Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 12/19/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Production Edged Higher in November, Says ACC
Dec 19, 2018 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Alex Hithersay
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US Chemical Production Regional Index (US CPRI) rose by 0.2% in November, following a 0.5% decline in October and a 0.2% decline in September. -
(ACC Mentioned) Can Innovative Partnerships Salvage America’s Slumping Bottle Recycling Rates?
Dec 19, 2018 | Recycling International
By Kirstin Linnenkoper
The US recycled a total of 2.8 billion pounds of plastic bottles in 2017. This is a decrease of 3.6% compared to the previous year, according to new figures released by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) API Searching for New Director as Durbin Stepping Down
Dec 19, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said Tuesday Executive Vice President Marty Durbin will step down on Jan. 31 after nearly a decade of representing the oil and natural gas industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) 2019 Outlook: ‘Most Active Year Yet’ Looms on EPA Chemical Rules
Dec 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA will examine and propose controls for more chemicals next year than it has done since Congress overhauled the nation’s primary chemicals law in 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) New York Set to Be First State to Regulate Chemical Solvent
Dec 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York is on track to become the first state to establish a drinking water standard for a chemical used in solvents that is also found in trace amounts in cosmetics and cleaners. -
EPA Publishes First TSCA 'Unique Identifiers' List
Dec 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published its first annual list of ‘unique identifiers’ for TSCA substances with confidential chemical identities. -
The Trump EPA’s First Risk Evaluation Under the New TSCA Is a House of Cards
Dec 19, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Richard Denison
I’ve been blogging about the deep problems surrounding the first draft risk evaluation the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) FluoroCouncil Tells Washington State to Consult PFAS Packagers on Ban
Dec 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
An industry body in the US has expressed concern at Washington state's impending ban on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in paper food contact materials because of a lack of stakeholder input from those affected. -
Trump Admin Lays out Plan to Confront Lead Poisoning ‘Head on’
Dec 19, 2018 | The HILL - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Trump administration officials published a plan Wednesday that they said would confront the issue if lead exposure among children “head on.” -
Long-Awaited Lead Strategy Outlines Goals, but No Funding
Dec 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Trump administration today announced its long-awaited plan to reduce childhood lead exposure. -
Walmart, Target Sued for Lead in Children’s Products
Dec 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
New York's attorney general, Barbara Underwood, has filed a lawsuit against retailers Target and Walmart for selling children’s products that contain lead above federal regulatory limits. Importer and supplier of the products, LaRose Industries, is also being sued. -
Checks on EU Pic Compliance Lead to Prosecutions
Dec 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU enforcement inspectors have referred companies to national prosecutors in fourteen cases, due to infringements concerning the prior informed consent (Pic) Regulation. -
European Union Moves Closer to Ban on Single-Use Plastic Straws, Other Products
Dec 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Chris Mills Rodrigo
The European Union (EU) moved closer to a ban on single-use plastics Wednesday. -
DOE Looks to Streamline LNG Export Reviews
Dec 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
The Department of Energy took additional steps today to expedite the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports. -
Congressional Democrats Demand Pipeline Cybersecurity
Dec 19, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Derek Robertson
Ranking Democrats on both the House and Senate Energy committees have requested DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen formulate a "specific plan of action" to remedy cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the nation's pipelines. -
The Energy 202: Lots of People Support the 'Green New Deal.' So What Is It?
Dec 19, 2018 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Before the 2016 midterm elections, it was a campaign slogan little known outside progressive activist circles. -
The Green New Deal Would Cause a 'Yellow Vest' Movement in the US
Dec 19, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Peter Vicenzi
While newly-elected House Democrats call for a Green New Deal (GND) to tackle global climate change, thousands of Parisians are taking to the streets in violent protest of French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposed fuel tax. -
Ewire: Northeast States Pledge 'Cap-And-Invest' Transport Plan
Dec 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
A group of nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia are pledging to craft a “cap-and-invest” program to reduce transportation sector carbon emissions, echoing the region's carbon trading market for the power sector.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Production Edged Higher in November, Says ACC
Dec 19, 2018 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Alex Hithersay
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US Chemical Production Regional Index (US CPRI) rose by 0.2% in November, following a 0.5% decline in October and a 0.2% decline in September.
During November, chemical output rose across all regions except the Gulf Coast, where it edged lower.
Chemical production was mixed over the three-month period. There were gains in the production three-month moving average output trend in plastic resins, adhesives, pesticides, coatings, fertilizers, consumer products, and synthetic dyes and pigments. These gains were offset by declines in the output trend in organic chemicals, synthetic rubber, manufactured fibres, chlor-alkali, other inorganic chemicals, and other specialty chemicals.
Manufacturing activity is an important indicator for chemical production. On a three-month-moving average basis, manufacturing activity was flat in November, following a 0.2% gain in October. Output expanded in several chemistry-intensive manufacturing industries, including appliances, aerospace, machinery, fabricated metal products, semiconductors, petroleum refining, iron and steel products, foundries, plastic products, rubber products, tires, and furniture.
Compared with November 2017, U.S. chemical production rose 4.2% on a y/y basis. Chemical production was higher than a year ago in all regions, with the largest gains in the Gulf Coast.
The chemistry industry is one of the largest industries in the US, a US$526 billion enterprise. The manufacturing sector is the largest consumer of chemical products, and 96% of manufactured goods are touched by chemistry. The US CPRI was developed to track chemical production activity in seven regions of the US. The US CPRI is based on information from the Federal Reserve, and as such, includes monthly revisions as published by the Federal Reserve. To smooth month-to-month fluctuations, the US CPRI is measured using a three-month moving average. Thus, the reading in November reflects production activity during September, October, and November.
https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/petrochemicals/19122018/us-chemical-production-edged-higher-in-november-says-acc/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Can Innovative Partnerships Salvage America’s Slumping Bottle Recycling Rates?
Dec 19, 2018 | Recycling International
By Kirstin Linnenkoper
The US recycled a total of 2.8 billion pounds of plastic bottles in 2017. This is a decrease of 3.6% compared to the previous year, according to new figures released by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
America scored a recycling rate of 29.3% for plastic bottles in 2017, down 0.4 percentage points from 29.7 percent in 2016. The five-year compounded annual growth rate for plastic bottle recycling was 0.1%, adds the 28th annual National Post-consumer Plastic Bottle Recycling Report.
The number of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles collected for recycling decreased by 27 million pounds in 2017. Meanwhile, the recycling of high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles – such as milk bottles – fell by 70.3 million pounds to just over 1.0 billion pounds for the year. The recycling rate for HDPE bottles slipped from 33.4 percent to 31.1 percent.
