Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - January 9, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Witness a Soft Q4 With Sluggish Production Growth
Jan 9, 2019 | Zacks
By Anindya Barman
Global chemicals production remained at a sluggish pace in fourth-quarter 2018 with November witnessing a modest uptick in production on lower capacity utilization, according to the recent monthly report from the American Chemistry Council (“ACC”). -
(ACC Mentioned) Judge Orders EPA To Release Wheeler's Outside Contacts
Jan 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
A federal judge has ordered EPA to release documents related to contacts between Acting chief Andrew Wheeler and other Trump appointees and outside groups within a year, bolstering their efforts to challenge regulatory rollbacks and providing fresh fodder to tie Wheeler to industry just as the Senate prepares to weigh his pending nomination. -
The Trump EPA’s First TSCA Risk Evaluation Is A Skyscraper Of Cards, Not Just A House
Jan 9, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund.
By Richard Denison
We blogged before the holiday break about how EPA used a single, unverified and conflicted estimate of worker exposure to build a whole house of cards and then used it to conclude that Pigment Violet 29 (or PV29) poses no risk to human health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Calls For Baker To Sign Bill Banning Flame Retardants Used In Children's Products, Furniture
Jan 9, 2019 | Boston 25 News
By Kerry Kavanaugh
Legislators and advocates are calling on Governor Charlie Baker to sign a bill into law that would ban certain flame retardants. -
(ACC Mentioned) Baker Facing Pressure On Flame Retardant Bill
Jan 8, 2019 | CommonWealth magazine
By Matt Murphy
GOV. CHARLIE BAKER is facing mounting pressure to sign a bill that would ban the use of certain toxic flame retardant chemicals in many products as industry groups lobby hard for the Republican to veto the bill. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Call on Gov. Baker To Sign Bill Banning Several Flame Retardant Chemicals
Jan 8, 2019 | WWLP.com
By Jodi Reed
Firefighters joined state lawmakers on Monday to share a powerful message about items in your home that contain poisonous flame retardant chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill to Preserve Chemical Security Program Passed by House
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The House passed a bill to extend an expiring chemical facility security program, with Democrats and Republicans hoping to buy time for negotiations on its future. -
House Passes 2-year Extension Of Chemical Safety Program
Jan 8, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
The House voted overwhelmingly today to reauthorize H.R. 251 (116), the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, for two years. -
House Passes Bill To Extend Security Program
Jan 9, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
The House yesterday passed fast-tracked legislation to extend a chemical security program for two years. -
EPA Moves To Ban Toxic Paint-Stripper Chemical For Some — But Not All — Uses
Jan 8, 2019 | The Washington Post
By By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
In the past year, major retailers such as Lowe’s and Home Depot have pulled a toxic chemical used in paint strippers, methylene chloride, from their shelves. -
EPA Training Program Hints At Retreat From Obama-Era Paint Stripper Ban
Jan 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists fear a proposed EPA training program to limit commercial exposures to methylene chloride in paint strippers hints at a retreat from an Obama-era plan to prohibit the use outright, suggesting the agency will instead finalize a scaled-back ban that will allow some paint-stripping uses of the chemical despite potential risks to workers. -
Trump EPA To Leave Lethal Paint Stripper Chemical Legal for Workers
Jan 8, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
The Trump administration is likely to allow methylene chloride, a dangerous chemical that can kill a person on contact, to remain an ingredient in paint stripper products for commercial use. The decision would be a significant retreat from a ban on the chemical for both commercial and consumer use proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency two years ago. -
EPA Maintains PFAS Levels Despite Stricter ATSDR Finding
Jan 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA appears to be planning to extend its 2016 advisory levels for contamination from two perfluorinated compounds in drinking water to groundwater remediation, despite a draft risk assessment from the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) suggesting that the levels are not adequately protective. -
California Bill Seeks to Trash Paper Receipts, Threatens Fines
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
Businesses could be fined in California if they don’t ditch the paper receipt and turn to electronic proofs of purchase for alcohol, food, services, and personal property transactions, under a new bill. -
California Lawmaker Pushes Bill Requiring Businesses To Use E-Receipts
Jan 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Michael Burke
A state lawmaker in California on Tuesday rolled out legislation that would make California the first state to require businesses to offer electronic receipts to customers. -
EPA Ignores CDC Guidelines in Chemical Cleanup Plan
Jan 9, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA has signed off on guidelines for cleaning up toxic chemicals that are contaminating hundreds of military bases and other sites around the country, but its recommended threshold is roughly 10 times higher than the levels deemed safe by the CDC, according to a draft document reviewed by POLITICO. -
Saudi Arabia Edges Toward Bet on Booming U.S. Energy Sector
Jan 8, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sarah McFarlane and Summer Said
Aramco’s potential deal to invest in U.S. liquefied natural gas projects would mark a sea change in the energy flows between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia -
TransCanada Hopes to Start Construction on Keystone XL by June
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
TransCanada Corp. is hoping to start construction by June on its decade-old Keystone XL oil pipeline project, even as the U.S. government shutdown threatens to delay a key legal proceeding. -
Lawmakers Push Bipartisan Anti-Drilling Measures
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney
Coastal House members are making good on their promise to push anti-offshore-drilling measures early in the new Congress. -
U.S. LNG Producers Face Risk Unless Trade War Resolved: Energy Group
Jan 8, 2019 | Reuters
By Timothy Gardner
The nascent U.S. liquefied natural gas export industry has been particularly vulnerable to the U.S.-China trade war, the head of the American Petroleum Institute industry group said on Tuesday, adding that he hopes negotiators will soon resolve the dispute. -
Oil Lobby Frets Over Trade War
Jan 8, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The nation’s main oil lobbying group is growing increasingly concerned about the impacts to the industry from President Trump’s ongoing trade war. -
Oil Lobby Group: China Trade Tensions Hurt New U.S. Energy Influence
Jan 8, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
American Petroleum Institute chief Mike Sommers today warned that the Trump administration's trade tensions with China threatened companies' access to the crucial energy market at a moment when rising U.S. oil and gas output was expanding U.S. influence. -
Agency In Limbo As DHS Pivots To Cybersecurity
Jan 9, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Government watchdogs say the Department of Homeland Security should find a more fitting home for the Federal Protective Service. -
Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s Virginia Facility Wins Air Permit
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
A proposed compressor station in central Virginia that would push natural gas through the yet-to-be-built 600-mile Atlantic Coast pipeline cleared a critical hurdle Jan. 8, when state regulators approved its air permit. -
Pennsylvania Pledges 80 Percent Greenhouse Gas Cut by 2050 (1)
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Pennsylvania is joining a host of other cities and states pledging ambitious cuts to their greenhouse gases in the absence of federal action to address climate change. -
New GHG Findings Clash With Industry Defense Of Gas As Climate Strategy
Jan 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
New findings of a sharp spike in domestic greenhouse gas emission levels are clashing with the oil and gas sector's argument that increased use of natural gas, a lower carbon fuel source than coal, is an effective climate strategy, an argument that Trump administration officials have generally echoed.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Witness a Soft Q4 With Sluggish Production Growth
Jan 9, 2019 | Zacks
By Anindya Barman
Global chemicals production remained at a sluggish pace in fourth-quarter 2018 with November witnessing a modest uptick in production on lower capacity utilization, according to the recent monthly report from the American Chemistry Council (“ACC”).
Production Continues on Soft Note
The chemical industry trade group said that the Global Chemical Production Regional Index ("CPRI") rose a paltry 0.1% in November on a monthly comparison basis, following similar growth in October.
The Global CPRI, which is measured using a three-month moving average, measures chemical production volumes for 33 major nations, sub-regions and regions. It is comparable to the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) production indices.
According to the ACC, the Global CPRI edged down 0.1% year over year on a three-month moving average basis. Capacity utilization for the global chemical industry eased 0.1 percentage points to 83.1% in November. Utilization fell from 86% a year ago.
On a segment basis, production went up in agricultural chemicals and specialty chemicals in November while basic chemicals saw flat growth. By regions, November witnessed higher production across North America, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. However, output fell in Europe.
Per the ACC, chemical production in the United States went up 0.2% on a monthly comparison basis in November. This follows a 0.5% sequential decline a month ago.
The trade group expects U.S. chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) to rise 3.6% in 2019, following a 3.1% growth in 2018. The expansion is expected to be driven by growth in manufacturing and export, gains in business investment and sustained demand across light vehicles and housing markets.
Trade Tensions Remain a Worry
The prospects of the chemical industry have been clouded by the trade tussle between the United States and China. Washington and Beijing slapped billions of dollars in punitive tariffs on each others’ products last year. China’s tariffs on American products include a wide range of chemicals and plastics.
China is one of the biggest export markets for U.S. chemicals. Beijing’s trade actions have created an uncertain demand environment for U.S. chemical products in this major market. Chemical industry trade groups are worried that the tariffs would hurt U.S. chemical exports and the competitiveness of the American chemical industry. China’s retaliatory tariffs have hit more than 1,000 U.S. chemicals and plastics exports worth an estimated $10.8 billion, per the ACC.
Trade tensions have clouded the overall demand outlook for chemicals. Softer demand from the automotive space of late is a concern for chemical makers. Notably, the U.S.-China trade friction has led to a slowdown in demand in China in this major chemical end-use market.
Meanwhile, the European chemical industry is expected to see a modest growth in 2019, per the European Chemical Industry Council (“CEFIC”). The CEFIC expects chemical output in the European Union to rise 0.5% year over year in 2019. While this would mark a recovery from 2018, the CEFIC envisions trade tensions between the United States, China and Europe as well as the uncertainty around Brexit to impact the industry’s performance this year.
Chemical Stocks to Watch For
A few stocks currently worth considering in the chemical space are Ingevity Corporation (NGVT - Free Report) , Ferro Corporation (FOE - Free Report) , Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR - Free Report) and Livent Corporation (LTHM - Free Report) . While both Ingevity and Ferro sport a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), Quaker Chemical and Livent carry a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
Ingevity has an expected earnings growth of 21.5% for 2019. The company has delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average beat of 19.8%.
Ferro has an expected earnings growth of 21.6% for 2019. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 4.4% upward over the last 60 days.
Quaker Chemical has an expected earnings growth of 21.1% for 2019. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.7% upward over the last 60 days.
Livent has an expected earnings growth of 20.5% for 2019. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.8% upward over the last 60 days.
Today's Stocks from Zacks' Hottest Strategies
It's hard to believe, even for us at Zacks. But while the market gained +21.9% in 2017, our top stock-picking screens have returned +115.0%, +109.3%, +104.9%, +98.6%, and +67.1%.
And this outperformance has not just been a recent phenomenon. Over the years it has been remarkably consistent. From 2000 - 2017, the composite yearly average gain for these strategies has beaten the market more than 19X over. Maybe even more remarkable is the fact that we're willing to share their latest stocks with you without cost or obligation.
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/346377/chemicals-witness-a-soft-q4-with-sluggish-production-growth
-
(ACC Mentioned) Judge Orders EPA To Release Wheeler's Outside Contacts
Jan 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
A federal judge has ordered EPA to release documents related to contacts between Acting chief Andrew Wheeler and other Trump appointees and outside groups within a year, bolstering their efforts to challenge regulatory rollbacks and providing fresh fodder to tie Wheeler to industry just as the Senate prepares to weigh his pending nomination.
In a Dec. 26 order in Sierra Club v. EPA, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte cast aside the agency's arguments that environmentalists' public access requests are too broad even as she backed their arguments that Wheeler's pending confirmation adds urgency to the need to release the documents.
“Plaintiff provides persuasive reasons for the urgency of its requests,” she wrote.
“First, President [Donald] Trump has indicated that he will nominate … Wheeler … to be the Administrator of the EPA; Plaintiff has requested information about Wheeler that may be relevant to the confirmation process,” she said.
Laporte adds that “Plaintiff seeks this information in order to respond to Defendant’s rollbacks of dozens of the prior administration’s regulations. Plaintiff argues that the requested information may help expose conflicts of interest within the EPA based on the custodians’ strong ties to regulated industries and increase transparency and accountability of the EPA staff.”
Sierra Club attorneys sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over its failure to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) deadlines for releasing to requesters records relating to Wheeler's contacts -- emails, phone calls and meetings with external stakeholder groups.
The group also sought similar records of contacts between outsiders and other EPA appointees, among them Nancy Beck, the deputy toxics chief and Bill Wehrum, the air chief.
A number of Trump EPA appointees have been targets of environmentalists' and Democrats' concerns because of their ties to industry. Beck, a toxicologist, worked with the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council before joining EPA. Wehrum was an attorney in private practice with industry clients between his stints at EPA under the Bush and Trump administrations.
Laporte ordered EPA to produce all of the prioritized materials within 10 months, rather than the four-year schedule EPA proposed. “Because Plaintiff has already experienced a significant delay in receiving records and the information Plaintiff is requesting may be stale or useless if not provided soon, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed schedule is more appropriate than Defendant’s,” Laporte writes.
Laporte on Jan. 2 adjusted her time line in response to EPA's request for a stay, citing the partial government shutdown. The judge agreed to extend her deadline for attorneys to confer and update the court on the document release schedule “until three business days after the shutdown of the federal government has ended and relevant appropriations to the Department of Justice have been restored.”
This FOIA suit is not Sierra Club's first. Their earlier successful suit led EPA to release documents indicating ethical lapses by former Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, including his use of aides to try to land a Chik-Fil-A franchise for his wife and attempts to purchase a used mattress from the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. These scandals and others led to Pruitt's departure last July.
Michael Brune, the group's executive director, wrote in a recent email that its attorneys “scored a big win ... that will help us expose the shady dealings between Trump Admin[istration] officials and industry.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/judge-orders-epa-release-wheelers-outside-contacts
-
The Trump EPA’s First TSCA Risk Evaluation Is A Skyscraper Of Cards, Not Just A House
Jan 9, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund.
By Richard Denison
We blogged before the holiday break about how EPA used a single, unverified and conflicted estimate of worker exposure to build a whole house of cards and then used it to conclude that Pigment Violet 29 (or PV29) poses no risk to human health.
But upon further consideration, we need to issue a correction: It’s not a house, it’s a veritable skyscraper of cards EPA has constructed. That’s because EPA took its highly suspect worker exposure level and combined it with a hazard value EPA erroneously asserts demonstrates minimal hazard, in violation of its own and other authoritative guidance.
The hazard value EPA relies on is from what is called a “screening reproduction and developmental toxicity study” that used a standardized method developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), shorthanded “OECD-421.” This, like all other test data EPA relies on in its draft risk evaluation, is a short-term test and does not evaluate the potential for a chemical to exert chronic effects. Yet EPA uses this study to assert that PV29 causes no reproduction or developmental effects whatsoever. And it asserts (see page 31): “As no effects were observed up to the limit-dose, further chronic toxicity testing is not needed.”
Yet OECD’s test guideline (page 2) explicitly states that test results derived using this method cannot be used to conclude there are no effects:
This test does not provide complete information on all aspects of reproduction and development. In particular, it offers only limited means of detecting post-natal manifestations of pre-natal exposure, or effects that may be induced during post-natal exposure. Due (amongst other reasons) to the relatively small numbers of animals in the dose groups, the selectivity of the end points, and the short duration of the study, this method will not provide evidence for definite claims of no effects.
Let us repeat that last bit: “This method will not provide evidence for definite claims of no effects.”
Thus, EPA simply cannot conclude even that the test establishes the chemical causes no acute effects, let alone that it has no chronic toxicity or that chronic toxicity testing is not needed.
Lest EPA be tempted to spurn OECD, EPA’s own equivalent test guideline – “Health Effects Test Guideline OPPTS 870.3550 Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test” – includes the very same admonition:
This test does not provide complete information on all aspects of reproduction and development. In particular, it offers only limited means of detecting postnatal manifestations of prenatal exposure, or effects that may be induced during postnatal exposure. Due (amongst other reasons) to the relatively small numbers of animals in the dose groups, the selectivity of the end points, and the short duration of the study, this method will not provide evidence for definite claims of no effects.
We should note that EPA does, in a separate section of the draft risk evaluation, paraphrase (without citation) the first part of this quote’s admonition. But EPA conveniently leaves out the second part, which would otherwise thwart EPA’s intent to conclude the chemical presents no risk and to argue that no further testing is needed.
The problem is that somebody is going to get badly hurt when this skyscraper of cards collapses.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/01/08/correction-epas-first-tsca-risk-evaluation-is-a-skyscraper-of-cards-not-just-a-house/
-
Jan 9, 2019 | Boston 25 News
By Kerry Kavanaugh
BOSTON - Legislators and advocates are calling on Governor Charlie Baker to sign a bill into law that would ban certain flame retardants.
Last week, state lawmakers agreed to ban chemicals that many people have in their bedding and furniture, saying it will save lives, especially those of children and firefighters.
"We thought it was protecting us, but it's not. it's causing more hazards to us," said Mashpee Fire Lt. Nicole Stanley.
Lawmakers argue when those flame retardants are burned, they release carcinogens. Stanley believes they've contributed to her breast cancer.
"Because of 28 years of being exposed to carcinogens. And that's what they are attributing my breast cancer to," said Stanley.
The bill, sponsored by State Senator Cindy Creem and others, bans the use of 11 toxic flame retardant chemicals found in children's products, residential furniture, and household goods.
"We need to stand on the side of protecting people, our first responders, our children, all of the public," said Sen. Creem.
For years, firefighters have sounded the alarm on flame retardants and Boston 25 News has reported extensively on the risk through our series Boston's Bravest.
"The American Chemistry Council thinks they know what's best for public safety. I'm here to tell you they don't. I do," said Rich MacKinnon, Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts.
The American Chemistry Council, who represents manufacturers told Boston 25 News:
"Forcing through bills that remove an important layer of fire protection with little input and no debate does not support public safety and endangers the integrity of the legislative process."
When asked whether he will sign the bill into law, Baker simply said it's "still under review."
"Sign the bill. Sign the bill to make it safer for communities and first responders and for firefighters that go in and are exposed to all these carcinogens," said Stanley.
Gov. Baker has until Friday to sign the bill into law.
https://www.boston25news.com/news/calls-for-baker-to-sign-bill-banning-flame-retardants-used-in-children-s-products-furniture/901175480
-
(ACC Mentioned) Baker Facing Pressure On Flame Retardant Bill
Jan 8, 2019 | CommonWealth magazine
By Matt Murphy
Democrats urge him to sign legislation; industry seeks veto
GOV. CHARLIE BAKER is facing mounting pressure to sign a bill that would ban the use of certain toxic flame retardant chemicals in many products as industry groups lobby hard for the Republican to veto the bill.
Sen. Cynthia Creem and Rep. Marjorie Decker brought together environmental advocates and firefighters on Tuesday to press publicly for the governor to sign the bill, which would ban the use of 11 flame retardant chemicals in children’s products, household furniture and bedding.
“This bill is ready to be signed,” Decker said, adding, “We did all the hard work. I would love to be governor right now, and all I had to do was sign that bill and be the hero that he can be.”
Boston Deputy Fire Chief Jay Fleming said the 11 flame retardants that would be banned by the legislation are ineffective at preventing fire deaths, and create health hazards for firefighters and children who absorb the chemicals into their bodies through products like pillows, mattresses and car seats.
“I’m opposed to the use of flame retardants in furniture because of the health risk, but even if there were no health risk I would be opposed to the use of flame retardants in furniture because I believe, and I believe the evidence shows, it makes no difference in the way the furniture burns, and when the furniture or other products do burn the smoke that’s produced traps the occupants quicker,” Fleming said.
At least 12 states have banned a variety of flame retardant chemicals used in children’s products.
Several business groups, however, have argued that some of the chemicals that would be banned can be used safely, and to prohibit them would drive up costs for consumers and hurt Massachusetts businesses.
The opponents include the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council, who met privately Monday afternoon with administration officials, including senior advisor Tim Buckley and general counsel Lon Povich, to urge the governor to veto the bill.
The Cambridge Democrat said supporters, including herself, Clean Water Action and the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, have reached out to the governor’s staff to provide any information they might need, but have only been told that the bill is being reviewed.
“That’s outrageous,” Decker said, contrasting the lack of engagement from the governor’s office with the meeting between Baker’s staff and industry officials.
The governor’s office confirmed the meeting with opponents, and said it has also had contact with supporters of the bill.
“The administration has been communicating with Representative Decker and other proponents of the legislation since its passage and is carefully reviewing the bill,” spokesman Brendan Moss said.
The governor has also received letters of opposition from the International Sleep Products Association, the American Home Furnishings Alliance and Boston Bed Company.
“We understand and support preventing exposure to dangerous chemicals; however (the bill) goes too far and could endanger children’s lives,” wrote Kelly Mariotti, who as executive director of Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association represents manufacturers of car and booster seats.
Baker has said little about the bill.
“It’s still under review,” he told reporters Monday. Asked if he had any specific concerns, Baker said, “It’s still under review.”
The governor has until Friday to decide what to do with the bill, and could either sign it, veto it, or take no action, which would also kill the bill and force lawmakers to start the process over again.
“I’m asking the governor to stand with us, and I know he will because he believes in the public good and he believes in public safety, and I don’t think he believes in supporting the businesses with vested interest who don’t want to come to the table,” Creem said at a press conference in the State House.
Elizabeth Saunders, the Massachusetts director of Clean Water Action, said studies have shown firefighters to have levels of flame retardant chemicals in their blood two to three times higher than the average American and up to 100 percent higher after a fire.
“We count on firefighters to put their lives on the line when we’re in our greatest time of need and it would be unconscionable for Governor Baker to do any other thing than to sign this bill to reduce firefighters’ exposure and risk of cancer,” she said.
Saunders also said that industry warnings about the high cost to consumers of products made with alternative flame retardants are overstated, and Decker said that retailers like Costco and Target are phasing out furniture products with harmful flame retardants.
“They don’t work. Did you get that? They’re not safe,” Decker said.
The Legislature sent the bill to the governor’s desk on New Year’s Day, the final day of the previous two-year session. The Senate passed a version of the bill in late June, but Creem said it had been revised and scaled back over the course of a back-and-forth with industries.
Decker bristled when asked if the Legislature had tied its hands by waiting until the final moment to pass the bill, eliminating the governor’s ability to offer an amendment or the Legislature’s ability to override a possible veto.
“This is where we are. It’s not been for a lack of work. It’s not like people ignored it for a year and then picked it up,” she said.
Both Decker and Creem said that they have not heard anyone argue against the science that these flame retardant chemicals can be absorbed into the bodies of young children and adults and have negative health effects, such as a higher risk of cancer.
Car seat manufacturers argue that alternative products can cost as much as three times as products that currently comply with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations, and that some states like California have exempted car seats, though their bans on chemicals are also much broader.
Mattress manufacturers have also argued that the bill would make it difficult for them to comply with federal flammability standards, that they will not be able to comply with the bill as required within six months, and that local manufacturers and retailers would be at a disadvantage to online sellers who could import products from out-of-state without enhanced inspections.
Decker, however, said Massachusetts would not be an outlier as industries have already started moving in this direction.
“Why would we allow them to continue using things that we know are poisoning us. That’s the question, and I will say this bill has been vetted, researched, challenged, responded to and modified to meet all of those answers,” Decker said.
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/baker-facing-pressure-on-flame-retardant-bill/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Call on Gov. Baker To Sign Bill Banning Several Flame Retardant Chemicals
Jan 8, 2019 | WWLP.com
By Jodi Reed
BOSTON (WWLP) - Firefighters joined state lawmakers on Monday to share a powerful message about items in your home that contain poisonous flame retardant chemicals.
According to the American Chemical Council, many of the flame retardants in household products and children's toys are ineffective.
"They don't work, they cause greater harm. You have that right?" asked Representative Marjorie Decker, one of the bill's sponsors. "When these retardants that don't work are applied, what we do see is that we don't see a difference in flames, what we do see is an increase in smoke, poisonous smoke."
Sixteen states including Massachusetts are working on legislation that would restrict certain fire retardant chemicals in toys, car seats, strollers, and other household products.
After coming to a unanimous decision in both the House and Senate, lawmakers and firefighters from across the state are urging the Governor to sign House Bill 50-24 bill into law.
Cape Cod Firefighter, Lieutenant Nicole Stanley said she suffers from breast cancer that was caused by exposure to toxic flame retardant chemicals.
"Sign the Bill and make it safer for communities, and first responders, and firefighters that go in and are exposed to these carcinogens and because of the fire retardants that have created more of a dangerous environment for all of us," Stanley said in a message to the governor.
Lt. Stanley said she's been exposed to these chemicals for more than 25 years.
Fire officials and lawmakers say this bill would provide the necessary protections to keep children and first responders safe across the Commonwealth.
Gov. Baker has until Friday to sign the bill, or it will have to start the 2-year legislative process all over again.
https://www.wwlp.com/news/state-politics/lawmakers-call-on-gov-baker-to-sign-bill-banning-several-flame-retardant-chemicals/1692574709
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill to Preserve Chemical Security Program Passed by House
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Would keep Homeland Security program alive
Bill faces an uncertain future in Senate
The House passed a bill to extend an expiring chemical facility security program, with Democrats and Republicans hoping to buy time for negotiations on its future.
The vote Jan. 8 was 414-3 in favor of the bill, with 188 Republicans joining 226 Democrats in support of H.R. 251. The legislation extends the Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, which is scheduled to expire Jan. 18.
The program’s future is in doubt, with lawmakers in disagreement over proposed exemptions and enforcement limitations. House lawmakers of both parties say it should continue until the differences are worked out, but several senators have called for its closure absent a deal.
“We cannot let this critical national security program fall victim to this political game of chicken,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said on the House floor. Thompson introduced the bill with the support of the panel’s ranking member and the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Under the program, companies with large quantities of more than 300 specified chemicals must submit chemical and site security information to Homeland Security officials. The department uses the information to determine whether a facility’s security plans can prevent terrorist theft or diversion of the chemicals. If not, the department can order companies to take corrective action.
Should the program expire, companies wouldn’t be required to comply. That would “increase the risk to our country and create uncertainty across the chemical industry,” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a letter to lawmakers last year.
Senate ActionThe bill now moves to the Senate, where prospects are uncertain. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said the bill is unlikely to see floor action soon, while a key lawmaker, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), supports letting the program expire unless lawmakers approve significant changes. Staff-level negotiations between the House and Senate to avert an expiration late last year failed to reach an agreement, a congressional aide told Bloomberg Law.
Johnson, who leads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, supported legislation (S. 3405) in 2018 to add new exemptions and enforcement limitations to the program that some Democrats opposed. The program shouldn’t continue without those changes, Johnson and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said in a letter last year. Just after the House vote, Johnson released a statement saying he won’t support the bill.
Organizations representing major chemical companies and distributors have said they support the program continuing in some form.
The American Chemistry Council in Washington, which represents major chemical companies affected by the regulation, in a statement to Bloomberg Law called the vote a “first step” to making the kind of changes called for in the Johnson legislation.
Matt McKinney, a spokesman for the National Association of Chemical Distributors in Arlington, Va., said in an email to Bloomberg Law the group continues to support a multiyear reauthorization “to ensure the security of our nation’s chemical infrastructure remains a top priority.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bill-to-preserve-chemical-security-program-passed-by-house
-
House Passes 2-year Extension Of Chemical Safety Program
Jan 8, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
The House voted overwhelmingly today to reauthorize H.R. 251 (116), the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, for two years.
Originally signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006, the program aims to protect industrial facilities with large volumes of chemicals on site from terrorist incidents. Sites covered range from large chemical manufacturers and utilities to mining operations and are tiered based on their assessed risks.
Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) sponsored the extension.
CFATS currently covers 3,355 facilities around the country, according to DHS statistics. Its authorization is on the verge of lapsing absent congressional action.
WHAT'S NEXT: The Senate must act to extend the program.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
House Passes Bill To Extend Security Program
Jan 9, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
The House yesterday passed fast-tracked legislation to extend a chemical security program for two years.
The Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program is set to expire later this month.
The decade-old program identifies and regulates facilities that have "chemicals of concern" and meet certain conditions.
Under suspension of the rules, lawmakers voted 414-3 to pass H.R. 251 by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Bills passed under suspension avoid procedural hurdles but must have a supermajority of votes to pass.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle who spoke during floor debate urged the Senate to act quickly on the legislation.
"Unless Congress acts expeditiously, authority to regulate these high-risk facilities will expire in a matter of days," Thompson said. "We cannot let this happen."
He acknowledged that CFATS had a "bumpy start." But it has grown into a program that is making the U.S. safer, with the number of high-risk facilities down by half since the program's creation, he said.
Thompson also pointed to possible changes to the program in the future. "The two-year extension sought under this act is needed to give the House and Senate ample time to come together to address oversight findings to improve the program," he said.
After the bill's passage, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) issued a statement saying he would not support H.R. 251 or other legislation that provides for a long-term reauthorization of CFATS without "making sensible reforms" to the program.
"Despite the program's regulatory burden of $8.5 billion over 10 years, it is far from clear that CFATS reduces the risk of a terrorist attack, and DHS does not meaningfully measure its ability to do so," Johnson said.
The senator introduced a bill in September that would reauthorize CFATS for five years and make changes to the program (E&E Daily, Sept. 6, 2018).
"Unfortunately, Senate Democrats blocked my efforts to pass the bill on the Senate floor in November," Johnson said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/01/09/stories/1060111329
-
EPA Moves To Ban Toxic Paint-Stripper Chemical For Some — But Not All — Uses
Jan 8, 2019 | The Washington Post
By By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
Big-box retailers such as Lowe’s and Home Depot have already dropped it amid a public outcry over fatalities
In the past year, major retailers such as Lowe’s and Home Depot have pulled a toxic chemical used in paint strippers, methylene chloride, from their shelves. The families of those who have died after exposure to the substance have begged leaders of the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize a ban that the agency proposed on Jan. 19, 2017 — a day before President Barack Obama left office. And in May, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt pledged to do just that.
But late last month, the EPA sent proposals to the Office of Management and Budget that would allow commercial operators to continue using the product as long as they underwent training, while banning its use by consumers. The two draft final rules, which are not yet public but are mentioned in the database of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, have sparked an outcry from congressional Democrats and public health advocates who had sought an outright ban on the chemical.
“Despite explicit assurances provided to my office that EPA would finalize a ban that protected both consumer and commercial users from this dangerous chemical, the Trump EPA appears to have failed to live up to those assurances,” said Sen. Thomas R. Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment Committee. “I will do everything in my power to ensure that the final rule takes all needed steps to ban a chemical so dangerous that it has killed dozens of Americans, including trained professionals who were taking precautions on the job.”
The question on how to treat methylene chloride has vexed regulators since Donald Trump came into office. Used by professional contractors and do-it-yourself home improvement aficionados to remove paint, methylene chloride has been linked to dozens of deaths — including 12 people between 2000 and 2011 who specialized in refinishing bathtubs, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.
One of the proposals is titled “Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program,” but it provides no additional details on what such a program would entail. In a January 2017 proposal, the agency rejected the idea of imposing training or equipment requirements, such as the use of a respirator, given “the costs and challenges involved.” Broadly, the EPA said, the chemical posed an “unreasonable” health risk.
The EPA declined to comment on the proposals, citing the partial government shutdown.
“Due to a lapse in appropriations, the EPA Press Office will only be responding to inquiries related to the government shutdown or inquiries in the event of an environmental emergency imminently threatening the safety of human life or where necessary to protect certain property,” agency spokeswoman Molly Block said in an email.
One senior administration official, however, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the Defense Department had lobbied to carve out an exemption for the toxic chemical’s commercial use. The military, which would receive an exemption of at least 10 years under any such ban, is a large user of paint strippers.
The industry that produces the controversial chemical also has been outspoken in saying that the EPA should not ban it altogether.
One industry group, the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, wrote last year that there are still valid uses for methylene chloride-based paint strippers.
“When used as directed, they are the best products for efficient and effective paint removal,” the group said in a statement as the EPA was contemplating how to proceed. “These paint strippers have been safely used by customers for more than 60 years. Methylene chloride-based paint strippers were developed decades ago in response to the fire and explosion risks posed by alternatives. It would be unfortunate if now methylene chloride-based paint strippers are replaced by substitutes that have issues with flammability, increased toxicity and efficacy.”
In a 2017 presentation by W.M. Barr, a large national producer of stripping products that contain the chemical, the company said that it continues to explore alternatives for methylene chloride but that most “have been failures in market.” It also underscored that it had sold tens of millions of its retail products with methylene chloride between 2007 and 2016 and that the company “is unaware of any consumer fatal incidents during this period.”
The company and the trade association noted that multiple fatalities had been linked to bathtub refinishing, where there is often a lack of adequate ventilation, and said they supported specific labeling to clearly warn against that kind of application.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, called the EPA’s proposed partial ban on the chemical a “real betrayal” to the families of loved ones who died while using it and that have pushed the EPA for a complete ban.
“The great majority of the deaths that we know about from this product involve workers, not individual consumers,” he said.
Even as proponents and critics of the proposed regulations debate its merits, there is little chance of it being finalized right away, given the partial government shutdown.
Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate at the advocacy group Public Citizen, said that the typical interagency consultation required under federal law cannot take place, given that the EPA’s appropriations have lapsed. And no new proposals can be published in the Federal Register until the shutdown ends.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2019/01/08/epa-moves-ban-toxic-paint-stripper-chemical-some-not-all-uses/?utm_term=.f02b9eb33ca2
-
EPA Training Program Hints At Retreat From Obama-Era Paint Stripper Ban
Jan 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists fear a proposed EPA training program to limit commercial exposures to methylene chloride in paint strippers hints at a retreat from an Obama-era plan to prohibit the use outright, suggesting the agency will instead finalize a scaled-back ban that will allow some paint-stripping uses of the chemical despite potential risks to workers.
Such an approach would be a win for paint stripper manufacturers who said in comments on the Obama administration's January 2017 proposed ban on certain uses of methylene chloride that EPA should pursue alternative measures including risk management options aimed at reducing worker exposures. One industry source told Inside EPA in May that softening the ban to allow for such measures could be a legally defensible “logical outgrowth” of the rulemaking process.
EPA on Dec. 21 sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review the final version of its previously proposed ban under section 6(a) of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The same day, the agency also sent for OMB pre-publication review a prerule on a “Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program,” with no further details available.
The groups Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) are calling the plan to address worker exposures through a training program rather than banning commercial as well as consumer uses “a major concession” to industry interests that allows significant risks to workers to persist. Environmentalists see the previously unannounced training program as weakening the previous administration's proposed ban.
“While we are pleased that the EPA is following the lead of the eleven retailers who have committed to removing these products from store shelves nationwide, we are extremely disappointed by indications that the measure will not protect thousands of workers whose lives and health are in danger as they come into contact with methylene chloride on the job,” Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Director Liz Hitchcock says in a statement.
EDF calls the proposals “at best a half-step forward,” adding that the Trump administration's delay in taking any final action on the Obama EPA's January 2017 proposed ban on methylene chloride paint strippers has prompted retailers to stop selling the products to consumers, though those steps fail to adequately protect workers.
“Rather than waiting for EPA to act, most major retailers have already removed or pledged to remove these products from their shelves,” EDF Project Manager Lindsay McCormick says in a statement. “But that doesn’t protect most workers, and now it looks like EPA won’t either.”
Bob Sussman, an attorney representing Safer Chemicals Healthy Families who served in top positions at EPA in the Clinton and Obama administrations, tells Inside EPA that the group will seek meetings with OMB to press for the agency to finalize the ban as proposed so that it also protects commercial workers.
But he adds that the partial government shutdown makes it unclear when those meetings will occur, as all non-essential work such as rulemaking efforts are on hold indefinitely.
'Thin Ice'
Additionally, Sussman says that stripping out commercial uses from any ban would contradict former Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's statements after meeting in May with families of workers killed using methylene chloride paint strippers. At the time, Pruitt said the agency would rely on the prior administration's risk findings and finalize the rule as proposed.
Sussman notes that EPA's analysis supporting the January 2017 proposed rule found that label warnings and programs promoting responsible use fail to adequately protect workers.
“EPA's risk assessment and its proposal are very detailed and very strong on [methylene chloride's risk to workers], and I think for them to just ignore everything that EPA has said and done in the proposal and the risk assessment really puts them on thin ice,” Sussman says.
But EPA's apparent plan to limit worker exposures through a future training program may find some support in the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) March 21 supplemental guidance calling for product labels to warn of acute inhalation hazards of paint strippers containing methylene chloride.
CPSC updated the 1987 guidance in response to the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance's (HSIA) July 2016 petition to account for methylene chloride's acute inhalation hazard in warning labels. HSIA has opposed the Obama EPA's proposed ban on methylene chloride paint strippers as unnecessary, in part because of other agencies' protections.
But CPSC also noted that EPA is weighing the January 2017 proposed ban on most uses of methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, and said that “By updating the 1987 Statement, we do not suggest that labeling will address all hazards EPA identified in its proposed rulemaking."
The Obama EPA proposed the ban under TSCA section 6(a) authority, little used since EPA's attempt to ban most uses of asbestos in the 1980s. That rule was struck down by a federal court in a 1991 decision that effectively shut down EPA's regulatory program of existing chemicals and prompted calls for overhauling TSCA, which Congress approved in 2016.
Past Reversal
EPA announced May 10 that Pruitt planned to finalize the Obama-era methylene chloride rule, despite the Trump administration's shelving of that proposed ban and several others in 2017 after critical comments from the chemical sector. The reversal came days after Pruitt met with families of workers killed from inhaling methylene chloride while paint stripping.
While EPA said in the May 10 announcement that it would not revisit the Obama-era risk assessments that supported the proposed ban and that it would soon send a final rule for OMB review, environmentalists and industry officials cautioned that the Trump administration might not finalize the ban as the previous administration proposed.
For example, the industry source said that although the Obama-era proposed rule would ban most uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers, EPA could amend the final rule to account for industry comments that were critical of the proposed version and its underlying risk assessments.
The source also said that a final rule based on a 2014 risk assessment could be legally vulnerable because passage of the June 2016 amendments to TSCA allows EPA to rely on prior risk assessments only to the extent those reviews adhere to the new law's scientific requirements, including for use of best available scientific information. “There's a lot of question about whether those earlier risk assessments meet the standards” of the revised TSCA, the source said.
EPA sent its two methylene chloride rules to OMB just as environmental groups and top Senate Democrats are urging EPA to finalize the Obama-era ban.
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and the Natural Resources Defense Council in October and December lodged separate notices of intent to sue EPA, arguing that the agency has a non-discretionary duty under TSCA to finalize the ban and that continued delay poses risks and could lead to additional worker deaths.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking member on the Senate environment committee, in a Dec. 17 letter urged acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to “immediately finalize” the Obama-era ban and reiterated broader criticism of the Trump administration's implementation of the revised toxics law, highlighting issues likely to be raised during Wheeler's expected confirmation process.
Meanwhile, major retailers including Lowe's, Walmart, Home Depot and Amazon have announced plans to stop selling methylene chloride and the alternative N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), though advocates say those steps, while protective of consumers, fail to address commercial uses so EPA must act to protect workers.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-training-program-hints-retreat-obama-era-paint-stripper-ban
-
Trump EPA To Leave Lethal Paint Stripper Chemical Legal for Workers
Jan 8, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
The Trump administration is likely to allow methylene chloride, a dangerous chemical that can kill a person on contact, to remain an ingredient in paint stripper products for commercial use. The decision would be a significant retreat from a ban on the chemical for both commercial and consumer use proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency two years ago.
At the end of December, the EPA sent a draft final rule on methylene chloride to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The exact details of the draft rule are unknown, but it appears it would ban consumer uses of methylene chloride but allow its continued use for commercial purposes.
Separately, the EPA sent an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to OMB indicating that it plans to allow continued commercial use of methylene chloride with training and certification — even though workers are the most at risk. This rulemaking process would likely take years.
Exposure to methylene chloride has killed more than 50 people in recent decades.
“This proposal would still leave millions of people whose professions require them to handle paint strippers at risk of serious injury or even death,” said EWG Legislative Attorney Melanie Benesh. “This may fit with the Trump EPA’s approach of kowtowing to the chemical industry but will be a significant setback for public health protection.”
Public interest groups including EWG, Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have called on the EPA to ban both commercial and consumer uses of paint strippers that contain the chemical. Several major retailers, including Lowe’s, Home Depot, Sherwin-Williams, Amazon and Walmart, have pledged to remove products containing the chemical from their shelves.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-epa-leave-lethal-paint-stripper-chemical-legal-workers
-
EPA Maintains PFAS Levels Despite Stricter ATSDR Finding
Jan 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA appears to be planning to extend its 2016 advisory levels for contamination from two perfluorinated compounds in drinking water to groundwater remediation, despite a draft risk assessment from the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) suggesting that the levels are not adequately protective.
Politico reported Jan. 8 that a draft proposed rule EPA submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) last August sets 70 parts per trillion (ppt) as the groundwater cleanup level for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) combined, two of the most common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the class of thousands of the emerging contaminants.
The limit would be used as a preliminary remediation goal, it says.
But Politico writes that EPA, the Defense Department and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) are at odds over what levels to apply, and the draft plan has remained “stuck” at OMB since the end of August.
The 70-ppt level is identical to the agency's safe advisory level the Obama administration issued in 2016 but it is weaker than levels that would be derived from a draft toxicological profile that ATSDR issued last August that recommended levels seven to 10 times more stringent than risk values EPA used to set its 70 ppt levels.
EPA's risk levels are also weaker than those developed by leading states on the issue, such as New Jersey.
Further, Politico says that EPA's proposed rule sets a 40 ppt screening level that if met would require further investigation or cleanup. EPA would also require an emergency cleanup action if levels are found higher than 400 ppt, it adds.
EPA's plan to extend its advisory drinking water levels to groundwater cleanups are likely to drive significant concerns in Congress, where lawmakers have already urged the agency to account for ATSDR's recommendations in any future policy.
For example, Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI), Dan Kildee (D-MI) and other lawmakers from Michigan and Pennsylvania, last July warned acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler that exposures above ATSDR's minimal risk levels are not protective of adverse health effects. They urged him to consider the ATSDR assessment in any future EPA rulemaking.
Nevertheless, any guidance from EPA could help drive cleanups stemming from military bases in states that lack standards. In Georgia, for example, citizens surrounding three Georgia Air Force bases are struggling to win cleanup commitments because the Air Force is currently balking at such requirements for off-site pollution because the state lacks standards.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Air Force has declared that in spite of high levels of groundwater contamination found at three Georgia air bases, it found “no immediate risk to human health through contamination of drinking water.”
The Air Force told the Journal-Constitution that its response was limited by the lack of PFAS regulations.
“Because PFOS/PFOA are unregulated and Georgia or federal entities have not established standards for non-drinking water sources, we cannot expend government resources on those water sources,” the Air Force said, according to the article.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-maintains-pfas-levels-despite-stricter-atsdr-finding
-
California Bill Seeks to Trash Paper Receipts, Threatens Fines
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
E-receipts would be required by 2022 unless hard copy requested
Ban would be first of its kind in the nation
Businesses could be fined in California if they don’t ditch the paper receipt and turn to electronic proofs of purchase for alcohol, food, services, and personal property transactions, under a new bill.
California Assemblyman Phil Ting (D) announced a bill Jan. 8 that would require businesses to use electronic receipts by January 2022 unless a paper copy is requested by a customer.
The bill seeks to curb waste and reduce exposure to the chemical Bisphenol A, or BPA, an endocrine disrupter used to coat paper receipts. Fines would start at $25 a day but be capped at $300.
Hearings on the legislation are expected in the spring. If the bill is enacted, California would be the first in the nation to require e-receipts, Ting said.
Ting told Bloomberg Environment the move makes public health sense, and it’s easier to find receipts stored on a mobile device rather than stuffed in a pocket or bag, or with fast food.
“It doesn’t make any sense forcing people into getting a paper receipt,” Ting said Jan. 8. “Not only are these receipts not recyclable, not compostable, but they’re chemically toxic.”
According to the bill, paper receipts generate 686 million pounds of waste and enough carbon dioxide equivalent to the emissions of one million cars.
The National Retail Federation referred questions to the California Retailers Association, which didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The nonprofit Green America, which advocates for “ethical consumerism,” supports the bill.
“Over time, this legislation would prevent millions of trees from being logged for paper receipts, which fewer and fewer consumers want, and which often go straight to landfills,” Beth Porter, Green America’s climate and recycling director, said in a news release.
—With assistance from Clare Bailey.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-bill-seeks-to-trash-paper-receipts-threatens-fines
-
California Lawmaker Pushes Bill Requiring Businesses To Use E-Receipts
Jan 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Michael Burke
A state lawmaker in California on Tuesday rolled out legislation that would make California the first state to require businesses to offer electronic receipts to customers.
Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting called it "common-sense legislation" during a news conference announcing the bill.
"We think it’s minimal cost," Ting said. "And it’s putting the power back in consumers. If you want the paper, you can ask for it. But why force you to take the paper?”
No more paper receipts! 10 million , 21 billion gallons of & 12 billion pounds of carbon emissions to make receipts in the US every year. I introduced #AB161 today to help CA #SkipTheSlip by making e-receipts the default practice by 2022; paper only upon request. pic.twitter.com/FFDQZICqcY— Phil Ting (@PhilTing) January 8, 2019
Under the legislation, receipts would be sent electronically to customers unless they were to request a paper receipt.
Ting also said the legislation would have environmental benefits because paper receipts have Bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical Ting said is harmful to the environment.
Republican Assemblyman Brian Dahle told The Associated Press that he's worried Ting's bill could adversely affect small businesses and that it may not save that much paper.
“Then they have your email, then they’ll be marketing to you or selling your information or it can get into privacy issues,” Dahle argued.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/424469-california-lawmaker-pushes-bill-requiring-businesses-to-use-e-receipts
-
EPA Ignores CDC Guidelines in Chemical Cleanup Plan
Jan 9, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA has signed off on guidelines for cleaning up toxic chemicals that are contaminating hundreds of military bases and other sites around the country, but its recommended threshold is roughly 10 times higher than the levels deemed safe by the CDC, according to a draft document reviewed by POLITICO.
The draft recommendations have been stalled at the White House since the end of August, the latest sign of division within the Trump administration over how aggressively to go after the chemicals PFOA and PFOS, which have been linked to kidney and testicular cancer and other ailments, and may lead to billions of dollars in liability for the Defense Department. The Pentagon, EPA and CDC have battled behind the scenes over how stringent the standards should be, according to two sources with knowledge of the issue, and it was not clear when the final version would be released.
Once widely used in products like Teflon and firefighting foam, the chemicals have since been phased out, but they remain present in groundwater near military bases and chemical plants, in many cases threatening nearby drinking water supplies.
EPA's recommendations would apply to Superfund sites, former military bases and other cleanup work overseen by the federal government. The agency is not obligated to incorporate the CDC's recommendations into its work, but environmentalists say its yet-to-be released guidelines risk leaving nearby residents exposed to dangerous levels of the chemicals.
“It means a lot of sites that are heavily contaminated with unsafe levels of these chemicals will not even be considered for cleanup,” said Erik Olson, who leads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s health initiatives.
The cleanup standards are important because addressing contamination in groundwater would help prevent the toxic chemicals from reaching drinking water supplies in the first place. They are also critical to ensuring that polluters foot the bill for cleanup; without them, drinking water utilities — and their customers — could be left to pay to remove the chemicals from their water.
EPA wants to require that groundwater containing PFOA and PFOS be cleaned up so that it contains no more than 70 parts per trillion of the chemicals combined, according to the draft submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget Aug. 31 and reviewed by POLITICO.
“In instances where a groundwater cleanup program is addressing PFOA and/or PFOS contaminated groundwater, and where no state, or tribal regulations [are applicable], EPA recommends using the [Health Advisory level] of 70 ppt for the combined concentration of PFOA and PFOS as the [preliminary remediation goal], or equivalent goal for other programs,” the document states.
If groundwater sampling detects either one of the chemicals at a concentration above 40 parts per trillion, EPA says a contaminated site would warrant further investigation or cleanup. And EPA calls for emergency action to remove the contaminants immediately if they are present at levels above 400 parts per trillion at a site.
The recommendations are based on EPA's 2016 drinking water health advisory — but they are far less stringent than the guidelines in a more recent assessment from CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. That assessment found the chemicals could pose health risks at levels as much as 10 times lower than the EPA health advisory levels. That report was released publicly in June, six months after Trump administration officials sought to block it amid worries of a "public relations nightmare," as POLITICO reported last year.
EPA's recommended thresholds for taking action also far exceed drinking water limits set by several states. For instance, New Jersey set a limit of 13 parts per trillion for PFOA, and Vermont has a 20 parts per trillion limit for PFOA and PFOS. Those limits would trump the EPA guidance, but only in the small handful of states where they have been formally approved.
Betsy Southerland, a retired EPA scientist who led the work on the 2016 health advisory and has been critical of the Trump administration, said she believes the 70 parts per trillion limit is still scientifically sound, but faulted EPA for not fully reviewing the ATSDR study before making that decision. EPA sent its groundwater cleanup recommendations to the White House less than two weeks after the comment period closed on the controversial health study.
“They rushed it in to [White House review] before anyone could take a look at the public comments on the ATSDR one. I think that’s so painful to do to all these communities out there, because they don’t know who to trust,” she said.
The Defense Department has a major stake in the cleanup standards. Firefighting foam that was used by the military for decades contained PFOS and, in some cases, PFOA. The Pentagon has identified at least 401 sites across the country where the chemicals were likely used.
Olson said he was disappointed with the recommendations but not surprised. NRDC has spent two decades pushing EPA to set a drinking water limit for perchlorate, a chemical used by the military in jet fuel that has contaminated the drinking water of roughly 16 million Americans. Despite a 2011 finding by EPA that a drinking water regulation was needed, none has yet been set. Olson said the military is now applying this “playbook” to PFOA and PFOS.
“There are a lot of political forces aligned to try to undercut both EPA and states from setting strict standards,” Olson argued.
A Defense Department spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. An automatic reply from an EPA press official said the agency could comment only on issues related to the government shutdown until the agency reopens.
In September, Maureen Sullivan, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for the environment, told a Senate panel that EPA cleanup standards would be “extremely helpful” as the department grapples with contamination at its sites. “We have been requesting that guidance for a number of years,” she said.
Technical concerns could have contributed to the decision on where to set the screening level. Laboratories have been scrambling to catch up with the demand for testing for PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals. While the contaminants can be detected in drinking water down to very low levels, testing in groundwater, which is murkier and often contains other contaminants, can be more complicated, said Julianne Nassif, director of environmental health for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.
“It’s a far more sophisticated analysis that would take more time, requires a more skilled chemist to do the work and the data review is more significant as well,” she said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/01/epa-ignores-cdc-guidelines-in-chemical-cleanup-plan-1067544
-
Saudi Arabia Edges Toward Bet on Booming U.S. Energy Sector
Jan 8, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sarah McFarlane and Summer Said
Aramco’s potential deal to invest in U.S. liquefied natural gas projects would mark a sea change in the energy flows between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is nearing a deal to invest in U.S. liquefied natural gas, a landmark decision for the kingdom, which in the past had been a huge supplier of energy to America.
Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Aramco, has narrowed its focus to a shortlist of at least four U.S. LNG projects and intends to announce a deal in the first half of this year, people familiar with the matter said.
Companies with projects being considered include Tellurian Inc., a Houston-based LNG developer known for its intention to ship gas from its planned Driftwood terminal in Louisiana, the people said. In addition, San Diego-based Sempra Energy, which is developing five LNG projects between the U.S. and Mexico, has had discussions with Aramco concerning its Port Arthur project in Texas, the people said. Aramco is considering equity stakes in the projects, the people added. It wasn’t clear what the value of the potential investments was.
Aramco didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. A representative for Tellurian said the company doesn’t comment on commercial dealings. A representative for Sempra Energy said, “We’ve had strong interest in Port Arthur LNG from global LNG buyers and investors but can’t comment on any commercial discussions.”
Any such investment would mark a sea change in the energy flows between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. America’s shale revolution has broken years of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, to the extent that the International Energy Agency expects the U.S. to become a net energy exporter by 2023.
For Saudi Arabia, the interest in U.S. LNG is twofold, said Jason Feer, head of business intelligence at New York-based consulting firm Poten & Partners.
“One reason is the geopolitical aspect of how to keep the U.S. close and maintain the strategic relationship, and secondly they see LNG as diversifying, investing in a fuel that would have perhaps more of a lifespan than a straight crude oil play.”
Energy majors including Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Total SA and BP PLC have already pivoted toward cleaner-burning natural gas, in a shift from their traditional oil businesses.
Aramco doesn’t produce any oil and gas abroad, and while Saudi Arabia’s own gas reserves are some of the largest in the world, they are hard to extract and high in sulfur, making them cost more to process.
Nearly all of the kingdom’s electricity is powered by oil or natural gas, but there are plans to diversify that into more natural gas and renewables, in part to allow more crude to be exported. A study published last year by Saudi Arabia’s government-funded think tank, King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, found that shifting from oil to natural gas power generation had a positive impact on the economy, even if the gas was imported.
Saudi Arabia said in October that it is considering investing in a stake in Russian energy giant PAO Novatek’s Arctic LNG 2 project, although no deal has been formalized. Aramco intends to make LNG investments in both the U.S. and Russia, the people familiar with the matter said.
“By also investing in Russia they’re giving themselves options, trying to demonstrate that the Kingdom is trying to hedge against over-dependence on the U.S.,” said Mr. Feer.
—Ben Dummett contributed to this article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-edges-toward-bet-on-booming-u-s-energy-sector-11546959911
-
TransCanada Hopes to Start Construction on Keystone XL by June
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
Company is targeting early 2021 in-service date for oil pipe
Upcoming court hearing could be affected by U.S. government shutdown
TransCanada Corp. is hoping to start construction by June on its decade-old Keystone XL oil pipeline project, even as the U.S. government shutdown threatens to delay a key legal proceeding.
In a court filing Jan. 8, the Calgary-based pipeline company said its current schedule requires preconstruction activities including setting up pipe yards and work camps to resume by February. That would allow full work to begin by June and be completed in late 2020, with the pipeline entering service in early 2021.
TransCanada reiterated that a yearlong delay would cost the company $949 million in lost profits and delay the hiring of about 6,600 workers. The company also would face higher construction costs as competition for crews increases in 2020, TransCanada said in a letter filed in U.S. District Court in Montana.
The 1,200-mile (1,900-kilometer) pipeline, which would help carry 830,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refiners, has faced legal holdups amid staunch opposition from environmental groups and landowners.
New ReviewThe same court last month sided with environmental groups opposing the project and said TransCanada couldn’t resume field work while it awaited a new environmental review from the U.S. State Department. Prior to that ruling, TransCanada had hoped to start construction as early as mid February.
A hearing is scheduled for Jan. 14, though the Justice Department—which is representing the State Department in the proceedings—lacks funding due to the partial government shutdown. TransCanada asked the court to move forward with that hearing without the Justice Department, a move the agency supported in a separate letter.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/transcanada-hopes-to-start-construction-on-keystone-xl-by-june
-
Lawmakers Push Bipartisan Anti-Drilling Measures
Jan 8, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney
Coastal House members are making good on their promise to push anti-offshore-drilling measures early in the new Congress.
Lawmakers are filing seven bills today to prohibit offshore drilling and seismic testing in the waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico.
Some of the legislation is specific to individual states, while other measures would prevent leasing and exploration in entire regions, such as off the Eastern Seaboard (Greenwire, Jan. 8).
The suite of legislation is designed to block the Trump administration's five-year leasing plan, which proposes opening up more than 90 percent of the outer continental shelf to oil and gas drilling.
"Today's bills are about a cleaner, more sustainable future for our country," said House Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.). "We can create clean energy jobs and protect our coastlines at the same time with the right policy choices. The American people don't want oil rigs on every beach up and down our coasts, and our economy doesn't need them."
The bills' sponsors include New Jersey's Frank Pallone (D), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee; Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who chairs the select climate panel; and Reps. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Donald McEachin (D-Va.).
At least two of the Democratic-led measures have Republican co-sponsors. Florida Republicans Vern Buchanan and Francis Rooney are co-sponsors of the 2019 "Florida Coastal Protection Act." Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) is a co-sponsor of McEachin's bill, "Defend Our Coast Act."
"Offshore drilling is a direct threat to my district," said freshman Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), a co-sponsor of McEachin's bill. Luria represents the state's 2nd District, which includes Virginia Beach and Norfolk.
"It has the potential to hurt our environment, our military and our economy," said Luria. "As a 20-year Navy veteran who trained off the Virginia coast, I know that having to dodge oil platforms would disrupt operations, impact readiness and undermine our national security."
Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana and the League of Conservation Voters, praised the raft of legislation, as did the National Parks Conservation Association.
"Our coasts are home to 68 national park sites that are destinations for millions of annual visitors and havens for birds, sea turtles, whales and other wildlife," said Natalie Levine, program manager for park resource protection at the NPCA.
"These parks contributed over $5.7 billion in economic output in 2017 to local coastal economies," she said, praising House lawmakers for demonstrating "that new leadership is appropriately prioritizing the protection of our coasts, national parks and local communities."
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management expected to publish this month the proposed 2019-2024 leasing program and a draft environmental impact statement. The partial government shutdown, however, has affected that timeline.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/01/08/stories/1060111261
-
U.S. LNG Producers Face Risk Unless Trade War Resolved: Energy Group
Jan 8, 2019 | Reuters
By Timothy Gardner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The nascent U.S. liquefied natural gas export industry has been particularly vulnerable to the U.S.-China trade war, the head of the American Petroleum Institute industry group said on Tuesday, adding that he hopes negotiators will soon resolve the dispute.
Mike Sommers, the president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters an escalating trade dispute could harm U.S. LNG producers, as other countries move in to fill any gap.
“This is a leadership vacuum that will be filled by many of the United States’ opponents,” Sommers told reporters in a teleconference about LNG from other countries filling China’s needs if the fuel does not come from the United States.
The United States is the world’s fastest-growing exporter of LNG. China, the fastest-growing importer, bought about 15 percent of U.S. LNG exports in 2017, worth about $447 million. Through much of 2018, China was on track to buy just 10 percent of the exports.
President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese imports last year and threatened to pressure Beijing more to change its practices on issues ranging from industrial subsidies to intellectual property and hacking. China has retaliated with its own tariffs.
The trade dispute has also roiled crude oil markets since last year on worries it could harm consumer demand. Oil prices rose on Tuesday on hopes for successful negotiations. [O/R]
Sommers said countries that elbow their way in to supply LNG to China may not produce the fuel as environmentally responsibly as U.S. companies and in some cases they may be countries that are not favorable to Washington’s foreign policy.
He did not mention any other countries but the United States has competed with Russia for LNG markets.
“A lot of times energy is used as a club by rogue nations and I think (the United States) has proven itself to be a reliable supplier,” he said.
Sommers said the API was encouraged that the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, were having trade talks in Beijing that will continue for an unscheduled third day, as they look to resolve the dispute.
Last month Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a 90-day freeze on new tariffs to advance trade talks, declaring a truce following months of escalating tensions. U.S. companies proposing new LNG export terminals, including Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd (LNG.AX), have been hoping the agreement could help advance their projects.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-lng/u-s-lng-producers-face-risk-unless-trade-war-resolved-energy-group-idUSKCN1P21W3
-
Oil Lobby Frets Over Trade War
Jan 8, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The nation’s main oil lobbying group is growing increasingly concerned about the impacts to the industry from President Trump’s ongoing trade war.
Mike Sommers, the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) president, said U.S. tariffs on steel and China’s tariffs on liquefied natural gas (LNG) are among the top concerns of oil and gas companies.
“We want this dispute to end quickly,” Sommers told reporters Tuesday in advance of his "State of American Energy" speech, an annual event the oil industry group hosts in an attempt to set the energy policy agenda for the year.
“We of course want to ensure that U.S. intellectual property is protected,” Sommer said, nodding to one of Trump’s main justifications for tariffs on China. “But at the same time, we have to do it in a way that doesn’t affect American economic leadership, that is really driven by American energy leadership.”
Sommers told lawmakers, oil executives and lobbyists later at his speech that the trade war threatens to leave a “void” in world gas markets, since China would buy less gas from the United States.
“It’s a void other countries are happy to fill,” he said. “Our position at API is pretty straightforward: fight back against anti-American trade practices. Just do it in ways that don’t undermine America’s economic leadership.”
China last year put a 10 percent tariff on LNG from the U.S., and threatened to increase it to 25 percent.
Also last year, Trump put a 25 percent tariff on imported steel in a bid to protect domestic steelmakers. Sommers said that’s hurting pipeline companies in particular, citing a Plains All-American Pipeline project faced delays and increased costs because of difficulty in buying steel.
“This is a major issue for us. We’re working closely with the administration to clear this matter up,” he told reporters.
Sommers identified “effective” trade policy as one of API’s top lobbying priorities for the coming year, along with less restrictive regulations and expanding infrastructure including pipelines.
After his speech, Sommers hosted a discussion with top oil company executives. They echoed Sommers’s trade worries.
Gretchen Watkins, president of Shell Oil, said trade barriers are especially disruptive if they impact ongoing projects.
“We have been very active and will continue to be very active to show that projects that are in construction and being executed right here in this country need free trade to continue to be successful,” she said.
Susan Dio, president of BP America, said her company works with global supply chains.
“It is important ... that we can actually move products and things across the supply chains very very effectively, and that does impact the investment decisions that we make.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/424400-oil-lobby-frets-over-trade-war
-
Oil Lobby Group: China Trade Tensions Hurt New U.S. Energy Influence
Jan 8, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre
American Petroleum Institute chief Mike Sommers today warned that the Trump administration's trade tensions with China threatened companies' access to the crucial energy market at a moment when rising U.S. oil and gas output was expanding U.S. influence.
Sommers, in the energy lobby group's annual priorities address, said the robust U.S. energy production has put the country “in a position of strength, after decades of feeling captive to faraway events and to the decisions of others.”
The API chief, who replaced longtime API CEO Jack Gerard last year, said the group had been in direct contact with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to push the administration to reconcile with China after the two countries have slapped tariffs on each other.
“China’s retaliatory tariffs carry the risk of losing a vital energy market, which can mean losing American influence where we need it,” Sommers said in prepared remarks. “Our position at the API is pretty straightforward: Fight back against anti-American trade practices — just do it in ways that don’t undermine America’s economic leadership driven in large part by energy.”
China is the world's top importer of oil and is expected to become the largest liquefied natural gas buyer this year.
Sommers also criticized administration efforts to meddle in the fuel supply for U.S. power plants, and he touted the increasing consumption of natural gas in the electricity sector.
The Trump administration has touted natural gas, but it has also proposed offering financial incentives to help financially struggling coal and nuclear power plants.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Agency In Limbo As DHS Pivots To Cybersecurity
Jan 9, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Government watchdogs say the Department of Homeland Security should find a more fitting home for the Federal Protective Service.
Part law enforcement agency, part physical security monitor, FPS is currently couched under a Department of Homeland Security office better known — and better funded — for parrying cyberthreats to U.S. infrastructure networks.
Its workers are tasked with protecting roughly 9,000 federal facilities from terrorist attacks and other threats.
But the FPS could need to find a new spot in the federal bureaucracy, based on a report issued yesterday by the Government Accountability Office. And top Homeland Security officials haven't fully vetted potential placements, according to GAO.
"An agency's ability to function well is dependent upon having a clear mission, goals and objectives," GAO concluded. Without a careful assessment of FPS's structure and its potential "parent" organizations, "DHS cannot be certain that FPS is currently placed in an agency that enables FPS to meet its mission," GAO said.
FPS's up-in-the-air status appears to be a side effect of a wider DHS pivot toward cybersecurity. As GAO carried out its review, FPS's parent agency changed its name from the National Protection and Programs Directorate to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, reflecting its cyber-focused mission and its new, congressionally authorized status as a stand-alone office distinct from DHS headquarters.
As NPPD — now CISA — drifted toward cybersecurity, FPS boosted its law enforcement efforts, building out a "rapid protection force" to respond to elevated threats.
"FPS and NPPD officials expressed concerns about the fit between the two agencies given differences in how they perform their infrastructure protection missions," GAO said.
Caitlin Durkovich, director at the security consultancy Toffler Associates and former assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at DHS, said she expects FPS to remain at the agency, though she commended GAO's call for officials to settle on specific goals for the office.
"We have a habit of seeing organizations for what they were or currently are and not for what they could be," Durkovich said. "I think that prevented the department and NPPD from having a conversation about, 'What does the future threat environment look like? What are the emerging threat vectors that we're dealing with'" through the work at FPS?
Decades ago, FPS was part of the General Services Administration before passing over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and eventually to NPPD in 2009.
"Reorganization can affect an agency's performance; after each move, FPS faced new duties and challenges," GAO pointed out.
The watchdog identified eight possible locations for FPS to move, laying out pros and cons for each, from the U.S. Marshals Service to the Department of Justice.
GAO did not claim to have the best answer and instead urged DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to carefully review the options: "Moving one agency into another does not necessarily mean that the two agencies will coordinate better."
DHS said in a response to the report that it was currently reviewing four options for placing FPS: keeping it under CISA, setting it up as a stand-alone component within DHS, aligning it with the Office of the Chief Security Officer or making FPS's roughly 1,100 employees report to the Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer.
DHS said it would make a final decision on FPS's fate within the next three months.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/09/stories/1060111319
-
Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s Virginia Facility Wins Air Permit
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Compressor station part of Atlantic Coast Pipeline project
Project would affect low-income residents of historic Union Hill
A proposed compressor station in central Virginia that would push natural gas through the yet-to-be-built 600-mile Atlantic Coast pipeline cleared a critical hurdle Jan. 8, when state regulators approved its air permit.
Environmental groups, however, promised to continue battling the proposed project south of Charlottesville.
The seven-member Virginia Air Pollution Control Board voted 4-0 to grant an air permit for the 54,000-horsepower station being built in historic Union Hill. Two members were absent and one abstained.
The permit would limit the station’s emissions of methane and other pollutants, according to the pipeline developers.
Approval of the air permit helps Dominion, Duke, and Southern Co., the companies seeking to build the $5 billion Atlantic Coast pipeline that would carry fracked natural gas from West Virginia to Virginia and North Carolina.
“Today’s unanimous approval is a significant step forward for this transformational project and the final state approval needed in Virginia,” Karl Neddenien, spokesman for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, said in a Jan. 8 statement.
Lawsuits from environmental and community groups, among others, have slowed the project’s progress.
In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit halted construction of the pipeline pending further review of a requisite Clean Water Act permit. A month later, the Fourth Circuit vacated the U.S. Forest Service permit that allowed its construction through the Appalachian Trail, a national scenic trail.
Project’s Impacts FearedAppalachian Voices and the Sierra Club, two of the groups involved in the litigation, expressed disappointment with the board’s decision.
They said they had provided ample evidence the industrial facility would have a disproportionate impact on the low-income community of Union Hill, which is about 85 percent African-American and was founded by the descendants of freed slaves.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
Peter Anderson, Virginia program manager for Appalachian Voices, said while the board’s action will pave the way for the station to be constructed, “this fight is far from over.”
Anderson termed the vote an affront to Virginia citizens and to the concept of environmental justice, which asserts that low-income and minority communities shouldn’t bear a disproportionate burden from adverse environmental impacts.
The air board’s vote has been postponed twice since November despite the fact that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the compressor station’s construction after four years of review.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/atlantic-coast-pipelines-virginia-facility-wins-air-permit
-
Pennsylvania Pledges 80 Percent Greenhouse Gas Cut by 2050 (1)
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Governor calls for 40 percent of state agencies’ energy from renewables
Seeks 26 percent reduction by 2025 over 2005 levels
Pennsylvania is joining a host of other cities and states pledging ambitious cuts to their greenhouse gases in the absence of federal action to address climate change.
Gov. Tom Wolf (D) announced an order Jan. 8. setting a goal to cut Pennsylvania’s carbon emissions 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050.
“In the absence of leadership from the federal government, states and cities are stepping up and doing their part to reduce emissions,” Wolf said in a statement.
As of 2016, Pennsylvania had already reduced its gross greenhouse gas emissions 18.92 percent from 2005 levels, the governor’s office told Bloomberg Environment.
Wolf’s order directs state agencies to reduce their energy consumption 3 percent per year and 21 percent by 2025 from 2017 levels, replace 25 percent of the state passenger car fleet by 2025 with electric or plug-in hybrid cars, and get at least 40 percent of the state’s annual electricity from renewable energy.
A “GreenGov Council” will be set up as a central coordinating body to help state agencies implement the new goals.
PennFuture, a Pennsylvania environmental group that advocates for clean energy, called the move “an historic step forward” that puts the state’s goals in line with the Paris climate agreement.
“This is a sweeping executive order that re-energizes the state’s moribund climate policy that hasn’t significantly changed in over a decade,” Jacquelyn Bonomo, PennFuture president and CEO, said in a statement.
“Pennsylvania already has the tools at its disposal to meet these goals, but the governor and state legislature must act quickly to make this goal a reality,” she said.
The order took effect immediately, superseding two earlier executive orders in 1998 and 2004.
(Adds link to Executive Order, information from governor's office.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pennsylvania-pledges-80-percent-greenhouse-gas-cut-by-2050-1
-
New GHG Findings Clash With Industry Defense Of Gas As Climate Strategy
Jan 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
New findings of a sharp spike in domestic greenhouse gas emission levels are clashing with the oil and gas sector's argument that increased use of natural gas, a lower carbon fuel source than coal, is an effective climate strategy, an argument that Trump administration officials have generally echoed.
The Rhodium Group, a consulting group that has long tracked GHG emissions levels, Jan. 8 released preliminary analysis, finding that increased use of natural gas and other fossil fuels helped to drive an emissions spike in 2018 cross a range of sectors -- including the power sector, buildings and industrial facilities -- as well as “stubborn” transportation sectors related to trucking and aviation.
Last year's 3.4 percent increase is the second-highest annual boost since 1996, surpassed only by 2010 when the economy rebounded from a major recession.
“The U.S. was already off track in meeting its Paris Agreement targets,” Rhodium says, referencing the Obama administration's pledge to reduce emissions 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 -- a pledge that Trump administration officials have spurned. “The gap is even wider headed into 2019.”
Rhodium's review looked at Energy Information Administration (EIA) and other data from the first nine months of 2018. The consulting group acknowledges that divining emissions trends from a single year's data can be a tricky affair, adding that it does not expect a “repeat” of the same upward spike this year.
Nevertheless, the information “provides some important insights into the emissions reductions challenges facing the U.S,” Rhodium adds.
And the study comes on the same day the American Petroleum Institute (API) hosted its annual State of American Energy event, with the group reprising talking points touting the role of natural gas in reducing GHGs to their “lowest level in a generation.”
API President Mike Sommers on a Jan. 8 press call previewing the event downplayed the Rhodium numbers as a blip in broader trend toward emissions cuts. He noted that EIA, a key source of the Rhodium study, has predicted such long-term GHG reductions.
According to EIA, “CO2 emissions will continue to trend downward in 2019 even as our industry continues to meet record consumer demand and deliver for American families,” Sommers said, adding that the industry takes the climate change issue seriously and is meeting the challenge “head on.”
Trump administration officials have generally echoed those arguments though without being as explicit as the industry officials. For example, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler late last year touted the natural gas industry's contributions to GHG reductions.
He told a natural gas conference in Pittsburgh last October that natural gas production had more than doubled since 1990 even as related methane releases fell by 16 percent. In addition, he said overall carbon emissions had fallen by 2.7 percent since President Trump took office. “These achievements flow from private sector innovation with cooperation between Washington and the states,” he said.
Dose Of Realism
But the emissions tally nonetheless offers a dose of realism on fossil fuel emissions from the power sector and other areas, delving into the role of natural gas in contributing to the 2018 emissions spike. While 2018 was far colder than 2017, driving increased energy use for heating, Rhodium also cites power sector load growth after years flat or declining demand.
“U.S. power consumption increased meaningfully in 2018. Natural gas not only replaced most of the lost coal generation but also fed the vast majority of the load growth last year,” Rhodium says.
Specifically, “Natural gas-fired generation increased by 166 million [kilowatt hours] during the first 10 months of the year. That’s three times the decline in coal generation and four times the combined growth of wind and solar.”
In addition, the analysis says the largest emissions growth in 2018 happened in “two sectors most often ignored in clean energy and climate policy making: buildings and industry.”
One factor for the increase in building-related emissions was weather, but other factors include population growth and increased demand for heating and other “non-electric building energy services” -- shorthand for oil and gas use in buildings -- which Rhodium says outstripped “modest improvements” in the efficiency of oil and natural gas furnaces.
“Building electrification has recently gained traction as a concept within the energy and climate wonkosphere, but much less headway is being made on the ground among actual building owners and operators,” the report says.
On industrial GHG emissions, Rhodium says the the sector is “almost entirely ignored” by state and federal policymakers even as preliminary data suggest it yielded the biggest emissions gains in 2018, at 55 million metric tons. This is due “mostly to growth in industrial activity” and the failure of policies to decouple emissions from growth. The report raises red flags about industrial emissions both related to fossil fuels and non-CO2 gases.
“Absent a significant change in policy or a major technological breakthrough, we expect the industrial sector to become an increasingly large share” of U.S. GHGs. “We expect it to overtake power as the second leading source of emissions in California by 2020 and to become the leading source of emissions in Texas by 2022.”
With respect to transportation GHGs, the report says they increased by about 1 percent in 2018, meaning they retain their status as the largest domestic source of GHG emissions for “three years running.”
This conclusion incorporates “robust growth in demand” for trucking and air travel that boosted demand for diesel and jet fuel by 3.1 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively. This comes even as efficiency improvements and vehicle electrification are “beginning to make a dent [for light-duty vehicles], albeit not nearly a big enough one to meet medium- and long-term U.S. emissions targets.”
This dynamic, according to Rhodium, “highlights the challenges in decarbonizing the transportation sector beyond light-duty vehicles.”
With respect to cars and light trucks, the Trump administration has proposed to aggressively roll back GHG and fuel efficiency requirements, with “stealth” support of the oil sector as highlighted by a recent New York Timesinvestigation.
Methane Rule Split
The Rhodium report and the API event both come amid a pending EPA rulemaking to weaken methane emissions controls from new oil and gas equipment, as well as expectations that EPA will soon propose scrapping direct methane controls in favor of an approach that targets conventional pollutants and limits methane as a co-benefit.
Such a plan would be important legally because it would foreclose an EPA obligation to eventually craft methane standards for existing oil and gas operations.
API's Sommers, in response to reporters' request to clarify his group's stance on direct regulation of GHGs, touted the group's Environmental Partnership program -- which includes over 50 natural gas and oil companies committed to voluntary methane emissions cuts -- and praised the role of “innovation” as a route to GHG cuts.
But the issue highlights emerging splits within the oil and gas sector between large producers like Exxon, which recently called for federal methane standards for new and existing facilities, and small operators who want to scrap direct methane limits. Such splits could become more obvious as EPA's regulatory rollbacks proceed.
In response to a question on this issue, Sommers sought to finesse such divisions, while still appearing to support efforts to minimize burdens on smaller operators.
“We do support regulatory reforms that make sense for the industry as a whole,” he said, pledging to work with the Trump administration and his group's members on a regulatory framework that makes sense for “all of our producers.” -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-ghg-findings-clash-industry-defense-gas-climate-strategy
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested