 countries of the European Nations have banned asbestos. 

   Regulating asbestos

   Protection of workers from the potential harms of asbestos fall onto the EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

   OSHA controls and oversees working conditions in the US, ensuring that employees are safe and protected by implementing and managing workplace standards. The EPA is responsible for protecting state and local employees who may be exposed to any form of hazardous material, through the Toxic Substance Control Act. This protects those who were not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations asbestos regulations.

   The NIOSH is a federal agency that runs research and makes recommendations for preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. 

   Even though there are restrictions, the US is one of the few major industrialised nations without a ban currently in place.

   While there have been many warnings and scientific evidence that proves that that asbestos in fact causes disease there are only acts that restrict the use of asbestos. These include laws like the EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule, the Asbestos-Containing Materials in School Rule, and the Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule. 

   Legal requirements 

   Here is a further explanation of some of the rules:

   - Asbestos Information Act 

   This law requires that companies making certain types asbestos containing products be required to identify themselves and report production to the EPA.

   - Clean Air Act (CCA)  

   This law explains the EPA’s role in protecting and improving air quality in the U.S. It also states that the EPA is responsible to set standards for dangerous air pollutants. Asbestos is among those air pollutants. 

   - The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title II)

   This law states that the EPA is required to ensure that the local schools are checking their buildings for any material containing asbestos. From there, schools are required to prepare plans for asbestos removal and/or management. It also explains that the EPA is responsible for providing model plans for those conducting asbestos inspections in schools.

   - Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

   This law oversees the working conditions of U.S. employees by implementing and overseeing safety and health standards for workers.

   - EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule

   This regulation states that the EPA is required to protect workers on the state and local government employee level that were not covered by OSHA.

   - Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule

   Rule issued by the EPA on July 12, 1989, that banned most asbestos-containing products. However, in 1991 this rule was overturned and as a result only a few asbestos-containing products remain banned. The goal is to phase-out the remaining products.

   Around the world

   Asbestos has been banned in 55 countries worldwide, but not in China, Russia, India, Canada, or the United States. Countries that have banned the product include those such as, France, Turkey, Ireland, South Africa, Poland, and the Netherlands to name a few. 

   - China

   While there are so many countries that have taken action on the ban on asbestos, China being a major country has not. China is the world’s largest consumer of asbestos in the world, due to the rapid growth of industrialization in the nation.

   China is also the second-largest producer of asbestos and according to the China Chrysotile Association, record amounts of the material have been used in the past decade. While the US hit its peak use of asbestos in the 1973, China on the other hand has hit its peak use numbers in recent years  as they started using asbestos frequently in the late 1970s.

   - Russia

   For years, Russia has been the a lead producer in worldwide asbestos mine production. Since Russia is one of the few nations still mining and exporting the natural substance, the U.S. purchased asbestos from a Russian production company.

   Shortly after pictures appeared on the the exporters Facebook page showing a faux stamp of approval featuring Trump’s face which read, “Approved by Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States.” 

   - Canada

   The Canadian government has made great strides when it comes to asbestos related laws. The government recognizes that asbestos can cause cancer and other diseases, but there is no official ban on the substance entirely.

   As of October 2018, the Prohibition of Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations are in place, which prohibit the import, sale, and use of asbestos, including the manufacturing and use of asbestos containing products.

   Although Canada is taking steps in the right direction, there still needs to be more regulations about current asbestos already in use to protect Canadian workers and homeowners. 

   Further action 

   There are many ways in which the US legislation is changing the way asbestos is used. However there are no rules that completely ban this deadly material that is affecting the lives of many citizens  and their families.

   In order to make a bigger impact, the US needs to rework laws and enact a complete ban on the  use of asbestos in homes, schools, and existing products. As of June, the EPA proposed a "significant new use rule," that could allow asbestos back into certain products with historic use deemed to be unthreatening.

   During the Obama administration, in 2016, the EPA was required to constantly reevaluate harmful toxins and in fact reviewed 10 chemicals due to an amendment added to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Under the new Trump administration, the EPA is approaching evaluating chemicals in a new way.

   NBC News said: “The agency now focuses on how chemicals potentially cause harm through direct contact in the workplace, not taking into account improper disposal or other means of contamination that could greatly affect the public.”

   In response, asbestos-related disease advocacy groups are rebelling and have argued that this rule is providing more loopholes to use this inexpensive toxin at the expense of the health of United States citizens . 

   Once new asbestos cannot be introduced, it is important we take the proactive procedures to abate and dispose of known asbestos sites still hidden behind walls and across state lines. The only way the government can make sure that no one is affected by this harmful chemical, is to ban it from the United States completely.

   https://theecologist.org/2018/dec/13/why-hasnt-us-banned-asbestos
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. EU Move to Restrict Chemical Phthalates Sparks Blood Bag Concern

   Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Stephen Gardner

   Companies that make blood bags and other medical equipment would have to change the composition of their products under a draft European Union rule on phthalates.

   The rule would modify the classification of the four phthalates under the EU’s REACH regulation by categorizing them as having endocrine-disrupting properties that could harm the human hormone system.

   Under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals), the phthalates are already banned from use in the bloc without a usage-specific authorization. Until now, however, the terms of the ban exempts some uses of the phthalates, such as in medical equipment and in some materials that come into contact with food.

   The amendment to the classification of the substances in the REACH list of banned substances would end the exemptions.

   Phthalates are chemicals often used to help make plastics flexible.

   German health care company Fresenius SE & Co. uses one of the phthalates—bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)—as a plasticizer in some products and would seek alternatives, company spokesman Steffen Rinas told Bloomberg Environment Dec. 12.

   In blood bags and related products, however, DEHP “is the only available substance which stabilizes the membranes of red blood cells and enables a storage period prior to transfusion for up to 49 days,” Rinas said. Consequently, this use of DEHP should continue to be exempted from the phaseout requirement, he said.

   The other substances affected by the reclassification are benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP).a.    Consultation Underway

   The European Chemicals Agency opened consultations Dec. 12 on the proposed re-classifications of the substances. The consultations follow a call for information on uses of the substances earlier this year.

   In the new consultations, companies that might be affected should provide comments on phase-in periods and any specific uses for which further exemptions should be granted, the agency said.

   A ban on DEHP in medical devices was needed because it “would force all manufacturers and hospitals to adopt the same standards and contribute to an equal quality of care,” Dorota Napierska, chemicals policy officer for nonprofit Health Care Without Harm, told Bloomberg Environment Dec. 12.

   Health Care Without Harm’s members include public hospitals and organizations representing health care professionals.

   In most cases, alternatives exist to DEHP in medical devices, Napierska said. France has already gone further than the EU standard by prohibiting DEHP in medical device tubing, she said.

   Rinas said an exemption should be granted for DEHP in blood bags because “the potential input of DEHP into human bodies is extremely low considering the very limited number of blood transfusions a patient gets during his lifetime.”

   Jorg Kiefer, a spokesman for Medtronic GmbH, said he was unable to comment. Johnson & Johnson did not respond to a request for comment.

   The European Chemicals Agency consultation on the reclassification of the phthalates runs through March 12. Thereafter, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, will adopt the final rule.

   https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/eu-move-to-restrict-chemical-phthalates-sparks-blood-bag-concern
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Echa Round-Up

    Dec 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    Agency opens CLH consultation on borates

    Echa has opened a public consultation on a proposal for the harmonised classification and labelling of seven borates, including:tetraboron disodium heptaoxide, hydrate; andorthoboric acid, sodium salt.

    The five other borates fall under the biocidal products Regulation (BPR) for use in wood preservatives.

    All seven are harmonised as toxic to reproduction for both developmental and fertility effects.

    They also have various specific concentration limits (SCLs), which were established according to an approach proposed in 1998 by Germany's Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Baua).

    Echa is now proposing to replace these SCLs with a harmonised generic concentration limit (GCLs) of 0.3% w/w, based on an assessment by its committee for risk assessment (Rac).

    It says the substances can all be combined in one CLH report because the data and argumentation is the same for all.

    The agency's proposal is open for comments until 22 February 2019.New substance evaluation conclusion

    The agency has made a substance evaluation conclusion document for 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine available on its website. The substance, which was added to the community rolling action plan (Corap) in 2017, was evaluated by Poland. The evaluation concludes there is no need for regulatory follow-up action at EU level.CLH intentions

    Echa has received intentions to harmonise classification and labelling for:dibutyltin di(acetate); anddibutyltin bis(2-ethylhexanoate).

    The CLH intention for dibutyltin di(acetate) and dibutyltin bis(2-ethylhexanoate) has been withdrawn. It was agreed to treat the two substances separately.Testing proposals

    Echa has invited third parties to submit scientifically valid information and studies on 11 testing proposals for five substances.

    They are:1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-diisononyl ester;4-oxovaleric acid;benzyl butyl cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate;hexamolybdenum(3+) tris((dioctylcarbamothioyl)sulfanide) tris((ditridecylcarbamothioyl)sulfanide) hexahydrate hexasulfanediide; andpropionaldehyde, reaction product with formaldehyde.

    The deadline for submitting information is 24 January 2019.Poison centres webinar online

    Echa has released online a recording of the webinar it held on 11 December. It says the session covers:preparing to notify hazardous mixtures;information requirements;the UFI; andwhere to submit information.Translations published for 'hot topics' on rubber granules

    Echa has updated its webpage on rubber granules and mulches used on sports pitches and playgrounds. Translations are now available in 23 languages.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/72752/echa-round-up
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

11. Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming Oil, Gas Permitting Soars in November

    Dec 12, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Carolyn Davis

    U.S. oil and natural gas permitting during November increased 60% from a year ago and was up by almost one-third month/month (m/m), aided by strong gains in Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming, according to Evercore ISI...

    §  Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.

    Story can be found here: 

    https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116758-colorado-new-mexico-and-wyoming-oil-gas-permitting-soars-in-november
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. 7 Signs the Global Energy Economy is in Transition

    Dec 13, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Nat Keohane

    As negotiators from 197 nations are meeting here in Poland this week to discuss ways to stop runaway climate change – amid reports about rapidly rising emissions – there are also significant market and technology trends bringing positive news.

    These trends, combined with the actions of responsible governments, can point us in a better direction. Of course, whether we ultimately succeed in dealing with climate change will depend on the action of political leaders, investors, engineers, voters and activists.

    Here are the key trends you’ll want to keep an eye on.1. U.S. coal continues to decline

    United States coal consumption is at a  39-year low and this trajectory continues despite the Trump administration’s efforts to promote coal.2. China’s emissions will peak ahead of goal

    The world’s largest emitter of climate pollution, China is likely to reach peak carbon dioxide emissions at least 5 years ahead of its commitment under the 2016 Paris Agreement.3. Clean energy is outcompeting fossil fuels

    Building new renewable energy is now cheaper than running existing coal-fired power plants in many U.S. states. Taking advantage of those trends, utility giant Xcel announced it will cut its carbon pollution 80 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050 across its service territory in eight Western and Midwestern states.4. Battery storage a game changer

    Duke Energy, the second largest utility in the US, will alone invest $500 million in battery storage over the next 15 years, which could help maximize our use of renewable energy on the grid. And solar energy systems with new efficient batteries in Arizona and other states will soon be able to provide electricity at a lower per megawatt-hour cost than new combined cycle natural gas-fired generation.5. Developing nations drive renewables

    Seventy percent of all new electricity generating capacity worldwide in 2017 was renewable, including in developing countries. If these trends continue, renewables will produce half of all electricity by 2030.6. Energy companies move on methane

    Thirteen oil and gas companies – comprising 30 percent of global production – committed to reducing methane emissions, which are driving 25 percent of current warming.7. Companies like Walmart are taking action

    The world’s largest retailer has committed to cutting a gigaton of climate pollution from its global supply chain by 2020. That’s more emissions than the entire German economy produces annually.

    We know that global carbon emissions rose in 2017 and are projected to hit record levels this year. By halting this trajectory we can build a better future for the world while taking advantage of the positive market changes already under way.

    https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/12/12/7-signs-global-energy-economy-transition
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. U.S. Oil is Surging. Here's What It Means for the Climate

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

    By Benjamin Storrow

    America is closer than ever to energy independence.

    Last week, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil and petroleum products. The 11.7 million barrels pumped at the end of November makes the U.S. the world's largest crude producer. American exports now total 3.2 million barrels a day, an extraordinary number given that former President Obama lifted the ban on crude exports just three years ago.

    All of which raises the question: Has the boom in U.S. oil production contributed to the global rise in greenhouse gas levels?

    The short answer is yes, but by how much is a matter of some debate.

    Carbon emissions worldwide are rising — fast. The Global Carbon Project estimates international carbon dioxide levels increased 2.7 percent in 2018, following a 1.6 percent rise in 2017 (Climatewire, Dec. 6).

    Most energy analysts pin the world's rising emissions on increased economic growth, particularly in Southeast Asia, which has driven an across-the-board bump in the consumption of oil, coal and natural gas.

    Global oil demand, for instance, has risen from around 95 million barrels a day in 2015 to roughly 100 million barrels a day in 2018, according to figures from the International Energy Agency.

    But an argument can be made that increased American oil production has also stoked demand, said Daniel Raimi, a researcher at Resources for the Future, a Washington-based think tank. Increased American production has brought more oil onto the market, keeping prices low.

    "And because those prices are lower, it is encouraging additional consumption around the world," Raimi said. "To the extent additional consumption is because of additional U.S. production, then, yes, I think it is fair to say additional U.S. production has contributed to higher emissions globally."

    The debate contains echoes of 2015, when Congress struck a deal with Obama to lift the ban on foreign crude sales. U.S. oil production has climbed steadily higher since, despite wild swings in global crude prices.

    The U.S. became a net exporter of crude and petroleum products last week for the first time in decades, in large part due to strong sales of finished petroleum products (Energywire, Dec. 7).

    But America is still heavily reliant on foreign oil. The U.S. now consumes around 20 million barrels of oil a day, according to federal figures. It produces roughly 11.7 million barrels of crude a day and imports 7.2 million barrels per day.

    The situation owes itself to an oddity of America's oil market, said Deborah Gordon, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's climate and energy program.

    U.S. refineries are set up to process heavy crudes produced in countries like Canada, Mexico and Venezuela — not the light sweet brands pumped from Texas' Permian Basin or the Bakken in North Dakota. The result: America exports much of the oil it produces and consumes crude it buys from elsewhere.

    There is a climate cost to that dynamic. Imported crude generally has a higher carbon density than the American variety, Gordon said. Refineries expend more energy processing the foreign stuff. And they often use heavy crude to make other carbon-intense products like petroleum coke and bunker fuel.

    "We're giving away oil that is potentially much lower-emitting oil, and we're importing oil that is very carbon-intensive," Gordon said. "We're basically amping up the carbon cycle instead of using it for a real low-carbon transition strategy."

    Greater emphasis on methane mitigation at production sites combined with an overhaul of U.S. refineries to accept light crude would greatly reduce the carbon intensity of the American oil sector, she argues, helping ease the transition away from fossil fuels.

    Jason Bordoff, director of Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, is skeptical that surging U.S. supply has greatly altered the world's emissions trajectory.

    The impact of America becoming an exporter on global greenhouse gas emissions depends on the market's long-term response to U.S. production. If new oil drilling in America prompts sustained low prices, that could stoke oil demand — and increase emissions.

    But that is a complicated analysis, Bordoff said. Global oil demand is sensitive to price changes, which can push consumption up or down. There's also this: Had the shale revolution not taken hold in the U.S., investment would likely have flowed elsewhere in the world. Other oil sources probably would have been tapped.

    The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries recently voted to cut production in a bid to bolster flagging crude prices. But OPEC was forced into that decision in part because of expanding supplies of U.S. oil. The organization might have made different decisions in a world where American shale producers exerted less influence, Bordoff said.

    That's not to downplay the seriousness of the problem, he said. The world needs to be making deep carbon reductions. It would be better to focus on technologies and government policies that cut demand, he said.

    Yet America's growing oil sector only makes that harder. Republicans once voiced support for transitioning away from oil on the grounds that importing so much foreign crude was a national security concern.

    "In certain circles, maybe not climate circles but more national security circles, the imperative to reduce oil use seems reduced because of perceptions that we have the supply that we need," Bordoff said.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/12/13/stories/1060109493
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Big Oil Can’t Beat Rhode Island Water Contamination Claims

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Peter Hayes

    ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Atlantic Richfield, and other oil and chemical companies couldn’t convince a federal court to dismiss claims by Rhode Island over contamination of the state’s waters with the gas additive MTBE.

    Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was used to increase the oxygen content in gasoline in certain markets in order to reduce smog. It hasn’t been used since 2006.

    The state alleges that the companies knew, but didn’t disclose, that MTBE, a suspected human carcinogen, migrates quickly and far through soil and groundwater and penetrates deeply into aquifers, resulting in persistent contamination that is costly to clean up.

    It sued the companies and asserts state tort claims of design defect, failure to warn, and negligence, as well as claims of public nuisance and trespass.

    Judge William E. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island said the state doesn’t need to identify which company is responsible for each particular leak of MTBE in order to proceed.

    It will instead be up to the companies to come up with a way to divvy up the damages, the court said in denying the companies’ motions for summary judgment.

    Each company will have a chance to show that any MTBE found polluting the state couldn’t have been its responsibility, the court said.

    The public nuisance claims may go forward as well because widespread water pollution is an interference with a public right—a “quintessential public nuisance,” the court said.

    The court rejected the comparison to lead paint public nuisance litigation. The Rhode Island Supreme Court in 2007 found that lead paint manufacturers’ failure to warn of the dangers of lead paint didn’t constitute a public nuisance.

    And the trespass claim survives as well—even for polluted land and water the state doesn’t own—because the state brought them as parens patriae, or guardian of the people, the court said.

    Named as defendants in the case are major oil companies which supplied MTBE-containing gasoline to the Northeast and Rhode Island, including ExxonMobil Corp., BP Products N.A., Chevron U.S.A. Inc., CITGO, ConocoPhillips Co., Shell Oil Co., Sunoco Inc., and Hess Corp., among others.

    Judge William E. Smith issued the opinion.

    Weitz & Luxenberg PC, Haens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro LLP, and Baron & Budd P.C.represent the state.

    Kirkland & Ellis LLP represents Atlantic Richfield and BP Products North America Inc.

    King & Spalding LLP represents Chevron USA.

    Holland & Knight LLP represents ExxonMobil.

    The case is Rhode Island v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 2018 BL 457619, D.R.I., No. 17-cv-00204, 12/11/18.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/big-oil-cant-beat-rhode-island-water-contamination-claims
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Investors Call on BP, Exxon, Shell to Defend EPA Methane Regulations

    Dec 13, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund (Blog)

    By Kate Gaumond

    Last week, investors representing $1.9 trillion assets under management called on 30 oil and gas companies, urging them to publicly oppose the EPA’s proposed weakening of its methane rules. This letter is signed by investors including CalSTRS, the New York City Comptroller’s Office, and Robeco, all of which have joined together to say no to these regulatory rollbacks.

    Investors look to minimize risk while maximizing value. Methane emissions are a risk, and the proposed rule changes will increase emissions by the EPA’s own estimates. So it is no surprise that investors with nearly $2 trillion worth of assets are speaking up to defend this risk-reducing rule.

    Methane risk is material

    Investors in the oil and gas industry, like those that signed onto this letter, hold a vested interest in the industry’s success. Methane poses a material risk to those investments. Natural gas has tried to build a reputation as a cleaner burning fossil fuel, but methane emissions jeopardize the role gas could play in a low carbon future. In fact, a study in Science found US oil and gas methane emissions are 60 percent higher than current EPA estimates, effectively doubling the 20-year climate impact of natural gas as an energy source and nearly erasing the near-term climate advantage of natural gas over coal.

    Methane emissions are also an economic risk. The value of global oil and gas methane emissions is estimated to be worth over $30 billion. Leaking product that could be sold is bad for everyone’s bottom line.

    Rules can level the playing field

    So far, companies that tout themselves as methane leaders have been largely silent, while their trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute have supported rollbacks.

    Investors recognize that some companies have taken steps to reduce methane emissions in their own operations, but note that smart policy is necessary to truly mitigate this risk across the industry. In 2017, 610 different companies accounted for 50 percent of U.S. oil and gas production. This market fragmentation means that federal methane regulation is needed to ensure an even playing field among companies, and that the entire industry is operating with best practices. EPA methane regulation can help prevent investment portfolios, the reputation of natural gas, and the entire industry from being dragged down by the worst actors.

    Industry credibility at risk

    Investors view methane regulations as an important tool to safeguard natural gas’ reputation for the long-term. However, this letter does not just express the importance of regulations, but calls on the companies themselves to publicly act in defense of the EPA methane rules during this deregulatory effort. So far, companies that tout themselves as methane leaders have been largely silent, while their trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute have supported rollbacks. The letter expresses concern that “absent any expressed position on the importance of good regulation, industry silence will likely be interpreted as implicit support for no regulation at all.”

    This implicit support for the regulatory rollback is even more concerning to investors given the public declarations by many of these companies in support of methane regulations. For example, companies like BP, Chevron, Equinor, Exxon and Shell, all of whom were recipients of this investor letter, have made an explicit, executive level commitment to “advocate sound policy and regulations on methane emissions.”

    Many of these companies signed on to this commitment at the direct urging of their investors to better manage methane emissions as climate concerns intensify. Unless these companies put their words to action, their own investors are likely to view corporate methane commitments with doubt.

    One week left to act

    Companies have the opportunity to change this conversation. The oil and gas industry can exercise its powerful voice in this policy debate. Investors have spoken. They want industry to act on this issue, and quickly.  With the deadline to submit comments to the EPA on December 17th, the time for action is now.

    http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2018/12/12/investors-call-on-bp-exxon-shell-to-defend-epa-methane-regulations/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. DRBC Given 104,000 Signatures for Full Fracking Ban

    Dec 12, 2018 | The Intelligencer

    By Chris Ullery

    Members of 15 environmental organizations delivered its petition to the Delaware River Basin Commission asking for a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction.

    Representatives from local, state and national environmental groups delivered 104,805 signatures to the Delaware River Basin Commission on Tuesday asking for a full ban on hydraulic fracturing near the Delaware River.

    The petition was collected by 15 organizations in and around the Delaware River basin urging the commission to strengthen its draft fracking rules in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, Delaware River Network Deputy Director Tracy Carluccio said Wednesday.

    The commission originally banned hydraulic fracturing in eastern Pennsylvania in 2011 as concerns about pollution and drinking water contamination followed a fracking boom in the state that started about 10 years ago.

    The commission put forth updated regulations last fall that still banned fracking in the basin, but allowed the disposal of treated wastewater and extraction of river water for fracking operations outside the basin.Related contentVideo: Demonstrators demand complete fracking ban in Delaware RiverAugust 21, 2018Kayakers call for ‘full’ fracking ban in Delaware River basinAugust 20, 2018DEP head talks water contamination, fracking, and funding during sit down with newspaperMay 7, 2018

    “People are petitioning the governors as their representatives on the DRBC to provide equitable and complete protection to all who rely on the Delaware (River) for drinking water — between 15 and 17 million people,” Carluccio said during public comment at the commission’s regular meeting.

    Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said studies have shown fracking and fracking waste are known to be more harmful than when the commission banned the practice almost eight years ago.

    “The more we know the worse it’s become,” Tittel said.

    Much of Wednesday’s comments also highlighted the importance a full ban from the commission against what they described as lax federal environmental regulations under President Donald Trump.

    “As the Trump administration’s federal government is slashing environmental protections, we are fortunate to have an interstate agency, the DRBC, that can comprehensively regulate to ensure the Delaware River Watershed is fully protected by a complete ban that prohibits fracking, frack wastewater discharges and the export of water from the Delaware for fracking and nothing less. We are submitting these petitions to the governors so they know the public supports their vote for a complete fracking ban in the Delaware River Watershed,” Carluccio said.

    Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey, referred to a recent endorsement of fossil fuels by the Trump administration as one of several examples of “cognitive dissonance” prevalent in federal environmental policies.

    “That cognitive dissonance is why we have more than 100,000 people saying tighten those regulations,” O’Malley said.

    Official public comment on the draft fracking regulations ended in March, and a spokeswoman for the commission said after the meeting there is no set date for when the commission would issue its final rules on fracking.

    http://www.theintell.com/news/20181212/drbc-given-104000-signatures-for-full-fracking-ban
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Pipeline Industry’s Problems Seen Bigger Than Policy, Structure

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rachel Adams-Heard

    The pipeline industry’s problems go beyond the tax changes and complicated partnership structures that helped send the companies’ stock prices plunging, Deloitte LLP said in a new report.

    After a U.S. tax policy proposal in March touched off a series of deals meant to streamline the partnerships, pipeline companies, and their enthusiasts argued that it was only a matter of time before investors would realize the true value of the sector responsible for transporting America’s booming supplies of oil and natural gas from shale basins.

    But with the industry’s cost of capital often higher than the returns it offers investors, pipeline companies could be facing “more fundamental issues than simply policy- or structure-related problems,” Deloitte said.

    In 2017, a group of 122 midstream companies had a weighted average cost of capital that reached 7.9 percent. Their return on capital, meanwhile, fell to 7 percent, according to Deloitte.

    That gap has contributed to an exodus of retail investors—the individuals who historically made up most pipeline companies’ investor base.

    “The midstream sector as a whole has not set itself up in the best way to quickly move into this expansion mode,” Andrew Slaughter, executive director of Deloitte’s Center for Energy Solutions, said in an interview. “There’s a bit of rethinking to do on the financial structuring and capital sourcing.”

    As companies veer away from issuing equity amid the sector slump, partnering with private equity or teaming up with other midstream players could be the best path toward funding new projects, Deloitte said.

    “There’s still quite a bit of private equity capital wanting a home,” said Slaughter. “If the sector is undervalued, then they’ll for sure look at it.”

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/pipeline-industrys-problems-seen-bigger-than-policy-structure
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. OSHA to Investigate Worker Injuries at Mariner East 2 Pipeline

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Sam Pearson

     

    Federal worker safety officials are investigating after two workers were injured Dec. 10 while constructing Dallas-based Energy Transfer LP’s Mariner East 2 natural gas pipeline in western Pennsylvania.

    One worker was seriously injured while drilling holes into a steel beam from a bucket truck, Lenore Uddyback-Fortson, a spokeswoman for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said in an email to Bloomberg Law. The worker was employed by Diamond Steel Construction Co. of North Lima, Ohio, Uddyback-Fortson said.

    OSHA didn’t provide information on the other worker.

    Lisa Dillinger, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer LP, told Bloomberg Law the incident stopped work temporarily at the site but declined to comment further.

    Under federal law, the agency has six months to investigate and issue fines or citations to the company.

    The Mariner East 2 pipeline is expected to transport natural gas liquids from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and West Virginia to processing facilities on the Delaware River. Part of it is scheduled to begin operation this month, according to the company, with the rest of the project completed in 2019.

    Diamond Steel didn’t respond to requests for comment by Bloomberg Law.

    —With assistance from Leslie Pappas

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/osha-to-investigate-worker-injuries-at-mariner-east-2-pipeline
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Mich. Governor Signs Bill Allowing Great Lakes Oil Tunnel

    Dec 13, 2018 | AP (In E&E Energywire)

    By John Flesher

    Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed legislation yesterday establishing a panel to oversee construction of an oil pipeline tunnel in the waterway linking Lakes Huron and Michigan, while opponents insisted the battle isn't over and could widen from the state Capitol to the courts.

    Snyder also appointed the three members of the new Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority, furthering his push to ensure that oil will continue flowing through Enbridge Inc.'s Line 5 after he leaves office at the end of December.

    The governor praised the lawmakers who rushed the bill to enactment following the election of Democratic Gov.-elect Gretchen Whitmer, a critic of Line 5 and the tunnel plan.

    "By working together, they helped garner bipartisan support to ensure we are protecting the Great Lakes while securing better energy infrastructure for Michigan," Snyder said.

    Line 5 has carried crude oil and natural gas liquids used in propane 645 miles from Superior, Wis., through northern Michigan to the Canadian city of Sarnia, Ontario, since 1953.

    Critics have long sought to decommission a more-than-4-mile segment lying on the lake floor. Snyder and Enbridge have agreed to replace the twin-pipe segment with a new pipe housed in a tunnel drilled through bedrock beneath the straits.

    Enbridge, based in Calgary, Alberta, praised the new law and said the tunnel plan "makes a safe pipeline even safer."

    Groups fighting to decommission Line 5 said they would renew the effort after Whitmer and Dana Nessel, a Democrat recently elected attorney general, take office next month. Both have criticized the tunnel proposal but haven't said how they might try to block it.

    Opposition groups said lawsuits are likely, with potential targets including the law enacted this week and a series of agreements between Snyder's administration and Enbridge.

    "We have no choice but to continue fighting this," said David Holtz of the Sierra Club. "The stakes are too high."

    Under a deal announced in October, Enbridge would pay the estimated $350 million to $500 million cost of designing, building, operating and maintaining the tunnel. After completion, it would be owned by the state and leased to Enbridge for 99 years, overseen by the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority.

    The authority's members will include Geno Alessandrini of Iron Mountain, business manager for the Michigan Laborers' District Council; Anthony England of Ypsilanti, dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of Michigan, Dearborn; and Michael Zimmer, Snyder's Cabinet director.

    Zimmer, a Republican, will resign a recent appointment to the Mackinac Bridge Authority to join the corridor panel. Alessandrini and England are Democrats, according to Snyder's office.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/12/13/stories/1060109463
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

20. Auto Parts Distributor Cited for Storage, Chemical Hazards (1)

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Chris Marr

    A Georgia auto and truck parts distributor allegedly failed to give employees information on chemical hazards and continued to use damaged storage racks, according to federal safety citations announced Dec. 12.

    Parts Authority LLC faces citations for two repeat and six serious safety violations, carrying proposed fines of $133,406, according to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration citations.

    The citations resulted from inspections at the company’s Norcross, Ga., location.

    Inspectors said they found the facility continuing to store pallets of auto parts on racks with damaged support structures and shelves, exposing workers to potentially being struck by falling inventory. OSHA also cited the company for failing to keep safety data sheets on hand to inform employees on safe handling of automotive chemicals, including battery acid, engine coolant, and motor oil.

    Distribution and warehouse operations are noted as an industry with a higher than average rate of on-the-job fatal injuries. OSHA at times has targeted the industry among its regional emphasis programs—although there doesn’t appear to be a current agency emphasis on warehousing in Georgia’s Region 4. a.    Cited in 2017

    OSHA had previously cited Parts Authority for the same violations in 2017—for the storage rack violation at the Norcross location and for the chemical hazard violation at a location in the Bronx, N.Y.

    The latest citations also alleged serious violations involving similar chemical and storage-rack hazards, as well as electrical hazards and failure to maintained well-marked, unobstructed emergency exits.

    The company didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s request for comment on Dec. 12. Parts Authority, based in New Hyde Park, N.Y., has 90 locations in eight states, according to its website.

    OSHA gives companies 15 days from receipt of citations to comply, request an informal meeting with OSHA staff, or formally contest the citations.

    (Updated to include additional reporting.)

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/auto-parts-distributor-cited-for-storage-chemical-hazards-1
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Don’t Flush Your Drugs, EPA Tells Healthcare Facilities

    Dec 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By David Schultz and Sylvia Carignan

    Unused drugs and other pharmaceutical waste don’t belong in the sewer system.

    The EPA is trying to hammer that message home in a Dec. 12 regulation (RIN: 2050-AG39) clarifying how hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions manage large quantities of unused pharmaceuticals. The goal is to keep them out of the sewer system where they can eventually wind up in nearby rivers and lakes and harm aquatic life.

    The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rule, three years in the making, defines how health care institutions and others handle pharmaceutical waste. It intends to create an easier way for these institutions to track the unused drugs they deal with, which could save the industry up to $15 million in compliance costs every year. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the rule will prevent up to 2,300 tons of pharmaceutical waste from entering sewer systems every year.

    “Sewering,” or flushing medications down the drain, has become less common in recent years, Elise Paeffgen, senior associate at Alston & Bird LLP’s Washington office, told Bloomberg Environment.

    “Industry had already been shifting away from that practice, and this codifies that,” she said.

    The agency initially started working on this regulatory update in 2008, but later aborted that plan and started over from scratch in 2015. The updated regulation on pharmaceutical disposal will go into effect six months after it is published in the Federal Register.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/dont-flush-your-drugs-epa-tells-healthcare-facilities
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Final EPA Rule Narrows Definition Of Pharmaceuticals Subject To RCRA

    Dec 12, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Suzanne Yohannan & Lara Beaven

    Over industry's strong objections, EPA's final hazardous waste pharmaceutical rule retains a proposed Obama-era definition that prescription pharmaceuticals sent from healthcare facilities to reverse distributors are regulated as solid waste, but the rule now excludes non-prescription medication sent to reverse logistics centers from the definition.

    The final rule, released Dec. 12, also bans the “sewering” of hazardous waste medications, as proposed, and exempts Food and Drug Administration-approved nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gum, from hazardous waste disposal requirements, something EPA said it was considering in the proposed rule.

    In addition, the rule maintains a household hazardous waste exemption for medications collected during drug take-back programs and events, it says, “while ensuring their proper disposal.”

    EPA says the rule, signed Dec. 11 by Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and released ahead of its publication in the Federal Register, will lower the amount of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals entering waterways by up to 2,300 tons per year through the ban on sewering the medications.

    The rule “prohibits the disposal of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals down the drain,” according to the pre-publication version of the final rule.

    It also finalizes a conditional exemption, eliminating the dual regulation of Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste drugs that are also Drug Enforcement Administration controlled substances, it says.

    In the proposed rule floated in August 2015, EPA said it was modifying its position regarding the point of generation so that the decision to send an unsold pharmaceutical to a reverse distributor is a decision to discard the pharmaceutical, and the mediation is considered a solid waste.

    Under the proposed rule, the definition of “pharmaceutical reverse distributor” included any person that receives and accumulates potentially creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals for the purpose of facilitating or verifying manufacturer credit. Additionally, under the proposed rule, the definition of “pharmaceutical” included not just prescription pharmaceuticals but also nonprescription pharmaceuticals.

    “Therefore, under the proposal, potentially creditable prescription pharmaceuticals and nonprescription pharmaceuticals transported to a facility that facilitates or verifies manufacturer credit, even in cases where a credit determination is yet to be made, would be considered discarded and, therefore, solid wastes at the healthcare facility,” EPA says in the final rule.

    The provision drew strong opposition from retailers and pharmacists, who said it fell short of easing burdens on retailers who want to manage unsold products in a more sustainable fashion.

    'Fundamental Change'

    Reverse distributors urged EPA in March to ease this language, objecting to the proposal's “fundamental change" to EPA's long-held position on the point at which a pharmaceutical product is considered a solid waste under RCRA.

    And CVS Health met with White House Office of Management and Budget officials in August, while the rule was undergoing interagency review, to discuss concerns.

    In the final rule, EPA says it is making a clear distinction between reverse distribution of prescription pharmaceuticals and the reverse logistics of other unsold retail items, including nonprescription pharmaceuticals. The agency is finalizing, as proposed, that prescription pharmaceuticals moving through reverse distribution are solid wastes subject to regulation at the healthcare facility, although EPA says it has tailored its RCRA rules for prescription pharmaceuticals going through reverse distribution with existing business practices in mind.

    But EPA says nonprescription pharmaceuticals sent to reverse logistics centers are not solid wastes because they have a reasonable expectation of being legitimately used/reused or reclaimed.

    This is a reaffirmation of the agency's existing policy regarding reverse logistics centers, but EPA notes in the final rule that it remains concerned about the potential for over-use of these centers, a concern it originally raised in a 1991 memo related to reverse distribution.

    The memo said “a reverse distribution system cannot be used as a waste management service to customers/generators without the applicable regulatory controls on waste management being in place . . . to the extent that the materials involved are unused commercial chemical products with a reasonable expectation of being recycled in some way when returned, the materials are not considered as wastes until a determination has been made to discard them.”

    The 199l guidance allowing pharmaceuticals to go through reverse distribution without being considered solid waste was based on the notion that they had the potential for recycling by use/reuse, EPA says in the final rule. But many have come to disregard the intent behind the guidance and erroneously believed that it was a blanket statement that pharmaceuticals going through reverse distribution were never solid waste.

    “We strongly encourage the use of reverse logistics centers to facilitate redistribution and legitimate recycling to the fullest extent possible, and thus, reduce the amount of waste being generated. But we also caution reverse logistic centers not to become de facto waste management facilities for their customers,” the final rule says. 

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/final-epa-rule-narrows-definition-pharmaceuticals-subject-rcra
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Study: Valve Hole Set Off Refinery Blast, Fire in Wisconsin

    Dec 12, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)

    A hole in a valve was the source of an April explosion at a Husky Energy refinery in northwestern Wisconsin that injured 36 people and required the evacuation of a large part of the city of Superior, according to findings of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board presented Wednesday.

    According to the update that was shared at a town hall meeting in Superior, erosion created a hole in the slide valve, allowing air to mix with hydrocarbons. The resulting blast sent debris hurtling into an asphalt storage tank. The puncture spilled about 15,000 gallons of hot asphalt, which later ignited and burned for hours.

    The report linked the Superior explosion on April 26, 2018, to a 2015 explosion in Torrance, California, the Star Tribune reported . The board says in both cases, an explosive mix of air and hydrocarbons formed inside a fluid catalytic cracking unit because of ineffective safeguards. The unit converts hydrocarbons in petroleum into gasoline.

    In both cases, the fluid catalytic cracking units were not in normal operating mode when the explosions happened and were nearing dates for upgrades, the board said.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Several people at the meeting said they want the Superior refinery to stop using hydrogen fluoride to process high-octane gasoline. The highly corrosive chemical can produce toxic vapor clouds.

    The tank containing hydrogen fluoride was not damaged by the explosion or fire. While some people who lived nearest to the refinery were told to evacuate due to the presence of hydrogen fluoride, others should have been told as well, said the Rev. Michelle R. Rowell of Concordia Lutheran Church in Superior.

    "After that nearest evacuation was done, I think it was irresponsible that the rest of the community was not informed about the presence of that very dangerous chemical," Rowell said.

    A spokesman for Husky Energy said Wednesday the Canada-based company will continue working with the board to understand the cause of the explosion.

    Husky Energy does not expect to resume normal operations at the Superior refinery until 2020 but says no one will be laid off because of the explosion.

    "We've appointed an engineering contractor to oversee design work for the rebuild and as part of that process, we continue to evaluate options around the use of hydrogen fluoride," Husky spokesman Mel Duvall said in an email.

    https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/12/12/us/ap-us-refinery-explosion-wisconsin.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

24. 'Disruptive' Virus That Hit Oil and Gas Companies Resurfaces

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    A crippling computer virus that wiped out tens of thousands of computers at Saudi Aramco six years ago has resurfaced, security researchers say.

    The Shamoon worm has a sordid history of hitting oil and gas companies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, among other Middle Eastern targets.

    Experts say the malicious tool is built to wreak havoc: Shamoon scrubs the master boot record off infected Windows computers, so they can't even start back up. Previous versions of the malware have replaced the displays on victim machines with images of a burning American flag or of a lifeless Alan Kurdi, a 3-year-old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe in 2015.

    "The first wave was particularly disruptive, because destructive malware isn't all that common," said Stephen Doherty, research analyst at Symantec Corp.

    Now, Doherty has spotted a new variant of Shamoon in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, affecting an energy and engineering firm.

    "There's definitely a resurgence of the malware," he said in an interview yesterday. "It does tend to surprise even the [cybersecurity] industry itself, the fact that they continue to use malware that has been used in infamous attacks in the past."

    Shamoon staged a brief comeback in late 2016, when researchers at Palo Alto Networks Inc. warned of its "rudimentary, but effective" technique for quickly spreading from one infected system to a host of computers in its orbit.

    The latest sample of the virus appears to have discarded this mechanism and doesn't contain the emails, domains or passwords that it would need to spread through target organizations, according to Jen Miller-Osborn, deputy director of threat intelligence of Unit 42 at Palo Alto Networks. She said the variant uploaded to the VirusTotal database "shares a considerable amount of code" with samples used in the 2016 and 2017 Shamoon infections.

    "It isn't clear yet if this is a new round of attacks," she said in an email.

    Much of what is publicly known about the new malware strain is based on a version uploaded into VirusTotal, according to research from Alphabet Inc. subsidiary Chronicle.

    Researchers there found a quirk: The new Shamoon includes a Dec. 7, 2017, "trigger" date — a hard-coded command to launch destructive payloads. A backdated trigger means the new malware, once installed, immediately springs into action rather than lying in wait like a time bomb.

    "Shamoon has been very closely tracked, despite its use in a limited number of incidents and is of considerable concern to Saudi Arabia and others involved in OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries)," Chronicle researchers concluded in their analysis.Saipem hit

    Chronicle, which owns VirusTotal, reported that the sample uploaded to the file scanning service on Dec. 10 originated in Italy.

    On the same day, Italian oil and gas firm Saipem SpA reported suffering a cyberattack on its servers.

    The company does business in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, where Saipem was awarded $4 billion in engineering and construction contracts in 2014.

    Saipem and the Saudi Arabian government's National Cyber Security Center did not respond to requests for comment. But Saipem's head of digital and innovation, Mauro Piasere, told Reuters yesterday that the Shamoon virus appeared to be responsible for crippling between 300 and 400 servers and 100 individual computers at the company.

    Joe Slowik, adversary hunter at cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc., said in a Twitter message that there were "still a lot of mysteries" about the attack, from how the Shamoon malware made it into Saipem's environment to how it spread, given that its wormlike capability appears to have been disabled.

    It's not yet clear who is behind the latest Shamoon infections. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike Inc. linked past versions of the malware to the Iranian government. Doherty of Symantec said it is still too early to point fingers for the third round.

    "There's no hard evidence as to who might be behind these attacks," he said. "For this latent wave, we're going to try to tie it back to a particular set of tools that maybe a group is using, and see where we go from there."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/12/13/stories/1060109525
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

25. Superior Residents Ask Feds to End Use of Toxic Chemical at Refinery

    Dec 12, 2018 | MPR News

    By Dan Kraker

    Federal officials heard an earful Wednesday at a public meeting in Superior, Wis., about the explosion and fire at the nearby Husky Energy refinery that injured 36 people and forced the evacuation of much of the city last spring.

    About two dozen residents from Duluth, Superior and surrounding areas addressed the three sitting members of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, who had come to town at the request of several Minnesota and Wisconsin congresspeople.

    Most speakers were emphatic in their insistence that Husky energy stop using hydrogen fluoride at the refinery. The toxic chemical is used to make high-octane gasoline, but can cause lung disease and skin damage in people who are exposed to it.• After refinery explosion: 5 lessons of loss and resilience

    The April explosion occurred about 150 feet from a spot on the refinery grounds where 15,000 pounds of the chemical was stored. Shrapnel from the blast punctured a nearby tank of asphalt, which gushed out and caused a massive fire to burn for about four hours, creating an enormous black smoke plume.

    But debris from the explosion did not damage the tank containing the hydrogen fluoride, and a fire suppression system kept the tank protected.

    Still, Norm Herron of Duluth told board members that Husky should replace the chemical with something less hazardous.

    "The cost to manufacture a product must never take precedence over the safety and health of the people who reside and work in the Twin Ports," he said.

    The Chemical Safety Board, as the federal agency is more generally known, investigates major chemical accidents nationwide. The independent board delivers recommendations, but it can't issue fines or citations.

    The explosion and fire at the Husky refinery was caused by a failed valve that allowed air to mix with hydrocarbons in a part of the refinery where crude oil is processed into gasoline and other byproducts.

    CSB investigator Mark Wingard offered an update on the agency's investigation at the start of the meeting. He said the cause of the incident was very similar to that of an explosion at an ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., in 2015.

    Both incidents also took place at a moment when the refineries were nearing the end of an operating cycle. The Superior refinery was in the process of shutting down for maintenance after running since 2013.

    Both explosions also occurred near tanks containing hydrogen fluoride. In the CSB's final report on the Torrance incident, the agency called it a "near-miss event" in which explosion debris nearly hit tanks containing the toxic chemical.

    • Hydrogen fluoride questions remain: Husky reports 300 percent profit gain in third quarter

    The federal government subsequently sued ExxonMobil to force the company to release additional information related to the incident and to safety measures in place.

    Chemical Safety Board member Rick Engler told the crowd in Superior that it makes sense to investigate whether debris from the explosion at the Husky refinery could have hit vessels containing hydrogen fluoride.

    "I feel strongly that there have been enough incidents over history, there's enough consensus among many, that hydrogen fluoride poses a potentially severe risk to communities. And the CSB needs to take very seriously some type of action steps to move that forward," he said.

    Husky Energy spokesperson Mel Duvall said in an email that the company realizes "the community still has questions and concerns about what happened on April 26, as well as what the rebuild of the refinery will look like."

    Husky doesn't expect to resume operations until sometime in 2020, and Duvall said the company is still evaluating options around the use of hydrogen fluoride.

    The Chemical Safety Board plans to release its final report with recommendations sometime next year.

    https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/12/12/superior-wisconsin-residents-ask-feds-to-end-use-of-toxic-chemical-at-refinery
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

26. Hill Weighs Common Ground, Hurdles in New Congress

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Daily

    By Geof Koss

    The obstacles to a bipartisan deal are many, but possible areas of agreement on an infrastructure package in the 116th Congress are starting to emerge — including on policies that meet the top Democratic demand of curbing climate change.

    While President Trump's campaign pledge to enact a $1 trillion infrastructure package went nowhere over the last two years, lawmakers from both parties are gearing up for a focus on roads, bridges and energy projects in the new year.

    "That's certainly one of the things that everybody's focused on as something we should be able to do," Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said yesterday.CONTINUING COVERAGE

    E&E News' ongoing coverage of the changes taking place on Capitol Hill. Click here to view the continuing coverage.

    While Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) threw down the gauntlet last week when he demanded that any infrastructure package must include provisions to tackle climate change, Senate Republicans were largely unfazed by the move (E&E Daily, Dec. 7).

    "Everybody knows that they've had this position now for so many years, so this is not a change," said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a longtime climate skeptic and former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

    Inhofe famously had a close working relationship with then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), his counterpart on the committee, when the pair shepherded the last major highway bill through the Senate that included permitting reforms agreed to by both parties. In the previous major highway bills, Republicans also looked to streamline permitting in exchange for a big government check.

    Senate Republicans are making clear that a major focus of infrastructure negotiations next year will be additional permitting reforms — an area that was a near-constant topic of conversation in discussions on the plan that never got off the ground in the 115th Congress.

    The Trump administration has since made various moves to slash the permitting processes for major infrastructure projects, but Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said he's still interested in going further.

    "Even if you did a trillion-dollar infrastructure piece and you don't have serious permitting reform, it's a waste of money," he told E&E News. "Even my Democratic colleagues kind of acknowledge that."

    But Sullivan also appeared to be open to addressing climate policy around the edges of an infrastructure bill, and he suggested it could make an easy trade-off for permitting provisions that could otherwise be controversial with Democrats.

    "If it's they want to shut down the oil and gas industry, which some of them might want to, that's a no-go for someone like me," Sullivan said. "But other elements, I'm certainly open to listening to it."

    Hoeven said permitting reforms should be amenable to members of both parties.

    "It used to be that the fossil fuel industry needed pipelines," he said. "But now you've got the renewable industry, they need transmission lines. They also need ways to move ethanol and biodiesel. That's an area where you're a fan of fossil fuel, renewable energy or both, we ought to be able to come together because both need transmission and transportation."

    Permitting provisions also have the benefit of not adding to the price tag of an infrastructure package, Hoeven added. "That's one you don't have to worry about funding because industry will pay for it."

    Ultimately, though, both Sullivan and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), another EPW member, suggested they weren't concerned that Schumer's climate demands would hold up talks.

    "It's their starting point," he said, adding that "there's room for negotiations."

    Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who has touted the potential for natural gas to reduce emissions, hadn't seen Schumer's proposal but said areas such as building efficiency and modernizing the electric grid might yield some common ground.

    Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wants any infrastructure overhaul to address climate change impacts. C-SPAN

    Senate EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) was unconcerned by Schumer's proposal, which did not include carbon-pricing frameworks that he has long opposed.

    "Look at what's happening in France, look at what the voters across the country have done in Democrat states rejecting carbon taxes, rejecting limits on exploring for energy, rejecting mandatory renewables," he told E&E News this week. "That's not where the American people are."

    On the House side, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said he's had routine conversations during the past six months with incoming Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) about moving forward on an infrastructure bill.

    DeFazio ticked off a list of agenda items on climate for his committee, including greening public transportation and funding charging stations for electric cars. He noted that Americans waste billions of gallons of fuel in congestion each year, making addressing traffic jams an important component in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Some of the items DeFazio wants to address in an infrastructure bill, such as investments in battery storage for renewable energy and resilient building, also sounded similar to Schumer's list.

    One of the largest contributors to carbon in the United States is transportation.

    "We've got to look at ways to reduce fuel consumption in transportation," DeFazio said. "Maritime, we're probably going to be looking at fuel cells. But then we need to invest in technology to figure out a way to produce green hydrogen, which has potential."Price tag issues

    By far the biggest challenge for an infrastructure package will be paying for it — which was the primary reason the Republican-led Congress shied away from Trump's plan.

    "I thought you could just wave a magic wand, shift some money around, stir some lead and heat it at the right temperature and magically have the money," Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told reporters. "Now we're told that it's actually going to take revenues to pay for it."

    Hoeven said finding balance between public and private investment will be the primary source of tension between the two parties.

    "Republicans want to draw more private financing to the equation, and of course the Democrats want virtually all public funding," he said.

    One possible area of compromise is legislation authored by Hoeven and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, that would allow states to issue tax-exempt bonds in partnership with private entities, lowering their overall borrowing cost.

    "That leverages a lot of money, and we need to make sure that we're including those as part of the plan," Hoeven said.

    Wyden this month lamented that Trump didn't move first on infrastructure at the outset of his presidency, when he says there was a bipartisan deal to devote revenues from taxing repatriated foreign earnings to infrastructure.

    "My view is it was political and economic malpractice for him to not walk in in January of 2017 and say we're going to do infrastructure right out of the gate and bring together the leadership and the committees and Finance and Ways and Means whose job it is to find the money," Wyden told E&E News. "It was there for the doing."

    Instead, Republicans enacted a partisan tax overhaul, which Wyden noted could be revised to steer funds for infrastructure. He pointed to a proposal Senate Democrats floated earlier this year to do exactly that to pay for their own $1 trillion infrastructure package.

    Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the Democratic plan remains a "starting point" for infrastructure negotiations next year.

    "I hope we can do better, but finding revenue is very difficult," he told E&E News yesterday.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who will lead the Finance Committee next year, has already moved to squelch talk of reopening the tax law.

    "Now's not the time to walk back the historic economic progress we've made in the last two years," Grassley said in a statement last month.

    Blumenauer, for his part, said he wants to have "two or three major hearings" on the Ways and Means Committee about financing an infrastructure bill.

    He added that he wants to adjust the gas tax and eventually replace it with a vehicle-miles-traveled fee, which would better account for rising numbers of electric cars and autonomous vehicles on the road. Senate EPW ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) has repeatedly floated a similar idea.

    "Basing transportation funding based on gallons of fossil fuel consumed is doomed," Blumenauer said. "Within 10 years it's gone, it's collapsed."Other hurdles

    Although Blumenauer said he doesn't want to tack too many things onto an infrastructure package that are "unnecessarily complex and controversial," climate policy is clearly in the mix.

    "Carbon policy is clearly a part of infrastructure policy, what we do with everything from the electrical grid to more efficient transportation," Blumenauer said. "It is part and parcel."

    He added, "There is a whole range of things on energy and infrastructure that are not controversial and broadly supported."

    Other challenges for infrastructure include the 2020 presidential election season, which will begin in earnest next year.

    "I think if we don't get something major done in six months, it's not going to happen," said DeFazio.

    Another hurdle is low expectations around infrastructure, which despite all of Trump's talk has become a punchline in the current Congress.

    Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said last week that although she believes bipartisan cooperation on infrastructure is possible next year, she noted the deflated hopes that accompanied the hype on the subject for the past two years.

    "I do think that this is an area that we can be working together," Murkowski said. "But we've kind of said this once before. So I'm getting a lot of people, when I was home over these past few weeks, saying, 'Yeah, is infrastructure really going to happen? Because if it is, we'll get ready for it. But if it's not, we're not gonna.'"

    Reporter George Cahlink contributed.

    https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/12/13/stories/1060109517
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

27. (ACC Mentioned) Wehrum Says ACE NSR Changes Won't Expand to Other Sectors

    Dec 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

    EPA air chief Bill Wehrum says the agency does not currently plan to extend its proposed power sector-specific Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) alternative emissions test to other industries, even as the agency moves to ease separate NSR mandates for other sectors.

    According to a Dec. 10 Bloomberg BNA story, Wehrum in an interview said “The answer is no” on applying the emissions test policy shift to other sectors. “It doesn't mean forever, but for now, the answer is no.”

    The NSR changes are included in EPA's proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) greenhouse gas rule, which would replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan GHG rule for power plants. Under the plan, EPA would change the emissions test from annual to hourly to trigger NSR.

    Environmentalists have long argued that the shift would make it easier for utilities to provide data showing that their emissions are below the threshold for triggering NSR, which can require permits with strict, expensive air pollution control technology.

    Even though Wehrum heads EPA's Office of Air & Radiation and the shift is included in the ACE rule, he previously opposed changing the test while working for the air office in President George W. Bush's administration. EPA's 2002 decision to reject the hourly test at that time was decades in the making and emerged from an arcane set of circumstances, an environmentalist has said to Inside EPA.

    Industry groups including the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) were urging EPA to change the NSR test from annual to hourly dating back to the 1980s, and the issue was included for EPA's consideration as part of an “Exhibit B” of a 1982 settlement the agency entered into with the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), now known as the American Chemistry Council.

    Under that pact, EPA agreed to take comment on adopting an hourly emissions rate test, which it did in 1996. EPA then decided against adopting the test in a series of NSR changes adopted in 2002 that were challenged by New York and other states. The agency “made the point that [changing to an hourly test] would result in massive emissions increases and harm ambient air quality,” the environmentalist said.

    But the ACE proposal seeks to change the test from an annual to hourly measure for coal plants that choose from seven EPA-supplied “candidate technologies” to improve efficiencies and lower GHG emissions, even if the projects allow overall conventional emissions to increase.

    The proposed change to NSR, which EPA describes as “severable” from the rest of the GHG rule, would mean that it would rarely, if ever, be triggered at coal plants, both proponents and opponents say.

    Wehrum told Bloomberg BNA that the agency is limiting the change to the power sector to overcome what it sees as NSR's bar on power plants pursuing efficiency upgrades. The effect of the hourly test “is to take efficiency projects out of play.”

    His comments suggest the agency will retain the annual emissions test for other sectors, even though EPA is moving to ease other NSR mandates.

    For example, EPA is refining its guidance on when facilities across a host of industries can be considered under “common control” and hence treated as one source for NSR permitting purposes, further narrowing the definition of control in a letter to Wisconsin air regulators to emphasize the overall “control” of one facility over another rather than a facility's polluting activities.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/wehrum-says-ace-nsr-changes-wont-expand-other-sectors
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

28. Capacity Limits May Hinder EPA Plan To Finish PM NAAQS Review By 2020

    Dec 12, 2018 | Inside EPA

    By Stuart Parker

    Members of EPA's overhauled Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), dozens of former panelists, clean air advocates and even some major industry groups are warning that CASAC lacks the capacity to properly review the agency's federal particulate matter (PM) standards, hindering EPA's plan to finish the review by 2020.

    The concerns, raised in comments at the first day of a Dec. 12-13 CASAC meeting on the ongoing review of the PM air limits, follow other criticisms of the Trump administration's revised, truncated process for assessing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Several opponents of the process have warned that the process could lead to inadequate scientific reviews that make any EPA decisions based on the reviews legally vulnerable.

    At the meeting held in Arlington, VA, American Petroleum Institute senior policy adviser Ted Steichen warned EPA it risks blowing its review timetable with the streamlined approach to reviews.

    Generally, API opposes tougher NAAQS and questions much of the science EPA has relied on to tighten them. However, Steichen warned of “substantial delay” that could result from a wholesale revision of the integrated science assessment (ISA) that CASAC met to review. The ISA compiles and synthesizes scientific studies to support EPA's review of the PM standards, which the agency last updated in 2012. API believes a revision to the ISA is necessary to correct a bias toward finding adverse health effects at ever-lower levels of exposure.

    Other speakers raised concerns that CASAC might miss its review deadlines, or produce a cursory review lacking scientific and legal credibility due to the truncated review schedule. EPA disbanded a specialized CASAC PM panel, and is shortening the time in which the full seven-member CASAC will review the NAAQS.

    EPA last set its NAAQS for “fine” particulate (PM2.5) in 2012 at 12 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), tougher than the prior limit of 15 ug/m3. New scientific evidence gathered since 2012 shows health risks to exposures at levels far below 12 ug/m3, although the validity of this is hotly contested.

    Speaking at the event Dec. 12, new CASAC Chairman Louis “Tony” Cox -- criticized by environmentalists for his work as an industry consultant -- expressed serious doubts over EPA's “causality framework,” the method used by the agency to gauge health and environmental risks from exposure to PM.

    Cox peppered EPA staff with questions over why their “weight of evidence” approach to determining causation of health effects does not attempt to quantify causation, forcing staff onto the defensive.

    But the concerns over CASAC's capacity to complete its review adequately in the time allowed overshadowed the meeting. Although the PM review is already overdue under the Clean Air Act's five-year review cycle, the review has been slow to get started and reviews have previously taken much longer than five years.

    The Trump administration's decision to replace all seven Obama-era CASAC members with its own appointees, and dismiss the specialized PM panel and a similar specialized ozone NAAQS panel breaks from decades of prior practice. CASAC members James Boylan, a Georgia air regulator, Mark Frampton, a research scientist with the University of Rochester, NY, Timothy Lewis, an aquatic ecology specialist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Sabine Lange, a toxicologist with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, have already warned that an accelerated timetable risks undermining the ozone NAAQS review, due for completion in October 2020.

    'Not Sufficient'

    At the meeting Dec. 12, Boylan, Frampton and Lewis called for the restoration of the PM expert panel.

    In addition, CASAC member Steven Packham, a Utah state toxicologist, noted that he is a scientist in only one discipline, and “clearly that is not sufficient” to give an informed opinion on the multifaceted PM ISA.

    The CASAC members' positions reflect a wave of criticism from former CASAC members and specialized panelists, former EPA staff, and other scientists and public health groups attacking EPA's decision to drop specialized panels, and to accelerate and streamline NAAQS reviews.

    Under a policy written by former Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and backed by current air policy chief Bill Wehrum, the agency is seeking to produce only one draft of key documents such as ISAs, to consolidate review steps into fewer documents, and to cut down on consultation of CASAC.

    Many former CASAC members, such as former committee chairman and PM panelist Chris Frey, a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, submitted comments to the panel ahead of the meeting, or spoke in person, to denounce the procedural changes.

    “You lack the relevant expertise” to conduct the PM review, Frey told CASAC, urging EPA to reconvene the specialized ozone and PM panels. Frey and many others have warned that a short, cursory review will expose the eventual EPA rule to legal peril.

    Former CASAC member and panelist Lianne Sheppard, a University of Washington professor of environmental sciences, said “the changes to the CASAC process are arbitrary and capricious,” referring to the Clean Air Act's standard for courts to vacate EPA rules. “The CASAC and the NAAQS review process is now broken.”

    Several former panelists or former EPA staff noted that EPA did not inform them of the changes to the NAAQS review process or solicit their opinion, making the shifts abrupt and arbitrary.

    CASAC member Frampton, the committee's lone research scientist, asked EPA staff what the rationale was behind the decision to drop specialized panels. Air Office staffer Erika Sasser offered only that the move was motivated by a desire to return to CASAC's core statutory functions, but that the decision was “not made on the staff level.”

    'Causal' Effects'

    Meanwhile, on the substance of the ISA, Cox and Lange are challenging EPA's findings of “causal” effects and many other aspects of the ISA, such as its treatment of scientific uncertainty.

    Cox in written comments and questions for EPA staff sought to force the agency to engage in “quantified” causality findings, seeking to attribute a percentage of certainty to PM causing a particular health outcome, as opposed to other “confounding” factors. Cox sought to have EPA identify the precise “type” of causality, such as “direct” or “indirect.”

    This prompted some confusion among EPA staff present. John Vandenberg, of the agency's Office of Research and Development, said that “we are not assessing any particular” type of causality, and “we are not doing a quantitative analysis,” but rather looking at all available evidence under a weight of evidence approach.

    EPA in the draft ISA has strengthened some of its findings of causality to higher degrees of certainty for various health outcomes, and has introduced a new category, neurological effects, for which it finds ultrafine particle exposure is “likely” to be causal in the long-term. Ultrafine particles are even smaller than PM2.5, which is thought to cause most of the health damage caused by PM. 

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/capacity-limits-may-hinder-epa-plan-finish-pm-naaqs-review-2020
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

29. House Climate Change Panel Won't Likely Pass Bills

    Dec 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green

    A growing number of House Democrats are backing the idea to create a special committee to fight climate change next year, but it likely won’t have the authority to pass any bills.

    Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told lawmakers Wednesday that the panel, championed by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), won’t have any legislative jurisdiction.

    In the meeting, meant to assuage concerns of incoming committee chairmen that the new climate panel might encroach on their authority, Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised that the select committee wouldn’t have the authority to pass its own bills, according to Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who attended the meeting.

    Grijalva’s in line to chair the Natural Resources Committee.

    “It’s something I’m comfortable with. It’s not a threat to anybody. And I think it galvanizes attention on the issue of climate change, and it’s a good thing,” Grijalva told reporters about the plan for a special committee.

    Grijalva has long backed the formation of the committee with the caveat that it be restricted of bill-passing power.

    Pelosi had, since before the midterm election, pushed for a select committee on climate change, similar to one that existed from 2007 to 2011, the last time Democrats had the House majority.

    That committee, called the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, would focus on highlighting the science that proves climate change is occurring, she told the New York Times in November.

    “I have recommended to my House Democratic colleagues that we reinstate the select committee to address the climate crisis. House Democrats ran on and won on our bold campaign for a $1 trillion investment in our infrastructure that will make our communities more resilient to the climate crisis, while creating 16 million new good-paying jobs across the country,” she said in November after Ocasio-Cortez and youth activists protested at her office on the issue.

    Many Democrats have endorsed Ocasio-Cortez’s specific proposal, which would instead charge the panel with coming up with a plan for a Green New Deal — an idea that includes a plan to transition to 100 percent renewable electricity, a universal jobs guarantee and other measures.

    But some incoming House chairmen opposed the plan, in part, because they feared that it would step on their toes and that of their committee, especially if it had the ability to pass its own bills.

    “We have very strong champions for addressing climate change — not only on my committee, but the other committees of jurisdiction — that are going to move very aggressively on the issue of climate change,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the likely next chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said last month.

    Pelosi’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the record.

    By tradition, House select committees do not have the power to vote on legislation and send it straight to the full House for consideration, as established committees do. A select committee with that authority would be unusual.

    Supporters from the Sunrise Movement, an environmental activist group that developed the Green New Deal plan and is backed by Ocasio-Cortez, acknowledged that while they’d like the select committee to have the necessary funding and power to influence Congress’s future climate change plans, it doesn’t need legislative authority.

    “They are tasked with drafting a plan, then subsequently creating draft legislation within a 90-day period and then making it open and accessible to the public. They don’t actually have jurisdiction to draft specific legislation to then be voted on,” said Varshini Prakash, the group’s founder.

    Hundreds of youth activists organized by the Sunrise Movement swarmedCongress on Monday to rally for the adoption of the New Green Deal special committee.

    “We don’t want to infringe on the jurisdiction of the other committees because we hear the concerns of other members around that, but we do want to create a body that has the funding, the time, the authority to do the work that is necessary to create the plans,” said Stephen O'Hanlon, an organizer for the movement.

    “And it might be more than one bill that might go through multiple committees because this is a big project bigger than anything else we’ve done in our lifetimes.”

    The previous iteration of the committee did not have legislative jurisdiction, but many of its ideas were incorporated into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The latter bill passed the House but did not get through the Senate.

    At a televised climate change town hall last week Ocasio-Cortez said the committee was necessary in order to bring multiple climate change solutions under one roof.

    “When we try to solve this issue piecemeal, we will not solve it in time,” she said.

    Her website has a draft of a resolution she intends to introduce to create the climate panel. The resolution changed in recent weeks to say that the panel would not have legislative jurisdiction.

    Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, characterized the change as a clarification, since the previous version did not specifically grant the panel authority, beyond simply writing legislation.

    “The sentiment is exactly the same,” he said. “What we’ve been asking for since the beginning is for this committee to have the power to draft legislation.”

    The full House needs to vote on the proposal to create the select committee after Democrats formally take the majority on Jan. 3.

    Grijalva said that Pelosi has plans to make a formal announcement about the panel’s details soon.

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421108-house-climate-change-panel-wont-likely-pass-bills
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

30. John Kerry: If We Fail on Climate, It Won’t Be Just Trump’s Fault

    Dec 13, 2018 | The New York Times - Opinion

    By John Kerry

    This week is the third anniversary of the Paris climate agreement. The Trump administration marked it by working with Russia and Gulf oil nations to sideline science and undermine the accord at climate talks underway in Katowice, Poland.

    While I was in New Delhi this week, where I met with solar energy advocates, a comment made thousands of miles away by the journalist Bob Woodward almost jumped off my iPad: The president, he said, “makes decisions often without a factual basis.” This isn’t a mere personality quirk of the leader of the free world. It is profoundly dangerous for the entire planet.

    Scientists tell us we must act now to avoid the ravages of climate change. The collision of facts and alternative facts has hurt America’s efforts to confront this existential crisis. Ever since Mr. Trump announced that he would pull America out of the Paris accord, those of us in the fight have worked to demonstrate that the American people are still in.

    But the test is not whether the nation’s cities and states can make up for Mr. Trump’s rejection of reality. They can. The test is whether the nations of the world will pull out of the mutual suicide pact that we’ve all passively joined through an inadequate response to this crisis.

    Talk to leaders who are gathered in Poland. They acknowledge that we aren’t close to getting the job done in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that warm the planet. People are dying today because of climate change, and many more will die and trillions of dollars of damage to property will occur unless America gets back in the fight.

    The evidence is hard to miss. Fifteen of the biggest fires in California history have occurred in the past 18 years. We roll our eyes when the president suggests “raking” the forest is the answer. But clever internet memes don’t help when the stakes are this high.

    Hurricanes Maria, Harvey and Irma cost the United States some $265 billion in damages. Historic droughts are matched by historic floods. Heat waves stole 153 billion hours of labor globally last year. Infectious diseases are moving into new areas and higher altitudes. Crop yields are down in more than two dozen countries, and by 2050 the Midwestern United States could see agricultural productivity drop to its lowest level in decades. But this is a mere preview of what’s to come.

    The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that the changes required to hold global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), as called for in the Paris agreement, would require changes on a scale with “no documented historic precedent.”

    Every day we lose ground debating alternative facts. It’s not a “he said/she said” — there’s truth, and then there’s Mr. Trump. Even the recent congressionally mandated climate assessment warns that “with continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century — more than the current gross domestic product of many U.S. states.”Editors’ PicksThey Were Stopped at the Texas Border. Their Nightmare Had Only Just Begun.China’s Women-Only Subway Cars, Where Men Rush InHow China Took Over Your TV

    Emissions are forecast to go up by 2.7 percent worldwide this year. Instead of reining them in, the Trump administration would unleash more by replacing the Clean Power Plan with a rule that could allow power plants to unload 12 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Instead of controlling fuel emissions, the administration is rolling back fuel economy standards that the auto industry had embraced. Instead of keeping a lid on methane, its making it more likely that this potent greenhouse gas will leak into the atmosphere.

    Future generations will measure us by whether we acted on facts, not just debated or denied them. The verdict will hang on whether we put in place policies that will drive the development and deployment of clean technologies, re-energize our economies, and tackle global climate change. Every day that goes by that we’re paralyzed by the Luddite in the White House is a day in the future that our grandchildren will suffer. That’s not hyperbole — that’s science.

    Instead of tacitly accepting that inaction is preordained for the remaining two years of the Trump presidency, Congress should send Mr. Trump legislation addressing this crisis. It will force him to make choices the American people will long remember: Will he say no to deploying solar technology that would turn the American West into the Saudi Arabia of solar? No to turning the Midwest into the Middle East of wind power? No to a manufacturing revolution that could put West Virginia back to work in ways that his beloved coal never will?

    Make him choose — and let’s find out.

    Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democrat from New York and Senate minority leader, is right to demand that infrastructure legislation actually hasten the transition to a clean energy economy and increase climate resilience. In soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he has a partner who wrangled the votes in the House in 2009 to pass a landmark cap-and-trade program to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases (though it never made it out of the Senate), and can join him in seeking investments in low carbon infrastructure. And if Mr. Trump says no, make climate change the galvanizing issue for 2020 for millennials who will vote as if their lives depend on it — because they do.

    If we fail, future generations will judge us all as failures, not just this president. They will have no time for excuses. Facts matter. Act on them.

    John Kerry was a Democratic senator from Massachusetts before becoming secretary of state in the Obama administration.

    Return to headline | Return to top

31. Voters Shrug as Energized House Democrats Vow Action on Climate

    Dec 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Ari Natter and Anna Edgerton

    Polls show climate change still lags behind health care, jobs, immigration, and the federal budget deficit among voters’ priorities.

    But Democrats, under pressure from activists on the left, plan to make it a marquee issue when they take over the House of Representatives next month. It is a strategy with some peril for a party that lost its majority in the chamber after, among other things, passing a sweeping cap-and-trade bill in 2009 that died in the Senate.

    “The risks are that it can be divisive,” said Kalee Kreider, a onetime adviser to former Vice President Al Gore.

    If Democrats put forward a package that doesn’t include both new ideas for combating global warming as well as policies focused on jobs and workers it could squander momentum and split the party’s base, she said.

    Party leaders have already vowed to convene hearings on the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back Obama-era climate rules, and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has promised to revive a special House committee focused on global warming. a.    Green New Deal

    But a rowdy class of new lawmakers are demanding the party go further and back the adoption of a Green New Deal that includes a transition to 100 percent renewable energy.

    The issue of climate change attracts young voters and presents a contrast with President Donald Trump, who called it a hoax and promised to bring back carbon dioxide-spewing coal. Hundreds of young protesters have stormed Capitol Hill to demand action on the issue and oppose West Virginia coal champion Sen. Joe Manchin from becoming the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

    “The new Dem Majority will #ActonClimate,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House’s No. 2 Democrat, said on Twitter Dec. 11 after climate protesters staged a sit-in in his office.

    The issue plays well with the Democratic base: 69 percent of liberal Democrats said global warming would be a very important issue in determining their vote for a congressional representative in 2018, according to a survey by Yale and George Mason Universities released earlier this year.

    But when all registered voters are included, fewer than four in 10—38 percent—said the issue was very important to their vote and just 2 percent said it was the most important consideration. Among self-described conservative Republicans, it came in dead last on a list of 28 issues.

    “The two parties are more polarized on climate change right now then they are on abortion,” Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, said in an interview.b.    Gaining Importance

    Yet it continues gaining importance with every election cycle, said Nathaniel Stinnett, head of the Environmental Voter Project, a nonpartisan voter outreach group. More environmentalists are turning out on Election Day and more reliable voters are paying attention to the environment, he said.

    “Politicians go where the votes are, it’s that simple,” Stinnett said. “When you have an increasing number of environmentalists showing up to vote, and they’re not just Democrats, but also independents and moderate Republicans. Well, everyone is going to scramble to try to react to that because the one thing all politicians have in common is that they like to win elections.”

    The urgency for Democrats is bolstered by record-breaking wildfires in the West, a string of devastating hurricanes, and a landmark report released last month by the Trump administration that projected climate change will end up costing the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

    Opponents aren’t so sure it will be a winner for the party.

    “The more they prioritize this over workers and wages, the more they send the message to the working middle class that they don’t really care about your priorities any longer,” said Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a free-market advocacy group. “The more they focus on climate change and the Green New Deal, the higher risk they have of losing the working class.

    “They will lock those voters into the Republican base for as far as they eye can see and I think that is their biggest risk: abandoning the working class for the latte class,” he said.c.     Divided Caucus

    But there are divisions within the caucus. Progressives such as Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York want to see the select committee on climate change empowered to craft legislation, which is an authority that New Jersey’s Frank Pallone, head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is reluctant to hand over.

    Ocasio-Cortez and an army of progressive backers are pushing for more spending on renewable energy, while others led by Florida Rep. Ted Deutch are pushing for a carbon tax.

    For this Congress to make anything become law, it will have to be bipartisan since Republicans control the Senate and White House. Much of what the Democrats in the House do will be positioning for 2020 when Democrats have a chance to take back both.

    “One of the challenges at the moment is what is actually viable,” said Jon Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University. “To the extent the Democrats endorse some policy approach and then they can’t make it happen is not going to play well. Democrats actually have to deliver on their policies.”

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/voters-shrug-as-energized-house-democrats-vow-action-on-climate
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

32. Michigan Republicans Seek Ban on Stringent Environmental Rules

    Dec 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Alex Ebert

    Michigan Republicans are pushing limits on state environmental policies stricter than federal rules. just as a Democratic governor who ran on environmental issues is set to take office.

    Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has yet to decide whether he will sign House Bill 4205, which is similar to a measure he vetoed seven years ago.

    Environmentalists and Democrats protested the lame-duck measure they said is an effort to hamstring Gov.-elect Gretchen Whitmer (D), who ran on environmental policies, such as decreasing the allowed levels of fluorinated chemicals in drinking water and lowering water withdrawals from high-capacity wells used by farmers and bottling companies.

    Whitmer’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment from Bloomberg Environment about whether the bill would hamper any of her environmental priorities.

    Republicans argued that the bill merely requires greater scrutiny and justification before rules are imposed, which will make Michigan businesses competitive with other states.

    “If Governor Snyder signs HB 4205, it would handcuff state agencies, making it difficult for the state to adopt protections that ensure we have safe drinking water and clean air to breathe,” Nick Occhipinti, government affairs director for the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, said in a Dec. 11 statement. “Worse yet, it would put the health of our communities in the hands of an EPA that is dead-set on dismantling standards.”a.    Second Try

    Snyder vetoed a similar measure in 2011, saying, “Tying regulations to federal standards would prevent the state from meeting the specific needs of Michigan citizens and businesses, and would hamper the state’s ability to protect the environment.”

    The governor, however, will be “keeping an eye out for adjustments made to address his concerns that led to a veto last time,” Snyder spokesperson Ari Adler said.

    The key difference between the 2011 bill and the current measure is an exception specifically included to address Snyder’s previous veto. It would allow agency heads to create new rules if they show a significant need for the regulation.

    The bill would allow Michigan to set stricter environmental standards at the direction of the federal government in the event of an emergency or if state officials can demonstrate there is “a clear and convincing need” for the stricter rule.

    In his 2011 veto message, Snyder said he was opposed to the rules limit because Michigan has different regulatory priorities than the federal government. Those include ID requirements for cattle to cut down on disease in herds and tighter ballast water rules for boats to prevent the transport of invasive species across lakes.

    https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/michigan-republicans-seek-ban-on-stringent-environmental-rules
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

33. EPA Advisory Panel Gets Earful at Public Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E News PM

    By Sean Reilly

    An embattled EPA advisory committee held a public hearing in Washington today, with members getting two broad strains of feedback.

    The first came from industry representatives who repeatedly questioned whether a draft EPA research roundup overstates the health risks posed by airborne particulates.

    The second came mainly from scientists who charged the advisory panel lacks the breadth of know-how needed to review the adequacy of the existing particulate matter pollution standards.

    "Today you should ask yourselves, 'Do we have the necessary expertise in all of those critical scientific disciplines to do this review,'" Chris Frey told the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). "And clearly the answer is no."

    Frey, a North Carolina State University environmental engineering professor, was on an auxiliary scientific panel that was assisting in the review before acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler summarily disbanded it two months ago. In a letter this week, Frey and 14 other former members urged that the panel be revived. They also called on the seven-member CASAC to reject the accelerated timetable imposed by EPA earlier this year that calls for the review's completion by late 2020.

    EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee meeting today. Sean Reilly/E&E News

    If Frey was strikingly blunt, his concerns were echoed in varying degrees by about half of more than two dozen speakers at the session, the start of a two-day CASAC public meeting.

    Without an adequate review, "the end result may be particulate matter standards that insufficiently protect the United States public, especially our most susceptible populations such as children and the elderly," said Fernando Garcia Menendez, another N.C. State professor, in reading a statement signed by more than 200 scientists and engineers.

    By law, CASAC plays a central role in advising EPA during periodic reviews of the ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, ozone and four other "criteria" pollutants.

    Wheeler replaced five members on the committee around the same time in October that he disbanded the auxiliary review panel. The bulk are now state and local regulators with little direct experience in air pollution research.

    In a statement, EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said the new members "are highly qualified and have a diverse set of backgrounds in fields like toxicology, engineering, medicine, ecology, and atmospheric science." In a separate release, however, the agency left open the possibility that Wheeler could add consultants "to provide relevant expertise" if needed.

    EPA last revised its particulate matter standards in 2012. The purpose of this week's meeting is to give CASAC a chance to review the draft research roundup — formally known as an integrated science assessment, or ISA — that syntheses the findings of some 2,700 studies on particulates' health and ecological effects.

    Fine particulates are already linked to a variety of heart and lung problems including increased risk of premature death. The draft ISA also cites findings of nervous system effects, including "limited evidence" of a connection to Alzheimer's disease. The draft, also released two months ago, more generally cites evidence that EPA's existing particulate matter standards may not be strong enough to protect public health.

    But industry advocates and consultants broadly challenged whether that evidence showed that particulate exposure was necessarily responsible for perceived health effects.

    Association "is not causation," said Jia Coco Liu, an environmental epidemiologist speaking on behalf of the Electric Power Research Institute. "Characterizing the causal effect of PM on human health is critical for informing policymaking on ambient PM."

    "The causal framework is not adequate," Ted Steichen, senior policy adviser for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a prepared statement.

    The draft ISA also lacks a sufficiently detailed "protocol" showing how EPA decided which studies to include, as well as the agency's methods for evaluating study quality and other factors, Steichen said.

    Following a lunch break, the CASAC meeting continued through the afternoon with a discussion of individual chapters of the ISA. It's scheduled to end tomorrow afternoon with a summary of "major findings and recommendations" on the draft assessment.

    https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/12/12/stories/1060109489
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

34. 'Green New Deal' Efficiency Goals 'Reasonable' — Feds

    Dec 13, 2018 | E&E Daily

    By Christa Marshall

    Energy efficiency goals in the proposed "Green New Deal" are "reasonable," representatives from the Department of Energy and other federal agencies told House lawmakers yesterday.

    The thumbs-up to the proposal, which Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats are pushing on Capitol Hill, came during an exchange with Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) during a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy hearing on public-private partnerships to boost efficiency in federal facilities.

    McKinley asked if the idea of upgrading all buildings for "state-of-the-art" efficiency in 10 years — a tenet of the "Green New Deal" — was a reasonable target.

    Both Leslie Nicholls, strategic director of the Federal Energy Management Program at DOE, and General Services Administration Chief Sustainability Officer Kevin Kampschroer said yes.

    "I think that is a goal that the Congress could set and we do our damnedest to achieve it," Kampschroer said at another point when McKinley asked whether achieving state-of-the-art efficiency in a decade was the "right" thing to do.

    Leslie Nicholls, strategic director of the Federal Energy Management Program at the Department of Energy, during a hearing yesterday. House Energy and Commerce Committee

    Ed Bradley, executive director of the office of asset enterprise management at the Department of Veterans Affairs, told McKinley he'd like to think the idea was reasonable but wasn't sure.

    Jack Surash, acting deputy assistant secretary for energy and sustainability in the Department of the Army, added that he "could not commit" to the concept.

    The federal government is the largest energy user in the country, and unlike other types of buildings, efficiency upgrades to its facilities would be determined largely by federal dollars. The specifics of the "Green New Deal" and the meaning of "state-of-the-art" efficiency are not defined, however.

    The plan broadly calls for "upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art efficiency, comfort and safety."

    Officials did not provide a dollar range when McKinley repeatedly pressed what it would cost to achieve the "Green New Deal" efficiency target. Bradley said roughly $50 billion of upgrades and renovations need to occur at the VA within the next 10 years, although not all of that would be for efficiency.

    "I'd like to start building a file on this, what the cost would be" at federal agencies, McKinley said.

    The Trump administration has proposed slashing the budgets of efficiency programs at DOE and other agencies, although Congress ignored the requests.

    DOE's Building Technologies Office and the Federal Energy Management Program, which assists agencies in reaching efficiency goals, got slight funding increases in fiscal 2019. It remains unclear where funding could come from a decadelong efficiency boost.

    Lawmakers from both parties yesterday praised specific federal efficiency projects, including a $1 billion DOE grant cited by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) that helped leverage $47 million in new heat and power projects at the Johnson Space Center. During Hurricane Harvey last year, the facility stayed online, Olson noted.

    "The NASA Johnson Space Center project can certainly be a model for other federal agencies as a case study," Nicholls said.

    An executive order from the president on federal sustainability this May has not held back projects at agencies, officials told lawmakers. Some environmentalists criticized the order for not emphasizing climate change and loosening federal building efficiency requirements (Climatewire, May 18).

    Additionally, subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said he hoped bipartisan efficiency legislation, H.R. 723, could be worked on early next year.

    Sponsored by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), the bill would facilitate the use of energy savings contracts to encourage private-sector investment in efficiency initiatives.

    The law governing energy savings performance contracts and utility energy service contracts, which allow agencies to work with private contractors on efficiency upgrades, has not been updated in a decade, Upton said.

    "Given the time that's passed since [the law's] original drafting, we should start by looking at the definition of a 'federal building' and the definition of 'energy savings.' We should also consider how energy efficiency upgrades affect the life cycle cost of operations and maintenance at the facility," Upton said.

    Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said he supported the objective of energy savings contracts but cited warnings about them in earlier Government Accountability Office and GSA reports.

    A 2015 GAO report on contracts found that a sample of 20 projects in federal agencies may have "overstated" energy savings.

    "Bring the audits on," said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), one of the co-sponsors of the bill with Kinzinger.

    "That information can help us make improvements ... and maintain support within Congress for what has been a very solid program," Welch said.

    https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/12/13/stories/1060109505
    

    Return to headline | Return to top