Also, exports of HDPE bottles fell nearly 28% from 193 million pounds to 140 million pounds, or 13.4% of total HDPE bottles collected in 2017. The processing of recycled HDPE sourced domestically and imported fell by 31 million pounds that year.
It is noted that the collection of polypropylene (PP) bottles fell 15.2% to 31.1 million pounds, as the PP collection rate dropped to 17.2%.
Ongoing increases in single-stream collection has resulted in increased contamination of recyclables, the two associations observe. They point out that growth in the use of plastic for bottles was offset by the lightweighting trend, thus reducing the volume of material collected.
‘Plastic bottle recycling is proving to be resilient in the face of short-term challenges,’ comments Steve Alexander, president of APR. ‘The recycling industry is responding in kind, with some investing in increased US infrastructure. This is a clear sign of a positive long-term outlook,’ he adds. And he goes on to state: ‘These investments underscore the need for continued consumer participation and convenient access to recycling programmes.’
For example, CarbonLite recently announced it is expanding its US operations by building a third PET recycling facility in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania. Also, Nestlé Waters North America says it aims to achieve 25% food-grade recycled plastic across its US domestic portfolio by 2021.
Not least, Coca-Cola has provided a loan to Ioniqa Technologies to support the development of its technology for PET upcycling.
https://recyclinginternational.com/plastics/can-us-innovative-partnerships-salvage-slumping-bottle-recycling-rates/
-
(ACC Mentioned) API Searching for New Director as Durbin Stepping Down
Dec 19, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said Tuesday Executive Vice President Marty Durbin will step down on Jan. 31 after nearly a decade of representing the oil and natural gas industry.
"It was a thrill to have worked with the natural gas and oil industry during a period of such incredible innovation -- even the dual challenges of an economic recession followed by an industry downturn couldn't dampen the U.S. shale energy revolution," Durbin said. "I'm excited about where API is headed and glad I could play a role in this important leadership transition."
CEO Mike Sommers called Durbin "an extraordinary leader for API during extraordinary times for our industry. He has helped guide our association through challenges, expanded our industry's reach, and heightened our effectiveness in Washington and across the country.
"We will miss Marty both as a friend and colleague, and we are confident he will bring the same level of commitment and success to his next endeavor."
Durbin said he plans to "step away, catch my breath, and determine how I will pursue my passions in the policy and political world." He signaled that he plans to continue working with A Wider Circle, a Bethesda, MD-based nonprofit dedicated to ending poverty, which he chairs.
Durbin returned to API after serving for nearly three years as CEO of America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), which merged with API in 2015. Prior to joining ANGA, Durbin served as API's executive vice president for government affairs.
Before his career representing the oil and gas industry, Durbin served as vice president of federal relations at the American Chemistry Council and held a variety of government affairs positions with the American Plastics Council. He previously served on Capitol Hill in the offices of Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-IL) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA).
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116841-api-searching-for-new-director-as-durbin-stepping-down
-
(ACC Mentioned) 2019 Outlook: ‘Most Active Year Yet’ Looms on EPA Chemical Rules
Dec 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA will examine and propose controls for more chemicals next year than it has done since Congress overhauled the nation’s primary chemicals law in 2016.
Companies and the trade associations that represent them need to “take a deep breath and re-energize for 2019, which may be the most active year yet,” Martha Marrapese, a partner with Wiley Rein LLP’s Washington office, told Bloomberg Environment.
The deadlines the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) amendments set won’t allow much time for companies or trade associations to gather information to help shape the Environmental Protection Agency’s decisions, she said.
Two federal courts also will weigh in next year on whether three rules the EPA issued to implement the amended law properly balance its dual goals of supporting commerce while protecting public health and the environment.
“2019 is a critical year in seeing whether TSCA works,” said Marrapese, who specializes in chemical regulations.
Chemical and other manufacturers will face the EPA’s extra scrutiny while also dealing with economic pressures.
Lower oil prices, a potential global economic slowdown, and oversupply in some commodity chemicals such as olefins, will put pressure on profits, said Christopher Perrella, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst. Olefins include chemicals such as ethylene and propylene that are core building blocks for many fiber, rubber, and plastic materials.
Imminent
No later than the end of March 2019, the EPA must release a list at least 40 chemicals it must quickly sort, or “prioritize,” by Dec. 22, 2019.
The agency must decide which 20 chemicals will be high priorities for immediate risk assessment, which could then lead to regulations.
The agency also must designate 20 chemicals as low priorities by the same December deadline. A low priority designation means the EPA sees no reason to examine the chemical further for potential risks. The agency could revise that decision if new science emerges.
The EPA will give all interested parties 90 days to weigh in on and provide information about the chemicals it will prioritize in 2019. The agency will offer another 90 days to comment on whatever high- or low-priority designations it proposes.
The information companies have about actions they take to protect workers, the concentration of a chemical used in a mixture, and environmental monitoring data could play a critical role in shaping the EPA’s chemical safety decisions and they should consider sharing it, said Mark N. Duvall, a principal attorney with Beveridge & Diamond PC’s Washington office.
Ninety days is not a lot of time for industries that make and use the 40 chemicals to compile information, Marrapese said.
The agency should use the growing amount of chemical information compiled by its Office of Research and Development, Canadian regulators, and the scientific summaries posted by the European Chemicals Agency, said Sarah Brozena, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council.
All parties need to remember, however, that TSCA doesn’t require the EPA to have complete information about each chemical to decide whether it is a high or low priority, said Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs with the same trade association, the main industry group representing U.S. chemical manufacturers.
Risks and Rules
Other rules, risk analyses, and actions the agency must release in 2019 include:
• An updated TSCA inventory that distinguishes chemicals that have been in commerce since 2006 from those that aren’t currently in production;
• A proposed rule describing how it will review industry claims that thousands of chemicals on the inventory have identities the EPA must keep confidential; and
• A revised Chemical Data Reporting rule to ensure information chemical manufacturers periodically give the EPA are data agency officials need.
By June 2019, the agency must propose a rule to manage five chemicals that persist in the environment, build up in the food chain, and are toxic. The chemicals are two flame retardants, decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE) and phenol isopropylated, phosphate (3:1); two compounds used to make rubber, hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) and pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP); and 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol, a fuel antioxidant that boosts octane and prevents rust.By December 2019, the agency is supposed to complete its analyses of the health and environmental risks asbestos and nine other chemicals pose. That conclusion will determine whether those compounds must be labeled, restricted, or banned to reduce unreasonable risks. The law allows the agency to delay those until June 2020, but the agency has said it won’t. Delays would only add to its early 2020 workload.
As soon as the EPA selects the 20 high-priority chemicals in December, it must start planning how it will evaluate their risks. The agency must release by June 22, 2020, plans that describe the health and environmental concerns and the ways chemicals are made, used, distributed, and disposed that it will examine.
All of these agency analyses and rules address chemicals in commerce. Congress revised TSCA to push the agency to oversee chemicals that had long been on the market, but never examined, said Stephen Owens, a partner with Squire Patton Boggs LLP’s Phoenix office.
Staff
The EPA didn’t reply to a question about how many people are working in its chemicals office but said it was allowed to hire up to 340 in fiscal year 2018, an increase from 311 in the previous year.
The agency said it couldn’t comment on how many people it will have in fiscal year 2019 until Congress decides on the EPA budget.
But the workload facing the EPA’s chemicals office will expand in 2019 faster than the office’s workforce will, said Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell P.C.
Industry fees, which companies began to pay on Oct. 1, 2018, will help the agency hire staff and contractors, she said by email.
“But there will be a significant lag while EPA searches for and hires the necessary experts or while EPA sets up new contracts to support its work,” Bergeson said.
Court Cases
While the EPA continues to churn out risk evaluations and rules, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit are expected to rule on two TSCA cases. Environmental, health, and labor groups challenged three rules that laid the foundation for the EPA’s implementation of the chemicals law.
The courts’ rulings will guide the agency’s chemical decision making in this and future administrations.
The Ninth Circuit will weigh in on two related regulations dealing with the EPA’s process of selecting chemicals for risk analysis and its process of carrying out such analyses.
The case before the Second Circuit—which was brought by the Environmental Defense Fund—focuses on whether the agency reached the right balance protecting manufacturers’ confidential business information while honoring the public’s right to know about chemicals to which they may be exposed.
Core Questions, Impact
The most important question before the Ninth Circuit is whether the law gives the EPA discretion to choose which “conditions of use” it will examine as it decides whether or not a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, Duvall said.
Amended TSCA has a broad definition of chemicals’ "conditions of use.”
The phrase includes any part of a chemical’s lifecycle such as how it’s manufactured; the ways workers might be exposed during production; how other companies use the compound; whether their workers would be exposed; how much of the chemical is released into the air, water, and soil; and whether the chemical harms people or the environment.
The agency also must consider risks facing groups of people who may be particularly susceptible to chemicals or highly exposed to them.
The environmental, health, and labor groups that filed the Ninth Circuit case allege the EPA has excluded too many chemical uses, narrowing possible regulation. The result is that the EPA will underestimate the possibility that people could contract cancer, be unable to bear children, or face other health problems, they say.
“We hope the courts instruct the agency that it has to protect public health and the environment,” said Liz Hitchcock, acting director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which represents a broad coalition of nonprofit groups that argue the agency has failed to protect people and the environment as Congress intended.
Eighteen trade associations representing the battery, chemical, electronics, paper, mining, and other industries support the EPA’s rules. Congress gave the agency the authority to omit some ways chemicals are used, occur in the environment, and are disposed of from its TSCA risk analyses, the agency and industry groups say.
If the Ninth Circuit overturns the risk-related regulations it’s reviewing, the EPA may have to re-do rules and revise some or all 10 risk evaluations, said Owens, who served as the EPA’s assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention under President Barack Obama.
The Second Circuit’s ruling will affect confidential business information claims on many different types of documents companies file under TSCA, said Duvall.
“If the rules are upheld that will add certainty and predictability,” said Walls, from the American Chemistry Council.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/2019-outlook-most-active-year-yet-looms-on-epa-chemical-rules
-
(ACC Mentioned) New York Set to Be First State to Regulate Chemical Solvent
Dec 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York is on track to become the first state to establish a drinking water standard for a chemical used in solvents that is also found in trace amounts in cosmetics and cleaners.
The state Drinking Water Quality Council Dec. 18 approved a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 1 part per billion for 1,4-dioxane. The standard must now be approved by the state health commissioner and the Public Health and Planning Council before taking effect sometime in 2019.
The standard will be costly for drinking water systems, which must monitor periodically for the contaminant and report concentrations that exceed 1 part per billion to the state.
Costs and RisksThe regulation has an estimated price tag of $317 million in capital costs and $13 million a year in operation and maintenance costs for the systems to comply, according to data from the state Health Department.
The American Chemistry Council had urged the state to defer action on 1,4-dioxane pending additional study results and the Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The chemical is classified by the EPA as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,4-dioxane is a solvent used in making other chemicals and products and is found in trace amounts in shampoos, cosmetics, and cleaners. It’s also been found in groundwater, including in Suffolk County, N.Y.
Fluorinated Chemicals
The contaminant level for 1,4-dioxane was approved by the council after it approved maximum contaminant levels of 10 parts per trillion for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), two persistent chemical contaminants found in drinking water, consumer products, and at waste sites.
Monitoring and treating water to remove those contaminants is also costly.
The council debated setting a lower contaminant level for 1,4-dioxane, 0.35 parts per billion, but decided against it because of the compliance costs: $1.1 billion, according to the Health Department.
The council also debated setting the level as high as 3.5 parts per billion but rejected that for not being protective enough of public health.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-york-set-to-be-first-state-to-regulate-chemical-solvent
-
EPA Publishes First TSCA 'Unique Identifiers' List
Dec 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published its first annual list of ‘unique identifiers’ for TSCA substances with confidential chemical identities.
Released on 12 December, the list covers the 157 substances for which the EPA has approved a confidentiality claim since the June 2016 amendments to TSCA.
For each substance, it includes its:
· unique identifier (UID);
· case number and accession number;
· generic name; and
· date when the confidentiality claim is set to expire unless it is resubstantiated and reapproved.
Assignment of UIDs – and annually publishing a list of those identifiers – was a requirement put in place by the Lautenberg Act.
The intent is to allow the public to link up available non-confidential information about substances with identities protected as confidential business information (CBI), without divulging the latter. But in May 2017 the EPA noted challenges with the law’s requirements to uniformly apply these identifiers without inadvertently disclosing the identity.
After consulting for more than a year on several options, the EPA finalised an approach in June that calls for assigning a single UID to each substance protected as CBI and applying it to non-confidential information, except where its application could allow the public to work out the substance’s identity.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72914/epa-publishes-first-tsca-unique-identifiers-list
-
The Trump EPA’s First Risk Evaluation Under the New TSCA Is a House of Cards
Dec 19, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Richard Denison
I’ve been blogging about the deep problems surrounding the first draft risk evaluation the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This risk evaluation, which is now out for public comment, is on a chemical commonly called Pigment Violet 29, or PV29. Among the many problems that immediately jumped out as we began our review of this draft evaluation are EPA’s reliance on clearly inadequate health and environmental hazard data to conclude the chemical is safe, as well as EPA’s illegal withholding from the public of the little hazard information it does have.
This post will look at the other half of the risk equation, exposure. EPA has even less information on exposures to PV29 than it does on hazard. EPA has no actual data on the levels of PV29 released to or present in air, soil, sediment, surface water, people, other organisms, workplaces or products containing or made from the chemical. It lacks any data from, and hasn’t used its authorities to require, monitoring in workplaces or any environmental media.
So what does EPA have?
It has a personal communication from a conflicted industry source who claims “an approximate maximum workplace air concentration of 0.5 mg/m3 [milligrams per cubic meter] would be expected over a 12 hour shift” at a PV29 manufacturing facility (see page 22 of the draft risk evaluation). That number was provided to EPA by an employee of Sun Chemical, the only identified manufacturer of PV29 in the U.S., and – to state the obvious – an entity with a strong interest in having EPA find its chemical safe. All the public has to go on is a statement and reference in the risk evaluation that indicate a fellow at Sun Chemical named Robert C. Mott personally communicated this value to EPA on September 25, 2017. EPA has not even made the content of the personal communication public, nor has it provided or alluded to any actual data provided by Mott to support his statement.
EPA cites this value, but then acknowledges it does not know what this workplace air value actually represents, noting the personal communication was not even clear whether the claimed value was for Pigment Violet 29 itself or for total dust.
(Ironically, it appears that, in order to rely on this information, EPA had to exempt it from being scrutinized using its own TSCA Systematic Review approach. On page 18 of the draft risk evaluation, EPA states that its systematic review approach “is not well suited for the review” of such “correspondences with industry … used to inform the likelihood of exposure,” and “[a]s a result, formal data quality evaluation of these references according to the Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations (U.S. EPA, 2018a) was not conducted.”)
But it’s what EPA does next with this unverified, conflicted single data point that is truly remarkable:
·
First EPA uses the suspect value to calculate an “inhalation Potential Dose Rate (PDR) for workers.”· Without providing any explanation or justification, EPA then combines that inhalation PDR with a no-effect level derived from a screening-level toxicity study in which animals were given doses of the chemical orally, not by inhalation. (EPA’s use of this oral toxicity study has its own problems; stay tuned for a future post.) EPA doesn’t even bother to mention that it is switching between routes of exposure or the uncertainty that injects into its analysis.
· Based on this questionable calculation, EPA concludes definitively that workers face no risk from PV29 inhalation.
· EPA then simply asserts without any data or analysis that all PV29 inhalation exposures to workers at downstream processing and use sites must be lower than those of manufacturing workers, and hence concludes there is no inhalation risk to any workers. (EPA constructs a similar, questionable line of argument for dermal exposure, which I won’t go into here.)
· EPA then asserts that all PV29 exposures to others must be lower than worker exposures, and hence that there are no risks to consumers or the general population.
· Finally, EPA argues that the hazard data it examined gave no evidence of increased susceptibility for any single group relative to the general population – despite the fact that nearly all of the studies it has and relied on did not even look for such evidence.
· Armed with this questionable finding, EPA concludes that “the exposure calculation for workers is … therefore protective of all other subpopulations, such as children and pregnant women in the general population, which are not expected be exposed to C.I. Pigment Violet 29 at similarly high levels.”
All of this, built layer-by-layer from that single, shaky workplace air value personally communicated to EPA from an employee of PV29’s sole U.S. manufacturer.
I suppose if you start with almost no reliable data on a chemical, are dead set against using your enhanced authorities to get any more data, and are hell-bent on finding the chemical is safe, this is how you might choose to conduct a risk evaluation.
But the house of cards EPA has built here certainly isn’t what Congress had in mind when it required that EPA use all reasonably available information (which EPA’s final risk evaluation rule defines to include information EPA “can reasonably generate”) and make decisions based on the best available science.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/12/19/the-trump-epas-first-risk-evaluation-under-the-new-tsca-is-a-house-of-cards/
-
(ACC Mentioned) FluoroCouncil Tells Washington State to Consult PFAS Packagers on Ban
Dec 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
An industry body in the US has expressed concern at Washington state's impending ban on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in paper food contact materials because of a lack of stakeholder input from those affected.
Back in March, the state passed a law to ban the highly persistent chemical class from paper, paperboard, or fibre-based materials intended for direct food contact by 1 January 2022.
The ban is, however, contingent upon the state's Department of Ecology identifying a safer alternative. To this end the department is required to conduct an alternatives assessment to identify safer options (chemical and non-chemical).
During the comment period for the draft plan for conducting this, it received three comments. Among these, the FluoroCouncil expressed fears that the plan "does not go far enough in seeking appropriate stakeholder input".
Writing on behalf of the industry organisation, executive director Jessica Bowman said the state’s project summary document only calls for input from purchasers, users and manufacturers of potential alternative products. But it is critical, Ms Bowman wrote, that input is also sought from stakeholders who continue to manufacture and use PFAS-based products "to understand the potential challenges associated with switching to an alternative product."
In a situation where the alternatives assessment could result in the elimination of packaging options that have long been available to consumers and businesses, Ms Bowman wrote, their participation "is critical to forming a fair and accurate assessment of the suitability, cost and availability of potential alternatives to those".
"It is difficult to conceive of an adequate assessment that does not include input from these stakeholders," she added.
FluoroCouncil, which is a subsidiary of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), had other concerns relating to:
· hazard assessment;
· lifecycle and materials management; and
· exposure measurement.
In another comment, the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, Washington raised the question of intentionally and unintentionally added PFASs.
The organisation argued that a difference in intention does not result in a difference in impact: "Identifying suitable alternatives should focus on controllability (for example, ensuring PFASs is neither part of nor a byproduct of a product’s manufacturing process), rather than intent."
The comment period on this proposal closed on 4 December. The final plan has not yet been issued
https://chemicalwatch.com/72851/fluorocouncil-tells-washington-state-to-consult-pfas-packagers-on-ban
-
Trump Admin Lays out Plan to Confront Lead Poisoning ‘Head on’
Dec 19, 2018 | The HILL - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Trump administration officials published a plan Wednesday that they said would confront the issue if lead exposure among children “head on.”
While the Federal Lead Action Plan has few new announcements, the administration used it to highly efforts across 17 federal agencies, mostly ongoing, to reduce lead poisoning.
“President Trump and this administration are committed to tackling this problem head-on,” acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Andrew Wheeler said at an event at the EPA headquarters, alongside Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson and deputy Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Eric Hargan.
The EPA’s contributions to the 24-page action plan center on two regulations that the agency has previously announced and a series of grants that seek to replace lead drinking water infrastructure, including grants to schools and daycare centers.
“Here are EPA, we are combatting lead exposure on all fronts: in homes, schools, consumer products and drinking water,” Wheeler said. “We are updating the Lead and Copper Rule for the first time in over two decades, we are strengthening the dust lead hazard standards and we are using our grants and financing problems to help communities test for lead, replace lead pipes and upgrade water infrastructure.”
The Lead and Copper Rule, first written in 1991 and never thoroughly updated, dictates how water utilities must keep lead levels in water low, including which pipes need to be replaced.
Wheeler didn’t say exactly what would be in the rule, nor did the action plan itself. But he committed that a proposed revision will be unveiled in spring 2019.
The lead dust rule was required thanks to a December 2017 ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Carson said HUD will formally announce $140 million in grants to state and local governments to reduce lead exposure in public housing and other housing under HUD purview.
“I’m committed to making sure our department’s resources reach the doors of high-risk American families at the prevention stage, long before children are exposed to dangerous chemicals for which they might later need a cure,” said Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon.
HHS, meanwhile, is boosting its focus on research into lead exposure and testing and monitoring of children exposed to it.
Wheeler took issue with the idea that the release of the plan didn’t have anything new.
“No, I think there’s quite a few new things in there. And there are things that were just launched in the last 30 and 60 days that are written up in here,” he said.
Part of the issue, Wheeler said, is that the EPA did not want to wait to release important developments to coincide with the action plan release.
“We did not want to hold back the release of any new programs until the release of this report,” he said.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/422096-trump-admin-lays-out-plan-to-confront-lead-poisoning-head-on
-
Long-Awaited Lead Strategy Outlines Goals, but No Funding
Dec 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Trump administration today announced its long-awaited plan to reduce childhood lead exposure.
Initially described as a federal lead strategy, the "Lead Action Plan" outlines four goals to help lessen the risks the potent neurotoxin poses to children.
The goals include: reducing children's exposure to lead sources; identifying children who have been exposed and improving their health outcomes; communicating more effectively with stakeholders; and supporting and conducting critical research to inform efforts to reduce lead exposure and related health risks.
The goals are meant to serve as a "road map" for agencies as they develop their own specific performance measures for how to attain them.
Trump administration officials celebrated the strategy with a signing ceremony at EPA headquarters today.
"The first and most fundamental responsibility of government is to protect the people, especially the most vulnerable among us," acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said. "Lead exposure is a threat that disproportionately harms children in low-income communities. All Americans, regardless of their age, race, income or home address, deserve an opportunity to live in safe and healthy environments."
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson agreed, noting his experiences as a neurosurgeon in Baltimore.
"If you think about the brain and how complex it is, with hundreds of billions of cells and interconnections and the ability to process more than 2 billion bits of information per second," he said. "We certainly with a tool like that do not want anything to happen that would decrease its ability. That's why every single child is a resource."
The action plan does not announce any new programs for addressing childhood lead exposure at EPA or across the federal government, but rather explains how existing efforts — like those to revise regulations for lead in drinking water — could help reach the plan's goals.Critics 'disappointed'
It remains to be seen if the strategy has any teeth.
The plan clearly states that it "is not a budget document and does not imply approval for any specific action" by the White House Office of Management and Budget and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The plan says it "will inform future federal budget and regulatory development processes within the context of the goals articulated in the President's Budget."
The Trump administration has continuously proposed cutting lead-related programs in its budget. In fiscal 2018, for example, the administration proposed eliminating the Lead Risk Reduction Program, which works to reduce the number of children with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher (Greenwire, Feb. 13).
Wheeler did not respond to a question about potential spending cuts to lead-related programs in the next budget.
"There are other areas of the budget where we've increased funding," he said. "We have different programs, and we are shifting some money around."
Wheeler noted that the Trump administration has requested increases to the popular Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan program. The Trump administration also recently announced a new $20 million grant program to help states and tribes test for lead in drinking water at schools and child care facilities (Greenwire, Oct. 1).
He also touted the administration's regulatory efforts to update lead dust hazard standards and lead in drinking water standards. The much-awaited Lead and Copper Rule for drinking water will be proposed sometime in the spring.
When proposed, Wheeler said, the standard will take into account a recent change from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, lowering the blood reference level for kids from 5 to 3.5 micrograms per deciliter.
"We are using and working with all of our departments and agencies, and as those numbers are revised, we are taking a look at all our authorities," Wheeler said.
The action plan has already disappointed environmental health advocates, who have been critical of the Trump administration for delays to releasing the drinking water standard, lead-dust levels for public buildings and an endangerment finding for lead in aviation fuel. Critics have also slammed the lead dust standards for homes that EPA proposed in June as not being adequately protective.
Tom Neltner, chemicals director at the Environmental Defense Fund, called the plan "deeply disappointing" and argued it should have included measurable goals, deadlines and funding "essential for success."
"Making meaningful progress in tackling sources of exposure will require an aggressive, comprehensive and practical strategy — which is not what the administration put out today," he said. "For decades, we've made real progress reducing lead in our society, but the Trump administration's plan is not designed to advance those efforts."
Health advocates were also alarmed this fall when EPA abruptly put the head of its Office of Children's Health Protection on administrative leave. EPA officials have said Ruth Etzel was placed on leave due to concerns about her leadership, though Etzel has said it was related to disagreements about whether the federal action plan should include regulatory goals (Greenwire, Oct. 19).
The Natural Resources Defense Council's senior director of health and food, Erik Olson, in a statement said today's action plan amounted to "talk."
"But we need action," he said. "Given this administration's abysmal track record on protecting public health, we remain skeptical."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/19/stories/1060110135
-
Walmart, Target Sued for Lead in Children’s Products
Dec 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
New York's attorney general, Barbara Underwood, has filed a lawsuit against retailers Target and Walmart for selling children’s products that contain lead above federal regulatory limits. Importer and supplier of the products, LaRose Industries, is also being sued.
The lawsuit, which was filed in Albany County Supreme Court, is the result of tests conducted by the attorney general’s office in 2015 and 2016. These found that a jewellery-making kit, imported from China by LaRose and sold by the retailers, contained parts with lead levels almost ten times higher than the federal limit of 100 parts per million (ppm), imposed under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) for children’s products.
The wristbands associated with several of the kits sold contained lead at levels of 120-980ppm. According to the US EPA, even low levels of lead in the blood of children can result in behaviour and learning problems, lower IQ and hyperactivity, slowed growth, hearing problems and anaemia.
It also says that in rare cases, ingestion of lead can cause seizures, coma and even death.
'Our lawsuit seeks to hold these companies accountable for the failures that allowed lead-contaminated toys on store shelves, while forcing them to take responsibility for the safety of the products they sell,' said attorney general Underwood.
The findings resulted in a nationwide recall of the toys. But according to Ms Underwood, the lawsuit "seeks to hold these companies accountable for the failures that allowed lead-contaminated toys on store shelves, while forcing them to take responsibility for the safety of the products they sell."
Penalties
The suit calls for the companies to pay civil penalties, which could collectively range from $70 to $6,000 for each kit the companies sought to sell in New York. Target imported, distributed, sold, and/or held for sale at least 3,397 kits in New York and Walmart at least 1,239, according to a press release from the attorney general's office.
The litigation also asks the court to direct the companies to implement additional measures to ensure they do not sell children’s toys containing high levels of lead in the state again.
More specifically, it seeks to require that LaRose take steps to:
· permanently create the position of director of sourcing and quality control, as well as a quality control manual and a compliance programme;
· require vendors of finished products to obtain high-risk components and raw materials from pre-approved suppliers;
· require vendors of finished products to test samples of components and raw materials;
· require the importer or a third party – rather than the manufacturer – to select the toys to be tested for compliance with applicable safety requirements;
· ensure timely compliance with federal regulations that require certificates of compliance to accompany products and given to retailers; and
· conduct unannounced audits of vendors.
And it calls for the retailers to be required to:
· conduct random product testing of imported toys to ensure they comply with applicable regulations; and
· ensure each imported toy has a valid certificate of compliance.
In response to the lawsuit, Walmart wrote in a statement to Chemical Watch: "We take our customers’ safety seriously and require our suppliers to meet all safety standards.
"As soon as LaRose Industries made us aware of the product recall nearly three years ago, we removed the items from our shelves and online and haven’t sold them since. We’ve discussed this matter with the New York attorney general’s office and will address the allegations and demands with the court."
Target and LaRose Industries did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publishing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72913/walmart-target-sued-for-lead-in-childrens-products
-
Checks on EU Pic Compliance Lead to Prosecutions
Dec 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU enforcement inspectors have referred companies to national prosecutors in fourteen cases, due to infringements concerning the prior informed consent (Pic) Regulation.
As part of the Echa Enforcement Forum’s first coordinated pilot project on Pic, national enforcement authorities (NEAs) in 13 member states conducted 296 inspections.
The project focused on checking Pic duties related to the export of chemicals, in particular export notification and provision of safety information to recipients in third countries.
Companies did not notify the export of chemicals in 10% of cases where this was required, the Forum said.
Inspectors gave companies written or verbal advice in 31 cases, and administrative orders in 12 others. In two cases they applied fines.
In addition, they checked that safety information accompanied the exported chemicals on labels and safety data sheets (SDSs) and that they were also packaged in accordance with requirements. In most cases, companies were compliant.
Customs authorities also participated in this project, as they have an important role in the enforcement of Pic, the Forum said.
The project offered NEAs an "important opportunity" to gain experience and put best practice in place to help future Pic implementation, according to a press release.Recommendations
The Forum recommended that enforcement authorities and inspectors continue to enforce Pic at national level, and maintain cooperation with customs authorities via access to data sets of export declarations from customs to the NEAs.
Industry should also continue to improve compliance with Pic as well as related CLP and REACH obligations on exported chemicals. Companies exporting hazardous chemicals (which include chemicals not included in Pic Annexes I and V) should be aware of their duties, it said.
Echa should raise awareness through its website, guidance and other relevant dissemination tools that the obligations under Article 17 of Pic – CLP labelling and packaging aspects – are to be fulfilled by all companies exporting Pic chemicals or chemicals not in the annexes to the Regulation.
In October this year, the European Commission called efforts to implement the regulation on the import/export of hazardous chemicals with third countries a success. According to a report, there have only been a "low number" of infringements in the first three years of operation. The first report on Pic looked at the period 2014-2016 and says 11 member states flagged a total of 66 infringements during that period.Annual volumes
In related news, Echa has released data on the volumes of Pic chemicals exported from the EU during 2017.
Ethylene dichloride was recorded as the trade bloc’s most exported chemical last year at almost 350,000 tonnes. This was also the case in 2016, but in 2017 companies exported 20,000 tonnes less. The substance is mainly used to produce vinyl chloride, which is used to make PVC.
Exports of benzene and chlorate registered the second and third highest volumes respectively.
Meanwhile, benzene was the most imported substance into the Union in 2017 with just over 230,000 tonnes. The chemical is predominantly used to make plastics, resins, synthetic fibres, rubber lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs and pesticides. Belgium, Italy and Poland imported the majority.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72915/checks-on-eu-pic-compliance-lead-to-prosecutions
-
European Union Moves Closer to Ban on Single-Use Plastic Straws, Other Products
Dec 19, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Chris Mills Rodrigo
The European Union (EU) moved closer to a ban on single-use plastics Wednesday.
In a statement, the European Commission said the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached a preliminary agreement to restrict single-use items like straws, plates, cutlery and cotton swabs. The agreement has to be formally approved before being implemented over the course of two years, it added.
The European Parliament approved the policy in October.
Supporters of the policy highlight that it avoids "3.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent" and "environmental damages which would cost the equivalent of €22 billion by 2030" and will save "consumers a projected €6.5 billion."
"When we have a situation where one year you can bring your fish home in a plastic bag, and the next year you are bringing that bag home in a fish, we have to work hard and work fast," European Commission environment commissioner Karmenu Vella said.
"So I am happy that with the agreement of today between Parliament and Council. We have taken a big stride towards reducing the amount of single-use plastic items in our economy, our ocean and ultimately our bodies."
The EU describes the project as "the most ambitious legal instrument at global level addressing marine litter."
The commission estimates that almost 60 percent of the 25.8 million metric tons of plastic waste produced by member countries each year comes from packaging.
The EU's decision is part of a larger push globally to eliminate plastic items, particularly straws.
Major chains and restaurants, including Starbucks, The Walt Disney Co. and McDonald’s have announced in the last year that they will ban plastic straws at their businesses.
Seattle became the first major city to ban plastic straws and utensils in July.
U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May announced a nationwide ban on the products effective in 2024 to reduce waste.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/422070-european-union-moves-closer-to-ban-on-single-use-plastic-straws
-
DOE Looks to Streamline LNG Export Reviews
Dec 19, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
The Department of Energy took additional steps today to expedite the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports.
The move is the latest in the Trump administration's efforts to better unleash American energy on the world stage by speeding up approvals.
The change in policy, the department announced, would drop a reporting requirement for export applications that directed companies to list the country where the LNG would ultimately be used.
In its place, exporters will now only have to name the country where the gas will actually be delivered, a shift that reverts to an earlier DOE guideline.
"By streamlining the destination reporting requirements, the Department of Energy is taking an important deregulatory step forward in order to better provide reliable U.S. LNG to our friends and allies abroad," Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a statement.
DOE argued that the "end-use" reporting requirement has increasingly become more difficult to track, as the global LNG market grows into a more complex, multitransactional process. That system sometimes involves U.S. LNG arriving in a port in one country, then being shipped to another country by land.
For the industry, the changes offer "certainty" that can help the burgeoning natural gas exporter sector meet its potential in the next few years.
"Certainty is essential for the growing and global LNG market and this policy statement provides greater assurance to LNG buyers and potential customers that the United States is dedicated to providing clean and affordable energy to the world," Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG) Executive Director Charlie Riedl said in a statement.
Natural gas exporters have become a foundational piece of the administration's economic and foreign policy efforts. Both President Trump and Perry have pressed European and Asian leaders to import more U.S. gas as a way to wean itself off countries, like Russia and Iran, that they deem to be hostile to foreign interests.
In total, some 1.7 trillion cubic feet of U.S. natural gas has been exported, according to DOE's accounting, with an additional 23.05 billion cubic feet per day of long-term exports of natural gas approved by the department. Those numbers place the United States third in the world, behind Qatar and Australia.
But not everyone is celebrating the federal government's export ambitions.
In a letter sent today by the Industrial Energy Consumers of America to the Office of Management and Budget, the group alleged DOE has failed to address concerns raised about the underlying finding that DOE exports remain in the national interest, as required by the Natural Gas Act.
The reasoning, the group said, is that the department allegedly violated the Data Quality Act with its statistics it used in forming its findings.
IECA believes the economic impact to domestic prices will be much higher than the DOE forecast, hurting energy-intensive industries in the United States.
"Export volumes of this magnitude cannot possibly be in the interest of the public," the group said in a press release.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/19/stories/1060110139
-
Congressional Democrats Demand Pipeline Cybersecurity
Dec 19, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Derek Robertson
Ranking Democrats on both the House and Senate Energy committees have requested DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen formulate a "specific plan of action" to remedy cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the nation's pipelines.
In a letter released today, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) cite a report this week from the GAO that revealed the TSA has been consistently lacking in implementing and monitoring pipeline cybersecurity standards.
"It’s clear from GAO’s work that while pipelines are reliable today, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is not fully prepared to face the challenges of tomorrow," said Pallone in the letter. "I’m concerned that TSA lacks both the resources and expertise in energy delivery systems to keep up with its obligations under the law."
The findings cited by Cantwell and Pallone include a failure to keep up with NIST standards for cybersecurity, an over-reliance on self-monitoring in private industry and a lack of consistent oversight regarding security updates. It also cites an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle from two FERC commissioenrs who warned of the danger inherent to a lack of pipeline cyber-monitoring.
That op-ed also noted that as of May 2017, just six full-time TSA employees monitored the country's entire pipeline network. "I hope this report will prompt the Trump administration to start treating this challenge with the urgency it deserves," wrote Cantwell.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
The Energy 202: Lots of People Support the 'Green New Deal.' So What Is It?
Dec 19, 2018 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Before the 2016 midterm elections, it was a campaign slogan little known outside progressive activist circles.
Now after the election, it is supposedly supported by most American voters. Even if many of them still said they have no idea what it was.
In only a few months, the notion of a “Green New Deal” has earned the support of not just a few dozen Democrats in Congress. It's also backed, at least according to one new survey, by the vast majority of registered voters.
A poll conducted by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities found that 81 percent of registered voters either strongly or somewhat support the ambitious plan to reduce carbon emissions over the next decade.
Even most Republican voters — nearly two in three — said they supported the Green New Deal when it was described to them by pollsters as a plan to generate all of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources within 10 years while providing job training for those displaced from traditional energy sector jobs.
But that same survey also identified the main weakness surrounding a Green New Deal, an ambitious proposal from progressive activists to tackle climate change that has been adopted by some high-profile Democratic freshman including Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
More than four-fifths of respondents said they had heard "nothing at all" of it before being reached online by survey takers.
Those findings show that left-leaning activists have, at the very least, found an effective slogan to encapsulate the aggressive action they demand to address climate change.
But turning a mantra into law is no small task. Ocasio-Cortez and others have outlined formidable goals, but have not yet detailed a clear way of achieving them. And the researchers warn Democrats and their climate activist allies that they should expect to see more resistance to the idea of the platform as more people learn about it and associate it one political party over another.
The phrase “Green New Deal” has existed in U.S. political discourse for at least a decade after New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman used it in a 2007 column calling for a plan to transition the American energy system from fossil fuels to renewable sources. The name harkens back to a series of efforts to build public works and overhaul financial rules under Franklin D. Roosevelt dubbed the New Deal.
Soon after that, Van Jones, the CNN commentator who once served as President Obama’s “green jobs czar,” adopted the phrase in his 2008 book “The Green Collar Economy” to describe a plan to create thousands of low- and medium-skill jobs installing solar panels and insulating homes.
A year later, the United Nations Environment Programme picked up on the phrase when outlining a “Global Green New Deal” for reducing greenhouse gas emissions without sacrificing economic development.
But the current version was perhaps outlined best by Ocasio-Cortez. Shortly after the election, she called for the creation of a so-called “Select Committee For A Green New Deal” in the House that would develop a plan to “dramatically expand” renewable power to meet 100 percent of the nation’s needs while creating a job guarantee program to facilitate that transition.
Since the election, young activists part of groups like the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats have staged sit-ins in the offices of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other Democratic leaders,demanding their endorsement of the committee. So far, at least 40 members of Congress have endorsed the idea of a Green New Deal.
But given House Democrats' experience with cap-and-trade legislation when they were last in the House majority, grand gestures aimed at climate change are going to be politically divisive, even among Democrats.
Edward Maibach, director of George Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication and one of the co-authors of the survey, said it is “probably not all that surprising” few Americans outside Washington have heard of the Green New Deal.
“It's quite a new concept and while it is certainly caught hold in in liberal progressive circles, probably not so much in much of the rest of America,” he said.
The poll, which was conducted online between Nov. 28 to Dec. 11, did not tell respondents that so far all of congressional backers of the Green New Deal are Democrats. Public opinion may calcify along party lines as the concept gains publicity and its details — including its costs — are sketched out more thoroughly.
“The Green New Deal isn't anything yet. It doesn't have any guts. It doesn't have any inside. It doesn't have any real specifics other than broad platitudes,” said Frank Maisano, an energy industry specialist at the law and lobby firm Bracewell.
For now, the organizers of the Capitol Hill climate protests are fine with allowing the moment to fill out the details of what major climate change action would look like.
"What young people are doing here today, and what Justice Democrats and Ocasio-Cortez have been calling for, is similar to what happened in the 1930s and 1940s," Justice Democrats' spokesman Waleed Shahid told reporters before the protest in Pelosi's office this month. "The original New Deal was not one policy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/12/19/the-energy-202-lots-of-people-support-the-green-new-deal-so-what-is-it/5c1944641b326b2d6629d4e8/?utm_term=.3df95be22ab7
-
The Green New Deal Would Cause a 'Yellow Vest' Movement in the US
Dec 19, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Peter Vicenzi
While newly-elected House Democrats call for a Green New Deal (GND) to tackle global climate change, thousands of Parisians are taking to the streets in violent protest of French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposed fuel tax. Based on their demands, the so called “gilets jaunes,” are no Tea Party-like activists, but their response to elitist climate policies may be cause for alarm for Democrats wishing to implement similar policies in the United States. House Democrats take note-- these protests have left quite the carbon footprint.
While France claims to be a leader in the fight against climate change, the nation’s citizens are revolting against the mere baseline for climate mitigation policies. French drivers currently suffer a gas tax that amounts to roughly $6.57/gallon in U.S. dollars. President Macron put his proposed gas tax increases on hold, but that’s not the point.
Eco-taxes on gasoline and carbon are devastating to working-class people worldwide, and their cries for help are falling on deaf ears among out-of-touch environmentalist policymakers. Carbon taxes proposed in the GND, which are similar in principle and impact to President Macron’s gas tax, are a major component of such climate policies.
While a gas tax is levied upon units of fuel sold, a carbon tax is levied upon units of carbon dioxide emitted. Both make the price of energy more expensive, which increases the cost of manufacturing, shipping, and transportation for businesses.
Companies offset these costs by passing them onto the consumer in the form of price increases.
According to the full language of the GND, “A carbon tax is the most efficient means to instill crucial price signals that spur carbon-reducing investment.” This, of course, is a socialist’s way of saying carbon must be taxed out of existence.
Here’s the problem: People all over the world rely on carbon-emitting fuels to power their homes and vehicles. Increased production of natural gas is key to lowering emissions, but the Obama Administration, along with Kremlin fundedanti-fracking groups, tried in vain to kill the industry. Despite what GND supporters claim, there is no realistic scenario in which the global economy could run on 100 percent renewable energy, especially if its wind and solar.
Even if current limitations on alternative energy were overcome, the tax increases championed by environmentalists are nowhere near levels that would actually lower global temperatures.
According to an IPCC report, a carbon tax as high as $5,500 per ton of CO2 would be necessary to lower the rate of global temperature change to the target 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. This is way beyond the $15-50 cost per ton of CO2 that “modest” carbon tax plans propose.
To add insult to ineffectiveness, these taxes would fall disproportionately on lower income households, costing as much as $325/year in higher energy prices.
Al Gore may not notice the difference in his budget, but you can bet a single mother in middle America living paycheck-to-paycheck will find it much harder to fill up her gas tank. And if a $15 per ton carbon tax sounds expensive, just imagine a $5,500 per ton carbon tax on Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Unfortunately, there is no practical endgame for radical environmentalism’s brainchild, the GND. Despite the fact that the United States leads the world in emissions reduction, after backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement, no progress is ever enough for them. Proponents of the GND want it their way, where they control the use and price of energy.
Central planners don’t take a moment to consider how their policies in practice will affect everyday citizens in the real world. The gilets jaunes protesting across France are not units in a thought experiment, they are struggling citizens who cannot afford the price hikes associated with President Macron’s proposed gas tax. Low income families in the U.S. continue to suffer under “green” policies crafted by wealthy political donors living in coastal cities.
This is the great hypocrisy of the American Left. The Democratic Party claims to represent the working class, but its radical environmental agenda is crushing everyday citizens.
House Democrats should take heed of the Paris protests and seriously weigh the economic costs of carbon taxes and other expensive climate policies. The protests of the gilets jaunes expose the collateral damage of top-down climate policies that favor wealthy elites over the average taxpayer.
Americans may not take to the streets, but they do vote with their pocketbooks. Do House Democrats seriously believe American families will re-elect officials who raise the cost of driving their kids to school?
If the birthplace of the Paris Climate Accords can’t stomach its own policies, there is no reason why Americans should be subject to the same.
It’s time to take the Green New Deal and dispose of it in the paper recycling bin, where it belongs.
Peter Vicenzi is Press Secretary for FreedomWorks, a grassroots organization committed to lower taxes, smaller government, and individual liberty.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/12/18/the_green_new_deal_would_cause_a_yellow_vest_movement_in_the_us_110371.html
-
Ewire: Northeast States Pledge 'Cap-And-Invest' Transport Plan
Dec 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
A group of nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia are pledging to craft a “cap-and-invest” program to reduce transportation sector carbon emissions, echoing the region's carbon trading market for the power sector.
The effort was announced by the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) on Dec. 18, which has been studying options for a regional transportation climate policy for over a year. A month ago, TCI published a report about a series of listening sessions it held, writing that the policy of pricing emissions and using proceeds for clean transportation was the “most frequently offered suggestion” from a variety of stakeholders.
Now, several states that participated in TCI are endorsing such a move, according to an Associated Press article. Participating states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and D.C.
The program would “cap and reduce carbon emissions from the combustion of transportation fuels through a cap-and-invest program or other pricing mechanism, and allow each TCI jurisdiction to invest proceeds from the program into low-carbon and more resilient transportation infrastructure,” says a statement from the states.
The states add that they will work together on key elements of a final program, including the stringency of the GHG cap, monitoring and reporting guidelines and priorities for investing proceeds. They hope to have a deal in place within a year.
The program would be modeled on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a decade-old cap-and-trade plan for the power sector that includes significant overlap with the TCI states.
However, power sector GHGs have been declining rapidly over the past several years -- particularly in the RGGI region -- aided by cheap natural gas and falling prices for renewables. That means that transportation emissions which have remained stubbornly high are an increasing focus.
“Emissions from transportation account for the largest portion of the region’s carbon pollution,” the states' statement says, also noting that a recent United Nations report urged “ambitious” GHG cuts within the next decade to stave off the worst risks from climate change.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-northeast-states-pledge-cap-and-invest-transport-plan
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested