Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - December 31, 2018

Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) OUTLOOK '19: US Chem Industry To Grow Despite Global Economic Uncertainty
Dec 28, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon

The US petrochemical industry in 2019 is primed to continue the growth thanks to feedstock advantage trumping increased economic uncertainty various trade and fiscal policies.
(ACC Mentioned) Exiting Lawmakers Jockey For K Street Perch
Dec 30, 2018 | The Hill - Business and Lobbying
By Alex Gangitano

Dozens of outgoing lawmakers are looking to make the jump to K Street after an election that saw a massive number of GOP retirements and a Democratic wave flip control of the House.
(ACC Mentioned) Keep America Beautiful Still Driving Hard At 65
Dec 30, 2018 | Westfair Online
By Kevin Zimmerman

The Stamford-based nonprofit, which turned 65 on Dec. 17, remains steadfast in its efforts to end littering, improve recycling and beautify the nation’s communities, according to President and CEO Helen Lowman.
EPA Braces For Shutdown Following Imminent End To Funding Reserves
Dec 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss

EPA is bracing for a shutdown of all operations except essential services following the imminent end to reserve funding that it has been using to stay open amid a partial government shutdown, and is preparing an “orderly” procedure to halting its work given the ongoing impasse over legislation to fund shuttered agencies.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA's TSCA 'Pre-Prioritzation' Plan Intensifies Critics' Data Concerns
Dec 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

Environmentalists and public health advocates are criticizing EPA's plan for how the agency proposes to identify existing chemicals for priority review under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), charging it continues the agency's ambivalence about requiring industry to provide more studies about their products.

Chemical Management News

California Targets Toxic Chemicals in Paint, Varnish Strippers
Dec 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley

Manufacturers of paint and varnish strippers that contain a toxic chemical blamed for at least 56 deaths will have to alter their products if they want to sell them in California come the new year.
Retail Industry Gives Mixed Reaction To EPA Pharmaceutical Waste Rule
Dec 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

The retail industry is providing a mixed reaction to EPA's newly released pharmaceutical waste rule, welcoming the agency's decision that most items handled in a reverse logistics system are not solid waste, but opposing the final rule's declaration that prescription drugs sent to reverse distribution centers are solid waste.

Energy News

Amid an Export Boom, the U.S. Is Still Importing Natural Gas
Dec 28, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Naureen S Malik

The U.S. may be exporting natural gas at a record clip, but that hasn’t stopped it from accepting new imports. A tanker with fuel from Nigeria has berthed at the Cove Point import terminal in Maryland, while a second ship with Russian gas is idling outside Boston Harbor.
Ohio EPA Completes Review of Proposed Cracker Plant
Dec 31, 2018 | Wheeling Intelligencer
By Jennifer Compston

The environmental review of the PTT Global Chemical ethane cracker plant proposed for the Dilles Bottom area is complete.
Natural Gas Drilling Nuisance Claims Shut Down
Dec 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers

Homeowners failed to prove that natural gas wells near their residences were a nuisance because of the noise, traffic, and pollution they create, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled.

Chemical Security News

SpaceX Programmer’s Suit Over Chemical Exposure Advances
Dec 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martina Barash

Precision Valve & Automation Inc. can’t halt a SpaceX worker’s suit over a machine’s alleged role in exposing him to toxic chemicals, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled Dec. 27.
Cybersecurity is Energy Security. That’s Why We’re Protecting It.
Dec 28, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Robin Rorick

There has been a lot of talk about the security of natural gas and oil pipelines when it comes to cyber threats – whether they are somehow more vulnerable to cyberattacks than other infrastructure, and whether there should be increased government regulation of industry’s cybersecurity programs.
OSHA Now Using Drones to Inspect Employer Facilities
Dec 28, 2018 | EHS Today
By David Sparkman

OSHA’s use of drones requires consent of the employer, who may be wary of granting it due to under-developed guidelines.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Special Edition: EPA’s Big Air Pollution Move
Dec 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena Saiyid

The Trump administration rolled out a proposal yesterday that could have considerable consequences for future attempts to limit air pollution.
EPA Facing Legal Fight Over Plan To Retain MATS But Scrap Cost Finding
Dec 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA is proposing to retain the Obama-era mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants but scrap the cost-benefit analysis underpinning the rule, teeing up a legal fight in which the rule's supporters will likely cite flaws in the plan while opening the door for critics to cite the lack of a cost finding to bolster their calls to undo the entire rule.
Republicans Push ‘Innovation’ As Climate Change Solution
Dec 30, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

GOP lawmakers are increasingly turning to a new refrain for their position on climate change, calling for “innovation” as the policy solution.
California Governor Says He Didn't Convince Trump On Climate Change
Dec 30, 2018 | Politico
By Quint Forgey

California Gov. Jerry Brown said he was unsuccessful in attempting to explain the perils of climate change to President Donald Trump during his November visit to the state to survey damage from devastating wildfires.
States Make Climate Policies A 2019 Priority
Dec 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Michael Green

Despite federal climate policy rollbacks, governors and cities have decided to take up the mantel on climate leadership. Nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic governors and the mayor of Washington, D.C. announced that they will move forward with a plan that prioritizes clean transportation and ambitious climate goals.

Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) OUTLOOK '19: US Chem Industry To Grow Despite Global Economic Uncertainty

Dec 28, 2018 | ICIS

By David Haydon

HOUSTON (ICIS)--The US petrochemical industry in 2019 is primed to continue the growth thanks to feedstock advantage trumping increased economic uncertainty various trade and fiscal policies.
Feedstock advantage
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) expects chemical output to grow by 3.6% in 2019, compared to 3.1% in 2018.
Competitive advantage from shale gas is the main factor keeping the US petrochemical outlook positive, the ACC said.
Although US chemical manufacturers experienced higher oil and gas prices at the end of 2018, the ACC noted they continue to enjoy cheaper and more abundant feedstocks and energy compared to foreign competitors.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) said it expects strong growth in US natural gas production in 2019 to pressure prices lower.
Liquid natural gas (LNG) export capacity is expected to more than double in 2019, the EIA said, from 3.6bn cubic feet per day (bcf/d) in 2018 to 8.9 (bcf/d) at the end of 2019.
Despite this forecast, market participants could turn cautious following the last quarter of 2018.
"I think so much has changed in the last three or four months, the steadily rising cost of the feedstock for the chemical guys, and the volatile price of oil has brought a little more caution into the game," Deloitte vice chairman Duane Dickson said. "For the chemical industry it’s brought a more cost reduction mindset."
End-use markets
As noted by the ACC, US economic growth in 2018 remained dynamic across a wide spectrum of industries, and chemicals output improved as a result.
The ACC forecasted that improvement in major end-use markets such as housing (representing $15,000 in chemical product per housing start) will also encourage gains in US chemical production for 2019.
2018 2019 Housing starts 1.27m 1.34m
Source: ACC
The auto industry, which represents an average $3,250 worth of chemical products per light vehicle, has a less positive outlook than other sectors.
New US light vehicle sales are expected to average 16.8m in 2019 as opposed to 2018's estimated 17.5m in sales, as forecast by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA).
Foreign markets
The ACC warned that slowdown in foreign markets presents one of the major risks to US economic activity in 2019, as well as restricted access to those markets.
Despite recent progress, rising trade tensions also risk economic disruption, which will in turn negatively effect the chemical industry.
Investment enigma
The US chemical industry's success in 2019 hinges on abundant and affordable energy/feedstocks, a strong US manufacturing base, a beneficial regulatory environment and access to global markets, as noted by the ACC.
Even if all those factors remain ideal, it's likely chemical companies will favour methodical approaches towards investment decisions for 2019.
2018 2019 Business investment 6.8% 4.7%
Source: ACC
Regarding mergers and acquisitions (M&A), the focus on lower costs will translate into and buying companies at affordable values as opposed to reducing M&A activity overall.
Dickson said companies will likely continue to search for cost savings as they consolidate their businesses.
“I think they’re really going to look at tightening their belts,” Dickson said .“For investments that we saw in digital technology or sustainability, they’ll probably do it, but not as aggressively as if the earnings picture was as it was during the first half of this year [2018].”
Focus article by David Haydon

https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2018/12/28/10299939/outlook-19-us-chem-industry-to-grow-despite-global-economic-uncertainty/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Exiting Lawmakers Jockey For K Street Perch

Dec 30, 2018 | The Hill - Business and Lobbying

By Alex Gangitano

Dozens of outgoing lawmakers are looking to make the jump to K Street after an election that saw a massive number of GOP retirements and a Democratic wave flip control of the House.
Lawmakers have long been coveted by lobby firms and business and trade groups for their connections and insider experience. But with a large turnover following the 115th Congress, the competition for prime spots could be fierce.
The jockeying has already begun with associations and firms sizing up retiring lawmakers for their accomplishments in Congress and their willingness to work hard and fit in on a new team.
Some prominent names being eyed include outgoing Democratic Caucus Chairman Joseph Crowley, who lost in his primary to progressive rising star Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York.
Pennsylvania Republican Bill Shuster, former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is also on that list.
“Bill Shuster is a name that sometimes comes up … given his transportation background,” a recruiter told The Hill, adding that there was speculation he could have taken over at the Association of American Railroads. CEO Edward Hamberger announced his retirement in May but the association tapped Ian Jefferies, senior vice president, as its next chief.
Outgoing Rep. Barbara Comstock (R), who represents the Virginia suburbs of D.C., is seen as another potential K Street recruit.
“She has a reputation of being a hard worker,” the recruiter said.
One lawmaker has gotten an early start; Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.) has already launched her own lobbying firm, LJ Strategies LLC.
It's a complicated dance for both sides as lawmakers look to find a new perch and K Street groups look for the right fit.
It's not a game for everyone. Some lobbying shops and firms pass on hiring former lawmakers, preferring former senior Capitol Hill staffers to whom the halls of Congress are familiar territory. And outgoing lawmakers tend to favor firms that have historically hired from their ranks in the past.
Recruiters who spoke to The Hill noted that moving to K Street can be a big change for lawmakers. Lawmakers-turned-lobbyists who are willing to roll up their sleeves are seen as a rare find.
Former Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.), a senior advisor at Akin Gump; former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), senior counsel at Arnold & Porter; as well as former Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and John Breaux (D-La.), now senior counsels at Squire Patton Boggs, are regularly seen working the halls of Congress.
Another prominent name is Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl (R), who was at Covington & Burling but returned to the Senate to fill the seat left vacant by the death of his colleague Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Kyl has not announced yet if he will return to K Street.
The main question before hiring a former lawmaker is “will they roll their sleeves up and really do the work that’s necessary?” a recruiter told The Hill. The recruiter also stressed past experience as a key to placement.
“Do you have practical relationships in leadership? Management experience in the private sector? There’s the situation where most of these folks have had a large tenure in public service. They’re also thinking of ways they can make up for lost time from a financial perspective,” the recruiter said.
High on lists will be committee chairmen, with the current retiring class featuring some names with long experience in politics and business.
Retiring House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) was a former CEO of the Family Support Assurance Corporation before entering Congress. And retiring House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) was a business owner before political life.
There are also different skills that business associations look for compared to K Street shops.
Associations generally work with head hunters to fill senior positions, such as CEO or senior vice president of government relations, with former lawmakers.
“As a CEO or head of government relations at a trade association, you’re running a comprehensive campaign every day while countering your opponents’ every move, all while managing the different personalities and opinions from your own membership and board of directors,” a lobbyist told The Hill.
Law firms tend to hire on their own and not work through a headhunter.
The current class of retiring lawmakers is heading to K Street at a time of change for the influence world.
Associations used to be a comfortable next step for lawmakers. Some former members still remain at the helm of these companies, like James Greenwood (R-Pa.), CEO of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Calvin M. Dooley (D-Calif.), CEO of the American Chemistry Council and Richard Baker (R-La.), CEO of the Managed Funds Association.
“It always boils down to what is the culture and/or issues of that association. Sometimes they consciously shift to a more Democratic flavor as they may be seen as too conservative. Other times, an organization just feels more comfortable with someone on the same side of the aisle,” a recruiter told The Hill.
Associations are also hesitant to hire lawmakers who they suspect are not interested for the right reasons.
“I know specifically there’s a few-ex members who would like to lead a big industry fight but, by and large, they’re just looking to monetize their relationships and do so as quickly as possible,” a lobbyist told The Hill.
Longevity is another big factor is deciding whether to take a former member for both associations and lobbying shops.
The new class of retiring lawmakers is a diverse group, with some serving for decades while others are leaving Congress after much shorter stints.
“There are a lot of younger members, people like Ryan Costello, who I think would be actually good because they still have energy and haven’t been totally reliant on staff for their entire 20-year career," a lobbyist told The Hill. "Whereas a Rodney Frelinghuysen is not going to go run a trade association or be a No. 2."
Frelinghuysen is a retiring 12-term New Jersey Republican who served as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, while Costello, a Pennsylvania Republican, is leaving after two House terms.
Additionally, trade associations have to consider whether a former lawmaker is the best choice to be the face of the industry's lobbying efforts. Many associations are looking for lawmakers to fill the No. 2 job, not as CEO.
“Not every CEO of every trade association wants to be out there as the face of the industry, on the Hill — a lot of times they’re someone whose come up through the industry,” a lobbyist said.
The same goes for if a lawmaker is looking to work at a Fortune 500 company or a big law firm.
“They’ve been at the pinnacle of what one could argue a very respected position and to move from being a principal to supporting another principal is a tough adjustment,” a recruiter said.
Many major associations are led by CEOs who did not come from Congress, including Geoff Freeman at the helm of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, John Downs at the top of the National Confectioners Association and Bill Miller, who was just named CEO of the American Gaming Association.
They came up either inside the industry or working on issues related to the industry. For members who were career politicians and are now handing out résumés, that could be tough to compete with.
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/423017-exiting-lawmakers-jockey-for-k-street-perch

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Keep America Beautiful Still Driving Hard At 65

Dec 30, 2018 | Westfair Online

By Kevin Zimmerman

Keep America Beautiful (KAB) may be of retirement age, but it is hardly showing any signs of slowing down.
The Stamford-based nonprofit, which turned 65 on Dec. 17, remains steadfast in its efforts to end littering, improve recycling and beautify the nation’s communities, according to President and CEO Helen Lowman.
“Our vision of a country that is clean, green and beautiful is something that I think everyone strives for,” she said. “It’s a mission that everyone can get behind.”
The largest community improvement organization in the country, KAB oversees 620 state and community affiliate organizations and more than 1,000 participating community organizations — what Lowman called “really the heart of who we are.”
Familiar to millions — at least of a certain age — for its “Crying Indian” public service announcement that ran throughout the ‘70s, depicting actor Iron Eyes Cody as a Native American shedding a tear over litter on a highway, KAB has continued to publicize its activities through successive PSAs.
The latest, “Let’s Talk About America,” shows an ethnically diverse group of young people talking about the importance of uniting to clean up the country. KAB said the spot has been broadcast in nearly 200 media markets with more than 30,000 airings, resulting in more than $20 million worth of donated media.
“One of the challenges for any iconic nonprofit is that younger generations don’t always know that you exist,” Lowman said. “We realized we needed to rebrand in a way that was attractive to the younger generation but would still bring along our other, existing supporters.”
KAB has also intensified its social media presence, Lowman added. “We’re making a big push there, to shift how we get our messaging out.”
KAB operates what it calls “behavior change programs,” including:The Great American Cleanup, which it says is the country’s largest annual community improvement program. Entering its 22nd year, the program mobilizes over 3.5 million volunteers and participants who take part in more than 20,000 hands-on projects targeted at communities identified as being in greatest need. Last year the program resulted in 6.7 million pounds of litter and debris being collected across more than 71,000 miles of roads, riverways and beaches.America Recycles Day, the only nationally recognized day focused on recycling, which takes place each Nov. 15.The annual Recycle-Bowl youth recycling competition, which last year engaged over 1,000 elementary, middle and high schools in 42 states in a “race” to collect the most recyclable material; 550,000 students, teachers and administrators participated in the last edition, collecting over 2 million pounds of recyclable material.An education platformthat includes “Waste in Place,” an elementary school curriculum supplement that has been reaching students and teachers since 1979, aimed at explaining individual responsibility for and ownership of one’s local environment. KAB says some 1.75 million youths are reached annually through its formal classroom and informal educational presentations.
Lowman said KAB undertakes an evaluative process to determine the viability of programs old and new. “We talk to all our stakeholders — and we have a lot of different groups of stakeholders,” she laughed. “And our affiliate organizations are the ones who create programs at a local level that work for their communities.”
Primary considerations include whether the program in question “will make a real difference and if it addresses our strategic goals,” she said.
KAB was founded on Dec. 17, 1953, by a group of nonprofits, government agencies, individuals and corporations — including Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola — to educate and activate the public around environmental stewardship, especially the growing problem of litter that followed the establishment of the Interstate Highway System.
Although KAB did not coin the word “litterbug” — it was being used by the American Ad Council as early as 1947 — it helped popularize the term, especially when the Iron Eyes Cody ad first began airing in 1971. That PSA coincided with a new environmental awareness campaign of the late 1960s and early ‘70s, which included the 1970 establishment of Earth Day.
Lowman’s own awareness of KAB came from seeing such PSAs as a child, she said. The Westport resident went on to a management position with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and served on the boards of KAB affiliates Keep Austin Beautiful and Keep El Paso Beautiful. She then worked in a variety of roles for the Peace Corps and served as director-individual and community preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) before taking the KAB helm in May of 2017.
Most people and companies try to do their best when it comes to properly disposing of waste, Lowman said. “There are almost no private-sector companies that don’t have sustainability goals, and corporate America in general has a number of strategic plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase recycling.”
Nevertheless, just-released data from the Association of Plastic Recyclers and the American Chemistry Council found that plastic bottle recycling declined by 3.6 percent to 2.8 billion pounds in 2017, with a five-year compounded annual growth rate for plastic bottle recycling being just 0.1 percent.
Recycling “is a very interesting conversation to have right now,” Lowman said. “The biggest challenge is contamination. Every municipality in the United States has different rules about recycling. One town may accept glass and another may not. If you put glass in a container in a town where it’s not accepted, that contaminates the whole load.”
https://westfaironline.com/109709/keep-america-beautiful-still-effective-at-65/

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Braces For Shutdown Following Imminent End To Funding Reserves

Dec 31, 2018 | Inside EPA

By David LaRoss

EPA is bracing for a shutdown of all operations except essential services following the imminent end to reserve funding that it has been using to stay open amid a partial government shutdown, and is preparing an “orderly” procedure to halting its work given the ongoing impasse over legislation to fund shuttered agencies.
“The EPA, which had enough funding to remain open until today, will shut down at midnight tonight,” reads an email from the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents about 9,000 EPA staff.
Funding for EPA and several agencies lapsed Dec. 21 due to the dispute between President Donald Trump and Democrats in Congress over legislation to fund the government, with Democrats refusing Trump's demand for billions of dollars to fund construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
EPA has remained open since then using reserve funds even as other agencies shut down their operations.
But a resolution appears unlikely until at least after Democrats take control of the House next week, so EPA and the other agencies that have stayed open are now also poised to shutter.
There has been no public announcement from EPA on the expiration of its reserve funds, but The Hill reports that Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has sent a memo to staff setting out the terms of a shutdown.
“In the event an appropriation is not passed by midnight Friday, December 28th, EPA will initiate orderly shutdown procedures,” the article quotes Wheeler as writing.
That timing fits with Wheeler’s Dec. 17 email to staff that said 13,705 EPA employees, out of the totally 13,972 staff currently on the rolls, would be able to continue working temporarily during a lapse in appropriations but that there would be “further updates” if funding was not restored by Dec. 28.
At the time, Wheeler wrote that the agency either had sufficient “carryover of unexpired multiple and no-year appropriations” to support those employees’ pay, “and/or their compensation is financed by a resource other than annual appropriations.”
EPA will be at least the third agency to shut down thanks to the funding battle, as the Departments of Interior and Energy have already ceased most operations.
Appropriations for the agencies lapsed on Dec. 21 when Congress was unable to pass as planned a short-term spending bill that would have extended operations to Feb. 8. Trump initially said he would sign such a bill but then demanded that it include $5 billion for construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, sparking a renewed partisan battle on the subject.
Senate Democrats have refused to support a spending measure that includes wall funds, and so far Trump has not backed down from his threat to veto any bill without them.
But the incoming Democratic House majority is unlikely to approve the $5 billion; presumptive Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has vowed that the first bill up for consideration in the new Congress will be a “clean” continuing resolution to reopen the government, mirroring the one the Senate passed by voice vote before Trump made his demand.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-braces-shutdown-following-imminent-end-funding-reserves

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA's TSCA 'Pre-Prioritzation' Plan Intensifies Critics' Data Concerns

Dec 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

Environmentalists and public health advocates are criticizing EPA's plan for how the agency proposes to identify existing chemicals for priority review under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), charging it continues the agency's ambivalence about requiring industry to provide more studies about their products.
“There are almost 40,000 chemicals in commerce, and EPA needs to take action to limit those that are dangerous. . . . To make informed choices, EPA needs data on how these chemicals might impact health -- but based on their recent prioritization plan, it appears the Agency has no intention of using its new TSCA authorities to get data from industry,” states a Dec. 17 blog post from the University of California San Francisco's Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE).
“EPA’s prioritization plan describes how it will choose high priority chemicals -- and for chemicals with insufficient data, the plan weakly offers that EPA 'may' provide public notification of data deficiencies,” the post continues.
“‘May’ give some notification is a long way from getting actual data on health risks which we badly need -- not much has changed since 1998 when 43 percent of high production volume chemicals (produced at over a million pounds a year) had no available data on human health hazards. This is exactly why Congress expressly amended TSCA.”
While PRHE and environmentalists criticized the plan, industry groups generally welcomed it.
TSCA requires EPA to have at least 20 high priority chemicals under evaluation by December 2019. The law also sets strict deadlines for EPA to complete assessments for priority chemicals, generally within three years.
But the law did not detail how the agency should prioritize substances for evaluation, though it said the agency should draw at least half of the substances for the initial rounds of review from the Obama administration's list of 90 substances identified for its so-called TSCA work plan.
EPA calls the process pre-prioritization because of the strict time line surrounding what the statute describes as prioritization for chemical risk evaluation. To ensure it stays on schedule, EPA said that it expects to have crafted a process for identifying chemicals for prioritization, with the goal of identifying at least 20 high-priority and 20 low-priority chemicals to ensure staff will have started the high priority chemicals’ risk evaluations by deadline.
EPA is in the midst of assessing the first ten chemicals, based on requirements in the 2016 law that required the agency to select all ten from the Obama EPA's list of roughly 90 chemicals prioritized by its “work plan” approach prior to TSCA reform.
For the next chemicals to be selected, EPA last September released a white paper that outlines an approach consistent with the statute requiring that at least half of the subsequent batches be drawn from the work plan list -- until all 90 have been prioritized.
'Exercise Full Authorities'
But PRHE and others are criticizing the plan. For example, PRHE, in Nov. 15 comments, urged the agency to “exercise its full authorities to request testing and data from industry under TSCA sections 4, 8, and 14.”
Further, the group pressed EPA's toxics office to drop use of a controversial systematic review approach the office recently rolled out but which has already invited Congressional scrutiny.
It also called for the process to provide all stakeholders “equal opportunities and support to participate in the prioritization process” and drop the binning approach EPA has proposed for use in the long-term to prioritize chemicals for review because it “is unnecessary, resource-intensive and scientifically problematic.” The group says that instead, “EPA should expand its TSCA workplan methodology, as this is both a sound approach for identifying high priority chemicals and will make the best use of Agency resources.”
Environmental groups joined PRHE in urging EPA to step away from its binning approach and to instead use the Obama EPA's work plan approach for prioritizing future chemicals. “We believe this binning approach is poorly conceived, unnecessary to implement TSCA and unlikely to produce meaningful, science-based categorizations of chemicals based on potential risk,” joint Nov. 15 comments from Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families state.
“The binning process will also be extremely resource-intensive and siphon money and expertise away from programs central to TSCA’s mission of protecting public health and the environment. . . . Rather than screening all chemicals on the Active Inventory, EPA should target chemicals with the greatest potential risk to health and the environment as the initial focus for high-priority listing and risk evaluation. The Work Plan methodology is based on this core concept. We believe an expanded and improved version of the Work Plan process should be sufficient to support prioritization decisions for the foreseeable future and will be far more efficient than the ambitious and costly binning process.”
By contrast, the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine, which raises animal welfare concerns, questions how EPA can “reconcile” what appear to be conflicting schedules in TSCA sections 4 and 6 on testing for prioritization purposes. PCRM argues that “it remains unclear how EPA would reconcile the … requirement under section [TSCA] 4(a)(2)(B) with the requirement under section 6(b)(1)(C) that the time required to make a designation be no shorter than nine months,” in its Nov. 15 comments.
PCRM adds that “if EPA was to issue a testing order for a chemical pre-prioritization, it might receive the information so developed either pre-prioritization or early in the prioritization process. In such cases, the 90 days within which EPA would be required to make a priority designation under section 4(a)(2)(B) would fall short of the minimum of nine months required under section 6(b)(1)(C). In addition, none of the conditions specified under section 4(a)(2)(A) apply to existing chemicals preprioritization.”
Binning Chemicals
Industry groups are cautiously supporting the plan while pressing EPA to provide more details. The Downstream Users Coalition, for instance, supports “EPA’s vision over the long term to 'bin' chemicals on the TSCA Inventory for routine prioritization processing and the agency’s proposed 'notice of deficient information' approach,” but urges EPA to expand that process to the existing 2014 TSCA work plan chemicals in its Nov. 15 comments.
In the short term, the Coalition “respectfully ask[s] EPA to bin all 2014 Work Plan chemicals and announce a general time frame for when the agency will review these chemicals for their suitability as candidates for prioritization.” For the long term, this group also appears to support EPA's continued use of the Obama EPA approach that resulted in the work plan list.
The Coalition writes, “a long-term binning approach for chemicals on the TSCA Inventory should give high priority to substances that have never been the subject of a premanufacture review by EPA, consistent with the main driver for updating the law in 2016. With respect to binning high priority candidates, Downstream Users continue to favor a screening and scoring approach similar to that which EPA developed to compile the 2014 Work Plan, updated to include the factors identified for consideration by statute, as well as the new statutory requirements concerning weight of the evidence and best available science.”
The group also reminds EPA of the interest in some states and local governments for regulating chemicals or products of concern, one of the major drivers for industry's participation in TSCA reform. “[S]ince virtually all commerce is interstate, having the single federal safety standard determination that TSCA allows is important, and this goal was one of the drivers behind” the revised law. “Certain states continue to be actively engaged in activities such as ingredient disclosure, alternatives analysis, and imposing chemical restrictions.”
The coalition warns EPA that its members “have yet to see evidence of greater confidence in TSCA at the state level and the level of state activity to regulate chemicals remains high. While we understand that a single federal standard and the preemption envisioned by TSCA will take time to realize, we support EPA efforts to maintain communications with the states and an awareness of substances that are of interest to states. We specifically ask EPA to consider state interest level as a factor for binning and prioritizing chemicals on the Inventory.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce “supports EPA’s prescribed approach to pre-prioritization efforts,” but says in its Nov. 15 comments “EPA could improve the White Paper, however, by clearly communicating the process and timeframes associated with the pre-prioritization process and balancing the risks associated with data-rich and data-deficient chemicals.”
Similarly, the chemical manufacturers' trade group, American Chemistry Council, “support[s] the general direction of EPA’s longer-term approach, but also provide[s] specific recommendations for clarifications and improvements. . . . ACC expects EPA to address these and other issues in its planned, subsequent white paper and in public stakeholder meeting(s) in 2019,” its Nov. 15 comments state.
ACC recommends EPA to “[e]xpand the set of authoritative sources to identify chemicals of lower concern potential”; [b]ase the prioritization decisions on 'sufficiency' of information that reflects information needs rather than data gaps” and clarify its scoring approach to the binning process.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-tsca-pre-prioritzation-plan-intensifies-critics-data-concerns

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

California Targets Toxic Chemicals in Paint, Varnish Strippers

Dec 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Emily C. Dooley

Manufacturers will have to find safer alternative than methylene chloride after Jan. 1Walmart Inc.,
Lowe’s Cos., Sherwin-Williams Co., and Home Depot Inc. have stopped selling products with the chemical
Manufacturers of paint and varnish strippers that contain a toxic chemical blamed for at least 56 deaths will have to alter their products if they want to sell them in California come the new year.
As of Jan. 1, manufacturers selling solvents with methylene chloride must find safer alternatives for their paint and varnish strippers or remove the chemical altogether.
The state Department of Toxic Substances Control added the chemical in December to its Safer Consumer Products program, which requires manufacturers to conduct science-based studies of their products to see if there are safer chemical compositions.
Manufacturers have until March 4 to notify the state if they sell the solvents containing methylene chloride.
Exposure to the chemical in closed spaces without a ventilator can cause breathing problems, heart failure, and increased risk of cancer, the state said in a news release.
‘Protect the Public’
“Methylene chloride is dangerous if it is not used correctly,” Deputy Director Meredith Williams said. “We’re taking these steps to protect the public by requiring businesses to look for safer ingredients.”
The state listed methylene chloride because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not finalized a ban proposed in 2017.
Retailers Walmart Inc., Lowe’s Cos., Sherwin-Williams Co., and Home Depot Inc. have stopped selling paint strippers with methylene chloride.
Lockheed Martin Corp. and the Department of Defense opposed the regulation when it was first proposed in 2017 saying it could require use of “undesirable materials.”
“In aircraft and space manufacturing, many alternatives, including aqueous strippers, cannot be used due to corrosion resistance, fragile structures, and flight safety requirements that are defined by customer specifications” such as Federal Aviation Administration, National Aeronautic and Space Administration and the Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin Corp. wrote in comments to the state.
Defense Department regulatory affairs coordinator Kathryn Ostapuk wrote the agency has reduced methylene chloride use by 97 percent but “concern remains the protection of mission critical uses as an end user of this product until flight safety-compatible alternatives are found.”
Department of Toxic Substances Control Information Officer Sanford Nax said in an email to Bloomberg Environment that defense agencies were not exempt from the regulation.
The state agency is also considering a similar regulation for n-methylpyrrolidone because it poses reproductive and developmental health risks.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-targets-toxic-chemicals-in-paint-varnish-strippers

Return to headline | Return to top
Retail Industry Gives Mixed Reaction To EPA Pharmaceutical Waste Rule

Dec 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

The retail industry is providing a mixed reaction to EPA's newly released pharmaceutical waste rule, welcoming the agency's decision that most items handled in a reverse logistics system are not solid waste, but opposing the final rule's declaration that prescription drugs sent to reverse distribution centers are solid waste.
At the same time, a source with the pharmaceutical returns provider PharmaLink says the company generally favors the rule. While there are some potential implementation obstacles, the source doubts they will rise to the point that the reverse distribution industry would litigate over the rule. The source notes EPA in the final rule makes it clear it learned the intricacies of reverse distribution of pharmaceuticals.
Retailers and the healthcare products distribution industry are continuing to evaluate the rule, which EPA released Dec. 12, but early reaction from the retail industry signals support for parts of the rule and disappointment with other aspects of it -- particularly for the agency not going far enough on providing exemptions both for prescription drugs and certain nicotine replacement therapies.
The final Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals excludes non-prescription medication and other unsold retail items, such as pool chemicals, mecury-containing light bulbs and pesticides, that are sent by healthcare facilities to reverse logistics centers from the definition of solid waste -- and corresponding waste requirements. At the same time, the final rule does not provide this exemption to prescription pharmaceuticals, retaining a proposed Obama-era definition that those medications, sent from healthcare facilities to reverse distributors, are solid waste.
The decision to label such prescription medications as waste “surprised a lot of people,” one industry consultant says, noting that they were anticipating EPA would apply one approach to both prescription and non-prescription medications.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), which represents retail companies, manufacturers and distribution centers in the United States, says in a Dec. 20 statement to Inside EPA that the organization is “pleased that the final rule reaffirms long-standing EPA guidance that products handled in reverse logistics systems are generally not solid or hazardous wastes.” But it says “we disagree with the Agency's decision to depart from that guidance for prescription pharmaceuticals.”
The group says it is “still reviewing” the rule's provisions for hazardous waste pharmaceutical drugs “to determine to what extent they might mitigate the adverse impacts of this change in EPA policy.”
EPA in the rule's preamble notes that it is creating “streamlined, practical standards for managing potentially creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals that will reduce regulatory burden on retailers and align with the existing practices of the retail sector.” This means these pharmaceuticals will not be subject to the full Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C regulations, but rather what are known as streamlined part 266 subpart P standards, it says.
'Point Of Origin'
The source with PharmaLink, which is a reverse distributor, says the main change is EPA's decision to change the “point of origin” in determining whether a prescription drug is a solid or hazardous waste, moving that determination from a reverse distributor to the healthcare facility.
“It would have been easier for Reverse Distributors, State Regulators and Common Carriers to ship unsaleable pharmaceuticals as one type of product and [then reverse distributors] determine the waste stream,” the source says in a written response to questions. The change also raises potential obstacles over whether common carriers such as FedEx Corporation and United Parcel Service of America, Inc. will revise their existing rule and transport the now-labeled solid waste prescription drugs to reverse distributors, the source says.
Generally, PharmaLink “favors the rule and understands why the EPA had to take the actions they did as outlined in the rule and why they felt it was important to codify how pharmaceuticals should be handled from an environmental standpoint,” the source says.
The Healthcare Distribution Alliance, which represents the country's primary healthcare distributors, says it is still evaluating the rule and its effect on its members' operations, and hopes to continue working with the agency as it implements the final rule.
RILA and other retail groups, along with pharmacist groups, criticized EPA's draft 2015 pharmaceutical waste rule for deeming medications solid waste when handled in reverse distribution or logistics systems. In a Jan. 5, 2016, press release, RILA official Sue Pifer said that while portions of the draft rule offered some relief, “the suggested frameworks fall short of easing the burden on retailers who want to manage unsold products in a more sustainable fashion, rather than discarding potentially useful or recyclable items.”
The rule is part of an effort to provide flexibility to retailers and healthcare facilities in complying with hazardous waste requirements under RCRA.
Reverse distributors in March also urged EPA to ease the draft rule language that labeled both prescription and non-prescription pharmaceuticals sent from healthcare facilities to a reverse distributor as discarded and therefore solid wastes. They contended that the draft rule measure was a “fundamental change” to EPA's long-held position on the point at which a pharmaceutical product is considered a solid waste under RCRA.
But EPA says in the final rule that 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 says 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.
EPA in the rule recognizes differences between reverse distributors -- a category which industry generally says refers to distributors that receive returned prescription pharmaceuticals to determine their potential for receiving a manufacturer's credit -- and reverse logistics centers -- which receive unsold non-prescription pharmaceuticals and other retail items to evaluate them for legitimate use, reuse or reclamation.
In the rule, 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 industry consultant says EPA's explanation for allowing the exemption for non-prescription drugs but not prescription medications is slim and “didn't make a whole lot of sense.”
Non-Pharmaceutical Retail Items
The source says the other big surprise in the rule came with EPA's decision to include other non-pharmaceutical retail items sent to reverse distributors in the rule. In the rule's preamble, EPA says it is also “establishing a policy that other retail items that are sent through reverse logistics are not solid waste at the retail store if they have a reasonable expectation of being legitimately used/reused (e.g. lawfully redistributed for their intended purpose) or reclaimed.” In a footnote, EPA says these can include unsold non-pharmaceutical retail items from a retail store that otherwise if discarded would meet the hazardous waste definition. Examples are “aerosol cans, pool chemicals, mercury-containing lightbulbs, some pesticides, certain cleaning products, paint thinner, ammunition, and fireworks,” it says.
“I was completely taken aback by that” measure, the industry consultant says. The source was surprised to see the retail products provision included in this rule, rather than as a separate regulation. The source points out that it also comes shortly after enforcement actions in California against Target Corporation over the company's management and disposal of retail hazardous waste. Seeing those enforcement measures and then EPA coming up with a rule lumping the retail products together with pharmaceutical medications “is interesting and surprising,” the source says. The source says the move appears to be ad-hoc.
California Attorney General (AG) Xavier Becerra (D) on Dec. 5 announced a $7.4 million statewide settlement with Target over allegations that the company violated state laws and injunctive measures under a 2011 stipulated judgment related to the company's management and disposal of retail hazardous waste, according to a California AG press release. Investigators alleged that between 2012 and 2016 Target improperly disposed of hazardous waste into landfills, including items such as electronics, batteries, aerosol cans, compact fluorescent light bulbs and medical waste, including over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceuticals, it says.
As to another exemption in the rule, RILA says it supports EPA's decision to exempt over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapies from RCRA regulation, but expresses disappointment the exemption was not broader, covering other low-concentration nicotine products. These include prescription nicotine therapies, e-cigarettes and e-liquids, it says in its statement. It notes the group has taken the lead on changing the rules for these products “as none of them meet the criteria for acutely hazardous wastes.” It contends the “historical misapplication of these products has been costing the retail industry tens of millions of dollars each year.”
The PharmaLink source says it supports EPA's exemption for nicotine replacement therapies -- which will benefit healthcare facilities as they will not need to manage them as hazardous waste. Nonetheless, the source says the revision will not benefit reverse distributors as “non-hazardous incinerator facilities will not change their current practices on what waste they will accept and nicotine products will still need to be destroyed as hazardous waste.”
Sources with Earthjustice, an environmental law firm that often challenges EPA waste rules, did not respond to requests for comment on the new rule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/retail-industry-gives-mixed-reaction-epa-pharmaceutical-waste-rule

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Amid an Export Boom, the U.S. Is Still Importing Natural Gas

Dec 28, 2018 | Bloomberg

By Naureen S Malik

The U.S. may be exporting natural gas at a record clip, but that hasn’t stopped it from accepting new imports. A tanker with fuel from Nigeria has berthed at the Cove Point import terminal in Maryland, while a second ship with Russian gas is idling outside Boston Harbor.
Pipeline constraints, depleted stockpiles and a 98-year-old law barring foreign ships from moving goods between U.S. ports is opening the way for liquefied natural gas to be shipped from overseas with prices expected to spike as the East Coast winter sets in.
The two tankers are carrying about 6 billion cubic feet of LNG, enough to power 150,000 homes for a year. At one point Thursday, the ship carrying Nigerian fuel to Cove Point passed another tanker in the Chesapeake Bay filled with U.S. gas that was headed abroad.
"It is ironic,’" said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC in New York. But the "super cheap gas” produced in the nation’s shale fields “is trapped down west of the Mississippi unable to serve its own market," he said by phone. “The gas is where the people aren’t.”
As usual, it’s all about the money. The companies shipping the gas into Maryland -- BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc -- will likely have it stored until freezing East Coast temperatures push prices higher as local suppliers struggle to meet demand, according to Trevor Sikorski, head of natural gas, coal and carbon with the London-based industry consultant Energy Aspects Ltd. in a note to clients on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the gas being exported out will likely fetch higher prices right now in Europe and Asia. Dominion Energy Inc., which owns the Cove Point terminal, didn’t respond to emailed and telephone requests seeking comment.
Other factors are at play as well. For instance, American providers can’t just ship LNG from shale fields in the south because the giant ships that transport the super-chilled fuel sail under foreign flags. Under the 1920 Jones Act, that means none can legally transport LNG to the Northeast from existing export terminals in Louisiana and Texas.
At the same time, even the vast pipeline network feeding the region can quickly develop bottlenecks at a time when stockpiles are sitting at their lowest levels for this time of year since 2002. While production is soaring, strong demand from more and more U.S. power plants using the fuel, along with new export terminals, soaks up much of that new supply.
“There’s still some logistics and pipelines that need to be built to match out to where the demand is,” Kilduff said.
While Boston Harbor sees regular LNG traffic from Trinidad, the imports at the Cove Point terminal in Maryland are “a less expected development,” Sikorski said in the Energy Aspects note.
The LNG Enugu tanker, which picked up fuel from Nigeria earlier this month, arrived at Cove Point’s berth Friday morning with a full cargo, according to Allison Hurley, LNG and proprietary natural gas team lead for Genscape Inc. The terminal there "can feasibly offload the ship’s cargo and simultaneously continue to liquefy gas,” she said in an email.
The Northeast’s appetite for LNG imports “is an outlier in a global market that has seen a very soft” fourth quarter for demand, he said.
Further north, a tanker named Exemplar has been loitering just outside Boston harbor after picking up a cargo from France’s Montoir-de-Bretagne terminal two weeks ago, according to ship tracking data. That ship’s LNG originated from the Yamal LNG facility in Russia, according to Madeleine Overgaard, a market analyst for Kpler.
The fuel was initially supposed to be delivered to Canada on Dec. 21, Overgaard wrote in an email. Instead. Exemplar turned and was repositioned outside of Boston. It remains unclear where the cargo will end up.
Carol Churchill, a spokeswoman for Exelon Corp., which runs the Everett import terminal near Boston, said on Friday that the ship “is not coming into Everett. All of the LNG that we have contracted for is coming from Trinidad,” she said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-27/amid-an-export-boom-the-u-s-is-still-importing-natural-gas

Return to headline | Return to top
Ohio EPA Completes Review of Proposed Cracker Plant

Dec 31, 2018 | Wheeling Intelligencer

By Jennifer Compston

SHADYSIDE — The environmental review of the PTT Global Chemical ethane cracker plant proposed for the Dilles Bottom area is complete.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issued a modified wastewater discharge permit for the planned facility on Thursday. That step clears the way for construction of the plant that would be located at Old Route 7 and Ferry Landing Road south of Shadyside, at the site of the former R.E. Burger coal-fired power plant.
PTTGC America and its partner, Daelim Industrial Co., have acquired the 500 acres of property needed for construction of the facility, but they still have not officially announced whether they will move forward with the plan. However, the modified water permit and an air permit-to-install issued by the Ohio EPA earlier this month represent the final hurdles the companies needed to clear with regulatory agencies before breaking ground. PTTGC of Thailand first announced it was exploring the possibility of building a petrochemical complex in the local region in April 2015. Daelim, of South Korea, joined the effort in January of this year, increasing the potential project investment from $6 billion to $10 billion, according to an announcement by Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
“With today’s issuance of this modified permit, Ohio EPA’s environmental review of PTTGC America’s proposed ethane cracker plant is complete,” Ohio EPA Director Craig W. Butler said.
“We have been careful to ensure this facility will not have an adverse impact on the air, water or health of the surrounding communities.”
The modifications to the wastewater discharge permit conditions will:
∫ Decrease the levels of pollutants to be discharged to the Ohio River;
∫ Change the locations where storm water, which is water that runs off impervious surfaces after rain events, will be discharged; and
∫ Modify limits at an internal monitoring station that does not directly discharge to surface water.
Ohio EPA held a public information session and hearing in Shadyside on Dec. 12, and officials said they considered all comments received before making a final decision on the water permit. These comments are addressed in a Response to Comments document. The final permit and the Response to Comments document are available on Ohio EPA’s website at epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/permits/SCOSW-ONLYP18122713180.pdf.
The final air permit-to-install and the Response to Comments document for that permit also are available online at epa.ohio.gov/dapc/newpermits/issued. The issuance of that permit still can be appealed. Call ERAC at 614-466-8950 for more information on filing an appeal.
Dan Williamson, spokesman for PTTGC America, said approval of the water permit modifications, like approval of the air permit, was a positive step for the project.
“This is an important step in the direction of the final investment decision for the project,” Williamson said. “It has been a pleasure to work with the (Ohio) EPA. Their process has been very open and thorough, and we’re appreciative of their hard work.”
A cracker plant processes ethane, a liquid portion of the natural gas stream found throughout Eastern Ohio, to create ethylene and other components used to manufacture plastics and chemical products. Ethane is abundant in our region, though the local area currently lacks the facilities to process it. Royal Dutch Shell already is building an ethane cracker at nearby Monaca, Pennsylvania, but industry experts say the Appalachian Basin contains plenty of ethane to supply the operation of multiple cracker plants.
http://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2018/12/ohio-epa-completes-review-of-proposed-cracker-plant/

Return to headline | Return to top
Natural Gas Drilling Nuisance Claims Shut Down

Dec 31, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Steven M. Sellers

Homeowners complained of noise, dust, and pollution
Plaintiffs waited too long to sue over wells drilled years ago
Homeowners failed to prove that natural gas wells near their residences were a nuisance because of the noise, traffic, and pollution they create, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled.
The Dec. 27 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is the latest over health and environmental ills associated with drilling operations, landfills, factories, and other industrial facilities situated near residential communities.
A federal court in Texas, for example, ruled Dec. 26 that homeowners were out of luck because they waited too long to sue over odors from a nearby solid waste landfill.
That was the case here, too, where Sheila Russell and 11 other plaintiffs claimednatural gas wells operated by Chesapeake Appalachia LLC in Bradford County, Pa., made for misery: jet engine noises, bright lights, burning eyes, and cloudy water.
The ill-effects of the wells, like a mosquito infestation that arises from a man-made lake, are permanent in nature, the court said.
That distinction that proved fatal to Russell’s case under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations because the filing clock was triggered when each plaintiff was first injured.
The nuisance claim would be timely if it accrued no earlier than Dec. 27, 2011, the court said. But evidence in the case revealed that the plaintiffs were first aware of their potential nuisance claims when Chesapeake drilled various wells between 2009 and 2011.
Here, the court said, Russell couldn’t argue the nuisance was a continuing one that restarted the clock with each new injury.
“Although sympathetic to plaintiffs’ exhaustive and individualized descriptions of their plight, this record forces me to conclude that, because plaintiffs filed the present action more than two years after their claims accrued” it is barred by the statute of limitations, the court said.
Fellerman & Ciarimboli Law, PC and the Speer Law Firm PA represented the plaintiffs. Jackson Kelly PLLC represented Chespeake.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/natural-gas-drilling-nuisance-claims-shut-down

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

SpaceX Programmer’s Suit Over Chemical Exposure Advances

Dec 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Martina Barash

Machine maker gets warning claim cut, but design-defect claim proceeds
Timeliness of suit is jury question
Precision Valve & Automation Inc. can’t halt a SpaceX worker’s suit over a machine’s alleged role in exposing him to toxic chemicals, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled Dec. 27.
Ruben Juarez, a programmer at SpaceX, used Precision’s PVA 350 machine to spray Arathane and Humiseal on circuit boards to protect them from moisture, dust, chemicals, and temperature extremes, according to the court. PVA allegedly trained SpaceX employees on how to bypass safety features.
Juarez allegedly developed headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, memory loss, and stomach pain.
Precision argued Juarez filed his complaint too late, after the two-year statute of limitations expired. But a reasonable jury could find Juarez was delayed in discovering the cause of his injury, the court said.
Juarez’s design-defect claim may proceed to trial, the court said. Precision trained him to keep the machine’s door open to see what he was spraying, and the machine’s design allegedly made wearing a mask impossible, the court said.
But the court granted summary judgment on Juarez’s failure-to-warn claim because he never read the warnings in the manual.
Balaban & Spielberger LLP and others represent the plaintiff.
Fox Rothschild LLP represents SpaceX.
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer represents Precision.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/spacex-programmers-suit-over-chemical-exposure-advances

Return to headline | Return to top
Cybersecurity is Energy Security. That’s Why We’re Protecting It.

Dec 28, 2018 | Real Clear Energy

By Robin Rorick

There has been a lot of talk about the security of natural gas and oil pipelines when it comes to cyber threats – whether they are somehow more vulnerable to cyberattacks than other infrastructure, and whether there should be increased government regulation of industry’s cybersecurity programs.
Let’s clear up any confusion that may still be lingering: industry is deeply engaged in efforts to understand the threat, coordinate with cybersecurity experts across the board, and stay ahead of our adversaries. These statements of increased vulnerabilities are not based on corroborated intelligence and do not align with current threat reporting.
Our industry utilizes best-in-class international cybersecurity standards, close collaboration with government, and proven frameworks that – in contrast to prescriptive government-imposed standards or regulations – are the best ways to stay ahead of emerging threats and bolster the cybersecurity of natural gas and oil companies and the energy infrastructure they operate.
Government standards and regulations can quickly become outdated. Our industry is responding to threats in real time. Beyond the fact that the methods we use have been proven, time and again, they afford companies the necessary flexibility and agility to respond to a constantly-changing cyber threat landscape – something that just isn’t possible when resources must be dedicated toward static rules that are quickly made obsolete.
The report issued recently by the U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted at the request of Senator Cantwell and Congressman Pallone, affirms what we’ve been saying all along - natural gas and oil companies recognize that their assets are the targets of a growing number of increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks.
We recognize that these attacks are perpetrated by a variety of attackers including nation-states and organized international criminals. These attacks pose risks that could compromise the viability of a company and the critical services our industry supplies to the nation - we take this very seriously.
What the report leaves out is the fact that our industry works closely with the government agencies responsible for cybersecurity throughout the full natural gas and oil value chain – from Coast Guard regulatory oversight in maritime and maritime-facing facilities to Transportation Security Administration regulatory oversight of pipelines, as well as information sharing with the U.S. intelligence community via the Department of Homeland Security/National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center, plus the Department of Energy, FBI and others – all to ensure collaboration and communication at every point.
Beyond industry’s work with government, companies are also continuously sharing with each other cyber threat indicators and other security information through Information Sharing and Analysis Centers established in accordance with federal law – and participate in peer-to-peer learning through trade associations – to bolster individual companies’ cyber capabilities and provide critical lines of defense.
Our companies also engage premiere cybersecurity firms that specialize in protecting and defending critical infrastructure systems, utilizing some of the best talent in the world. This isn’t a passive operation; most, if not all, of the largest industry companies manage cybersecurity as an enterprise risk – the highest designation – like safety or geopolitical forces with oversight from Boards of Directors and Senior Executives.
Like I stated, we take this very seriously.
There appears to be a misconception between cyber threats and vulnerabilities in the calculation of risk to natural gas and oil pipelines. There is no denying that the natural gas and oil industry – as with most modern industries – faces cyber threats on an ongoing basis.
To be sure, the natural gas and oil industry’s reliance on proven risk management-based frameworks and public-private collaboration, rather than prescriptive regulation, is the most effective and robust method of bolstering the cybersecurity of our industry companies and the critical infrastructure they operate.
It's essential that companies be afforded the necessary flexibility and agility to respond to the increasing sophistication and adaptiveness of cyber adversaries, and that government and industry continue to partner to share cyber threat intelligence and strengthen cyber defenses.
We agree with Senator Cantwell - our nation's energy assets are critical to the safety, security and economic well-being of the country. This is precisely why we continue to protect it, in the most effective way possible.
Robin Rorick is the Vice President of Midstream and Industry Operations at the American Petroleum Institute.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/12/28/cybersecurity_is_energy_security_thats_why_were_protecting_it_110379.html

Return to headline | Return to top
OSHA Now Using Drones to Inspect Employer Facilities

Dec 28, 2018 | EHS Today

By David Sparkman

OSHA’s use of drones requires consent of the employer, who may be wary of granting it due to under-developed guidelines.
Although many employers may not be aware of it, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is now using drones to conduct safety inspections of employer facilities—but only if the employer consents.
During 2018, OSHA reportedly used drones with cameras to conduct at least nine inspections of employer facilities after obtaining permission from the companies’ management. The drones were most frequently deployed following accidents at worksites that were considered too dangerous for OSHA inspectors to enter, including an oil drilling rig fire, a building collapse, a combustible dust blast, an accident on a television tower and a chemical plant explosion.
Early in 2018, OSHA issued a memo to its staff formalizing its use of drones for inspection activities, ordering each of the agency’s 10 regions to designate a staff member as an unmanned aircraft program manager to oversee training requirements and evaluate reports submitted by drone teams.
The memo sets forth the parameters OSHA must follow when using drones, including the fact that the employer must agree to their use. It also reveals that OSHA is exploring the option of obtaining a Blanket Public Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate drones nationwide.
Because employers must grant the agency permission for it to conduct the flyovers of their facilities, their expanding use puts employers in an uncomfortable position, some attorneys note, observing that OSHA’s use of drones has the potential to expand its violation-finding capabilities during any inspection.
Drones quickly provide OSHA inspectors a detailed view of a facility, expanding the areas that can be easily viewed by an inspector, and significantly slashing the amount of time required for such an inspection if it was conducted on the ground, notes Megan Baroni, an attorney with the law firm of Robinson & Cole.
While most inspections can and should be limited in scope, the fact remains that OSHA can cite employers for violations that are in plain sight, she points out. “Employers must consent to the drone use, but the question remains as to how the scope of an investigation might change if an employer refuses.”
Baroni explains that it is unclear at this point whether the agency’s policy requiring employer permission will survive if OSHA is granted the Blanket Public COA it’s seeking from the FAA to use the drones anywhere in the country.
She stresses that employers should be aware of this policy and the fact that drones could be a requested part of a future OSHA inspection. “Employers may want to give some thought to their facilities and whether drones can be safely flown without causing damage to equipment or processes,” she says. If an employer allows OSHA to use drones during an inspection, she recommends they consider getting involved from the outset in the development of the flight plan and attempt to get copies of any data that is collected.Drone Use Will Increase
John S. Ho, an attorney with the law firm of Cozen O'Connor, also believes the use of drones in OSHA inspections is likely to increase, and he believes that raises some novel issues that need to be considered by employers.
“Until some of these issues become more fully developed and depending, of course, on the specific facts, drones may present a situation where the employer might consider going against conventional thinking and err on the side of withholding consent,” he advises.
It is well-settled that an employer can generally require OSHA to obtain an inspection warrant before entering the worksite, Ho explains. Although determining whether to do this is always a fact-sensitive analysis, he says conventional thinking suggests that the better course is usually to define the scope of the inspection with the OSHA inspector as opposed to requiring a warrant.
Conventional strategy in responding to an OSHA inspection also includes the practice of the authorized employer representative accompanying the inspector, essentially mimicking the investigation This includes taking the same pictures, measurements and other actions so the employer essentially possesses the same data as the inspector gathered during the walkaround. When a drone is used it becomes extremely difficult to accomplish.
If the employer decides to acquiesce to OSHA’s request, Ho’s recommendation coincides with Baroni’s advice, saying if the employer considers reaching an agreement with OSHA, it should include the specific flight plan to be used, agreeing that all photographs will be promptly shared and have the authorized representative observe the drone’s operation.
However, Ho warns that even if the scope of the inspection is defined, citations generally still can be issued targeting recognized hazards whenever they are found “in plain sight.” He also says it seems likely a drone equipped with a camera might capture more hazards in “plain” sight than a traditional walkaround where the inspector is usually directed to the site of an accident by the most direct route.
In addition, there is a danger that a company’s trade secrets may be exposed to the OSHA drone images. He urges employers make sure this issue is addressed and answered by OSHA before giving consent for drones in their facility.
The bottom line is that OSHA’s use of drones is not going away and is likely to expand from worksites that are considered too dangerous for physically examinations by inspectors, to greater use in more routine facilities’ reviews. In facing that possibility, it is the employers’ job to make sure they are ready when that day comes.
https://www.ehstoday.com/osha/osha-now-using-drones-inspect-employer-facilities

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Special Edition: EPA’s Big Air Pollution Move

Dec 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena Saiyid

The Trump administration rolled out a proposal yesterday that could have considerable consequences for future attempts to limit air pollution.
The EPA is proposing to declare limits on mercury pollution from power plants too costly to justify and no longer “appropriate and necessary.” That finding could make it difficult to impose more stringent curbs in the future.
Amena H. Saiyid (@amenasaiyid)—who wrote about the EPA’s justification for the proposed change— explains what’s at stake:
Slimming Co-Benefits
The EPA said it would count only the direct costs and benefits of reducing mercury and other toxic air pollutants under 2012 standards. It wants to get rid of considering the “co-benefits"—reductions in fine airborne particulate pollution, which is known to aggravate asthma and can even lead to heart attacks—that come alongside the cuts in mercury pollution.
EPA’s current leaders have said the Obama administration unnecessarily relied on the co-benefits argument, and underestimated what it cost utilities to meet the standards.
The Trump EPA claims the direct costs to control mercury emissions at power plants greatly outweighed the benefits associated with reducing those pollutants.
Even so—and this is where it gets a bit confusing—the EPA said it would propose to retain the 2012 standards: That’s because the power plants, which are the largest sources of mercury emissions, have already spent money to put controls in place and are recovering those costs from their ratepayers.
The kicker: It wants to enshrine in policy the concept that any reductions beyond the 2012 standards are unnecessary and too costly.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/special-edition-epas-big-air-pollution-move

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Facing Legal Fight Over Plan To Retain MATS But Scrap Cost Finding

Dec 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA is proposing to retain the Obama-era mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants but scrap the cost-benefit analysis underpinning the rule, teeing up a legal fight in which the rule's supporters will likely cite flaws in the plan while opening the door for critics to cite the lack of a cost finding to bolster their calls to undo the entire rule.
Ahead of a looming agency shutdown, EPA issued a Dec. 28 press release announcing its long-awaited proposed rule that completes the Trump administration's reconsideration of MATS and also a Clean Air Act-mandated risk and technology (RTR) review to determine whether revisions to the rule's mandates are necessary.
In the proposal, EPA says it will leave the standard in place and that the RTR did not suggest any need to change the regulation.
EPA is also taking comment on establishing a sub-category of coal-fired power plants subject to the rule for those facilities that rely on coal refuse.
The agency is also seeking input on its potential power to delist power plants from the Clean Air Act section 112 list of source categories subject to hazardous air pollutant (HAP) regulations. However, the agency makes clear that it is not proposing a utility sector delisting at this time.
The agency plans to take comment on the proposal for 60 days following its publication in the Federal Register and will hold at least one public hearing on the proposal that will be announced later, says an EPA fact sheet.
As reported by Inside EPA ahead of the rule's release, the proposal does not make sweeping changes to MATS and instead pursues some “tinkering” with parts of it.
In particular the proposal to revise the cost-benefit analysis is likely to garner the most controversy because it provides the underpinning for the threshold finding that the rule is “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act. Although the agency argues that it can rescind the appropriate and necessary finding and still leave the rule in place, the move -- if finalized after the public comment period -- could create a legal opening for industry and other critics to undo the entire rule.
Coal sector officials, for example, have already argued that the entire rule would be invalid if EPA undoes the underlying cost finding.
Power generators have already spent millions on compliance, and the rule is now fully implemented, prompting some in the power sector to call for leaving MATS in place in its entirety. And environmentalists and Democrats warn the effort risks undermining MATS and eliminating vital public health protections.
“Once again, the Trump Administration is acting in a way that will adversely affect the health and safety of those living from coast to coast,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), ranking member on the environment panel. Calling the proposal “wildly unpopular,” he added that “EPA is also setting a dangerous precedent that a federal agency -- charged with protecting the environment and public health -- will no longer factor in all the clear health, environmental, and economics benefits of clean air polices, such as reducing cancer and birth defects” when crafting rules.
Separately, the Environmental Defense Fund called the proposal “stunningly immoral and completely unnecessary,” warning that it “undermines the foundations” of MATS by rejecting the underlying justification for the rule.
But the National Mining Association (NMA) in a Dec. 28 statement called the proposal “long overdue.” Hal Quinn, NMA President and CEO, said, “We welcome the agency’s proposal to revisit what stands as perhaps the largest regulatory accounting fraud perpetrated on American consumers,” saying MATS’ costs far outweigh its benefits.
Not 'Appropriate'
In the proposal, EPA says that based on a reassessment of the cost-benefit analysis for MATS, it is not “appropriate” to regulate power plants under Clean Air Act section 112's HAP program.
However, the agency also says that the MATS emissions limits will stay in place because of a 2008 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court struck down an attempt by the George W. Bush EPA to “de-list” power plants as a source category under section 112 and instead pursue an emissions trading program to cut utility air toxics, finding that EPA failed to meet stringent air law criteria for such de-listing.
Still, EPA seeks comment on its discretion to scrap the 2012 MATS rule itself, or whether it must scrap the rule because it is moving to undo the appropriate and necessary finding.
EPA says it has crafted a revised cost-benefit analysis as detailed in a memo dated Dec. 14. It claims the updated review fully satisfies a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court in Michigan v. EPA, in which the court in a 5-4 opinion authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia faulted the Obama EPA for not considering implementation costs at all. The D.C. Circuit then remanded the finding to EPA, without vacating the MATS rule. But the agency now says the Obama EPA’s re-worked “appropriate and necessary” finding -- issued in 2016 -- failed to properly account for costs, and overestimated benefits.
Crucially, the agency’s new cost analysis uses cost-benefit data from the Obama EPA in support of MATS rule, and subsequently used as one rationale to justify the MATS rule on remand. The data estimated annual costs at up to $9.6 billion and monetized benefits at between $37 billion and $90 billion, relying heavily on the “co-benefits” of reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is not a Clean Air Act section 112 HAP. The Obama EPA also relied on a qualitative estimate of the benefits of reducing HAPs that are too difficult to quantify.
But the absence of new comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is central to any new litigation over any final measure. Since MATS was fully implemented in 2017, the further costs to industry of implementing the rule have fallen dramatically, given $18 billion already spent on compliance by some estimates. With most of the capital investments already made, and included in utilities’ financial planning, costs of maintaining controls will be much lower.
Further, many coal-fired power plants have closed or re-powered to use natural gas. Industry groups such as the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) have warned that these major decisions will not likely be undone.
Also, with the initial emissions reduction from MATS already achieved, the estimated additional benefits of the rule would be lower. However, supporters of MATS point out that keeping the rule in place is necessary to safeguard its substantial health benefits -- an argument made by environmentalists in their statements on the proposal.
Rather than reject co-benefits outright, the proposal casts doubt on Obama EPA estimates of their value, and also the value of unquantified HAP cuts. Co-benefits cannot be the central focus of a rule intended to limits HAPs, EPA argues.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
EPA in the proposal says, “We propose to directly compare the cost of compliance with MATS with the benefits specifically associated with reducing emissions of HAP as the primary inquiry in this finding.”
Further, “EPA also proposes that, because a negative appropriate and necessary finding cannot by itself remove a source category from the CAA section 112(c) list,” the new finding neither removes power plants from the section 112 list of air toxics source categories, not does it undo MATS.
The agency faults the “cost-reasonableness” test used in the 2016 Obama-era supplemental cost finding for MATS. Although the Supreme Court in Michigan did not explicitly require a full cost-benefit analysis, EPA now says that the “fatal flaw” in the 2016 finding was that it ignored the high court’s directive that EPA “must meaningfully consider cost within the context of a regulation’s benefits.”
The 2016 finding offered two rationales to support the appropriate and necessary finding, the cost reasonableness test, which considered the cost impacts to utilities and consumers of MATS, and also an alternative approach that relied on the cost-benefit analysis prepared for the MATS rule itself. That cost-benefit analysis relied heavily on co-benefits derived from cutting other pollutants not targeted by the rule.
EPA now finds that the Obama administration “improperly” relied on PM2.5 co-benefits under that alternative approach. “A proper consideration of costs based on this approach demonstrates that the total cost of compliance with MATS ($7.4 to $9.6 billion annually) dwarfs the monetized HAP benefits of the rule ($4 to $6 million annually).”
EPA does not preclude consideration of co-benefits entirely -- possibly in order to avoid falling afoul of White House Office of Management and Budget policies requiring consideration of “ancillary benefits.”
Instead, the agency says, “while there are unquantified HAP benefits and significant monetized PM co-benefits associated with MATS, the Administrator has concluded that the identification of these benefits is not sufficient, in light of the gross imbalance of monetized costs and HAP benefits, to support a finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate [electrical generating units, or EGUs] under CAA section 112.”
Listing Criteria
Despite the proposal, MATS will remain in place under the precedent set in the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling in New Jersey v. EPA, in which the court rejected the Bush EPA’s attempt to de-list EGUs as a source category. The move was required for the Bush administration to pursue regulation of EGUs under the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), the emissions trading program established under air law section 111(d). “Under D.C. Circuit case law, the EPA’s determination that a source category was listed in error does not by itself remove a source category from the CAA section 112(c)(1) list -- even EGUs, notwithstanding their special treatment under CAA section 112(n),” EPA says.
The air law contains a high bar for de-listing a source category, which could also be at the center of future litigation over MATS. For HAPs that may cause cancer in humans, EPA must determine that “no source in the category (or group of sources in the case of area sources) emits such hazardous air pollutants in quantities which may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than one in one million to the individual in the population who is most exposed.”
For HAPs that may result in human health effects other than cancer or adverse environmental effects, the administrator must determine that “emissions from no source in the category or subcategory concerned (or group of sources in the case of area sources) exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety and no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any source.”
“EPA is neither conducting a delisting analysis . . . nor soliciting comment on whether such an analysis should be conducted, or on what any such analysis would demonstrate. Any such comments would be outside the scope of this action,” the agency says. “The Agency notes that the proposed results of its risk review indicate that with the MATS rule in place, the estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to actual emissions from the source category is 9-in-1 million,” well in excess of the air law threshold.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-facing-legal-fight-over-plan-retain-mats-scrap-cost-finding

Return to headline | Return to top
Republicans Push ‘Innovation’ As Climate Change Solution

Dec 30, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

GOP lawmakers are increasingly turning to a new refrain for their position on climate change, calling for “innovation” as the policy solution.
Many Republicans have seemingly settled on innovation as their primary position to counter progressive Democrats who have grown louder in their calls for a Green New Deal, with its emphasis on renewable electricity, and as the United Nations and federal government issue reports saying time is running out to dramatically cut emissions.
“Innovation has a critical role,” Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) told The Hill. “If you look at the reductions in emissions as a result of shifting to natural gas and away coal and other fuels, it’s had a dramatic impact on emissions.”
Endorsing innovation has very few obvious political downsides for the GOP. It’s not controversial and helps Republicans paint a contrast with Democratic ideas they argue are controversial and expensive.
But critics say Republicans are being disingenuous and using innovation to mask their opposition to more aggressive climate change policies. Those critics say innovation alone isn’t sufficient to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the level that scientists say is necessary.
Innovation grew into the GOP’s favor this year around the time that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its October report warning that the world had about 10 years left to dramatically cut emissions or face some of the worst consequences of global warming, like sea-level rise and water shortages.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said on “Fox News Sunday” that innovation, not new regulations, should be the country’s response to climate change.
“What the U.S. needs to do is participate in a long-term conversation about how you get to innovation, and it's going to need to be a conversation again that doesn’t start with alarmism,” he said. “But that starts with some discussion of the magnitude of the challenge, the global elements to it and how the U.S. shouldn't just do this as a feel-good measure but some sort of innovative proposal.”
Recently, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, penned a New York Times opinion piece recognizing that the climate is changing and humans play some role. But he rejected regulations as the prescription.
“The nation is leading the way not because of punishing regulations, restrictive laws or carbon taxes but because of innovation and advanced technology, especially in the energy sector,” he wrote. “Making energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs to consumers will be accomplished through investment, invention and innovation.”
The strategy is the latest in a string of Republican responses to climate change and to the left’s repeated accusations that the GOP, which has controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House for the past two years, is failing in its governance duties by not taking stronger action.
Previous strategies have included politicians pointing out that they are “not a scientist” and that man’s impact on the climate is unclear.
In addition to taking first steps toward recognizing the scientific evidence that climate change is caused by human activity, the innovation strategy gives Republicans a policy answer that aligns with core conservative preferences for commerce and the free market. It contrasts with Democratic proposals like regulations and carbon pricing that the GOP considers heavy-handed and expensive.
“What you’re hearing from Republicans is an acknowledgement that pollution and human activity have a negative effect on the environment. But they don’t want to get backed into a corner on specifics,” said Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist. “They recognize their electorate are concerned about it, but the Democrats have not presented a realistic solution that does not hurt jobs and economic growth.”
The GOP sees climate change as a niche issue, O’Connell said, so any policy they support only needs to please a small portion of voters.
Benji Backer, founder and president of the American Conservation Coalition, said that while innovation alone might not be sufficient to fight climate change, it can get conservatives talking.
“Is innovation going to be enough to solve climate change at the scale that the science has agreed it is happening? Probably not. But I think it’s a good way for conservatives to engage on the issue, because so many in leadership are skeptical that it’s happening,” said Backer, whose group focuses on furthering policies that help the environment and the climate with a focus on conservatives, and particular young conservatives.
“Conservatives love economic growth, they love technology, they love innovation," he said. "And if you pair it with climate change, it’s something that I feel can increase the involvement of conservatives.”
Backer said supporting innovation can also show young voters that the Republican Party acknowledges that climate change is a problem.
Innovation has the additional benefit of drawing strong support across the political spectrum.
“I think it’s great that we moved the political conversation whether or not we should act on climate change to what we should do about it,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
But Schatz and others say there’s room for skepticism when the GOP talks about innovation.
“If this is just a new talking point to mask their adherence to the idea that the free market will solve this, then that’s not going to cut it,” he said.
Schatz, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Republicans also need to demonstrate that they care about innovation by backing proposals like boosting funding to the Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy (ARPA-E), a unit of the Energy Department.
“The scale and the scope of the problem is such that we need to do much, much more — orders of magnitude more,” he said.
Ellen Williams, a physicist at the University of Maryland who directed ARPA-E under former President Obama, said innovation has a major role in fighting climate change, but so do more direct policies like mandates or carbon pricing.
“You have to have pull to get an innovative technology developed and adopted,” Williams said.
She cited advanced light bulbs as an example of technologies that had significant research and development funding paired with policy — in this case, laws to phase out less-efficient bulbs.
“It was only because we enacted laws with lighting efficiency regulations that we developed the market pull,” William said. “The innovation was done, it was stupendous. But it doesn’t get out and get used unless government makes there be a pull.”
Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said the GOP shouldn’t get any credit for pushing innovation.
“The innovation framework is an interesting way of Republicans saying, ‘Maybe we believe in climate change, but no, we don’t have the technology to deal with it,’ and so they have to wait to act,” he said.
In the end, Pica said, if the GOP can’t back aggressive climate policies — like a transition to 100 percent renewable electricity, as called for in the Green New Deal proposal — it’s still essentially climate denial.
“I would consider it part of their climate denialism,” he said. “Climate denialism now is not just recognizing that we’re in a climate crisis. I think part of climate denialism now is also that even if you recognize we’re in a crisis, failing to actually propose policies and interventions that actually get us to the point of solving the problem.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/422785-republicans-push-innovation-as-climate-change-solution

Return to headline | Return to top
California Governor Says He Didn't Convince Trump On Climate Change

Dec 30, 2018 | Politico

By Quint Forgey

California Gov. Jerry Brown said he was unsuccessful in attempting to explain the perils of climate change to President Donald Trump during his November visit to the state to survey damage from devastating wildfires.
“No, I don't think I did,” Brown, a Democrat, told host Chuck Todd during a pre-taped interview airing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” noting that he was grateful for the president’s trip and authorization of emergency disaster assistance.
“I would say, he is very convinced of his position,” Brown said of Trump. “And his position is that there's nothing abnormal about the fires in California or the rising sea level or all the other incidents of climate change.”
Brown, who exits office in January and will be replaced by Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, also said he did not do enough to combat climate change while in office.
“No, not enough, not even close, and not close in California, and we're doing more than anybody else, and not close in America or the rest of the world,” Brown said.
“This is a revolutionary threat,” he added. “And we've got to get off this idea, it's the economy, stupid. No, it's the environment. It's the ecology that we have to get on the side of. And we only do that with wisdom, with investment, and widespread collaboration and working together.”
The president was widely mocked following his California visit for suggesting that “raking” could have helped prevent the proliferation of wildfires in the state.
“You look at other countries where they do it differently, and it’s a whole different story,” Trump said, standing alongside Brown and Newsom among the charred ruins of the Skyway Villa Mobile Home and RV Park in Paradise — a northern California town ravaged by the lethal Camp Fire.
“I was with the president of Finland, and he said, ‘We have a much different — we’re a forest nation.’ He called it a forest nation,” Trump continued. “And they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem. And when it is, it’s a very small problem. So I know everybody’s looking at that to that end. And it’s going to work out, it’s going to work out well.”
But President Sauli Niinistö of Finland told Ilta-Sanomat, the country’s second-largest newspaper, the next day that he never discussed raking with Trump, and Finns soon took to Twitter to post videos, pictures and memes accompanied by the hashtag #haravointi. The word "haravointi" translates from Finnish to English as “raking.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/30/brown-trump-climate-change-california-1076879

Return to headline | Return to top
States Make Climate Policies A 2019 Priority

Dec 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Michael Green

Despite federal climate policy rollbacks, governors and cities have decided to take up the mantel on climate leadership. Nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic governors and the mayor of Washington, D.C. announced that they will move forward with a plan that prioritizes clean transportation and ambitious climate goals.
The leaders of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, New York and Washington D.C. have all made recent announcements that place climate change as a key priority for their administration in the coming year.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo started by announcing climate justice policy as a key pillar in what he hopes to achieve in 2019. Climate hawks will be closely watching his State of the Union Address on Jan. 9 for details.
However, Cuomo was noticeably absent from joining nine other northeast states, as they reported progress on the ongoing Transportation Carbon Initiative (TCI). Following a year of public hearings, the states will now spend the next year developing policies that advance clean transportation and cut carbon pollution from the sector.
Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington DC are all moving forward with a cap and invest program for transportation fuels. The climate agenda aims to make roadways more efficient and accessible, and to reduce carbon emissions from transportation by mid-century.
Cap-and-trade works by requiring polluters and distributors of fossil fuels to purchase a permit otherwise known as an allowance, for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. Together state governments auction off a number of allowances each year, with the number auctioned decreasing annually. In this way the market is allowed to decide the price of pollution while raising vital revenue that each state can use for clean transportation investment.
A similarly designed program already exists in the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), covering emissions from the electricity sector. While there have been significant reductions in emissions from electricity, transportation remains one of the sectors where emissions are rising. The states hope to address this issue, and generate revenue for an aging and inefficient transportation infrastructure as they do so.
District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser made an even more ambitious announcement that she aimed to increase the district’s renewable portfolio standards to 100 percent by 2032. While other cities have made similar commitments, this is by far the most expedient and ambitious RPS mandate to date.
In Massachusetts, the stage was set for this announcement when the Commission on the Future of Transportation released an extensive reporton what transportation issues need to be addressed in the next 20 years. The infrastructure outlined in that report will need new funding sources, for which carbon pricing aims to play a big role. Introducing a policy to the transportation sector that puts a price on pollution will therefore be an essential tool to both reduce carbon pollution in the region to a safe level, whilst raising revenue for vital transportation projects.
While the TCI announcement should be celebrated as progress, the process still has a long way to go. A recent report on RGGI and California’s cap-and-trade policy found that cap-and-trade programs in North America have auctioned too many allowances and kept carbon prices low, leading to diminished environmental impact. Given the dire consequences and 12-year window of action outlined by the IPCC’s recent report, TCI will need stronger design and quicker implementation than previous iterations of cap-and-trade to have meaningful impacts.
The joint announcement from the 10 participating jurisdictions includes a one-year timeline to produce a policy proposal, a process that so far has happened through executive offices and their administrative agencies. Now the process enters a new phase. Recent lessons in Paris have shown the importance in equitable policy design and further public engagementin the policy design and implementation process. Governors will likely turn towards their state capitals to support and further the agenda. RGGI took four years to implement after the first Memorandum of Understanding was drafted in 2005, a step that has not yet occured for TCI. Due to an inflated CO₂ budget, it then took an additional five years before substantive adjustments were made to the RGGI cap in order to improve the program’s effectiveness. Leaders will have to learn from this and improve upon design to meet more ambitious pollution reduction targets.
The TCI announcement is applauded by a wide variety of organizations and stakeholders, and shows that states in the region have the political will to enact ambitious climate policy. If the initiative can progress in an expedient, inclusive, and transparent manner, the region may find itself at the national forefront and pave the way for states to join the movement for substantive climate policy in the coming decade.
Michael Green is the executive director at Climate XChange in Boston. CXC provides research and insights into carbon pricing and climate policy.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/423159-states-make-climate-policies-a-2019-priority

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested