Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/8/2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Regulatory Compatibility Among US Priorities in Japan Trade Deal
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Trade Representative (USTR) has named "greater regulatory compatibility" for chemicals among its negotiating objectives in the initiation of a US-Japan trade agreement (USJTA). -
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Challenges Research in New Book on EDCs
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A book on endocrine disrupting chemicals and human health has been met with claims that the author's research lacks "scientific quality, credibility and reliability", even before it is officially published. -
House Readies Bills to End Shutdown at EPA, Other Agencies
Jan 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
House Democrats are pushing to end the ongoing government shutdown with a package of stand-alone bills that would maintain fiscal year 2018 funding levels for EPA and other agencies whose appropriations have lapsed, even as the Senate continues to block... -
Newest Shutdown Casualty: Trump’s Own Policies
Jan 7, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff and Brianna Ehley
The government shutdown is threatening important pieces of President Donald Trump’s agenda, escalating the political stakes as he and Congress vie to see who blinks first. -
Newly Empowered Democrats Need to Save the EPA – Again
Jan 7, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. Jennifer Liss Ohayon and Dr. Leif Fredrickson
While Democrats have many issues to focus on as they take control of the House of Representatives, it is critical that they work to reverse recent assaults on the EPA’s ability to protect Americans’ health. -
To Win Dunn's Confirmation, EPA Vows to Revise Key TSCA Programs
Jan 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has pledged to review and in some cases revise key programs governing new and existing chemicals the agency is seeking to create under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), commitments that helped win... -
Dow Chemical Accused of Contaminating Town’s Drinking Water
Jan 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood
The Dow Chemical Co., Ferro Corp., and Vulcan Materials Co. contaminated the drinking water of North Hempstead, N.Y., with a toxic chemical, according to a new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. -
Echa's 2019 Outlook: Reach, Risk and Key Priorities
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Björn Gaarn Hansen
2019 is the first year after the major regulatory deadlines of REACH and the first year during which Echa will start to implement its new strategic priorities. -
Chemicals in Plastics: The Hidden Hazards
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Dr. Anna Watson
When I buy fruit and vegetables at my nearest supermarket, I can no longer buy loose mushrooms, onions, apples or potatoes. -
NGO Gives Austrian EU Presidency Lukewarm Verdict on Chemicals
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch
NGO the European Environmental Bureau has given a mixed review to the Austrian presidency of the European Union on its progress in protecting the public from hazardous chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell Starts up Big, New Gulf Coast Petrochemical Unit
Jan 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
The Gulf Coast has become home of one the largest producers of a common plastic: Shell fired up its fourth alpha olefins unit at its chemical plant in Geismar, La., the company said Monday. -
State Officials Vow to Fight Trump Plan
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Kelsey Brugger and Pamela King
Hundreds of state legislators are banding together to fight the Trump administration's plans to seriously expand offshore drilling. -
BLM Pushes Ahead with ANWR Meetings
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Trump administration is continuing to speed plans to open oil drilling on Alaska federal lands even as negotiations to end the government shutdown remain deadlocked. -
Can Big Oil Save Us? Drillers Bury CO2 for a Price
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E Cllimatewire
By John Fialka
Many of the world's largest oil and gas companies are buying their way into renewable energies, developing carbon dioxide capture and storage facilities, and exploring battery technologies for electric vehicles. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Poised to Vote on Extending CFATS Amid Shutdown
Jan 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
The House is poised to vote Jan. 8 on Democrats' legislation to reauthorize for two years the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) existing industrial facility security program, rejecting GOP calls for changes to the program... -
Shutdown Sets Back U.S. Cyber Defenders
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A popular cyber technology showcase is the latest casualty of a partial government shutdown that's taking a toll on U.S. cybersecurity. -
In Our View: Step up Safety of Trains
Jan 8, 2019 | The Columbian
By Editorial Board
Although a proposal for an oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver was rejected last year, oil trains continue to roll through Clark County toward their destination. -
D.C. Circuit Urged to Rule on Ozone NAAQS 'Feasibility' Argument
Jan 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to quickly rule on their claim EPA cannot consider "feasibility" of attaining federal air standards when setting the limits, citing D.C. Circuit precedent they argue... -
New White House Environment Chief to Push Climate Resilience
Jan 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The Trump administration has committed to boosting U.S. resiliency to flooding and other risks linked to climate change as part of a deal to confirm a top White House environmental official. -
Who the GOP Should Pick for Select Committee on Climate
Jan 7, 2019 | The Hill- E2 Wire
By Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
If a select committee on climate change is established in the new Congress, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy should populate it with Republicans ready to enter the competition of ideas rather than disputers intent on running from the science. -
New Governor Promises to Fight Trump on Climate
Jan 7, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Anne C. Mulkern
New California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) today pledged to make the Golden State a leader in opposing the policies of the Trump administration on climate change and other issues. -
Blue Wave Roils Environmental Lawsuits as States Turn to Courts
Jan 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Democratic attorneys general riding a blue wave into office could do a U-turn on lawsuits spearheaded by their Republican predecessors—many of which challenge tighter federal environmental regulations. -
U.S. Carbon Emissions Surged in 2018 Even as Coal Plants Closed
Jan 8, 2019 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer
America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to a preliminary estimate published Tuesday. -
Lesson From 2018: Republicans Must Deal With Climate Change
Jan 7, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Ryan Costello
As one of many Republican congressmen who just packed up their offices to make way for the Democratic majority, I’ve had time to reflect on what went wrong for the party. -
Fitch to Start Saying How Climate, Social Issues Affect Ratings
Jan 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan
Social and environmental issues like climate change, labor relations, and carbon prices occasionally drive changes in corporate credit ratings and Fitch Ratings is starting to tell investors exactly when they do.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Regulatory Compatibility Among US Priorities in Japan Trade Deal
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Trade Representative (USTR) has named "greater regulatory compatibility" for chemicals among its negotiating objectives in the initiation of a US-Japan trade agreement (USJTA).
It was included in a December 2018 summary of negotiation aims prepared by the agency, which is responsible for providing trade recommendations to the president. The intention behind the named priorities is to address "both tariff and non-tariff barriers and to achieve fairer, more balanced trade", and is in line with recommendations set out last month by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Trade talks on a US-Japan trade deal could begin as early as this month.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73137/chemical-regulatory-compatibility-among-us-priorities-in-japan-trade-deal
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Challenges Research in New Book on EDCs
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A book on endocrine disrupting chemicals and human health has been met with claims that the author's research lacks "scientific quality, credibility and reliability", even before it is officially published.
Sicker, fatter, poorer: The urgent threat of hormone-disrupting chemicals to our health and future ... and what we can do about it, was written by US scientist Leonardo Trasande.
In the book, published today, Professor Trasande, a medical doctor, "exposes the chemicals that disrupt our hormonal systems and damage our health in irreparable ways", the publisher says on its website. "He shows us where these chemicals hide – in our homes, our schools, at work, in our food, and countless other places we can’t control – as well as the workings of policy that protects the continued use of these chemicals in our lives … Unfortunately, nowhere is safe."
However, in a 3 January statement the American Chemistry Council has encouraged anyone reading the book to "review all claims with caution and a discerning eye".
"Research on ‘hormone-disrupting chemicals’ from Dr Trasande and others has been found to be lacking in scientific quality, credibility and reliability," the ACC said.
As well as a doctor, Professor Trasande is an associate professor, the director of the division of environmental pediatrics at NYU Langone Health, and the vice chair for research in the department of pediatrics at New York University school of medicine.
He has previously clashed with the ACC over his research into the disease burden – in financial terms – of EDCs.
Professor Trasande led an international team of scientists that, in 2015, reported that the chemicals cost the EU at least €157bn a year through healthcare expenses, lost productivity and lost earnings.
A year later, another team, led by Teresa Attina and Professor Trasande, found that the equivalent burden in the US was $340bn (€246bn) per year.
At the time, the ACC said the research contained "many flaws" and did "virtually nothing to advance the protection of public health".
Sicker, fatter, poorer is available from Boston-based textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73145/american-chemistry-council-challenges-research-in-new-book-on-edcs
-
House Readies Bills to End Shutdown at EPA, Other Agencies
Jan 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
House Democrats are pushing to end the ongoing government shutdown with a package of stand-alone bills that would maintain fiscal year 2018 funding levels for EPA and other agencies whose appropriations have lapsed, even as the Senate continues to block a separate comprehensive measure until a consensus spending deal is approved.
With EPA now in its second week since shuttering “non-essential” duties after its funding reserves expired, House leaders are doubling down on their strategy of passing “clean” FY19 bills for it and other agencies. However, the White House is threatening to veto such bills and the Senate majority is refusing to take up any legislation that President Donald Trump opposes.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Nita Lowey (D-NY) on Jan. 6 unveiled four appropriations bills for EPA and the other shuttered agencies that expand on similar legislation the House passed on its first day of work in the 116th Congress, ahead of votes that she says will happen “this week.”
The effort appears aimed at forcing House Republicans to vote against measures that Democrats say would resume key government services. “Unless Congress acts, the American people will not receive their tax refunds, families will lose food stamps, homebuyers seeking mortgages will remain in limbo, and our National Parks will continue to accumulate garbage and waste. These bills will stop this chaos, get many federal employees back on the job, and ensure that key parts of the government are working for the American people,” Lowey said in a statement.
The four bills are broken down by appropriations categories, which is a shift from H.R. 21, the “minibus” spending package that the House passed Jan. 3 by a 241-190 margin. The already-passed bill would restore FY18 funding levels to all the affected agencies through Sept. 30, with an exception for the Department of Homeland Security which would instead have its current funding extended through Feb. 8 to allow time for negotiations over border security.
According to the committee's announcement of its stand-alone bills, the spending levels are otherwise identical to those the House has already passed, except that they also include provisions to ensure that staff will receive back pay when their agencies resume operations.
But Trump is standing by his refusal to sign any bill that would reopen the government unless Congress appropriates $5 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and has floated the idea of using emergency powers to have the military start construction without Congress' approval.
The standoff is prolonging an impasse that has already threatened EPA's deregulatory agenda under Trump.
White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said on Meet the Press Jan. 6 that money for any such “emergency” work could come from agencies beyond the Department of Defense, potentially including EPA. “The president has asked every single Cabinet secretary, and the Office of Management and Budget, to go out and find money that can be used legally to guard the southern border,” he said on the show.
But Senate Democrats appear to be weighing steps to force the issue in the upper chamber. CNN's Jake Tapper reported Jan. 7 that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) plans to vote against bringing up the first bill of the new Senate session, which aims to discourage boycotts of Israel, “because Senate Republicans should instead bring to the floor the House-passed bills to reopen the government.”
And other Senate Democrats, including Environment & Public Works Committee Ranking Member Tom Carper (DE), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Ben Cardin (MD), Kamala Harris (CA), Cory Booker (NJ) and Jeff Merkley (OR), as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have voiced support for broad opposition to the chamber taking up any bill other than a spending measure.
“Senate Democrats should block consideration of any bills unrelated to opening the government until Sen. Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans allow a vote on the bipartisan bills the House passed to open the government,” Van Hollen tweeted on Jan. 5.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/house-readies-bills-end-shutdown-epa-other-agencies
-
Newest Shutdown Casualty: Trump’s Own Policies
Jan 7, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff and Brianna Ehley
The government shutdown is threatening important pieces of President Donald Trump’s agenda, escalating the political stakes as he and Congress vie to see who blinks first.
At EPA and the Interior Department, furloughs have frozen efforts to roll back Obama-era regulations and open new water to oil and gas drilling. The White House has sent home key staff coordinating its response to the opioid crisis. And if the partial shutdown drags on long enough, it could force Trump to cancel a late-January trip to Davos, Switzerland, and delay congressional action on the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal.
Trump shows no signs of backing off, telling reporters that the shutdown — triggered by his demands that Congress fund a border wall — has “a higher purpose than next week’s pay.” But the potential blowback to his own policy priorities shows that the closure is likely to inflict cascading harm as it continues, beyond its initial impact on parks, museums and federal workers’ paychecks.
The prospect of a long shutdown is already worrying people in some industries, who fear it could burn valuable time for agencies trying to unwind the Obama administration’s regulations. A lengthy enough delay could even push the inevitable legal fights into the next presidency.
“There is no question that an extended shutdown will harm the administration’s regulatory reform agenda," Dan Byers, vice president for policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, said in a statement. "They faced a challenging clock to begin with, so a delay of even just a few weeks could significantly impact their ability to advance rulemakings in a timely manner."
To some Trump critics, those delays are the shutdown’s bright silver lining.
"Since most of the regulatory activity that EPA is doing is of the deregulatory nature, to me, that’s great for the health and the environment," said Mike Mikulka, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Chapter 704, which represents EPA employees in the Midwest. He is also a spokesperson for a union-backed campaign called Save the EPA.
Some of the administration’s efforts are still moving ahead, of course: Trade talks with China are proceeding as scheduled this week, and the Interior Department said it’s continuing to process permit applications for oil and gas drilling. The White House also took one of the most politically sensitive issues off the table Monday when acting budget director Russell Vought said the IRS can still issue tax refunds — defusing the threat of a public backlash that would have stepped on the GOP's victory in enacting a $1.5 trillion tax overhaul.
But new casualties keep cropping up. On Monday, for instance, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao canceled an appearance this week in Las Vegas where she had been expected to announce a rule allowing drones to fly over people.
These are the Trump-supported initiatives that are already feeling the shutdown’s bite:
1. Stalled rule rollbacks
The shutdown is hampering one of Trump’s proudest achievements, the effort by agencies such as EPA and Interior to unwind regulations and champion U.S. energy “dominance.” That includes a push by EPA to ease the Obama administration’s limits on toxic pollution from power plants and greenhouse gas emissions from cars’ and trucks’ tailpipes, as well as sweeping protections for wetlands and waterways.
EPA has been especially aggressive in unwinding Obama-era rules, but much of its work is in the proposal stage — and the employees in charge of holding hearings, reading comments and revising the text are on furlough.
The agency used its final leftover funds on Dec. 28 to release one last major air pollution proposal — an easing of limits on mercury and other toxic chemicals from power plants — then promptly shut down. But it can’t begin taking public comment on the proposal until the rule is published in the Federal Register, and the work of formatting, copy editing and tweaking will be a challenge without career staff on the job.EPA has also been taking comments on a proposal to delay the effective date of Obama-era rules on wood-burning heaters, a major issue in rural states like Alaska and Maine. But now it has no staff to take meetings or answer industries’ questions on the issue.
"The shutdown doesn’t necessarily slow this piece of the administration’s work, but it doesn’t improve the quality of the policymaking," said Miles Keogh, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state-level regulators.
Similarly, Interior has long been expected to issue an offshore drilling plan this month that many expect will make wide stretches of Atlantic and Pacific waters available for oil and gas rigs. But the shutdown will delay that release, three people knowledgeable about the rulemaking process told POLITICO.
“My contacts at DOI are not going into the office for much,” one person in the oil and gas industry said.
The Justice Department has also furloughed many of the lawyers who would represent the administration in court. They include lawyers fighting off legal challenges to Trump’s approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a project that environmental groups have spent the past decade opposing.
“We have a shoestring staff here (3) filing motions in our 100’s of cases and we are trying not to let anything ‘fall through the cracks,’” wrote Doris Coles-Huff, deputy chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., in a Friday email obtained by POLITICO.
Environmentalists cannot bring themselves to cheer the delays, saying the shutdown is also blocking routine environmental and conservation work. EPA has canceled hearings on Superfund sites and stopped cleanups and inspections, while accidents, trash pileups and other damage are occurring at national parks that Interior has allowed to remain open without supervision.
"Trump is endangering the public with his dangerous shutdown," Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce said in a statement.
2. Opioid strategy
Furloughs are slowing momentum on projects at the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, including the anti-drug campaign that Trump has touted as one of his main strategies to tackle the opioid addiction crisis.
Addressing the drug epidemic that's killing 115 Americans a day has been a top priority for the president, but Democrats have criticized him for a lack of action. The Senate last week confirmed his first appointed drug czar, Jim Carroll — but the work of Carroll’s office is likely to remain on hold until the government reopens and its employees return.
If the government remains shuttered until the end of the month, funding for critical grant programs involving law enforcement and prevention activities could also be in jeopardy, some people involved in the effort worry. The drug policy office is expected to announce awards of money at the end of January for prevention programs and efforts to help law enforcement catch traffickers.
3. Trade paralysis
The Commerce Department has stopped processing companies’ requests to be excluded from Trump’s aluminum and steel tariffs. It also has eliminated staffing for ongoing investigations into whether to impose trade penalties on foreign companies found to be selling their products in the United States at unfairly low or subsidized prices.
In addition, the U.S. International Trade Commission will remain shuttered for the length of the shutdown. That could jeopardize its March 15 deadline for submitting a report on the economic impact of the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — possibly delaying Congress’ action on the trade pact, because many lawmakers will look to the report to inform their positions on the deal.
The shutdown is also delaying the release of key Commerce Department economic data reports, such as one due Tuesday on the monthly trade deficit. And it could prompt Trump to cancel his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos from Jan. 22-25, which was supposed to include his economic team as well as his daughter Ivanka Trump and and son-in-law Jared Kushner.
The shutdown has also complicated the Agriculture Department’s efforts to assist farmers and ranchers burned by Trump’s retaliatory tariffs. Agricultural producers who haven’t yet certified their 2018 production must wait until local Farm Service Agency offices reopen before moving ahead with their applications for trade aid.
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue was considering extending the Jan. 15 deadline to apply for the program, Undersecretary Bill Northey said last week.
4. Stock offerings slowed
Trump’s Treasury Department raised concerns in 2017 about the declining number of companies making initial public offerings, which often serve as a springboard for growth and jobs. Promoting these deals is a major priority for SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, a lawyer and Trump nominee best known for working on Chinese giant Alibaba’s IPO.But now the SEC is shuttered, and companies preparing to go public cannot get the necessary registration statements approved by the agency.
At least a half-dozen companies had been expected to launch public offerings in January, according to Renaissance Capital, a Greenwich, Conn.-based firm that provides research to institutional investors. The impasse could also affect Lyft and other firms looking to go public in the first half of the year, lawyers working on the deals said.
Adam Behsudi, Doug Palmer, Ryan McCrimmon, Ben Lefebvre, Patrick Temple-West, Toby Eckert and Brianna Gurciullo contributed to this report.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/01/newest-shutdown-casualty-trumps-own-policies-1064215
-
Newly Empowered Democrats Need to Save the EPA – Again
Jan 7, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. Jennifer Liss Ohayon and Dr. Leif Fredrickson
While Democrats have many issues to focus on as they take control of the House of Representatives, it is critical that they work to reverse recent assaults on the EPA’s ability to protect Americans’ health. Doing so would mimic a congressional victory 35 years ago that protected the EPA against a presidential administration bent on its destruction.
Under the Trump administration, civil and criminal enforcement actions against polluters have hit their lowest point in at least a decade, as we detail in our new report based on EPA’s own enforcement data, interviews with agency staff, and unreleased internal EPA documents.ADVERTISEMENT
The hemorrhaging of staff at the EPA has hit the agency’s enforcement arm, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), particularly hard. For example, the number of criminal investigators in OECA had fallen to 140 as of April 2018, the lowest since at least 1997 and below the 200 investigators required by law.
EPA staff told us that they are gravely worried about strong directives from EPA leadership to back away from enforcement or to defer more to states.
Current EPA leadership argues that the steep decline in enforcement is due to states taking over. Yet there is little evidence that states have stepped up.
State and local enforcement of bedrock environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, also decreased under the Trump administration, as have fines imposed by state and local governments.
Moreover, if the emphasis is on transferring environmental stewardship to under-resourced states, why did the Trump administration’s 2019 proposed budget simultaneously push for drastic cuts to state aid, including a 90 percent reduction in funding to popular programs that cleanup and restore Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes?
EPA leadership has shrugged off declines in official enforcement actions and penalties, claiming that more informal ways of achieving compliance – such as notifying a company that they are out of compliance before initiating a lawsuit or issuing a fine – are also important. But, according to our analysis of EPA’s data, informal enforcement actions are far lower in the Trump administration than they were during Obama’s time.
Aiding the sharp decrease in enforcement is the fact that the EPA’s current top political leadership is drawn almost entirely from regulated industries, including coal, oil, and chemical giants.
The acting EPA administrator, Andrew Wheeler, has come under scrutiny for his years spent as a powerful coal lobbyist. Trump intends to nominate Wheeler as the EPA’s permanent head. ADVERTISEMENT
EPA’s OECA is now led by Susan Bodine, who in her earlier roles as a lawyer and lobbyist, lent her expertise to a host of companies and trade groups who have violated the Clean Air and Water Acts.
Given this siege of the EPA, it is no surprise that fines on polluting industries and orders requiring polluters to reimburse cleanup costs at Superfund sites, the most toxic lands in the country, were more than halved this year compared to last.
Moreover, EPA’s own recent mid-year analysis found that it initiated 52 percent fewer cases in its Clean Air Act program that regulates heavy air polluters, like coal plants, as compared to the same period the previous year. In a typical year, the Clean Air Act alone may save significantly more lives each year than the already notable 100,000 estimated by the EPA, making the failure of the Trump administration to properly enforce it troubling.
In the early 1980s, the EPA also faced an existential threat. Former President Ronald Reagan’s first EPA administrator, Anne Gorsuch, displayed public disdain for the EPA and succeeded in slashing the agency’s budget and staff and caused dramatic drops in enforcement.
The Reagan administration’s assault on the EPA ended after only two years. A Democratic-led House aggressively pursued investigations and subpoenas that revealed conflicts of interest, mismanagement of Superfund money, and more. By late 1983, Gorsuch and 21 other political appointees had resigned, and the EPA’s leadership, resources, and mission were in part restored.
Similarly, new Democratic leadership at the helm of the House’s committees must hold the Trump administration accountable. In a promising development, Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who will help oversee the EPA as the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, recently issued a letter demanding information on the lack of enforcement against polluters.
If Trump’s EPA won’t investigate polluters, then Democrats need to investigate Trump’s EPA. In addition to investigating plummeting enforcement, Democratic leadership on the Appropriations Committee should push for an EPA budget that will allow OECA to hire sufficient staff to carry out its mission.
The new Democratic-led House can restore teeth to the agency that safeguards our health – they did it once before.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/424181-newly-empowered-democrats-need-to-save-the-epa-again
-
To Win Dunn's Confirmation, EPA Vows to Revise Key TSCA Programs
Jan 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has pledged to review and in some cases revise key programs governing new and existing chemicals the agency is seeking to create under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), commitments that helped win 11th-hour Senate confirmation for the agency toxics chief, Alexandra Dunn.
In an undated letter to Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Wheeler promised to work with the committee and others as it revises its controversial framework for how officials will review new chemicals and make the new chemicals program -- as well as confidential business information (CBI) reviews for new and existing chemicals -- more transparent.
He also pledges to seek peer review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for the agency's policy on how it will consider data it uses when it assesses risks of existing chemicals, a key demand of Democrats during Dunn's confirmation hearing, and commits to issue a supplement to a proposed rule restricting new uses of a perfluorinated compound.
“I fully appreciate that you want to know that the bipartisan work which went into the [2016] enactment of [TSCA reform] is fully reflected in its implementation by the EPA,” Wheeler wrote. “I would like to commit to providing additional public information for the review of chemicals under this statute.”
The pledges appear to have helped win confirmation for Dunn, the former Region I administrator, whose nomination cleared the Senate in a voice vote Jan. 2, hours before the end of the 115th Congress.
Carper welcomed Wheeler's commitments and pledged to “hold him to them going forward,” he said in a statement to Inside EPA. “Securing substantive policy wins on matters that affect the health and safety of Americans across this country is what’s most important to me,” he added.
Key among Wheeler's commitments appears to be a pledge to work with the committee and others as it seeks to overhaul its controversial framework for reviewing new chemicals.
Since TSCA's enactment, EPA has struggled to implement requirements governing new chemicals -- substances that are not on the TSCA inventory of chemicals that were on the market when the law was first enacted in 1976 and those EPA has since added to the inventory. After the revised law was enacted, changed language on new chemicals slowed EPA's review of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) for hundreds of substances for which industry sought approval, resulting in a backlog.
To speed approvals, the agency crafted a framework for reviewing substances that sought to speed issuance of significant new use rules (SNURs) -- regulatory tools EPA can use to regulate chemical uses that may present concerns.
But environmentalists sued, arguing that the framework inappropriately narrows the scope of new chemical reviews to only the intended uses of a new chemical, while punting other reasonably anticipated uses to a SNUR. They also raised concerns that the draft framework allowed the agency to drop use of enforcement orders as an interim step to prevent some unapproved uses before issuance of a SNUR, which can entail a lengthy rulemaking process.
While environmentalists eventually dropped the suit because EPA has not used the framework, the agency has been unclear how it would proceed. EPA has proposed a host of SNURs since environmentalists dropped the suit last August, including some that appeared to follow the framework approach.
PMN Framework
Now Wheeler is committing to publishing EPA's “next version of this framework” and to hosting a public meeting to discuss that next version, stating that at the meeting EPA will “solicit additional public comment and describe our working approaches within 60 days of its publication. EPA's framework will specify (i) the statutory and scientific justification for the approaches described, (ii) the policies and procedures that EPA is using/plans to use in its PMN reviews, and (iii) its responses to public comments received.”
He also notes that EPA took comment on the framework in early 2018, and commits to “working with the Committee on considering those public comments in our evaluation.”
Wheeler also promises increased transparency for new chemicals and the CBI program.
For example, he “commits to ensuring that starting no later than May 31, 2019” all new PMNs submitted to EPA “including any health and safety studies … and all other associated information are placed online” and available on EPA's public ChemView website within 45 days of EPA receiving them.
Wheeler adds that EPA will also publish monthly in the Federal Register “a receipt of all PMNs, test marketing exemptions (TMEs) and notices of commencement (NOCs) received” in the preceding month.
Such commitments respond to ongoing entreaties from environmentalists, Democrats and animal welfare groups who have argued that EPA's new chemicals program has continued to operate largely in a black box despite changes to TSCA's confidential business information (CBI) language that they argue should require the agency to make more information about PMNs and other new chemicals available to the public.
For example, Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund lamented in a blog post last August that his group had “documented just how difficult it is for the public to gain access to even the most basic information about new chemicals, forced to rely on an antiquated, time-consuming request system out of the last century when EPA’s own regulations require ready electronic public access. Even then, the information provided to the public is incomplete and masks as [CBI] health and safety studies and related data that are not eligible for CBI status. There is little evidence that EPA is reviewing the massive number of CBI claims made by companies in their new chemical submissions, and it is failing to require adequate substantiations of many of those claims.”
Wheeler also seeks to address environmentalists' and Democrats' CBI concerns more broadly, regarding the substantiation of CBI, particularly for existing chemicals where CBI claims may have been in place for years. The revised statute places a sunset limitation on such CBI claims, requiring companies to re-apply to EPA for the claims' CBI status. The agency is also now required to review all new CBI claims to ensure that they meet revised TSCA's more stringent requirements.
Wheeler writes that “EPA commits to providing you with a report describing how the Agency is complying and will comply with [revised TSCA] Section 14 … within the next 180 days, with specific information and statistics … as well as information on how and when the public will be able to track the status of EPA's reviews of CBI claims and have access to EPA's CBI determinations … on EPA's website.” Wheeler adds that additional information will be made available before the report's release.
Systematic Review
Wheeler also committed to submit the agency's policy for conducting systematic reviews -- a nascent approach for gathering and evaluating scientific evidence intended to increase the rigor and transparency of chemical evaluations -- to the NAS for review.
The revised TSCA requires that EPA prioritize existing chemicals for assessment and sets deadlines for completing those reviews, as well as conducting risk management actions on those deemed not to meet the TSCA risk standard.
The Trump EPA released last summer its systematic review approach to conducting those chemical evaluations -- an approach which quickly became controversial as environmentalists and some academics argued that it favors industry-funded studies and will inappropriately drop many studies that indicate effects.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) pressed Dunn for a commitment during her Nov. 29 confirmation hearing that she would seek NAS review of the approach, which Dunn stopped short of committing to do.
In the new letter, Wheeler agrees to the peer review, writing, “the Agency will, promptly submit the methodology for deciding how to collect and evaluate scientific research related to a chemical's safety that was recently adopted … to the [NAS] for peer review and feedback.”
Wheeler adds that “at the same time,” EPA will seek peer review from its new advisory committee, the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, on the first 10 evaluations of existing chemicals, including “its independent advice on the methods used by [EPA] to collect and evaluate scientific research in the first ten risk evaluations.”
Lastly, Wheeler says that EPA will conduct a “supplemental proposed SNUR” of per- and polyflouroalkyl substances (PFAS), the broad class of non-stick chemicals that have been linked to a host of adverse effects. PFAS is of growing concern to lawmakers as its presence has been detected in waters and contaminated sites in a growing number of communities around the country.
With no preamble, Wheeler notes that the Obama EPA proposed a PFAS SNUR in 2015, adding that “EPA is considering the public comments received as well as the new statutory requirements added by” the TSCA reform law “as it is moving forward to issue” a supplemental proposed SNUR. The proposed rule requires manufacturers, including importers, of one PFAS chemical, PFOA, to notify EPA before starting new uses of the chemical in any products.
EPA's outgoing groundwater and drinking water chief, Peter Grevatt, told a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee last September that the supplement was under development, due to the TSCA reforms passed since 2015 giving EPA new authorities.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/win-dunns-confirmation-epa-vows-revise-key-tsca-programs
-
Dow Chemical Accused of Contaminating Town’s Drinking Water
Jan 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood
The Dow Chemical Co., Ferro Corp., and Vulcan Materials Co. contaminated the drinking water of North Hempstead, N.Y., with a toxic chemical, according to a new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Board of Commissioners of the Manhasset-Lakeville Water District, which provides drinking water to 45,000 residents in Nassau County, said the companies manufactured and sold products containing 1,4-dioxane. They knew, or should have known, that this “highly toxic substance and likely human carcinogen” would make its way into groundwater, the board said.
1,4-dioxane is used as a stabilizer in solvents, primarily methyl chloroform, which is used to dissolve greasy and oily substances from machined metal products, according to the plaintiffs. 1,4-dioxane easily migrates into groundwater, resists natural degradation, and is difficult and costly to remove, the plaintiffs claimed.
The defendants should have known about the health hazards associated with 1,4-dioxane, and that degreasing equipment used by metal product manufacturers and other industrial facilities routinely leaked methyl chloroform into the environment, the board claimed. In fact, the companies advised users to dispose of solvent wastes by pouring them onto the ground or into trenches for evaporation or burning, the board said.
1,4-dioxane now contaminates the majority of the district’s drinking water production wells, the board claimed.
The board is suing the companies for product liability, negligence, public nuisance, and trespass. It seeks unspecified damages, including a fund to abate the harmful effects of the chemical.
The board is represented by Sher Edling LLP.
Dow, Ferro, and Vulcan Materials didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s request for comment.
The case is Board of Commissioners of the Manhasset-Lakeville Water District v. The Dow Chemical Co., E.D.N.Y., No. 19-00085, filed 1/4/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/dow-chemical-accused-of-contaminating-towns-drinking-water
-
Echa's 2019 Outlook: Reach, Risk and Key Priorities
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Björn Gaarn Hansen
2019 is the first year after the major regulatory deadlines of REACH and the first year during which Echa will start to implement its new strategic priorities.
'Our first strategic priority is to identify and manage the risks of substances of concern,' – Bjorn Hansen, Echa executive director
Our first strategic priority is to identify and manage the risks of substances of concern. Under this, the interplay between the registration, evaluation and risk management processes under REACH and CLP will be streamlined and will make up a substantial part of the agency’s work throughout 2019.
At the same time, the two other strategic priorities – improving supply chain communication with a view to increasing safe and sustainable use of chemicals and substituting substances of very high concern, and ensuring the consistency and integration of the EU regulatory system on chemical safety – will remain at the core of the agency’s work.
To this end, Echa will support industry in implementing the ENES tools, making more information on uses and exposure available and creating an effective cycle of information to manage chemicals safely. In addition, the agency will continue to implement its substitution strategy, which aims to boost the availability and adoption of safer alternative substances and technologies throughout the EU.
In 2019, we will continue pursuing robust technical solutions for managing data, building up the EU observatory for nanomaterials, taking the first steps towards an EU legislation finder on chemicals, and building on the successful start in developing occupational exposure limits.
Ensuring REACH compliance
The REACH Review carried out by the European Commission concluded that REACH is an effective instrument, but not yet working efficiently enough. It highlighted several areas of REACH where improvements are needed, and 2019 will see us move more concretely to putting such actions into practice.
One of the key improvements we need to make in 2019 is to do more to ensure REACH compliance.
Back in October 2018, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) published a report which showed that around one-third of registration dossiers in the highest tonnage bands do not comply with REACH requirements. This is a message that we hear loud and clear from various sources, but also echoes our own findings.
More compliance checks ahead
Checking the regulatory compliance of registration dossiers has been one of Echa’s core tasks since the early days of the agency. However, it has become clear that the 5% compliance check of registration dossiers in each tonnage band has not had the desired effect.
Back when REACH was being developed, a certain level of non-compliance was expected, but the issue here is the extent.
The crucial point about non-compliance is that there may be some effects of a chemical that go unnoticed. While this is not the case for all non-compliant dossiers, it is an underlying cause for concern.
'We will focus more heavily on compliance checks, making it an agency-wide priority,' – Bjorn Hansen, Echa executive director
In 2019, we will therefore need to focus more heavily on compliance checks, making it an agency-wide priority. This means freeing up resources to carry out more dossier compliance work, and making the most of our staff’s experience to increase efficiency.
In addition, we will interact and collaborate more proactively with sectors on groups of substances, aiming to come up with solutions to dossier compliance issues which can reduce or eliminate the need of further regulatory steps.
Restriction and authorisation processes
Another aspect of the REACH Review that we will concentrate on during 2019 is clarifying and improving the restriction and authorisation processes.
In practice, we will identify which points in the restriction dossier or authorisation applications are crucial for determining the outcome and where more information is needed.
We believe that having a better understanding here will enable more straightforward decision making.
Achieving this will require greater levels of cooperation with the Commission, Member States, experts, NGOs and industry, and discussions on how to achieve this are already taking place.
The activities implementing BPR and PIC [Biocidal Products Regulation and Prior Informed Consent Regulation] will continue to be as important as ever in ensuring the safe use of substances. We expect intensified assessment of biocidal active substances with potential endocrine-disrupting properties, and continued increases in the number of PIC export notifications during 2019.
Finding ways to be efficient
While working on these areas, we will also be adjusting to our new organisational structure. The changes to our structure better reflect our working environment, and will help us take on new tasks and face future challenges.
One such challenge is, of course, the need for resources. We are a large agency with the potential to do a lot of good work, but there are limitations to how much more we can do without increasing our resources.
The reorganisation will help us to find ways to be more efficient and effective and to develop staff competence to handle the existing workloads under REACH, CLP, Biocides and PIC as well as integrate the new tasks we receive – but to make a real difference, we need to re-discuss the resources at our disposal.
Brexit
Another element we are facing is the UK’s imminent withdrawal from the EU. We are fully prepared for this and have been informing industry both in the UK and in the remaining EU-27 of the things they need to consider and act upon.
So, we have a fully packed agenda for 2019 – but I am confident that together we will manage it successfully.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73138/echas-2019-outlook-reach-risk-and-key-priorities
-
Chemicals in Plastics: The Hidden Hazards
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Dr. Anna Watson
When I buy fruit and vegetables at my nearest supermarket, I can no longer buy loose mushrooms, onions, apples or potatoes. They all come wrapped in plastic – a close-to-home reminder about how the use of plastic packaging is increasing in our daily lives. Of the 380m tonnes of plastics produced worldwide each year, more than 40% are used in packaging, with the majority of that used in food packaging.
Plastic packaging does not just cause environmental problems with its use of resources, litter and degradation to smaller particles; it is a source of chemical exposure to consumers and workers.
The chemicals used in packaging can migrate into foods and the environment during manufacturing, use, disposal and recycling. It is therefore vital for us to know what chemicals are present in plastic packaging and what the associated risks are, so that we can restrict chemicals that cause harm and replace them with safer alternatives.Plastic packaging database
Since the summer of 2017, CHEM Trust has been part of a collaboration of NGOs, including the Food Packaging Forum, ChemSec and academic scientists, to:
· identify which hazardous chemicals are used in the manufacturing of plastic packaging and in the end product;
· compile information on their applications and toxicity; and
· identify which substances should be prioritised to be substituted for safer alternatives.
However, it has not been straightforward to determine which chemicals are used in the production of plastic packaging, as there is no single registry for this information. Scientists at the Food Packaging Forum started by trawling through data to establish a comprehensive database.
The scientists faced considerable barriers when building the database due to a lack of information concerning the use of chemicals in plastics manufacturing and the chemicals’ function and presence in final products.
This was often caused by information not being publicly accessible through standard search methods or not being accessible at all. In addition, plastic packaging contains impurities, degradation products, and contaminants which cannot be exhaustively compiled because many of these chemicals are not yet identified.The chemicals associated with plastics packaging database (CPPdb), containing 4,283 substances, was the result of this extensive study. Information on their toxicity and uses in plastic packaging, as well as additional regulatory information such as authorisation for use in food packaging is also included. The 906 substances which are most likely to be associated with plastic packaging have been published on the Data Commons website.
Hazardous chemicals and prioritisation
At least 148 of the 906 chemicals most likely to be associated with plastic packaging were identified as particularly hazardous both to human health and the environment based on several harmonised hazard data sources. Sixty-eight chemicals were identified as particularly hazardous to the environment and 63 chemicals were identified as particularly hazardous for human health.
The next step in the project was to identify which chemicals in plastic packaging should be a priority for the industry to find alternatives.
To achieve this prioritisation, a set of criteria was agreed, combined with the expert judgment of the project partners. It is worth noting that different prioritisation processes will have different outcomes and the result is strongly dependent on the available information.
All the chemicals identified following the prioritisation criteria were ortho-phthalates. Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) was selected as the highest-priority substance for environmental hazards in the context of this research project. Five phthalates, including BBP, were selected as the highest priority substances for human health.
The others were: dibutyl phthalate (DBP); diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP); bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)and dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP).
Ortho-phthalates
All of the prioritised ortho-phthalates in the study are used as plasticisers, adhesives or printing inks in plastic packaging. In Western Europe, we produce about 1m tonnes of phthalates each year, of which approximately 900,000 tonnes are used to plasticise PVC. And, according to the industry, a large proportion of this PVC is used to make rigid and flexible films for packaging.
Phthalates are a well-known problematic group of chemicals for human health, which is why some of the uses of certain phthalates in toys and other children’s products are partly restricted in the EU.
The EU has also decided to restrict the use of four of the ortho-phthalates prioritised in our project: DEHP, DBP, BBP and DIBP. Their use in many consumer products will be restricted, due to their toxic effect on reproductive health and the endocrine system. This partial ban takes into account the cumulative effects of combined exposure to the four phthalates. This as a welcome and long overdue measure.
However, the restriction does not prevent these chemicals being used in food contact materials such as conveyor belts and pipes used during food production, plastic gloves worn to handle food, and containers and wrappings used for food packaging. This is a glaring loophole and it must be closed as soon as possible.
Restrictions are also being discussed in the US. Since 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration has been reviewing a petition by public interest organisations to remove approval of 30 phthalates in food contact materials. However, on 14 November 2018 the FDA said it was also considering a petition from an industry group, Flexible Vinyl Alliance, claiming that only four phthalates (DEHP, DCHP, diisononyl phthalate and diisodecyl phthalate) are used in contact with food, including final packaging.The petition requests that the agency de-authorise the remaining 26 phthalates because their use as food contact substances has been abandoned.
What should the industry do?
What do the findings of this project mean for industry and regulators? First, the project has exposed how difficult it is to get hold of chemical-use information. We need far more transparency from the industry on the chemicals they are using to produce plastic packaging.
Second, industry must move away from using groups of known hazardous substances such as the phthalates; other research by CHEM Trust has highlighted that bisphenols are a similar problem group. By regulating one chemical at a time the regulators allow the industry to move from one problematic chemical to the next within a group, rather than solving the problem.
We know that the industry can rise to this challenge. In March 2018, food brands in the US, such as Nestlé, and food packaging supply chain companies published the Food Packaging Product Stewardship Considerations. It contains a list of chemicals that these companies do not want to see in their packaging. Ortho-phthalates, including the ones our project has identified, are at the top of the list.
Third, our project identified more than 4,000 chemicals that are likely to be associated with the manufacture of plastic packaging. However, there will be many more chemicals present than we can identify – the so-called non-intentionally added substances (Nias). Not only have most of these chemicals not been identified, they have generally not been risk assessed. We simply cannot say that any plastic packaging is safe without this information.
Ultimately, in order to address the Nias issue, the industry must use fewer chemicals and ensure production processes are controlled in such a way that Nias are identified and appropriately assessed for their health and environmental impacts.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72879/chemicals-in-plastics-the-hidden-hazards
-
NGO Gives Austrian EU Presidency Lukewarm Verdict on Chemicals
Jan 8, 2019 | Chemical Watch
NGO the European Environmental Bureau has given a mixed review to the Austrian presidency of the European Union on its progress in protecting the public from hazardous chemicals.
Austria's presidency of the EU Council concluded at the end of December with Romania taking over from 1 January. The presidency rotates among EU member states every six months.
At the beginning of the Austrian presidency in July, the EEB set ten ‘green tests’ for the country's term. It judged Austria's performance on controlling harmful chemicals on four grounds. These were:
· to agree Council conclusions on concrete actions after the second REACH Review;
· to call on the EU to prepare an ambitious non-toxic environment strategy and promote substitution to safer alternatives;
· to maintain leadership of the Minamata Convention on Mercury and ensure implementation in the EU; and
· to call on the EU to follow Echa's Opinion on the CLP classification of titanium dioxide as a suspected carcinogen.
On REACH, the EEB said Austria did not consider that Council conclusions on the review actions were needed. And although future priorities for the law were discussed at the Environment Council meeting in December, there was no publicly available information on the outcome.
The EEB also said it would have expected the Council to make a stronger call on the Commission to deliver the non-toxic environment strategy, which was due by the end of 2018.
It also "regrets" its position on the recast of the persistent organic pollutants (POP) Regulation, which "allows, for all recycled materials, a higher concentration of certain POPs," the NGO said.
The Austrian presidency did not work on the CLP classification of titanium dioxide, the EEB added, but it welcomed progress made on mercury.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73149/ngo-gives-austrian-eu-presidency-lukewarm-verdict-on-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell Starts up Big, New Gulf Coast Petrochemical Unit
Jan 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
The Gulf Coast has become home of one the largest producers of a common plastic: Shell fired up its fourth alpha olefins unit at its chemical plant in Geismar, La., the company said Monday.
The multibillion-dollar expansion adds 425,000 metric tons per a year in capacity to the chemical manufacturing site, bringing its total alpha olefin production up at Geismar to more than 1.3 million metric tons per a year. That makes it the largest alpha olefins producing site in the world, the company said.
Geismar, La., the company said Monday.
The multibillion-dollar expansion adds 425,000 metric tons per a year in capacity to the chemical manufacturing site, bringing its total alpha olefin production up at Geismar to more than 1.3 million metric tons per a year. That makes it the largest alpha olefins producing site in the world, the company said.Recommended Video
00:0001:59
Alpha olefins are key ingredients in consumer goods such as laundry detergents, motor oils and hand soaps.
The project represents a major expansion of Shell's petrochemical business in the region and will support the Deer Park facility in the greater Houston area.
The new unit is part of Shell's push to integrate the downstream side of its business. The company said the Geismar site is supported with advantaged ethylene feedstock from Shell's nearby Norco, La., and Deer Park manufacturing sites, enabling the site to respond to market conditions.
Ethylene is used as a feedstock for alpha olefins. Shell previously had been selling much of the U.S. ethylene it produced., but the addition of the alpha olefins unit means the company can benefit from more integrated downstream operations, noted Steve Zinger, vice president of chemicals at the analyst research firm Wood Mackenzie.
"In Shell's case, they are a bit long on ethylene so this is one way they could consume some of that ethylene and convert it to a usable prothduct that could be sold into the polyethylene business and/or exported into world markets where demand growth still growing," Zinger said.
The Geismar alpha olefins unit started up in December, but the Houston-based U.S. operations of Shell announced the startup Monday.
"Our team delivered this world-class expansion project safely, on time and within budget," Graham van't Hoff, executive vice president for Shell's global chemicals business, said in a statement.
"This is a key growth project for Shell's global chemicals business. Geismar will continue to play a leading role in providing the materials for products that an increasing number of people need and enjoy," he added.
The Geismar chemical site near the Mississippi River is used in the production of stronger and lighter polyethylene plastic for packaging and bottles, as well as engine and industrial oils and drilling fluids, according to the company.
Shell announced its final investment decision in the project in November 2015 and construction kicked off in 2016. The project included re-purposing an idled tank farm, significantly expanding rail in the plant and a new water cooling tower. The project took 3,570 metric tons of steel, 18,290 meters of concrete and 85 linear kilometers of pipe to build, according to a Shell announcement.
Shell's chemical business is already considering another expansion project for the Geismar plant, according media reports. Shell is reportedly in the early evaluation stage of a $1.2 billion expansion of a project that would add a "world scale" mono-ethylene glycol unit to the Geismar site, The Advocate reported.
Zinger also pointed out that the alpha olefins in Louisiana could also feed into the new plastic chemicals complex Shell is building in Pennsylvania. Alpha olefins are often funneled into producing polyethylene products. The company is building an ethane cracker in Pennsylvania, which processes the natural gas liquid ethane into ethylene, which will be the feedstock for on-site production of polyethylene, the world's most common plastic.
The projects are part of dozens petrochemical projects that have come online in recent years thanks to the shale boom providing cheap supplies of natural gas, which is a feedstock for chemicals used in a variety of plastics and consumer goods. Since 2010, the American Chemistry Council estimates there has been about $202 billion worth of capital investments announced in the U.S. petrochemical industry, with about $170 billion of those popping up along the Gulf Coast.
Wood Mackenzie estimates that U.S. production of ethylene and polyethylene will double between 2015 to 2025, Zinger said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Shells-starts-up-big-new-Gulf-Coast-petrochemical-13513790.php
-
State Officials Vow to Fight Trump Plan
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Kelsey Brugger and Pamela King
Hundreds of state legislators are banding together to fight the Trump administration's plans to seriously expand offshore drilling.
The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators announced today that more than 225 state legislators from seven coastal states plan to oppose the proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, commonly known as the five-year leasing plan. It's the latest bipartisan effort to block offshore drilling in waters beyond the Gulf of Mexico, where almost all federal extraction occurs.
Last January, former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke proposed to open up more than 90 percent of the outer continental shelf, angering environmentalists, coastal politicians and many small-business owners.
Interior officials have since said the draft proposal was merely exploratory and would be winnowed down. The latest iteration was expected to be released in the coming weeks but has likely been delayed by the government shutdown, S&P Global Platts reported.
Still, opponents are not wasting any time.
Legislators are set to introduce bills across the country to ban offshore drilling in state waters, including in Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island.
"In Georgia, we understand that climate change is real and that we are elected at the state level to protect good jobs, clean water and breathable air," said Georgia state Rep. Park Cannon (D).
The effort builds on offshore drilling bans passed last year in California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland and New Jersey. The intention was to prohibit fossil fuel infrastructure from passing through those states, which have jurisdiction 3 miles offshore.
The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators unites 1,000 environmentally minded legislators from both political parties.
Also, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson — a Republican — yesterday joined a challenge from municipalities and environmental groups to block seismic testing from occurring in the Atlantic Ocean. A coalition of nine East Coast states last month signed on to the lawsuit (E&E News PM, Dec. 20, 2018).
Wilson is the first Republican attorney general to join the case.
"This state joining in, supporting municipalities and the Small Business Chamber of Commerce in efforts to protect our coast, sends the message that we don't want this in South Carolina," South Carolina Environmental Law Project Executive Director Amy Armstrong said in a statement.
Frank Knapp, president of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, called Wilson's move "huge."
"The AG adding other causes of action such as public nuisance and challenging the validity of the President's executive order will increase our chances of stopping the permitting process for blasting our ocean to look for oil that we don't want or need," he said in an email.
The American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Geophysical Contractors and several exploration firms last month moved to intervene in defense of the seismic permits.
"There is no evidence that sound from seismic surveys harm marine mammals or their environment, and surveying has been used safely for 80 years — including during the Obama administration — and reduces the need for multiple test wells, minimizing the environmental footprint and impact," API spokesman Reid Porter wrote in an email.
In 2014, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a finding of "no documented scientific evidence" of harm from seismic testing to marine species and coastal economies.
Opponents of the practice have asked federal regulators to revisit the impact of seismic testing on radioactive waste deposits buried beneath the Atlantic floor (Greenwire, May 3, 2018).
It remains to be seen exactly what the Trump administration's five-year leasing plan will look like. Governors' voices have been considered by previous secretaries, according to Oceana's Diane Hoskins.
"Pretty much every governor wants out," she said last fall.
During the 2018 election campaign, Brian Kemp (R), who narrowly won Georgia's gubernatorial race, said he would be willing to get in the way of offshore drilling. "Look, I support offshore drilling — I just don't want it to be off the coast of Savannah," Kemp said in July, according to the TV news station WSAV.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/08/stories/1060111199
-
BLM Pushes Ahead with ANWR Meetings
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Trump administration is continuing to speed plans to open oil drilling on Alaska federal lands even as negotiations to end the government shutdown remain deadlocked.
The Bureau of Land Management is seeking to set up meetings this month with North Slope stakeholders on its proposal to allow the first-ever leasing on the 1.6-million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Those sessions would focus on the government's recent draft environmental impact statement on the impacts of drilling in that strip of land in northeastern Alaska.
The draft assessment was announced Dec. 20, two days before the government shutdown began (Greenwire, Dec. 20, 2018).
Regulators are accepting comments on the draft EIS until Feb. 11 and plan to hold public meetings in Alaska in Anchorage, Arctic Village, Fairbanks, Kaktovik, Fort Yukon, Venetie and Utqiagvik, as well as a session in Washington, D.C.
Although Interior Department offices are shuttered and restrooms are closed in national parks, top Interior officials insist that they will complete all necessary scientific and regulatory work and hold an oil and gas lease sale for the coastal lands later this year.
Some North Slope community leaders received requests to schedule public meetings on the coastal plain draft EIS from Portland, Ore.-based contractor Environmental Management and Planning Solutions Inc.
Similar requests were also sent by BLM project coordinator Nicole Hayes, according to Alaska's Energy Desk, a regional journalism collaboration.
Acting BLM Alaska Director Ted Murphy told Alaska's Energy Desk that the government is using money left over from the previous fiscal year "for labor and operations for staff and contractors involved" in assessing the draft EIS.
"Work may continue on these projects as long as we have appropriated funds remaining," he said.
Trump officials are fast-tracking the Arctic refuge drilling proposal at a time when House Democrats are vowing to block oil development in the region.
Last year, several House Natural Resources Committee Democrats introduced legislation to repeal language in the 2017 tax law that allows leasing in the coastal plain.
That legislation is expected to be reintroduced this year. But the measure is certain to meet fierce resistance from many Republicans and other groups supporting traditional energy development.
NPR-A public meetings continue
While BLM pushes forward with meetings on ANWR's coastal plain, regulators are already holding public sessions on a proposal to cut back on the amount of land currently protected in the 22.1-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).
Those gatherings are focused on BLM's proposal to write a new integrated activity plan that would open more land to oil and gas development and allow construction of roads and pipelines in northwestern Alaska (Energywire, Jan. 4).
Two meetings on this proposal were held last week in the Alaska Native villages of Utqiagvik and Nuiqsut; additional sessions are scheduled tomorrow in Wainwright and Thursday in Point Lay.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/08/stories/1060111191
-
Can Big Oil Save Us? Drillers Bury CO2 for a Price
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E Cllimatewire
By John Fialka
The first of a three-part series.
Many of the world's largest oil and gas companies are buying their way into renewable energies, developing carbon dioxide capture and storage facilities, and exploring battery technologies for electric vehicles.
Some of them straddle the globe to offer energy products in as many as 70 nations. On this stage, they are using their substantial financial and scientific clout to stake out strong positions in the low-carbon energy world.
One of the most ambitious portfolios is held by Equinor ASA, a company you may have never heard of. It's the newly renamed Statoil in Norway. It didn't use "oil" in its name to signal a growing emphasis in all energy markets.
"We are developing as a broad energy company, it has become natural to change our name," explained Eldar Sætre, the company's CEO.
Over the past four years, Equinor has taken ownership positions in projects all over the world. Its most ambitious joint venture is an alliance with five international oil majors to set up a carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) project in Teesside, an industrial area in northeast England. It will include a natural-gas-fired power plant equipped with technology to collect and concentrate its CO2 — and gases from other plants — for burial in a mineral formation under the North Sea.
Equinor's strategy has been to jump from existing businesses into related low-carbon ventures. It has already used its experience developing offshore oil and gas fields to make the leap into building offshore wind farms. It currently supplies wind power to the United Kingdom, including the world's first floating wind turbines and "Batwind," the first major battery facility to store wind power. It has an offshore wind farm serving Germany and plans to build "Empire Wind," a facility off Long Island, N.Y., that would power more than a million homes in the state.
According to an E&E News review of investment activities of major oil companies, Equinor's moves are not that unusual. Majors represent some of the most cash-rich and science-oriented companies on Earth, and they are moving at various speeds to reduce their financial exposure to the risks of climate change.
While future oil sales are expected to decline because of growing concerns about CO2 emissions, the introduction of carbon taxes and the eventual emergence of electric cars, the demand for electric power from solar and wind is projected to rise by at least 400 percent by 2040, according to a recent report by Exxon Mobil Corp.
For a company whose leaders had been viewing the oil business from Norway's pallid sunlight for over 50 years, does selling solar-generated electric power look like a great business to get into?
It seems to.
Equinor was already pumping oil and gas from offshore fields it owns near Brazil last year when it bought a 40 percent share in Scatec Solar, a company that sells solar power and builds and operates solar farms in relatively sun-rich Brazil.
Irene Rummelhoff, vice president of Equinor's "New Energy Solutions" division, called it a "sensible first step into the solar industry" that will provide "scaleable and profitable growth opportunities" in the future, according to a press release.
In its annual statement, Equinor says it expects to invest 15 to 20 percent of its capital expenditures in new energy solutions by 2030. There are more than 120 CCUS projects in the world, according to Equinor. Most of them, especially those in the U.S., are operated by oil companies that collect CO2 and pump it into existing oil and gas fields. They use the pressure of CO2 to push more oil and natural gas out of the ground.
Equinor's experience started with a tax problem.
Statoil, the predecessor to Equinor, had discovered two big natural gas fields underneath the North Sea. Carbon dioxide, which is often found in natural gas, amounted to 2.5 percent in one of them. That's fine. But the CO2 content of the second field was 9 percent. That's a problem because Norway imposes a stiff tax on CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, and Statoil had to figure out how to avoid the tax to make the new gas field profitable.
So it found a way to remove, compress and inject 6.5 percent of the CO2 into a sandstone formation under the sea. Since then, about 15.5 million metric tons of CO2 has been injected into the sandstone without any signs of leakage.
That led to another potential business. The capacity of the formation, called the Utsira Formation, is huge. It's 820 feet thick and capped by a rock formation that appears to make it leakproof.
The plan turned into "Northern Lights," a project proposed by Equinor, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Total SA, to develop a storage facility that would remove and collect CO2 from various industries in Europe. The oil companies would transport the gas by ship to a terminal northwest of Bergen, Norway, and then use an existing pipeline to inject it into the Utsira Formation.
"This is a solution for many industries wanting to reduce emissions, but who have no way of storing their CO2," Sverre Overå, a project director in Equinor, said in a recent company report. "We would like to see a moderate price for handling CO2 on behalf of others. The ambition is clear that this will ultimately become an industry that can support itself."
The Teesside project in England was the first to be chosen for the majors' experiment with CCUS. That decision was made in November. Stuart Haszeldine, professor of carbon capture and storage at the University of Edinburgh, explained that "producing more electricity from renewable energy is a good thing, but that won't be enough on its own" to limit global warming. "We will have to capture and store far more CO2 if we want to curb climate change in time."
The problem, as he describes it, is the lack of a business plan to commercialize the collection, burial or reuse of CO2. "Right now, carbon capture and storage is too expensive and unprofitable for many players," Haszeldine said.
The professor said that storing CO2 can be done in a very safe way. "CO2 occurs naturally in large underground deposits in many places around the world, where it has been stored geologically for many millions of years." Norway, he noted, has found a place where it can store 1,000 years' worth of its emissions.
Climate scientists have predicted that if a commercial way to support CCUS is achieved, projects like Teesside and Northern Lights could be a giant safety valve. Right now, global emissions exceed the target required to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius by 2050.
One scenario is called "going negative." That involves burning fuels such as wood or liquid "biofuels" now under development to make electricity. The resulting CO2 would be collected and reused or buried.
The concept — if the economics prove out — could begin to lower existing levels of CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere.
From Equinor's point of view, described in its "Energy Perspectives of 2018," majors see similar challenges on the horizon as the world approaches 2020. It predicts that nations may follow one of three diverging pathways just ahead. The most effective one, from a climate point of view, is named "Renewal," which calls for strong government policy coordination and support for projects that can help meet the global 2 C limit.
The second one, called "Reform," relies on world markets and technological developments to push for innovations. Equinor notes that support for carbon capture and storage remains "minuscule."
Finally, there's "Rivalry." And it may already seem familiar to the Trump administration. It poses a world where nations clash and decisions are made based on "other political priorities" apart from climate change.
Equinor notes that the world's two largest carbon emitters changed their policy positions after President Trump's promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement by 2020. "China emerged as a cautious climate policy co-leader prior to the Paris conference, and is now — with the U.S. no longer running for leadership — widely expected to assume an even more central role."
The Norwegian company's view is that China is "not in position to fill the void left by the U.S.," but it expects that China will become part of a new coalition with the European Union and Canada to help shape the world's emerging climate change policies.
Next: Others buy into a low-carbon world.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/01/08/stories/1060111171
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Poised to Vote on Extending CFATS Amid Shutdown
Jan 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
The House is poised to vote Jan. 8 on Democrats' legislation to reauthorize for two years the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) existing industrial facility security program, rejecting GOP calls for changes to the program, though the effort faces uncertain prospects amid the ongoing government shutdown.
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) introduced H.R. 251 seeking a two-year extension of DHS' Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which is set to expire Jan. 19.
Thompson's bill includes no other changes to CFATS, despite competing calls from Republican senators to streamline facilities compliance obligations and from House Democrats and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to strengthen requirements for facilities data disclosures to first responders.
DHS and industry trade groups, including the American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute have been seeking a swift multi-year reauthorization of CFATS, arguing that facilities have invested millions of dollars and instituted thousands of security measures to comply with the regulation that will soon expire.
But the renewal faces uncertainty given the ongoing partial government shutdown and controversy surrounding the Trump administration's approval of industry requests to delay and scale back the Obama EPA's January 2017 final rule updating that agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program with new requirements.
While the RMP rule imposes specific mandatory requirements -- including new requirements for greater disclosure of facility data -- CFATS allows companies to choose security measures to comply with the DHS's risk-based program.
Thompson's bill to extend CFATS rejects competing calls to either streamline or expand the program's requirements, in contrast to legislative proposals in the last Congress.
On Sept. 4, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, introduced a bill seeking a five-year CFATS reauthorization that also would ease regulations on facilities that demonstrate compliance with industry best practices.
Specifically, S. 3405 would limit DHS facility audits or inspections to not more than once every two years, and not more than once every three years at facilities that qualify for a new CFATS Recognition Program the law would enact.
Thompson's bill also declines recent calls from House Democrats and GAO to bolster disclosure of facility data to first responders as part of any program extension.
During a June 14 House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on whether to reauthorize CFATS, Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) and other Democrats sought to preserve provisions of the Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's RMP program that required greater disclosure of facility data to first responders.
GAO has backed calls to strengthen information sharing in DHS' CFATS, recommending in an Aug. 8 report that DHS bolster access to the chemical information that facilities report to the program, coordination required under EPA's Obama-era update to RMP, which the Trump administration is seeking to revise early this year.
Any CFATS reauthorization will likely dovetail with a measure to end the partial shutdown, which Thompson says has 87 percent of DHS staff reporting to work without knowing when they will be paid.
“Since the government shutdown on December 21, roughly 2.5 million holiday travelers each day have passed through airport security checkpoints staffed by Transportation Security officers who aren’t getting paid,” Thompson says in a Jan. 3 statement opposing a border wall at the center of the ongoing partial shutdown.
“These are fellow Americans with bills to pay and families to support,” Thompson adds. “The President should not be treating them like pawns in his pathetic pursuit to fulfill an absurd campaign promise.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/house-poised-vote-extending-cfats-amid-shutdown
-
Shutdown Sets Back U.S. Cyber Defenders
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A popular cyber technology showcase is the latest casualty of a partial government shutdown that's taking a toll on U.S. cybersecurity.
The Department of Homeland Security expected up to 1,000 attendees at its 2019 Cybersecurity and Innovation Showcase, which has been billed as the government's largest cyber research and development conference. It was initially scheduled to kick off today.
Would-be guests were told Friday that the event would be canceled "due to the ongoing lapse in appropriations" for DHS that has stretched on for 17 days and counting.
An agency official said DHS's Science and Technology Directorate is hoping to reschedule the event once the government reopens.
But it's not clear when that date may be, as President Trump and federal lawmakers remain at loggerheads over funding for another part of DHS's wide-ranging mission: border security. Trump has pledged to prolong the shutdown until he receives authorization for building a $5.7 billion wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, among other immigration-related funds. Trump is set to deliver a national address this evening from the Oval Office before heading to the southern border Thursday (E&E News PM, Jan. 7).
Democratic lawmakers have scoffed at the notion of building a wall to block immigrants and asylum-seekers from reaching the country illegally. The new Democratic majority in the House has refused to fund the wall.
The impasse has spilled over into the cybersecurity arena as agencies like DHS and the Department of Commerce cancel events, take down widely used online resources, call off nonessential travel and stop delivering paychecks to "exempted" employees who are required to keep working through the shutdown.
At DHS's newly established Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, roughly 45 percent of the workforce, or about 1,500 people, is furloughed. The rest are still staffing 24/7 cybersecurity watch floors or standing ready to respond to cyber events affecting critical infrastructure like the power grid or oil and gas pipelines, based on the agency's latest plan for operating without federal funding.
"I like to think that the work that I do is important," Allan Friedman, director of cybersecurity at Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said in a Twitter postyesterday. "But a lot of real heavy lifting to secure the critical infrastructure is done by my DHS colleagues. None are being paid — including those running the 24-hour watch at the NCCIC [National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center] — and only half of them are able to do their job."
Friedman, as he notes in his personal Twitter account, is currently furloughed.
Cyber 'standstill'
"Government employees, especially the ones working in critical infrastructure, understand the importance of the mission," said Jason Christopher, a former Department of Energy employee and chief technology officer at cyber risk consultancy Axio Global Inc. (For its part, DOE remains funded through September, a spokesperson confirmed.) "They keep on with the mission, even in times of crisis."
While that may serve to keep the lights on, Christopher pointed out that a lot of voluntary, collaborative work among the government, private sector and academia has "come to a standstill" amid the lapse in appropriations.
He cited work on cybersecurity standards at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, part of the Commerce Department that drafts guidelines on securing everything from industrial control systems to cellphones.
At NIST, fewer than 500 of 3,378 employees are working through the shutdown. The agency has dropped support for a variety of websites that host popular cybersecurity documents like the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity or the widely referenced 800-53 catalog of federal security controls.
"This is not my first rodeo, so I downloaded a lot of those; I already have those offline," Christopher said. "But a lot of folks, if they're having a question about something for the first time, they may find themselves a little bit out of the loop."
That adds up to an "inconvenience" for cybersecurity efforts rather than a major risk, Christopher noted.
But current and former government workers, including the previous deputy undersecretary of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's precursor office at DHS, have warned that the lingering shutdown could have long-term side effects on morale.
Whitney Merrill, a former cybersecurity attorney at the Federal Trade Commission, pointed outthat "the government shutdown is anxiety inducing, and drives great employees away from government service."
"Imagine not knowing when or if you'll get paid," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/08/stories/1060111207
-
In Our View: Step up Safety of Trains
Jan 8, 2019 | The Columbian
By Editorial Board
Although a proposal for an oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver was rejected last year, oil trains continue to roll through Clark County toward their destination. The safety of trains through the heart of Vancouver, near residential neighborhoods and the new Waterfront Vancouver development, remains a concern for local residents.
Because of that, a miscalculation on the part of the Trump administration is noteworthy. In rolling back Obama-era safety measures, U.S. Department of Transportation officials underestimated the effectiveness of those measures and erred on behalf of the railroad industry. The Associated Press reports, “A government analysis used by the administration to justify the cancellation omitted up to $117 million in estimated future damages that could be avoided by using electronic brakes.”
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, has introduced legislation to reinstate rules requiring electronic braking on trains carrying either crude oil or flammable liquids. That legislation was introduced before The Associated Press report revealed the miscalculation, and the new information should give lawmakers additional impetus for reinstating the rules. “For the sake of our Columbia River Gorge communities and our environment, we need stronger safety measures when it comes to transporting hazardous materials by rail,” Herrera Beutler said.
In 2015, the Obama administration began requiring electric pneumatic brakes, which work simultaneously on all cars of a train and result in quicker stops and less frequent derailments. Current braking systems deploy sequentially on the cars, and rail safety expert Steven Ditmeyer told The Associated Press: “These ECP brakes are very important for oil trains. It makes a great deal of sense. All the brakes get applied immediately, and there would be fewer cars in the pileup.”
The railroad industry has opposed implementation of the rule, which the Obama administration estimated would cost $664 million over 20 years and save between $470 million and $1.1 billion from accidents that would be avoided. The Trump administration used faulty calculations in overturning the rule, but officials have said they will not change their ruling.
It is no surprise the administration is willing to place citizens and the environment at risk in favor of big business. Trump’s two years in office have been marked by continual assaults on environmental regulations and by any action that has his predecessor’s name linked to it. When it comes to the potential of catastrophic train derailments, this is unconscionable. Oil-bearing trains are using technology that is more than a century old when advanced technology is readily available.
For Southwest Washington, that creates a risk. The state Department of Ecology deems the region a major oil train corridor, with about 546 million gallons of crude moving through the area during the second quarter of 2018. Trains typically travel through the Gorge and through Vancouver before turning toward refineries in the Puget Sound region. That risk was evident in 2016, when 16 cars derailed near Mosier, Ore., in the Gorge, resulting in a fire, the evacuation of the town and an oil sheen on the Columbia River.
Congress should adopt Herrera Beutler’s bill to reinstate the sensible train-safety requirements imposed by the Obama administration. Even without an oil terminal in town, Vancouver and surrounding communities should be protected as much as possible from the danger presented by oil trains.
https://www.columbian.com/news/2019/jan/07/in-our-view-step-up-safety-of-trains/
-
D.C. Circuit Urged to Rule on Ozone NAAQS 'Feasibility' Argument
Jan 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to quickly rule on their claim EPA cannot consider "feasibility" of attaining federal air standards when setting the limits, citing D.C. Circuit precedent they argue shows the court should not delay ruling on the issue in their favor.
In a Jan. 4 letter to the court, environmentalists cite the D.C. Circuit's 2011 decision in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, which "strongly supports this Court’s deciding here that EPA lacks authority to consider purported attainability issues resulting from background ozone when promulgating national ambient air quality standards."
In Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, environmentalists are both defending the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) against industry arguments it should be weaker, and also arguing for a more stringent standard than the NAAQS of 70 parts per billion (ppb). The Obama EPA tightened the standard down from the prior level of 75 ppb set by former President George W. Bush's administration.
Industry opponents of the tougher NAAQS say EPA unlawfully failed to take into account naturally-occurring or foreign-sourced "background" ozone when setting the standard. Local regulators cannot control background ozone, and in areas with high background levels, this could render the 70 ppb standard impossible to implement, they say.
At oral argument in the case Dec. 18, D.C. Circuit Judges Nina Pillard, Thomas Griffith and Robert Wilkins appeared to back EPA's tougher NAAQS, although the court is yet to issue a ruling. EPA in the suit argued it has no statutory obligation to take background ozone into account when setting NAAQS, and said it has programs to mitigate the impact of background ozone to help states attain the standards.
Environmentalists back those arguments, but go further, arguing the agency cannot consider background ozone in setting NAAQS, and in their new letter say the NRDC case bolsters their claims.
The NRDC case concerned the ongoing obligations of areas that have at one time violated federal ozone standards. But environmentalists say it creates a precedent against any delay in addressing the background and feasibility issue. The court in NRDC held "because the challenged action 'violate[d] the statute’s plain language and our precedent, nothing would be gained by postponing a decision on the merits,' and that delay could 'exacerbate' injury to the petitioner," environmental law firm Earthjustice says on behalf of environmental groups.
Environmentalists say the D.C. Circuit should not wait any longer to address whether EPA is in fact prohibited from considering feasibility when setting NAAQS. "The Clean Air Act and binding precedent foreclose consideration of attainability in standard-setting," they say.
Environmentalists further claim state petitioners' reliance on a 2002 D.C. Circuit ruling in one of a line of related cases, known as American Trucking Associations (ATA) v. EPA III, is misplaced. "The relevant issue in ATA III was a welfare standard for visibility harms from particulate matter, and the Court and EPA relied in part on Congress’s establishing a statutory program with a national goal of eliminating 'manmade' visibility impairment."
But that "program is irrelevant here," environmentalists say, because the legal basis for the NAAQS program and the regional haze program at issue in ATA III are entirely different.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-urged-rule-ozone-naaqs-feasibility-argument
-
New White House Environment Chief to Push Climate Resilience
Jan 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The Trump administration has committed to boosting U.S. resiliency to flooding and other risks linked to climate change as part of a deal to confirm a top White House environmental official.
Council on Environmental Quality chairwoman Mary Neumayr, whom the Senate unanimously confirmed Jan. 2, agreed to work with the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force to better prepare for extreme weather events and develop better infrastructure, according to letters sent to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year that were released Jan. 7.
“I commit to working with you and your staff on matters relating to improving the nation’s preparedness and resilience to future risks,” Neumayr told Environment and Public Works ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).
Congress set up the task force in 1975 to help develop a national flood plain management plan. It includes members from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the departments of agriculture, commerce, and energy, and other agencies.
NEPA HearingNeumayr also told Carper she would schedule a public hearing in the Mid-Atlantic region on upcoming regulations to revise how the National Environmental Policy Act is implemented.
The 1970 law requires agencies to assess environmental impacts of large development projects and continue to report greenhouse gas emissions across the federal government while promoting federal sustainability efforts.
Neumayr and two other nominees—Alexandra Dapolito Dunn to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and W. Charles “Chad” McIntosh to lead the EPA’s Office of International and Tribal Affairs—were confirmed by the Senate only after CEQ and the EPA agreed to comply with requests from Senate Democrats on chemicals and pesticides policy and sustainability matters.
President Donald Trump had nominated Neumayr in June 2018 for the position, which coordinates and facilitates environmental policy issues across federal agencies.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-white-house-environment-chief-to-push-climate-resilience
-
Who the GOP Should Pick for Select Committee on Climate
Jan 7, 2019 | The Hill- E2 Wire
By Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
If a select committee on climate change is established in the new Congress, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy should populate it with Republicans ready to enter the competition of ideas rather than disputers intent on running from the science.
Our party, the Republican Party, is best when it thinks big, when it aims at solutions rather than scapegoats and when it relies on data rather than dogma. There was a consensus that America would lead the world to solutions on climate change. It was well expressed as far back as 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. That consensus held through early 2008 as Newt Gingrich appeared in an ad with Nancy Pelosi, making the case for action.
Then came the Great Recession. Fear took hold. Vested interests used that fear to sell some nostalgia about the incumbent fuels, masking their real aim of extracting the last bit of economic rents out of their tired, old technologies.
Republicans started saying, “I’m not a scientist” when they were asked about climate change. Years went by and that line began to poll poorly, probably because it was akin to saying, “I’m not a doctor, I have no position on health care; I’m not a truck driver, I have no position on highway funding.”
As Trump appointees sought confirmation the company line became, “Of course climate change is real, and we humans have a part in it; we’re just not sure how much of a part.”
Apparently, that line didn’t work too well for us in the 2018 elections.
Now that Democrats are taking control of the House, a new line has appeared: “We need innovation, not regulation.” In the months to come, the obvious follow-up question to anyone using this new line will be, “How? How do we get innovation?”
This is great ground on which prepared conservatives can engage. Some of the most energized Democrats will be talking about regulations, mandates and incentives. Conservatives who are ready to talk solutions will have a fabulous opportunity to step forward with simple pricing mechanisms that would make Milton Friedman proud.
Republicans on a select committee could urge their Democratic colleagues to join committees of jurisdiction in asking for a dramatic increase of ARPA-E funding. A commitment to basic research into the fuels and materials of the future would be a winner for both parties because it would be a winner for America and for the world.
With constructive hearings, a select committee could begin the conversation about how to achieve commercialization of those technologies. Here’s where conservatives could shine. We could make the case for simple accountability, making all fuels compete with all of their costs transparently exposed to the marketplace. No more socializing soot. No more free polluting. Either capture the CO2 from your processes or pay the damages those emissions are causing.
Once the full cost of the incumbent fuels and materials are revealed, demand will rise for the cleaner, challenger fuels and materials. Consumers, via the liberty of enlightened self-interest, will drive that innovation.
If this internalization of negative externalities is accomplished by a simple carbon tax at the mine and at the pipeline, if that new tax is paired with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in existing taxes or a dividend of all of the carbon tax revenue back to citizens, and if the tax is applied to imports, America will lead the world to solutions.
None of this will happen if conservatives continue to dispute the science. If a select committee is populated by disputers of the science, they will deepen the caricature of the GOP as a party out of step with the new realities.
With climate impacts upon us, it’s not a good idea to make climate change a laugh line. North Carolinians who saw Hurricane Florence drop 50 percent more rain than would have been expected won’t laugh. Californians who’ve experienced the connection between climate change and wildfires won’t chuckle. Western lumbering communities won’t see the humor in the denial of the connection between warmer weather and bark beetle reproduction rates. None of us will be laughing when we find out what happens when permafrost melts, dramatically increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
It’s always hard to change a party’s talking points. They can be changed by courage and leadership, or they can be changed when they are obviously overtaken by facts and circumstances. Productive engagement on a select committee on climate change is within your power. Please use that power to lead our party to its new talking points on climate change. Let people who celebrate the science of climate change, people who represent districts with immediate climate concerns, people who know it's real, serve constructively on the climate panel.
Former Republican Rep. Bob Inglis represented South Carolina’s 4th District from 1993 to 1999 and 2005 to 2011. Inglis is the executive director of republicEn.org, a group of conservatives engaging conservatives on climate change.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/423925-who-the-gop-should-pick-for-select-committee-on-climate
-
New Governor Promises to Fight Trump on Climate
Jan 7, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Anne C. Mulkern
New California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) today pledged to make the Golden State a leader in opposing the policies of the Trump administration on climate change and other issues.
Newsom took the oath of office at the state Capitol in Sacramento with his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and their children at his side. He succeeds outgoing Gov. Jerry Brown (D), whom Newsom credited for leadership on fighting global warming.
Newsom, the state's 40th governor, took several swings at President Trump, saying, "We will offer an alternative to the corruption and the incompetence in the White House."
He added, "Now more than ever, it's up to us to defend" the California dream. "Thankfully, we have a champion in that [House] Speaker Nancy Pelosi," a California Democrat, is there "to help us."
"There's an administration in Washington that is clearly hostile to California values and California's interests," Newsom said. "California has always helped write America's future, and we know the decisions we make would be important at any time. But what we do today is even more consequential because of what is happening in our country.
"People's lives, freedoms, security, the water we drink, the air we breathe, they all hang in the balance," Newsom said. "The country is watching us. The world is waiting on us, and the future depends on us. And we will seize the moment."
Newsom drew comparisons between what he called the achievements of the nation's most populous state and the federal government. He noted that California's economy is the fifth largest in the world and that it has created nearly 3 million jobs.
"Where Washington has failed on the epochal challenge of climate change," he said, "California led, extending our cap-and-trade system and setting bold targets for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and then beating them."
He also promised to fight back against "polluters who threaten our coastline."
Green groups mostly praised the speech.
"We're optimistic that Gov. Newsom will stand up to polluters both offshore and onshore, becoming the bold climate leader that California and the world sorely need," Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. "Newsom must first fill the gaping hole Jerry Brown left in California's climate policy. That means committing to a thoughtful phaseout of the state's own oil and gas extraction."
The Western States Petroleum Association, a trade group for the largest oil companies, offered a different perspective.
"Oil and gas will remain a vital part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future and we look forward to working with Governor Newsom and the new administration on planning for a truly sustainable energy future," WSPA President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement. "Our work together must protect the environment and the more than 368,000 oil and gas industry jobs that provide opportunities for upward mobility and economic growth in the communities we serve."
David Festa, Environmental Defense Fund's senior vice president, said Newsom faces many environmental challenges, including how to deal with the state's massive wildfires.
"Californians live with year-round catastrophic wildfires that threaten lives and communities," he said in a statement. "Multi-year droughts are stressing water supplies. Rising sea levels and flooding threaten to ravage our coastal communities. It is imperative that Gov. Newsom address these threats with solutions that make California more resilient to climate change."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/01/07/stories/1060111153
-
Blue Wave Roils Environmental Lawsuits as States Turn to Courts
Jan 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Democratic attorneys general riding a blue wave into office could do a U-turn on lawsuits spearheaded by their Republican predecessors—many of which challenge tighter federal environmental regulations.
The shuffling politics won’t materially affect challenges to such rules as the EPA’s redefinition of the reach of the nation’s clean water law, because other plaintiffs are still pushing the lawsuits.
Legal experts say, however, it highlights how environmental litigation has become too central to policy making, and states have become too litigious since a landmark climate change decision opened the courthouse doors to them.
Incoming attorneys general dropping out of cases or reversing course can have real consequences: They can create confusion about whether the arguments of ex-attorneys general still apply or whether orders to halt federal regulations sought by their predecessors should still be enforced in states that have flipped.
“I think if an attorney general is smart, they won’t change everything,” Brad Mank, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, told Bloomberg Environment. “If you mildly disagree, I don’t think an attorney general should change. You look like a fool.”
A prime example is the EPA’s Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS), which expanded the types of bodies of water that the federal government could regulate.
Democrats captured four attorney general seats, and that means states like Michigan and Wisconsin—where departing Republicans Bill Schuette and Brad Schimel sued over the waters rule—may now be on the opposite side of the litigation.
Turning on a DimeMany Republicans and industry groups vigorously opposed the Obama administration rule, arguing it could force businesses to obtain permits for small streams or ditches that previously hadn’t been regulated.
Schimel was one of several Republican attorneys general who successfully sued and got an injunction earlier this year that blocked WOTUS from taking effect in their states. Schuette was also seeking a injunction for Michigan, but the judge there hasn’t ruled yet.
With both Schimel and Schuette out of the picture, the new Democratic attorneys general in these states could ask the courts to lift the injunction, which would make WOTUS the law of the land in Wisconsin and Michigan, Blan Holman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said.
“I don’t think there’s anything that would stop them from doing that,” Holman, who represents environmentalists in the ongoing WOTUS litigation, said. “That’s part of the reason, I suppose, to elect an attorney general.”
Dana Nessel, the new attorney general of Michigan, will be making decisions about whether to continue the lawsuits she inherited from Schuette “in the near future,” her spokeswoman Kelly Rossman-McKinney told Bloomberg Environment.
The office of Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul didn’t respond to requests for comment.
‘Courts Should Be Wary’This electoral oscillation is a relatively recent phenomenon, according to Tara Grove, a constitutional law professor at the College of William & Mary. That’s because states used to have fewer opportunities to sue federal agencies.
Historically, a state was only allowed to sue when a federal agency was encroaching on its authority, Grove said. That changed after the landmark 2007 climate change case Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can also sue when federal agencies fail to address a pressing national issue, she said.
This made it much easier for attorneys general to take federal agencies to court. That’s exactly what they’ve done, with coalitions of Republican states suing over the Obama administration’s environmental regulations and issues such as the Affordable Care Act.
This surge in state-led suits against federal agencies hasn’t stopped during the current administration. Democratic attorneys general have sued over the Trump administration’s rollbacks of environmental regulations, the Muslim travel ban, its handling of asylum seekers, and plans to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
But Grove said federal policy making isn’t supposed to go this way. When a handful of states sues to force an agency to issue a new policy or to overturn an existing one, they are essentially using the courts as a veto over matters that affect the entire country, she told Bloomberg Environment.
“Courts should be wary” of these suits, she said. “In my view, that’s not something an individual state’s voters should get to decide.”
Who Decides?Republican legislatures in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan responded to Democratic takeovers of the statehouse by moving to limit the power of their governors and attorneys general to represent the state in court.
Those moves have infuriated Democrats and haven’t all been successful. But Mank said there are good nonpolitical reasons to shift the power to litigate away from the attorney general.
“That legislature may be more representative in speaking for the whole state,” he said.
Adam Kron, an attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project, said it would be wrong to make it harder for states to take the federal government to court.
He acknowledged that state-initiated environmental lawsuits are often politically motivated and can be upended when state offices change hands. But he said these downsides are outweighed by the power to act as a check on federal overreach.
“The Trump EPA has attempted to undo and subvert rules,” Kron told Bloomberg Environment. “Lawsuits are an important bulwark against that.”
But there may be even larger forces at play here.
Amy Wildermuth, the dean of the University of Pittsburgh law school, said this issue wouldn’t even be a problem if Congress would update the existing environmental laws to resolve disputes that have been playing out in the courts for years.
Until Congress does, litigation is going to turn into politics by another name.
“If we’re turning to the courts to do what Congress should do, of course it’s going to be political,” Wildermuth told Bloomberg Environment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/blue-wave-roils-environmental-lawsuits-as-states-turn-to-courts
-
U.S. Carbon Emissions Surged in 2018 Even as Coal Plants Closed
Jan 8, 2019 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer
America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to a preliminary estimate published Tuesday.
Strikingly, the sharp uptick in emissions occurred even as a near-record number of coal plants around the United States retired last year, illustrating how difficult it could be for the country to make further progress on climate change in the years to come, particularly as the Trump administration pushes to roll back federal regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The estimate, by the research firm Rhodium Group, pointed to a stark reversal. Fossil fuel emissions in the United States have fallen significantly since 2005 and declined each of the previous three years, in part because of a boom in cheap natural gas and renewable energy, which have been rapidly displacing dirtier coal-fired power.
Yet even a steep drop in coal use last year wasn’t enough to offset rising emissions in other parts of the economy. Some of that increase was weather-related: A relatively cold winter led to a spike in the use of oil and gas for heating in areas like New England.
But, just as important, as the United States economy grew at a strong pace last year, emissions from factories, planes and trucks soared. And there are few policies in place to clean those sectors up.
“The big takeaway for me is that we haven’t yet successfully decoupled U.S. emissions growth from economic growth,” said Trevor Houser, a climate and energy analyst at the Rhodium Group.
As United States manufacturing boomed, for instance, emissions from the nation’s industrial sectors — including steel, cement, chemicals and refineries — increased by 5.7 percent.
Policymakers working on climate change at the federal and state level have so far largely shied away from regulating heavy industry, which directly contributes about one-sixth of the country’s carbon emissions. Instead, they’ve focused on decarbonizing the electricity sector through actions like promoting wind and solar power.
But even as power generation has gotten cleaner, those overlooked industrial plants and factories have become a larger source of climate pollution. The Rhodium Group estimates that the industrial sector is on track to become the second-biggest source of emissions in California by 2020, behind only transportation, and the biggest source in Texas by 2022.
There’s a similar story in transportation: Since 2011, the federal government has been steadily ratcheting up fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks, although the Trump administration has proposed to halt the toughening of those standards after 2021.
There are signs that those standards have been effective. In the first nine months of 2018, Americans drove slightly more miles in passenger vehicles than they did over that span the previous year, yet gasoline use dropped by 0.1 percent, thanks in part to fuel-efficient vehicles and electric cars.
But, as America’s economy expanded last year, trucking and air travel also grew rapidly, leading to a 3 percent increase in diesel and jet fuel use and spurring an overall rise in transportation emissions for the year. Air travel and freight have also attracted less attention from policymakers to date and are considered much more difficult to electrify or decarbonize.
Demand for electricity surged last year, too, as the economy grew, and renewable power did not expand fast enough to meet the extra demand. As a result, natural gas filled in the gap, and emissions from electricity rose an estimated 1.9 percent. (Natural gas produces lower CO2 emissions than coal when burned, but it is still a fossil fuel.)
Even with last year’s increase, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States are still down 11 percent since 2005, a period of considerable economic growth. Trump administration officials have often cited that broader trend as evidence that the country can cut its climate pollution without strict regulations.
But if the world wants to avert the most dire effects of global warming, major industrialized countries, including the United States, will have to cut their fossil-fuel emissions much more drastically than they are currently doing.
Last month, scientists reported that greenhouse gas emissions worldwide rose at an accelerating pace in 2018, putting the world on track to face some of the most severe consequences of global warming sooner than expected.
Under the Paris climate agreement, the United States vowed to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The Rhodium Group report warns that this target now looks nearly unattainable without a flurry of new policies or technological advances to drive down emissions throughout the economy.
“The U.S. has led the world in emissions reductions in the last decade thanks in large part to cheap gas displacing coal,” said Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, who was not involved in the analysis. “But that has its limits, and markets alone will not deliver anywhere close to the pace of decarbonization needed without much stronger climate policy efforts that are unfortunately stalled if not reversed under the Trump administration.”
The Rhodium Group created its estimate by using government data for the first three-quarters of 2018 combined with more recent industry data. The United States government will publish its official emissions estimates for all of 2018 later this year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase.html
-
Lesson From 2018: Republicans Must Deal With Climate Change
Jan 7, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Ryan Costello
As one of many Republican congressmen who just packed up their offices to make way for the Democratic majority, I’ve had time to reflect on what went wrong for the party. There are seismic political shifts under way on issues ranging from climate change to immigration to gun violence. If Republicans don’t adapt by offering meaningful solutions, the midterm losses could be only the beginning.
The disconnect may be widest on climate change, in which the gap between Republican voters and their elected leaders continues to grow. More than 80% of Americans—including nearly two-thirds of GOP voters—believe the government should take action to reduce carbon emissions, according to an online survey released last fall. A May 2018 report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that a majority of Republicans believed the U.S. should remain in the Paris Agreement.
While climate change may not be a top-tier issue for many older Americans, it certainly is for millennials, who will soon be the nation’s largest voting bloc. On the environment, the GOP is splintering along generational lines. Over the past two years, 23% of young Republicans abandoned the GOP for the Democratic Party. Importantly, those who remain support carbon dividends—charging fossil-fuel companies for their carbon emissions and returning the money to taxpayers—at the same rate as their Democratic counterparts, according to the previously mentioned online survey. The Republican Party needs to listen to these voters. Their generation is no longer passive: Young voter turnout in the midterms jumped 10 points above the 2014 numbers, a historic high. That electoral math should keep GOP strategists awake at night.
For Republicans to be the party of the future, we need a plan to protect the planet. With the early impacts of climate change plain for all to see in extreme weather patterns, it is high time for the GOP to renew its proud legacy of environmental conservation by proposing market-based climate solutions.
Environmentally sound policies can benefit business. Many of America’s largest companies, including Exxon Mobil , Walmart and Apple , now go out of their way to tout their climate commitments, and they made it clear they wanted the U.S. to remain party to the Paris Agreement. American corporations understand that renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies are the way of the future, capable of unleashing trillions of dollars in economic gains and millions of new jobs, according to a recent study from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.
Some Republicans argue that reducing domestic emissions could put America at a competitive disadvantage. This gets it backward: U.S. industry is more energy-efficient than that of our largest trading partners, China and Canada. If the U.S. enacts border carbon adjustments to charge foreign companies for the carbon content of their imports, it would make its own industry more competitive and encourage trading partners to reduce their emissions.
Without a forward-looking plan to combat climate change, Republicans have ceded the debate entirely to Democrats, whose solutions of choice are often heavy-handed regulation and more government spending. A market-based solution would be more cost-effective. The GOP should wholeheartedly embrace this alternative, especially in the run-up to the 2020 election in which climate policy may become a bigger issue.
What would a Republican climate solution look like? Former GOP Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz recently introduced a climate plan that rests on four pillars: a robust and rising carbon fee, returning all the money raised directly to citizens on a quarterly basis, phasing out carbon regulations that are no longer needed, and a border carbon adjustment to level the economic playing field.
The Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividends Plan is a winner for the GOP and for the environment. First, it is widely popular. Surveys reveal that Republican voters support the plan by a 3-to-1 margin, and millennials support it by a 4-to-1 margin. Second, the majority of American families would receive more in quarterly dividends than they would pay in energy fees. Third, the plan would exceed the emissions reductions called for under America’s Paris commitment. Finally, climate-conscious voters would have an alternative to more regulation and government spending.
America could thereby lead the way in developing the clean technologies of the future and solving the most pressing global challenge of our time. In short, this is the climate solution that the American people and the Republican Party have been waiting for.
Mr. Costello is managing director of Americans for Carbon Dividends. He served as a Republican representative from Pennsylvania, 2015-19.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lesson-from-2018-republicans-must-deal-with-climate-change-11546908779?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
Fitch to Start Saying How Climate, Social Issues Affect Ratings
Jan 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan
Social and environmental issues like climate change, labor relations, and carbon prices occasionally drive changes in corporate credit ratings and Fitch Ratings is starting to tell investors exactly when they do.
The third-largest global credit grading company Jan. 7 said it will publicly disclose how environmental, social, and governance factors influence credit-rating decisions. According to the firm’s research about 3 percent of its current ratings actions have been directly triggered by an ESG issue, while another 19 percent of grades were influenced by at least one.
“What we’re trying to do for investors is help them understand what ESG factors are important from a credit perspective,” said Andrew Steel, global head of sustainable finance at Fitch Ratings in London. “In credit, ESG is all about managing downside risk—you either repay your debt or you don’t.”
The bond grader’s scores will focus more on how an issue, like hazardous waste management or human rights, impacts an issuer’s ability to repay its debt over the next three to five years, rather than how a company is performing overall on the issue. For an automaker, for example, Fitch might highlight risks around emissions standards changes or the competitive risks of not producing electric vehicles in certain markets. For sovereign issuers, Steel said the firm would look at risks over a 10-year time horizon, including how a government is prepared for storms and floods.
Fitch said it has trained over 1,300 of its analysts to produce research for non-financial firms on these metrics that it is publishing Jan. 7, and will offer ESG ratings information on financial, sovereign, public and structured finance issuers over the next four months. The firm looked at 52 corporate sectors for its initial efforts, focusing on issues considered material to investors and regulators.
“These are the same analysts that produce the overall rating, so when they go to issuers they’ll be talking holistically about credit-influencing ESG factors, and how those relate to their fundamental decisions,” Steel said.
Credit raters have been broadly working on incorporating more ESG issues into their ratings, amid increased investor demand. Fitch signed onto a United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment last September and joined a working group of credit raters that are working on incorporating ESG into their grades.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/fitch-to-start-saying-how-climate-social-issues-affect-ratings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested