Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/17/2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Carper Gives Opening Statement at Wheeler EPA Nomination Hearing
Jan 17, 2019 | Milford Beacon
The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held the hearing on the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, at which Sen. Tom Carper, ranking member, delivered the opening statement. -
(ACC Mentioned) 3 Chemical Stocks to Enrich Your Portfolio Before Q4 Earnings
Jan 17, 2019 | Zacks
By Anindya Barman
The trade tussle between the United Sates and China weighed heavily on industries in the basic materials space last year, with the chemical industry being no exception. -
(ACC Mentioned) Recology CEO: It’s Time to Tackle Plastics Crisis
Jan 17, 2019 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
The leader of a major West Coast trash and recyclables company is prepared to bankroll a California ballot measure taking aim at single-use plastics. -
Big Plastic’s Trash Plan Is Just a Drop in the Polluted Ocean
Jan 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
With all those plastic-trash haters filling the Internet with images of garbage-choked oceans and demanding bans on everything from drinking straws to grocery bags, chemical companies are beginning to get alarmed. -
White House Sticks with Key Energy, Environment Picks
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
The White House yesterday sent the Senate paperwork to renominate a number of administration picks the Senate failed to confirm last Congress. -
Small Firms Take Stock of the President at Mid-Term
Jan 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Rick Mullin
Marking the two-year anniversary of the Donald J. Trump administration, the last few weeks have witnessed an erratic stock market, the return of the House of Representatives to Democrat control, the sentencing of Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen... -
Parliament Brexit Deal Rejection ‘Prolongs Uncertainty’ – Industry
Jan 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The outcome of a UK Parliament vote which shot down Prime Minister Theresa May’s EU withdrawal agreement has sparked major concern in the chemicals industry. -
Restrictions on Paint Stripper Coming Soon After EPA Reopens
Jan 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA will restrict uses of the sometimes deadly paint-stripping chemical methylene chloride as soon as possible once the agency receives funding, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said Jan. 16. -
EPA Sued to Issue Pending Methylene Chloride Prohibition Rule in Final
Jan 16, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, Margaret R. Graham
On January 14, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the Vermont Public Interest Group; Safer Chemicals, Health Families; and two individuals (plaintiffs) followed up on their earlier notice of intent to sue and filed a complaint against Andrew Wheeler... -
Metals Don’t Merit Quick-Track EPA Chemical Review, Industry Says
Jan 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Metals shouldn’t be included in the first group of 40 chemicals the EPA will put into a quick risk-review pipeline, two industry associations said. -
China Consults on Chemical Framework Overhaul
Jan 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Sunny Lee
China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) has released a draft law on chemicals for public consultation that could potentially affect all organisations producing, importing or using chemical substances into the country. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pentagon Courts Rejected Scientist for Massive Pollution Fight
Jan 16, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
The Defense Department has sought to hire a controversial scientist who was blocked from joining the Trump administration as the Pentagon fights state and federal chemical regulations that could lead to billions of dollars in cleanup costs and legal settlements... -
(ACC Mentioned) New Hampshire's Proposed PFAS Levels Underscore Patchwork Approach
Jan 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
New Hampshire's recently proposed safe drinking water standards for several perfluorinated compounds at levels somewhat less stringent than other recent state proposals underscore the continuing patchwork of safety levels states are creating for the emerging contaminants... -
(ACC Mentioned) Massachusetts Weighs Limits for Fluorinated Chemicals in Water
Jan 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appe
Massachusetts will decide by the end of the month whether to adopt one of the strictest standards in the nation for fluorinated water contaminants. -
Furloughed EPA Staff Recalled to Work on Lead Dust Standards
Jan 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA has recalled furloughed staff to finish a final rule revising the agency’s standards for lead dust, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler told a Senate committee Jan. 16. -
Key West Takes Step Toward Banning Sunscreens Harmful to Coral Reefs
Jan 16, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Owen Daugherty
Officials in Key West, Fla., took the first step toward banning the sale of sunscreens that contain ingredients considered harmful to coral reefs. -
Echa Agrees to List of Potential REACH Restriction Candidates
Jan 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has agreed to a Dutch proposal that will see the agency distribute a list of chemicals that could be considered for restrictions under REACH. -
BASF and Givaudan Enter Skin Sensitisation ITS Debate
Jan 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Scientists from German chemical giant BASF and Swiss flavour and fragrance company Givaudan have entered a debate over integrated test strategies (ITS) for skin sensitisation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Tri-State Shale Coalition Helping Region Compete
Jan 16, 2019 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Cory Dennison
Competition has its place in business, politics and other human endeavors. But so does cooperation. -
Greens Press for More Public Hearings on ANWR Leasing Plan
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
A coalition of 16 environmental groups is urging the Interior Department to expand its lineup of public hearings on plans to sell oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. -
EPA Cites Shutdown to Seek More Time for CPP Status Report
Jan 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA attorneys are citing the ongoing government shutdown to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to extend a deadline for the agency to file a routine status report in long-paused litigation over the Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule. -
Dems Ask Interior to Stop Offshore Drilling Work During Shutdown
Jan 17, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Top House Democrats are asking the Trump administration to reverse its decision to bring dozens of furloughed employees back to open more areas for offshore oil and natural gas drilling. -
4 Things to Watch This Year at DOE
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Christa Marshall and Hannah Northey,
In 2018, Energy Secretary Rick Perry visited the Middle East and completed tours of all the national laboratories. -
Anti-Terrorist Chemical Security Program Extension Passes Senate
Jan 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michaela Ross
A program that works to ensure terrorists can’t get access to dangerous chemicals would be extended for 15 months under amended legislation that passed the Senate late Wednesday by unanimous consent. -
Senate Dem Decries Shutdown Of Chemical Accident Probes
Jan 16, 2019 | Law 360
By Christopher Cole
A tiny federal agency that investigates chemical spills and related incidents in the energy sector can't do its job during the government shutdown, putting crucial probes into the causes of industrial accidents at risk, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Wednesday. -
Review Can Wait on Failure to Check Sterilizing Plants: EPA Head (1)
Jan 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA Region 5’s order to halt inspections of facilities emitting carcinogenic ethylene oxide in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin doesn’t yet warrant an inspector general investigation, the agency’s top official said Jan. 16. -
New Jersey Transit Locomotives Idle as Mandated Project Takes Toll
Jan 16, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Elise Young
New Jersey Transit pulled off the seemingly impossible by making a Dec. 31 deadline to install emergency-braking software ordered by Congress. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industries Defend EPA Move to Scrap 'Once In, Always in' Air Toxics Policy
Jan 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Groups representing major industries are defending EPA's move to scrap a long-running “once in, always in” policy forcing facilities to retain air toxics controls permanently even if the plants reduce emissions to below regulated levels, arguing in new legal brief... -
Wheeler Pushes Back on Reports Claiming Lax EPA Enforcement (1)
Jan 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler pushed back against recent reports from activist groups that his agency is too lax on those who violate environmental laws, questioning some of the data and claiming enforcement numbers are up. -
Trump EPA Nominee Grilled by Sanders, Democrats on Climate Change
Jan 16, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna and Alex Guillén
A handful of potential presidential standard-bearers interrogated President Donald Trump’s candidate to head the Environmental Protection Agency on climate change Wednesday, with Sen. Bernie Sanders pressing him on whether he considered the issue to be a global crisis. -
White House Hopefuls Test Climate Messages at EPA Hearing
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
Democrats used Andrew Wheeler's confirmation hearing for EPA administrator as a dress rehearsal for their climate messages in the 2020 presidential primary. -
N.Y. Unveils 'Green New Deal'
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced an ambitious set of clean energy goals yesterday that he framed as a "Green New Deal" for the state. -
Former Fed Leaders, Economists Rally Around Carbon Tax
Jan 16, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puko
An all-star roster of former Federal Reserve leaders and White House economic advisers are signing on to a new statement in support of a carbon tax on businesses that sends the revenue to U.S. citizens.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Carper Gives Opening Statement at Wheeler EPA Nomination Hearing
Jan 17, 2019 | Milford Beacon
The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held the hearing on the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, at which Sen. Tom Carper, ranking member, delivered the opening statement.
“Let me begin by welcoming our nominee this morning and thanking him for meeting with my staff and me in our office yesterday afternoon,” said Carper.
“Just one week ago, President Trump nominated you to be the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the agency you already lead as acting administrator. If I’m not mistaken, under the Federal Vacancies Act, you can continue to serve as both the EPA acting administrator and the president’s nominee for 203 more days. With many EPA staff members furloughed today on the 26th day of President Trump’s government shutdown, a number of the Democratic members of this committee are concerned that we are rushing to move forward with your confirmation process,” said Carper.
“I realize we don’t all agree on this, but my view is that EPA is shut down largely because President Trump wants Congress to approve an additional $6.5 billion in funding now for a 2,000-mile wall along our southern border with Mexico that the Mexicans were originally supposed to pay for. Meanwhile, because of the continuing shutdown across the country, our environment and public health are increasingly in jeopardy,” said Carper.
“With much of EPA shut down, rules are not being written. Drinking water and power plant inspections are not being performed. Superfund sites are not being cleaned up. The safety of new chemicals is not being assessed. Public meetings are being canceled,” said Carper.
“Just as important, 14,000 furloughed EPA employees are unsure if they will be able to afford their mortgages, day care providers or grocery and electricity bills. Some of those furloughed employees appear to have been asked to help prepare for this very hearing. Yet, despite that, this committee is moving quickly to process your nomination,” said Carper.
“I do not believe that giving the acting administrator a speedy promotion is more urgent and more important than protecting the public from contamination to our air and water and lands. Our priority should be reopening EPA and the other closed federal agencies,” said Carper.
“The day after Mr. Wheeler was named EPA acting administrator last summer, I sent him a letter. In that letter, I reminded Mr. Wheeler of the challenge and opportunity he was granted to chart a new course for the agency after the scandal-plagued tenure of Scott Pruitt,” said Carper.
“Mr. Wheeler is certainly not the ethically bereft embarrassment that Scott Pruitt proved to be and — to be fair — he has engaged more frequently and substantively than Scott Pruitt with both Congress and EPA career staff. I knew that Mr. Wheeler and I would not always agree. But I hoped that he would moderate some of Scott Pruitt’s most environmentally destructive policies, specifically where industry and the environmental community are in agreement,” said Carper.
“Regrettably, my hopes have not been realized. In fact, upon examination, Mr. Wheeler’s environmental policies appear to be just as extreme as his predecessor’s despite the promises that Mr. Wheeler made when he first appeared before our committee,” said Carper.
“For example, Mr. Wheeler said repeatedly then that he agreed with a goal that many of us share — striking a deal between automakers and the state of California on fuel economy and greenhouse gas tailpipe standards. The entire automobile industry, many members of Congress, and other stakeholders have asked repeatedly for a compromise that would provide certainty and predictability for the industry. However, instead of making a serious effort to find the win-win outcome he envisioned, Mr. Wheeler signed off on a proposal that preempts California and freezes standards for the better part of a decade,” said Carper.
“I have heard that the Trump administration now plans to finalize a 0.5 percent annual increase in the stringency of the standards — a rate that is 10 times weaker than the current rules. This will only lead to extensive litigation and uncertainty for automakers. That’s not a win-win outcome. It’s a lose-lose,” said Carper.
“Here is another example of Mr. Wheeler’s forgotten promises — Mr. Wheeler recently signed a proposal to remove the legal underpinnings of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. EPA decided it is no longer, quote, ‘appropriate and necessary’ to protect the brains of infants from mercury and air toxic pollution emitted by electric utilities,” said Carper.
“Using outdated data and deeming that some benefits — like reductions in cancer, birth defects and asthma attacks — are no longer important to consider, EPA is setting a dangerous precedent and putting MATS in legal jeopardy. EPA has gone so far as to request public comment on whether the standards should be eliminated,” said Carper.
“Mr. Wheeler says this action was necessary and that the proposal strikes a balance. Unfortunately, that’s not true. No court has ordered this action. No utilities are asking for this action. And this proposal is not needed to protect public health. In fact, the utility industry is in full compliance with these standards, at one-third of the expected costs. Think about that: one-third of the costs. Every stakeholder — from coal-fired utilities to religious leaders to environmental organizations to the chamber of commerce — urged this administration not to take this step. Surprisingly, Mr. Wheeler has chosen to ignore the chorus of stakeholders who all hoped he would chart a more responsible path,” said Carper.
“A final example of Mr. Wheeler’s failure to lead lies in the agency’s reported opposition to submitting to the Senate for ratification the Kigali Treaty to phase out harmful refrigerants. Safer substitutes are made in Texas and Louisiana with American technology by companies whose investments and jobs are at risk when China dumps cheaper, polluting product onto the market. Ratification of this treaty is supported by a truly staggering list of stakeholders that range from the American Chemistry Council to the Chamber of Commerce to FreedomWorks to the Sierra Club — everyone, it seems, except EPA,” said Carper.
“Mr. Wheeler, when you worked with us in the Senate, you were able to identify areas where compromise was possible. It remains my hope that you can reverse course and commit to seize upon the policy ‘win-wins’ like these and others that protect our environment and public health while providing industry with certainty. That is what the American people expect and deserve from anyone who’s been nominated to lead the Environmental Protection Agency — and, based on what we’ve seen so far, without such commitments, that is not the nominee that we have before us today,” said Carper.
http://www.milfordbeacon.com/news/20190116/carper-gives-opening-statement-at-wheeler-epa-nomination-hearing
-
(ACC Mentioned) 3 Chemical Stocks to Enrich Your Portfolio Before Q4 Earnings
Jan 17, 2019 | Zacks
By Anindya Barman
The trade tussle between the United Sates and China weighed heavily on industries in the basic materials space last year, with the chemical industry being no exception. The damaging effects of the trade war between the world’s two biggest economies were evident from the chemical industry’s lackluster performance in 2018.
The Zacks Chemicals Diversified industry, which consists of manufacturers of basic chemicals, plastics, specialty chemicals and agricultural chemicals, significantly underperformed the broader market in 2018. The industry tumbled 26.3% compared with the Zacks S&P 500 Composite’s 6.1% decline.
Investors’ confidence on the chemical industry’s prospects has taken a beating due the trade conflict. The Trump administration slapped punitive tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese products last year while China has imposed retaliatory tariffs on $110 billion in U.S. goods. China’s tariffs on American products include a wide range of petrochemicals, specialty chemicals and plastics.
China is one of the biggest export markets for U.S. chemicals and thus, leaves the American chemical industry heavily exposed to Beijing’s retaliatory trade actions. The tariffs have created an uncertain demand environment for U.S. chemical products in this major market.
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 trade friction has led to a slowdown in demand in China in this major chemical end-use market.
What’s Next for the Industry?
While trade tensions pose a risk, the chemical industry is poised for an upswing in 2019. In particular, the U.S. chemical industry is set for a smooth run this year on the back of strength across major end-use markets, higher industrial activities and gains in business investment.
The outlook for the American chemical industry paints an encouraging picture. The American Chemistry Council (“ACC”), a leading industry trade group, expects national chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) to rise 3.6% in 2019. The growth is expected to be spurred by gains in manufacturing and export and sustained demand across light vehicles and housing markets.
Meanwhile, the European Chemical Industry Council (“CEFIC”) envisions the European chemical industry to recover in 2019 from a decline in demand from the automotive industry in 2018. The CEFIC expects chemical output in the European Union to rise 0.5% year over year in 2019, which would mark a rebound from a 0.5% decline 2018. While the CEFIC sees demand from automotive, agricultural and construction sectors to improve modestly in 2019, it expects trade tensions between the United States, China and Europe to impact the industry’s performance.
Expectations for Q4
Per the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry is under the broader Basic Materials sector. Earnings growth for the Basic Materials sector in the third quarter was second only to the energy sector. Overall earnings for the sector climbed 42% while revenues spiked 16.5%.
However, the Basic Materials sector is expected to lose momentum in the fourth quarter as earnings for the sector are projected to rise 2.9% on 4.8% higher revenues, per the latest Earnings Outlook.
Chemical companies are expected to face some seasonal slowdown in demand in the December quarter. Chemical makers also face headwinds from a spike in costs of raw materials as a result of short supply partly due to production outages and plant shutdowns. China’s environmental crackdown has led to the tightening in the supply of certain key raw materials as a result of plant closures. The disruption in the supply chain has pushed up the prices of these inputs in a high demand environment. Some of the chemical companies are also exposed to challenges from elevated energy and logistics costs.
Nevertheless, the companies should be able to offset the concerns with strategic measures, including cost-cutting and productivity improvement and actions to raise selling prices. A number of companies including Eastman Chemical Company (EMN - Free Report) , Celanese Corporation (CE - Free Report) and Ashland Global Holdings Inc. (ASH - Free Report) are taking aggressive price increase actions in the wake of raw material cost inflation. These actions should spur margin improvement in the fourth quarter.
Moreover, chemical companies remain actively focused on mergers and acquisitions to diversify and drive growth. Synergies from acquisitions should also lend support to earnings in the fourth quarter. President Donald Trump’s business-friendly tax reform also contributed to the performance of U.S. chemical makers in the third quarter and would continue to act as a tailwind in the fourth.
Picking the Winning Stocks
Companies in the chemical space face headwinds from raw materials cost inflation and demand weakness. Nevertheless, strategic measures including productivity improvement and price hike actions are likely to drive the performance of chemical makers in the fourth quarter.
As such, a sneak peek at the space for some potential winners backed by a solid Zacks Rank could be a great idea for investors looking to gain from the fourth-quarter earnings season.
With the help of the Zacks Stock Screener, we have shortlisted chemical stocks that have an estimated year over year earnings per share (EPS) growth of 10% or more for the to-be-reported quarter. Further, these stocks carry a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or 2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
3 Chemical Stocks to Buy
Below we discuss three chemical stocks that are worth investing in before the fourth-quarter earnings season hits full throttle.
Ingevity Corporation (NGVT - Free Report)
South Carolina-based Ingevity sports a Zacks Rank #1. The company has an expected EPS growth of 73.3% for the fourth quarter. The company also delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average beat of 19.8%.
Ferro Corporation (FOE - Free Report)
Our next pick is Ohio-based Ferro carrying a Zacks Rank #2. It has an expected EPS growth of 37.9% for the fourth quarter. Earnings estimates for the fourth quarter have been revised 2.6% upward over the last 60 days. Moreover, the company delivered positive earnings surprise in three of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 0.3%.
Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR - Free Report)
Pennsylvania-based Quaker Chemical carries a Zacks Rank #2. The company has an expected EPS growth of 12.6% for the fourth quarter. Earnings estimates for the fourth quarter have been revised 4.4% upward over the last 60 days. Moreover, the company delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of roughly 5%.
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/347929/3-chemical-stocks-to-enrich-your-portfolio-before-q4-earnings
-
(ACC Mentioned) Recology CEO: It’s Time to Tackle Plastics Crisis
Jan 17, 2019 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
The leader of a major West Coast trash and recyclables company is prepared to bankroll a California ballot measure taking aim at single-use plastics.
In an opinion piece published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Recology President and CEO Michael Sangiacomo reflected on the ocean plastics problem and lack of markets for many recovered plastics. He also noted that the European Union (EU) is working to mandate recycled content in plastic bottles and ban certain single-use plastic products.
In the piece, published Dec. 24, he wrote that he sent a letter to the head of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) inviting the plastics industry to offer recycling solutions that are effective, scaleable and implemented in communities around the world. He said Recology would be a willing partner in the effort.
“That said, I do feel we are nearly out of time, as the planet’s oceans and wildlife are increasingly overrun by plastic waste,” Sangiacomo wrote. “If the plastics industry is unable to step forward with a set of policies and programs that reverses these unfortunate trends, Recology will work to place a comprehensive policy on the next statewide California ballot – building off the EU model. We are prepared to commit $1 million toward a signature-gathering effort to that end and will work with all who are willing to move this effort forward.”
Headquartered in San Francisco, Recology serves dozens of communities in California, Oregon and Washington with collection, recyclables sorting and marketing, composting, and landfilling services.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/01/16/recology-ceo-its-time-to-tackle-plastics-crisis/
-
Big Plastic’s Trash Plan Is Just a Drop in the Polluted Ocean
Jan 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey
With all those plastic-trash haters filling the Internet with images of garbage-choked oceans and demanding bans on everything from drinking straws to grocery bags, chemical companies are beginning to get alarmed.
Their solution: A public pledge by the new Alliance to End Plastic Waste to spend $1 billion over five years to clean up marine debris, improve recycling and develop new technologies to reduce pollution. That may sound like a lot of green, but the Alliance is made up of 28 companies that make plastics, packaging and consumer products, which averages out to each company spending just over $7 million on the effort each year.
That’s pocket change for alliance members like LyondellBasell Industries NV, which sells about $20 billion a year in plastics and related chemicals, and for Procter & Gamble Co., the only consumer products company in the alliance, whose $67 billion in sales depend on disposable plastic packaging. Meanwhile, Dow Chemical, now a unit of DowDuPont Inc., is ramping up plastics production with a recently completed $6 billion U.S. investment.
The alliance represents groundbreaking collaboration to solve the pollution problem, said Lyondell Chief Executive Officer Bob Patel, one of the leaders of the project. They’re just getting started, he says, with recruiting underway for more members that would boost funding to as much as $1.5 billion, as well as plans for growing their investments.
‘Powerful’ Collaboration
“This approach is unique because it brings together and focuses the efforts and knowledge of plastics producers, consumer goods companies and retailers, as well as waste management companies,” Patel said. “Having the resources and knowledge of the entire global value chain under one umbrella with the same goal is really very powerful.“
So is even $1.5 billion over five years likely to fulfill Patel’s goal to “end plastic waste”? Not even close, according to an Ocean Conservancy report that estimated it would cost $5 billion a year for a package of initiatives to reduce the global leakage of plastics into the ocean by 45 percent in the next six years. Even that plan wouldn’t see the trash flow ending until 2035.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/big-plastics-trash-plan-is-just-a-drop-in-the-polluted-ocean
-
White House Sticks with Key Energy, Environment Picks
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
The White House yesterday sent the Senate paperwork to renominate a number of administration picks the Senate failed to confirm last Congress.
Among the names is Peter Wright to be EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management, which almost got through at the end of the 115th Congress (E&E Daily, Jan. 14).
Another renomination is for Barry Myers to lead NOAA. He recently resigned from his post as CEO of AccuWeather Inc. and sold his interest in the company to address conflict-of-interest concerns.
Other renominations are:
· Rita Baranwal for assistant Energy secretary for nuclear energy.
· Christopher Fall to lead the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
· William Cooper for DOE general counsel.
· William Bookless for principal deputy administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
· Susan Combs for assistant Interior secretary for policy.
· Ann Marie Buerkle to chair the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
· Mindy Brashears for undersecretary of Agriculture for food safety.
· Diana Furchtgott-Roth for assistant Transportation secretary for research and technology.
Also on tap are Spencer Bachus, a former top lawmaker; Judith Pryor; Kimberly Reed; and Claudia Slacik for leadership slots at the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/01/17/stories/1060117757
-
Small Firms Take Stock of the President at Mid-Term
Jan 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Rick Mullin
Marking the two-year anniversary of the Donald J. Trump administration, the last few weeks have witnessed an erratic stock market, the return of the House of Representatives to Democrat control, the sentencing of Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation of the president, and a standoff over the proposed border wall between the US and Mexico, resulting in a record-setting partial government shutdown.
Still, as has been the case through several chaotic episodes over the past two years, the president’s approval rating among likely or registered voters continues to hover in the 40% range, buoyed by an extremely loyal base.
One constituency that remains fairly solidly in the president’s camp are the managers of small to midsized specialty and fine chemical companies. They head companies that range from small, family-owned enterprises to specialized divisions of large corporations. A swath of American industry whose voices do not appear prominently in the general press, these executives typically align with the Republican party’s pro-business politics, voting for any candidate who is not a pro-tax, pro-regulation Democrat. Nevertheless, issues such as trade policy and chaos in the distinctly nontraditional Trump administration are causing some of them to rethink their support.
To judge only from last month’s annual dinner of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, a trade association for such firms, all is well for Trump in this sector. A well-attended “fireside chat” prior to the dinner featured Peter J. Tanous, chairman of Lynx Investment Advisory, and Stephen Moore, founder of the conservative Club for Growth and former chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, both of whom who gave the administration high marks. Moore’s laudatory book, Trumponomics, coauthored by economist Arthur Laffer and financial analyst Larry Kudlow, was handed out and eagerly received at the cocktail reception that followed. Kudlow was appointed by Trump in 2018 to lead the National Economic Council.
And when speaking with C&EN, many executives say they feel something akin to relief with Trump following what they viewed as a period of high taxes and runaway regulation under former president Barack Obama.
“From my perspective, I think Trump’s doing a good job, because he’s very matter of fact,” says Michael Kucharski, CEO of the phosgene chemistry specialist VanDeMark. “I think he knows exactly where to draw the line on things, and he knows what his objectives are.”
And those objectives align with Kucharski’s business. He points, for example, to tariffs that he believes are easing competition from Chinese firms. He admits to uneasiness in supporting a president whose lapses of character include highly offensive comments about women and, in the weeks leading up to his election, paying to silence two with whom he had affairs. “But, frankly, what president hasn’t had conflict?” he asks. “I mean, look at Bill Clinton.”
Others are making an effort to look beyond the mayhem that surrounds Trump’s presidency. “If you watch what he does rather than what he says, he’s working in the best interest of US manufacturers and the US economy,” says Jim DeLisi, CEO of Fanwood Chemical, a marketing services firm. Like Kucharski, DeLisi highlights the topic of China, claiming that Trump’s brinkmanship on trade helps small businesses.
“China has promised to revise and update its trade policies for the last 25 or 30 years, and repeatedly they’ve done nothing,” he says. Conceding that Trump’s approach of imposing trade sanctions lacks finesse, DeLisi applauds a tough stance.
“Something needed to be done,” DeLisi says. “Whether this is the right way to do it or not, I don’t know, but somebody had to draw some lines in the sand.” The trade imbalance, intellectual property theft, and ostensible formation of huge monopolies in industries including petrochemicals and agricultural chemicals in China requires the kind of zero tolerance response from the West that Trump alone presents, DeLisi argues.
However, some executives question the effectiveness of Trump’s stance on trade and fault the president for erratic decision making and poor management, contending that chaos in the White House creates an intolerable level of uncertainty for business managers.
“If I strictly put my business hat on, which is in opposition to my personal feelings, I think the administration has been both good and bad,” says Kate Hampford Donahue, CEO of the specialty chemical maker Hampford Research.
Donahue says she likes the course Trump set on trade and regulatory policy following the Obama administration. But “the tariffs have not helped at all,” she says. Trump’s trade war has combined with closure of chemical plants in China during a continuing environmental crackdown to create dislocation in raw material supply for companies like Hampford, she says.
Donahue, a member of Socma’s board of governors, adds that the negative impact of the administration’s trade policy extends beyond China. “The tone of dealing with our overseas customers has definitely shifted,” she says. “There is wariness and aggravation, in some cases anger. There is a sense that the US isn’t playing by the same rules it used to play by.”
Several executives even express disappointment with how things have gone in areas such as deregulation since the election. Mara Gliozzi, vice president and business manager at McGean, a manufacturer of aviation maintenance chemicals and other specialty chemicals, says she was optimistic about prospects for business two years ago.
“I was hoping we would see some change in the government, where it’s run closer to how a business would operate,” says Gliozzi, who is also on Socma’s board. “Where decisions would be made and we would be able to move on to the next decision. This is the Art of the Deal man, right? Well, we don’t see a lot of things getting done.”
Staffing at agencies such as the US Environmental Protection Agency has been a problem, she says. “At EPA, Trump said that for every regulation put in place, two had to be taken out,” Gliozzi says. “I don’t know that any new regulations have been added, and he certainly hasn’t taken any out because there is not enough staffing to make anything happen.”
Aslam Malik, CEO of Ampac Fine Chemicals and initially a strong supporter of Trump, says he feels similarly let down. “Trump has some very good ideas about things that need to be done, but his approach is not what works in Washington, DC,” he says. Malik agrees with Gliozzi that government staffing is a problem. “For some reason he is very hesitant to appoint people. A lot of his appointments are temporary or interim.”
In fact, Malik finds the current level chaos in the government debilitating. “Some people think chaos is good,” he says. “There is a notion that leaving things the way they are is bad and that you need change. But in my mind chaos makes people very uncomfortable and insecure. You have people at each other’s throats. Nothing gets done.”
Trump’s “one-man show” management style is particularly destructive, Malik says. “I think people like Rex Tillerson were great choices,” he says, referring to Trump’s former secretary of state. “But Trump never listened to them. Beyond appointing people, you have to give them authority.”
Indeed, even the president’s most ardent supporters have had to come to terms with misgivings.
“Cutting back taxes, cutting regulations, and putting good people on the [Supreme Court]. That is what I’m for,” says Louis Glunz, CEO of Regis Technologies, a family-owned maker of pharmaceutical chemicals. Glunz still thinks Trump is headed in a pro-business direction, although he has long worried whether mercurial Trump is “mature enough” to be president.
DeLisi likewise remains enthusiastic about the trajectory for small business under the current administration. He admits, however, to a high level of personal distaste for the Twitter-happy president. “If I were the king of the world,” DeLisi says, “I’d break his thumbs. But I’m not.”
https://cen.acs.org/policy/trade/Small-firms-take-stock-president/97/web/2019/01
-
Parliament Brexit Deal Rejection ‘Prolongs Uncertainty’ – Industry
Jan 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The outcome of a UK Parliament vote which shot down Prime Minister Theresa May’s EU withdrawal agreement has sparked major concern in the chemicals industry.
On 15 January, MPs rejected the deal by 432 votes to 202 – the largest UK government defeat in recent history. Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn immediately called for a vote of no-confidence in the government, which Ms May narrowly survived. Defeat would have likely spelled a general election.
The prime minister has started cross-party talks to try to secure a deal and will return to the House of Commons on 21 January with a plan B. MPs will be able to amend this, which might allow them to take greater control of the Brexit agenda.
Meanwhile, political commentators say the result of the vote means an extension of Article 50 – which sets out the legal process for a member state to leave the EU – has now become a strong possibility. Yet this would require unanimous agreement in the European Council.
If this does not happen the UK risks crashing out of the single market without a trade deal. Even if MPs do eventually approve the deal, an extension to Article 50 is deemed necessary because Whitehall will not have enough time to get the legislation through before 29 March.
Industry reaction
Peter Newport, chief executive of the UK’s Chemical Business Association (CBA), said the House of Commons vote result "prolongs the uncertainty" for industry and that its members are "extremely concerned" by the implications and consequences of a potential no-deal outcome.
"We have no idea what its plan B will be – or whether the content of a plan B stands any chance of securing the agreement of the EU."
Steve Elliott, head of the Chemical Industries Association (CIA), said that now MPs of all parties must "work together on behalf of the country to identify common ground and the basis of plan B, so that when the prime minister reports on Monday, we can be confident there will be a majority view on securing a deal."
The need for a negotiated deal "remains and gets more urgent by the day – as does the need to avoid a ‘no-deal’ outcome", he added.
Marco Mensink said Cefic "can’t stress [...] enough" that having certainty on arrangements between the EU and the UK is "critical to avoid serious supply chain disruptions. We continue to ask for a solution to be found, and hope that a no-deal Brexit can still be avoided."
Such a scenario would "undoubtedly jeopardise the world leading standards of protection against hazardous chemicals that UK citizens and the environment currently enjoy through REACH," NGO CHEM Trust’s Brexit campaigner Kate Young said.
The chemicals community has long supported maintaining UK associate membership of Echa and avoiding regulatory divergence between Britain and stringent EU standards.
Meanwhile, trade body SMEunited said a no-deal Brexit will "not only be a disaster" for UK SMEs, but will also "render major problems" for those in the rest of the EU.
"European SMEs need to urgently intensify efforts to be prepared in case of a no-deal scenario. SMEunited expects a swift reaction from the UK government; one that clarifies how to avoid a no-deal Brexit."
https://chemicalwatch.com/73438/parliament-brexit-deal-rejection-prolongs-uncertainty-industry
-
Restrictions on Paint Stripper Coming Soon After EPA Reopens
Jan 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA will restrict uses of the sometimes deadly paint-stripping chemical methylene chloride as soon as possible once the agency receives funding, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said Jan. 16.
The Environmental Protection Agency had hoped to publish its rule (RIN: 2070-AK07) last week but can’t, because the Federal Register is closed as a result of the government shutdown, Wheeler told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during the hearing on his nomination to lead the agency.
“It’s ready to go as soon as the Federal Register opens,” Wheeler told Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who said protecting people from the solvent is urgent.
The EPA has sent a final rule restricting consumer uses of methylene chloride to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The agency also sent OMB an advanced notice of a proposed program to train workers who strip paints, varnishes, and other coatings using solvents containing methylene chloride.
Neither regulatory action can proceed during the partial government shutdown, which began Dec. 22.
LawsuitA coalition of environmental groups and the parents of two young men who died from exposure to that solvent filed a lawsuit Jan. 14 alleging the EPA has violated the Toxic Substances Control Act by allowing a chemical the agency knows can be deadly to remain on the market.
The deaths of more than 40 people have been attributed to methylene chloride when used in paint and coating removal, the EPA said in January 2017, when it proposed to restrict all consumer and most commercial uses of such removal products.
At least four more people have died since that rule was proposed, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, and parents told the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont in their lawsuit.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/restrictions-on-paint-stripper-coming-soon-after-epa-reopens
-
EPA Sued to Issue Pending Methylene Chloride Prohibition Rule in Final
Jan 16, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, Margaret R. Graham
On January 14, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the Vermont Public Interest Group; Safer Chemicals, Health Families; and two individuals (plaintiffs) followed up on their earlier notice of intent to sue and filed a complaint against Andrew Wheeler and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compel EPA to perform its “mandatory duty” to “address the serious and imminent threat to human health presented by paint removal products containing methylene chloride.” Plaintiffs bring the action under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 20(a) which states that “any person may commence a civil action … against the Administrator to compel the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is not discretionary.” Plaintiffs allege that EPA has not performed its mandatory duty under TSCA Sections 6(a) and 7. TSCA Section 6(a) gives EPA the authority to regulate substances that present “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” and TSCA Section 7 gives EPA the authority to commence civil actions for seizure and/or relief of “imminent hazards.” Plaintiffs’ argument to direct EPA to ban methylene chloride is centered on the issue of risk to human health only, however, stating that it presents “an unreasonable risk to human health” as confirmed by EPA. Under TSCA Section 20(b)(2), plaintiffs are required to submit a notice of intent to sue 60 days prior to filing a complaint which they did on October 31, 2018.Background
On January 19, 2017, EPA issued a proposed rule under TSCA Section 6 to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal (82 Fed. Reg. 7464). EPA also proposed to prohibit the use of methylene chloride in these commercial uses; to require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors, except for retailers, of methylene chloride for any use to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require recordkeeping. EPA relied on a risk assessment of methylene chloride published in 2014, the scope of which EPA stated included “consumer and commercial paint and coating removal.” The proposed rule stated that in the risk assessment, EPA identified risks from inhalation exposure including “neurological effects such as cognitive impairment, sensory impairment, dizziness, incapacitation, and loss of consciousness (leading to risks of falls, concussion, and other injuries)” and, based on EPA’s analysis of worker and consumer populations' exposures to methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, EPA proposed “a determination that methylene chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal present an unreasonable risk to human health.” The comment period on the proposed rule was extended several times, ending in May 2017, and in September 2017 EPA held a workshop to help inform EPA’s understanding of methylene chloride use in furniture refinishing.
No further action was taken to issue the rule in final, however, until December 21, 2018, when EPA sent the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. On the same day, EPA also sent another rule to OMB for review titled “Methylene Chloride; Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program,” which has not previously been included in EPA’s Regulatory Agenda; very little is known about this rule. Plaintiffs do not refer to it in the complaint but there is speculation, based on its title, that this second rule may allow for some commercial uses of methylene chloride.Commentary
We recall the lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) in 2018 challenging EPA’s draft New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework document as a final rule. The current action further reflects the commitment of detractors of EPA to use the courts and every other means available to oppose the Administration’s TSCA implementation efforts. Whether and when this court will respond is unclear. What is clear is that the case will be closely watched, as the outcome will be an important signal to the TSCA stakeholder community regarding the utility of TSCA Section 20(a)(2) to force non-discretionary EPA actions that the Administration may be disinclined to take.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-sued-to-issue-pending-methylene-chloride-prohibition-rule-final
-
Metals Don’t Merit Quick-Track EPA Chemical Review, Industry Says
Jan 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Metals shouldn’t be included in the first group of 40 chemicals the EPA will put into a quick risk-review pipeline, two industry associations said.
The process the Environmental Protection Agency will use to decide which of those 40 chemicals warrants close scrutiny and possible regulation isn’t applicable to metals, Kathleen Roberts, executive director of the North American Metals Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
The agency’s near-term plan to sort through the 40 chemicals doesn’t recognize that metals, which are used to make products including aluminum, batteries, electronics, and inks, behave quite differently in the human body and environment than most chemicals do, she said.
Unless the agency recognizes the unique characteristics of metals, the EPA could eventually conclude they pose an unreasonable risk warranting regulation, and the latest science wouldn’t support that finding, she said.
“I don’t see any reason why metals shouldn’t be treated the same way” as other chemicals are, William Stubblefield, an Oregon State University professor specializing in metals risk assessment, said Jan. 15.
March Deadline
The 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments require the EPA, which is one of the agencies closed in the government shutdown, to release a list no later than March 22 of at least 40 chemicals it will sort through by the end of this year.
Of the 40, the EPA must designate 20 chemicals as high priorities and the rest as low priorities.
The distinction is important because the law requires the EPA to immediately begin analyzing whether those 20 high-priority chemicals pose an unreasonable risk, and, if so, reduce that risk through some kind of regulatory controls.
The metal industry’s concerns were among the very few comments submitted to 74 electronic dockets that the EPA established to help it select the 40 chemicals. The trade groups focused on eight metals and metal compounds: antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, and nickel.
The Natural Resources Defense Council urged the agency to review a different metal, mercury.
Old Guidance, New Science
The EPA plans to use 2007 guidance, the Framework for Metals Risk Assessment, to help it evaluate metals, but a tremendous amount of new science that the agency should consider has been developed since then, Roberts said.
Much of that science addresses fundamental questions such as how metals move through and are transformed in living beings and the environment, she said.
For example, some zinc is essential for the human body, but too much is toxic. Some forms of aluminum are used in medicines while others pass through the body and are eliminated without any effect.
Understanding the vast amount of new data and new risk evaluation methodologies and making decisions by December will be a challenge, Roberts said.
The council and the National Mining Association would like to organize a workshop for EPA risk assessors to discuss the new data and metals risk assessment methods that are available, Roberts said.
EPA Understands New Science
The EPA already is working with the industry to understand emerging science about metals that has resulted from Europe’s registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals, or REACH, regulation, Stubblefield said.
The agency’s familiarity with the latest science is illustrated by criteria it released in December to help states, tribes, and other entities understand when concentrations of aluminum might harm aquatic life, he said.
Eight industry metals groups also signed a cooperative research and development agreement last year to improve the EPA’s understanding of metals in the aquatic environment, he said.
Beneficial Uses, Regulations
Rick Reibstein, who teaches environmental governance at Boston University, agreed with the metals council and mining association that metals have characteristics that make them behave quite differently from other chemicals. Metals also have “amazing uses,” he said.
But neither their inherently different characteristics nor their beneficial uses mean metals should be ignored during the agency’s prioritization effort, Reibstein said.
“The unspoken assumption is that regulation interferes with the use of something, and if it’s useful then you shouldn’t interfere with it. But that’s actually ridiculous,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/metals-dont-merit-quick-track-epa-chemical-review-industry-says
-
China Consults on Chemical Framework Overhaul
Jan 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Sunny Lee
China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) has released a draft law on chemicals for public consultation that could potentially affect all organisations producing, importing or using chemical substances into the country.
The Regulation on the Evaluation and Control of Chemical Substances will overhaul the management of both new and existing chemical substances in China.
The proposed regulatory framework would be similar to TSCA in the US, or Japan’s Chemical Substances Control Law (CSCL). It would require pre-market approval of new chemical substances and the evaluation of certain high-risk existing chemical substances.
The main points of the draft proposal include:
Inventory changes
The Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances in China (IECSC) will be prepared and announced by the ministry and be updated dynamically. It will include all chemical substances legally produced or used before China's new substance notification system was established.
Annual reporting
Manufacturers, downstream users, or importers of chemical substances must report to the authorities within the MEE the name of substance, use and quantity produced, used or imported in the previous calendar year on an annual basis.
In the draft legislation there is no small volume exemption for annual reporting. An inside source told Chemical Watch that this will "impact almost every industry which produces, imports or uses chemical substances" and so this will be a "huge burden".
Environmental risk screening
The MEE will organise the environmental risk screening of chemical substances and prepare, adjust and announce an inventory subject to priority evaluation.
Companies which produce, use or import these substances subject to priority evaluation will have to provide environmental release data, local environmental conditions and necessary physico-chemical properties, toxicology and eco-toxicity data.
The deadline for comment is 20 February 2019
https://chemicalwatch.com/73459/china-consults-on-chemical-framework-overhaul
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pentagon Courts Rejected Scientist for Massive Pollution Fight
Jan 16, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
The Defense Department has sought to hire a controversial scientist who was blocked from joining the Trump administration as the Pentagon fights state and federal chemical regulations that could lead to billions of dollars in cleanup costs and legal settlements, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.
The scientist, Michael Dourson, withdrew from consideration to be an assistant administrator at the EPA in December 2017 following bipartisan opposition to his past research that downplayed the risks of a chemical found in consumer products like Teflon and firefighting foam used by the military.
Nearly a year later, a Defense Department official sought to hire Dourson to lead a new study on the health risks of that same class of chemicals, according to an emailobtained by POLITICO under Kansas' public records law. Public health experts say new scientific reviews are unnecessary and would only delay important steps to clean up the chemicals that are showing up in drinking water supplies around the country.
The most well-understood of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, have been linked with kidney and testicular cancer, hypertension and other ailments. They are suspected to be contaminating at least 401 military bases across the country, where they were used in firefighting foam, according to the Pentagon.
While Dourson does not appear to have been hired, Democrats are furious that he was even a candidate for the government-funded work.
“It’s as absurd as it is deeply troubling that, despite his dangerous record on chemical safety, the Department of Defense could be seeking to hire Dr. Dourson for this drinking water project,” Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and who led opposition to Dourson’s nomination for EPA, said in a statement to POLITICO.
The effort to hire the controversial scientist is the latest revelation about DoD's attempts to influence research on the chemical under the Trump administration. The Pentagon has also delayed release of health warnings and cleanup recommendations, as POLITICO has previously reported.
The state of Kansas is home to a number of military sites, including Fort Leavenworth, where testing has found high levels of PFOA and PFOS in nearby drinking water wells. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is in the early phases of deciding how to address the contamination, and last fall it convened an advisory group to help develop a monitoring plan. That group includes state and federal officials, health experts, industry representatives and drinking water managers.
In a Nov. 20 email to the Kansas official heading the state’s work on the issue, a regional Defense Department official serving on the advisory panel asked the state to request a new scientific review of the chemicals’ dangers that would be done by an outside researcher hired by the military. “The goal will be to identify toxicity values that are robust, that are scientifically defensible, and that meet EPA criteria for selecting toxicity values used to accomplish [Superfund] processes, investigations and response actions,” wrote the official, Stanley Rasmussen.
“It is anticipated the review will be conducted by Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) and/or the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA),” Rasmussen wrote. Both outfits are run by Dourson.
The Kansas official leading the state’s work on PFOA and PFOS, Jaime Gaggero, said in a statement that the state did not make the request "and we do not plan to.” It is unclear whether DoD moved forward with plans to hire Dourson, who declined to discuss his status.
"As a company policy, TERA does not divulge information about sponsors or contracts prior to any agreements," Dourson said by email.
Critics say DoD appears to be taking a page from the chemical industry's playbook — attempting to use Dourson's research and state-level contacts to stave off expensive regulations and lawsuits. His track record contributed to the bipartisan opposition that sunk his nomination at EPA.
One of his most controversial projects related to the very same class of chemicals. In 2002, the state of West Virginia was looking to convene a panel that would recommend a safe limit for PFOA, which had contaminated drinking water near one of DuPont's plants. Emails released years later show the chemical giant recommended Dourson for the job, which he ultimately got. His panel recommended a safety threshold that was 150 times higher than the company’s own internal limit; when EPA evaluated the chemicals in 2016, it recommended a standard thousands of times stricter than the one Dourson endorsed.
Since Dourson's EPA nomination was defeated, he has restarted work on the class of chemicals, including filing comments to a federal study on PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals this summer that made the case for less stringent safety limits.
Adam Finkel, an environmental health science professor at the University of Michigan who has worked with Dourson in the past, said he has a reputation among industry for producing science that is “favorable to what the funders want to hear” while at the same time cultivating an appearance of impartiality.
“There are plenty of unbalanced groups around, but I don’t know of too many others who are as unbalanced as his are who are as aggressively promoting the fact that they are balanced,” Finkel said.
Defense Department spokesperson Heather Babb did not respond to questions about the effort to hire Dourson but said the department takes its responsibility for PFOA and PFOS contamination seriously.
“The long-term solution to PFOS and PFOA in our environment is a complicated national issue that needs national attention. DOD has been following, and will continue to follow, the guidelines and toxicity levels established by EPA," Babb said in a statement.
The move by the Defense Department comes as independent scientific studies increasingly show that PFOA, PFOS and other chemicals in their family pose dangers at extremely low levels of exposure. Communities across the country whose drinking water has been affected by the contaminants are pressuring state and federal regulators to act.
EPA has not established a federal drinking water limit for PFOA and PFOS, but the agency said in a 2016 drinking water health advisory that the chemicals could pose dangers at concentrations above 70 parts per trillion. The Trump EPA has committed to deciding whether to regulate the chemicals under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund law.
In the meantime, a number of states have set or are considering setting drinking water limits of their own, at levels far lower than EPA’s health advisory levels. 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.
Independent experts who study the chemicals say there are already a plethora of studies assessing the risks of for PFOA and PFOS, and that there is no need for the military to seek another like the one described in the email.
“There are lots and lots of reviews,” said Jamie DeWitt, a toxicology professor at North Carolina State University. “I don’t see how a private consultant is going to be able to provide anything more than what we already have available to us.”
But the Defense Department has a major stake in halting this trend toward lowerlimits. It will be on the hook for cleaning up contaminated bases, providing safe drinking water for local communities, and potentially compensating service members who experience health effects from their exposure.
When a division of HHS, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, was preparing a report last year that warned the chemicals could pose dangers at levels 10 times below EPA’s advisory level, a Pentagon official raised alarm bells with the White House.
“We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be,” an unidentified White House official wrotein an email released to the Union of Concerned Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act.
Environmental advocates who follow Dourson closely say the military's new effort to influence the science through state-level action fits the controversial researcher's pattern.
Dourson’s group TERA offers a free service to help states with risk assessment. But emails from Dourson obtained by Greenpeace under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that this work has at least partially been funded by the chemical industry’s primary lobbying group, the American Chemistry Council.
The emails also show that, when he worked with states in the past, Dourson pushed the conclusions of research he had conducted for industry.
For instance, a series of emails from May 2017 show Dourson discussing the chemical trichloroethylene with officials from the states of Missouri and Indiana. In the emails, Dourson promotes a workshop where he will discuss safety thresholds for the chemical, which were described in a “recent publication” — one that was funded by ACC and argued for a standard that was as much as 15 times weaker than EPA’s. Dourson copied in a high-level staffer at ACC, Steve Risotto, on one of the emails, allowing him to see the conversation without the state officials’ knowledge.
“Now why would he send that email to ACC — and keep the fact that he was doing so secret from Missouri and Indiana officials?” Richard Denison, with Environmental Defense Fund, said in a blog post analyzing the emails.
In a later email to Risotto, Dourson says “the budget you gave us should be able to stretch through this workshop and perhaps a wee bit more.”
Risotto is also a member of the PFAS advisory group. ACC said he was not involved in discussions about hiring Dourson in Kansas.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/01/pentagon-courts-rejected-scientist-for-massive-pollution-fight-1078023
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Hampshire's Proposed PFAS Levels Underscore Patchwork Approach
Jan 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
New Hampshire's recently proposed safe drinking water standards for several perfluorinated compounds at levels somewhat less stringent than other recent state proposals underscore the continuing patchwork of safety levels states are creating for the emerging contaminants in the absence of federal drinking water standards.
"I do agree it does lend some confusion to the issue" when states are coming up with different numbers, an environmentalist says.
The different values being developed by regulators are stemming from slight differences in regulators' decisions, for instance on what percentage of perfluorinated compounds are assumed to come from drinking water -- known as the relative source contribution -- differences in how and what uncertainty factors are applied, and which susceptible populations are used, the environmentalist believes. All of these can have subtle impacts on the end result and lead to levels that vary, the source says.
The variation among states is driving renewed chemical industry calls for EPA, rather than states, to craft drinking water and cleanup levels for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
"EPA is best-positioned to provide the public with a comprehensive management plan [for PFAS ] informed by a full understanding of the risks and benefits of different PFAS chemistries," the American Chemistry Council (ACC) says when asked about the varied state levels on PFAS.
It cautions that New Hampshire "must ensure" it develops standards backed by the best available science.
On Jan. 2, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) announced it was proposing a rulemaking for setting enforceable drinking water levels and ambient groundwater quality standards for four PFAS, responding to new state legislation requiring the actions.
PFAS, which have been linked to certain cancers and other adverse health effects, number in the thousands, and have become ubiquitous in the environment after being used in a multitude of applications, including in firefighting foam, textiles, cookware and other non-stick applications. The chemicals have been turning up in the drinking water of hundreds of community drinking water systems around the country.
In an NHDES press release, the department says it relied on "the most recent and best science available" to propose maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) protective of the most sensitive populations over a lifetime.
These are: 38 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 70 ppt for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), or 70 ppt for PFOA and PFOS combined, 85 ppt for perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) and 23 ppt for perfluoronononanoic acid (PFNA). The levels for PFOS and PFOA/PFOS combined match EPA's health advisory levels for the chemicals -- which have been criticized by lawmakers, environmentalists and others as too weak.
States' Recommendations
But the proposed numbers are less stringent than those being suggested by other states facing similar contamination issues -- with New York state drinking water advisers recently recommending that the state adopt MCLs of 10 ppt for PFOA and PFOS -- the strictest limit yet proposed for a chemical in the class -- and New Jersey in 2017 recommending MCLs of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS in drinking water.
"I'm a little surprised to see" New Hampshire's numbers as high as they are, considering the work that New Jersey put into its development of MCLs, going beyond what EPA did and providing a side-by-side comparison with EPA's, the environmentalist says. New Jersey had an extremely well-documented proposal, the source says. Prior to the proposed rulemaking, a New Hampshire source said the state had been eyeing work done on PFAS by other states, including New Jersey, which is moving toward adoptions of some of the strictest drinking water levels in the country for PFAS.
And a source with a national PFAS coalition of community groups says that "Overall, we're really unhappy with [New Hampshire's proposed] standards," noting that the proposed levels are high compared to neighboring states. New Hampshire's levels come even as the trend in scientific studies has been showing that PFAS are more toxic than previously thought, according to the source.
The environmentalist says though that the variation among states should not stand in the way of taking an action, noting that there remains an urgent need for protective drinking water standards.
Environmentalists have argued for levels even lower than the strictest suggested by states like New Jersey and New York -- down to a value of 1 or 2 ppt -- with the environmental source noting that even with uncertainty factors being included, regulators are still not translating human epidemiological study results into the levels they are proposing. If they did, the protective level would be close to 1 ppt, the source argues. The source notes that while states have not relied on epidemiological studies to determine their levels, they have evaluated them and for instance, New Jersey used epidemiological studies as supporting information for its proposed PFOS level of 13 ppt.
New Hampshire's higher proposed safety levels come not long after Health Canada -- Canada's national public health department -- released technical documents supporting drinking water standards at significantly higher levels -- 200 ppt for PFOA and 600 ppt for PFOS. The documents say that the agency considered international actions, including EPA's 70 ppt health advisory, when developing these levels, according to a Jan. 8 blog by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
The variation among states and countries could provide a window for disputes between industry and environmentalists and others over which standards are scientifically reliable. The chemical industry is supportive of Health Canada's numbers. In addition, one chemical industry source says the industry plans to engage with states on their standard-setting in order "to promote reasonable and science-based approaches to addressing PFAS."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-hampshires-proposed-pfas-levels-underscore-patchwork-approach
-
(ACC Mentioned) Massachusetts Weighs Limits for Fluorinated Chemicals in Water
Jan 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appe
Massachusetts will decide by the end of the month whether to adopt one of the strictest standards in the nation for fluorinated water contaminants.
The state currently does not have an enforceable limit on per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances and is in the process of reviewing whether it should, Stephanie Cooper, a deputy commissioner at state Department of Environmental Protection, said Jan. 16.
She spoke at a hearing on a petition from two environmental groups asking the state to set a standard for the chemicals.
Exposure to PFAS compounds has been linked to cancer and other health problems, including immune system disorders.
Trying to set a drinking water limit that protects the public “is an issue many states are spending a lot of time on,” Cooper said.
The DEP has until Jan. 30 to respond to the petition from the Conservation Law Foundation and Toxics Action Center.
Industry Opposes Petition
The American Chemistry Council, a group representing more than 170 companies that produce chemicals, including 3M Co., BASF SE, and Chemours Co., opposes the petition on grounds that the state should regulate the chemicals individually rather than as a group.
“There are some that pose no significant risk to human health and the environment,” Renee Lani, a manager at the council, said at the hearing.
The environmental groups want the state to require public water systems to treat water if testing finds any of the 3,000 types of PFAS chemicals in drinking water at 1 part per trillion or greater.
There are so many PFAS-type chemicals and to make sure the public is protected from them, drinking water systems should be required to test and remove them, something called a “treatment technique,” Heather Govern, a director at Conservation Law Foundation, said Jan. 16, at the hearing.
Interim Standard Sought
The state also should immediately adopt an interim drinking water standard of 20 parts per trillion, the petition says.
“This is a public health crisis and so we are asking for something to be done immediately,” said Govern, who wrote the petition.
Like many states, Massachusetts had been using unenforceable health advisories issued in 2016 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that drinking water not contain more than 70 parts per trillion combined of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), two varieties of PFAS compounds.
In June, Massachusetts expanded on the EPA advisory and issued a recommendationthat public water supplies keep the amount of five PFAS chemicals—PFOA, PFOS, perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)—in their drinking water systems below 70 parts per trillion, whether alone or in combination.
A treatment technique for PFAS chemicals is “not appropriate,” Lani said. The chemicals should be regulated one by one and not as an entire group, Lani said.
Also, the limit of 1 part per trillion is too strict, Lani said. “There is no evidence that low levels of PFAS are harmful,” she added.
Contamination Widespread
The PFAS chemicals are “pretty much ubiquitous in the environment,” DEP’s Cooper said at the hearing.
They have been found at concentrations greater than 70 parts per trillion in more than a dozen Massachusetts towns, many of which are near military bases, where products containing PFAS, such as degreasers and firefighting foams, have been used extensively, Shaina Kasper, Vermont director of the Toxics Action Center, said at the hearing.
The chemicals were used extensively to make Teflon and other coatings, gaskets, o-rings, and other industrial applications. Production of PFOA was phased out in 2015 nationally but the compound persists in the environment.
Vermont has a limit of 20 parts per trillion of PFAS in drinking water. New York recently proposed a maximum contaminant level of 10 parts per trillion of PFOA and PFOS, allowed in drinking water. New Jersey has proposed limits of 14 parts per trillion for PFOA and 13 parts per trillion for PFOS.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/massachusetts-weighs-limits-for-fluorinated-chemicals-in-water
-
Furloughed EPA Staff Recalled to Work on Lead Dust Standards
Jan 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA has recalled furloughed staff to finish a final rule revising the agency’s standards for lead dust, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler told a Senate committee Jan. 16.
Wheeler referred to work Environmental Protection Agency staff are carrying out, without pay, during the partial government shutdown to meet court-ordered deadlines.
He made these comments to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Jan. 16 during his confirmation hearing to be administrator of the EPA.
The EPA was required to release its revised standards for lead dust by Dec. 27, 2018, under a schedule set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The government shutdown, which began Dec. 22, complicated the effort.
The standards are intended to reduce childhood lead exposure, particularly that resulting from contact with lead paint. They also aim to protect residents and workers involved in renovating buildings where lead paint has been used.
Wheeler told the committee he’d called agency staff back this week to complete that rulemaking.
The EPA proposed (RIN:2070-AJ82) July 2, 2018, to lower the standards for the amount of lead dust that could be on floors from the current 40 micrograms per square foot down to 10 and from 250 micrograms for the amount acceptable on windowsills down to 100.
Lead-based paint risk assessors would use whatever standards the agency issues to identify hazards that should be remediated.
Children exposed to even low concentrations of lead can have difficulties learning and face other cognitive and behavioral challenges.
The case is A Cmty. Voice v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 16-72816, 12/27/17.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/furloughed-epa-staff-recalled-to-work-on-lead-dust-standards
-
Key West Takes Step Toward Banning Sunscreens Harmful to Coral Reefs
Jan 16, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Owen Daugherty
Officials in Key West, Fla., took the first step toward banning the sale of sunscreens that contain ingredients considered harmful to coral reefs.
The Key West City Commission voted unanimously 7-0 on Tuesday to to pass the measure, according to the Miami Herald. The measure must be reviewed and voted on again next month before it can become law.
The harmful ingredients -- oxybenzone and octinoxate -- are found in most sunscreens and have been linked to damaging coral reefs.
"They have alternatives to these two chemicals,” said City Commissioner Jimmy Weekley, who sponsored the measure. “This is to me something we need to do in this community to protect our economy. What if we don’t pass this and three to five years down the road we have no reef?”
“This may be our last shot. It’s not the major cause of the loss of our reef,” Weekley said. “But this is one reason we can do something about. We can take a step to eliminate those chemicals going into our water.”
Only one commissioner, Sam Kaufman, told the Herald he may not vote for the measure next month.
Dermatologists who attended the public vote voiced concerns that a ban on certain sunscreens could dissuade people from using the products and lead to an increase in skin cancer.
Commission Greg Davila shared similar concerns.
“We will definitely be limiting our residents to the best sunscreens available,” Davila said. “The downside of passing this is cancer.”
Hawaii last year became the first state to ban the sale and distribution of sunscreens containing the ingredients, starting in 2021.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/425691-key-west-takes-first-step-toward-banning-sunscreens-harmful-to-coral
-
Echa Agrees to List of Potential REACH Restriction Candidates
Jan 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has agreed to a Dutch proposal that will see the agency distribute a list of chemicals that could be considered for restrictions under REACH.
France and Norway supported the proposal. Alongside other member states, NGOs and trade bodies they submitted comments to the consultation on the REACH review action to improve the restriction procedure.
The Netherlands proposed that the list would comprise potential candidates suggested by stakeholders and be periodically circulated at meetings of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) and Echa’s Risk Management Expert (Rime) group.
It would only be circulated to member states and the Commission, Echa told Chemical Watch. It said that competent authorities, or the agency itself, at the Commission’s request "can take the initiative to start the restriction process and this intention will be included in the registry of intentions or in public activities coordination tool (PACT). Member states and stakeholders can also propose candidates for the list."
In 2018 the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) began an internal discussion on a list of possible candidate substances.
"We have a project running on 'New and Emerging Risks of Chemicals' (Nerc), which we would like to use as a method to identify potential restriction candidates," the ministry’s Jan Wijmenga said.
This year the Netherlands will launch a pilot project with Echa to see if they can "match registration data and structure-similarity searches" with substances that are identified using the Nerc methodology.
"The main problem we have in our search for new restriction candidates is that exposure data are scarce, which makes it difficult to substantiate a risk that needs to be addressed," Mr Wijmenga added.
The Norwegian Environment Agency said it supports the Commission’s REACH Review action on restrictions, and would welcome such a list of candidates. "In Norway our list of priority substances is very helpful when prioritising substances or groups of substances for restriction proposals," the agency’s head of chemicals Heidi Morka said.Grouping
In its consultation comments, Norway also called for more use of grouping of substances for future restriction cases.
Echa’s restriction task force is discussing the matter "with the aim of producing further guidance for dossier submitters and the committees", the agency told Chemical Watch.
The intention is to propose restrictions that group more substances under one proposal where these substances present a similar risk to human health and the environment. Many restriction proposals have already taken this approach, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and related substances, Echa said.
"Grouping will be considered as early as from the screening level to ensure the follow-up regulatory processes (eg restriction) target the right substances, keeping in mind and avoiding regrettable substitution," the agency added.
Its ongoing work to "identify and prioritise groups of substances" and acknowledge if there are any required regulatory actions for the substances in those groups will lead to the identification of candidates for restriction, it said.
In addition to grouping of structural similar substances, in its consultation comments Norway suggested the possibility of grouping substances on the basis of application area and use.In June last year Echa said addressing substances in groups, intensifying collaboration between authorities and initiating early interaction with registrants "can all be seen as useful elements". However, it did not recommend formalising these aspects under a specific ‘collaborative approach’ process.
In its recently published strategic plan for 2019-23 Echa said EU evaluation activity "must continue at higher intensity longer than planned and harmonised classification and labelling, restrictions and authorisation activities must accelerate".
The agency organises an annual screening workshop where potential candidates for SVHC identification, restrictions or the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) are discussed.The agency’s restriction taskforce is due to meet this month and the next Caracal meeting is due to take place on 21-22 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73462/echa-agrees-to-list-of-potential-reach-restriction-candidates
-
BASF and Givaudan Enter Skin Sensitisation ITS Debate
Jan 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Scientists from German chemical giant BASF and Swiss flavour and fragrance company Givaudan have entered a debate over integrated test strategies (ITS) for skin sensitisation. The issue is whether the ITS needs to match in vitro tests to key events in the adverse outcome pathway (AOP).
David Roberts from Liverpool John Moores University wrote an article in 2018 questioning the logic of designing an ITS by picking tests for the first three key events in the AOP.
Echa guidance explains that "information on three key events needs to be provided, unless a conclusion on classification and risk assessment can be made by using information obtained from one or two".
Writing in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Dr Roberts argued that OECD-validated test methods all effectively link to just one key event: a chemical's ability to interact with skin proteins.
But in a letter to the journal published online on 7 January, Robert Landsiedel, vice president, experimental toxicology and ecology at BASF and Andreas Natsch, Givaudan's head of in vitro molecular screening, say that Dr Roberts's proposals "raise several questions which need careful discussion by the toxicological community".
Non-linear AOPs
"It is widely acknowledged that AOPs should not be viewed in such a linear way," they write. Using a selection of mechanistic tests that match AOP steps could be viewed as "collecting mechanistically relevant data on defined molecular endpoints to finally make a 'weight of evidence' judgement", they say.
"The assays and in silico tools developed to test chemicals for skin sensitisation potential are all based on a good, albeit not complete, understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying skin sensitisation," they add.
"The development of the AOP approach in toxicology in general is based on the assumption that increased mechanistic understanding and testing of defined molecular endpoints will lead to continuously improved prediction of apical endpoints."
Dr Roberts disagrees. "The problem with testing in multiple assays is that they don't always agree with each other, and from a chemistry-blind perspective it is difficult to know which result to believe," he writes in a reply to the letter, published online on the same day.
"I stand by my argument that for skin sensitisation there is no need to invoke the AOP," he says. "All of the assays should be seen for what they really are: standalone assays, none of which is perfectly predictive". He suggests that using them in combination may improve predictive performance simply because of differences in "inapplicability domains".
Dr Roberts says he welcomes the debate. "It has long been my view that science progresses more by disagreement and debate than by consensus," he says.
Three test guidelines tend to be used in combination for skin sensitisation: the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), the ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test method and the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT). These are considered to represent KEs 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
Supported by Swedish firm SenzaGen, Dr Roberts's original paper suggested that the company's genomic allergen rapid detection (GARD) assay may outperform other OECD validated test methods, either alone or in combination.
Scientists at BASF and Givaudan have worked together to develop a "kinetic" version of the DPRA, which they say can predict a sensitiser's potency.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73439/basf-and-givaudan-enter-skin-sensitisation-its-debate
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tri-State Shale Coalition Helping Region Compete
Jan 16, 2019 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Cory Dennison
Competition has its place in business, politics and other human endeavors. But so does cooperation.
One cooperative effort that is establishing a strong place in our world is the Tri-State Shale Coalition, which has brought together West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania to maximize the downstream manufacturing opportunities from the extraction of shale gas in the region.
By working together, rather than against each other, these three states have the opportunity to establish the region as a global hub for petrochemical and plastic resin manufacturing, rivaling that of the Gulf Coast and bringing high-paying manufacturing jobs to the region.
In 2015, the governors of the three states founded the Tri-State Shale Coalition by signing a memorandum of understanding. They recognized the region faced a once-in-a-generation opportunity for energy development and wanted to ensure their states would realize its full potential. In 2018, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf and West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice extended the agreement through 2021 — and we are hopeful that Ohio’s incoming governor, Mike DeWine, soon will endorse the agreement.
A core belief of those involved in the coalition is that wealth is generated where value is added. It is not enough for the three states to benefit from drilling for natural gas and the construction of pipelines to carry the gas away.
Though there is plenty of gas and some will be sent to other areas, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio want to attract downstream manufacturing investment from the cheap feedstock and create a petrochemical cluster in the region.
Recently, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported on significant growth in natural gas production over the past decade, largely from the Marcellus and Utica shale layers in the Appalachian Basin.
From 2008 through 2017, production increased in the three states from 1.4 billion cubic feet per day to 24 billion cubic feet per day. That’s an increase of more than 17 times. It would be foolish to let the full benefits of that production slip away.
An analysis in May 2017 by the American Chemistry Council projected the region could see investment in petrochemicals and derivatives of more than $32 billion and in plastic products of more than $3 billion.
Working together, these three states can leverage their advantages of having cheap natural gas as a feedstock for manufacturing activities, their location within a day’s drive of large markets in North America and a labor force ready for the opportunity of high-paying jobs.
The partnership includes not only the states themselves but also several economic development, colleges/universities and philanthropic organizations, including Vision Shared of West Virginia, the West Virginia Development Office, TeamNEO of Ohio, Jobs Ohio, the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, the Team PA Foundation, the Pennsylvania Development Agency, the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation, West Virginia University, Cleveland State University, Kent State University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Pittsburgh, West Virginia Northern Community College, Pierpont Community and Technical College, Community College of Beaver County and Eastern Gateway Community College.
As Adam Bruns, managing editor of Site Selection magazine, put it, “All agree that opportunity long ago stopped knocking and has simply walked through the door.”
That’s why this three-state coalition is so important for maximizing the opportunities presented by shale gas. Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia cannot afford to miss this opportunity to attract downstream manufacturing and just allow themselves to be the source of raw materials that are piped out and processed elsewhere.
In mid-December, Vision Shared was pleased to host a meeting of the Tri-State Shale Coalition in Morgantown and proud of the work being done by the coalition. We have more work to do, but we have a good group working together to move the region forward.
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/daily_mail_opinion/commentary/cory-dennison-tri-state-shale-coalition-helping-region-compete-daily/article_e86293d3-775a-515c-a398-97e50ac4ee2e.html
-
Greens Press for More Public Hearings on ANWR Leasing Plan
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
A coalition of 16 environmental groups is urging the Interior Department to expand its lineup of public hearings on plans to sell oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
In a letter to Nicole Hayes, project manager of Interior's coastal plain oil and gas leasing program, the green groups argued that Interior is excluding a major portion of the public by limiting hearings on the proposed environmental impact statement for the 1.6-million-acre coastal plain.
"The Arctic Refuge is held in stewardship for all citizens as one of the crown jewels of America's public lands system," the environmental groups said. "The currently planned hearings fall short of giving the public at large a say on these proceedings."
The letter called on the Bureau of Land Management to expand its lineup of meetings to include sessions in Albuquerque, N.M.; Denver; Minneapolis; and Seattle.
Regulators had already announced plans to hold hearings in the Alaska communities of Anchorage, Arctic Village, Fairbanks, Kaktovik, Fort Yukon, Venetie and Utqiagvik, as well as in Washington, D.C.
BLM officials were in the process of setting up the Alaska meetings last week when they reversed course and postponed the sessions. The about-face came as members of Congress and environmentalists were criticizing regulators for working on the Arctic refuge oil development plans during the partial government shutdown (Energywire, Jan. 10).
Despite public pressure, however, regulators held firm to their Feb. 11 public comment deadline for the draft EIS.
The environmental activists said they had already petitioned BLM to extend the comment timeline until April 29. They noted that since the government shutdown began Dec. 22, the agency's coastal plain e-planning page and comment portal was closed for at least six days.
"In addition, BLM staff have not been available to answer questions and respond to information requests" on the draft EIS, the groups said.
They argued that an extension of the public comment period would "also ensure that other federal agency staff with relevant expertise who have been furloughed have adequate time to review and comment on the draft EIS."
Among those signing the letter were officials from the Alaska Wilderness League, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, the Sierra Club, Trustees for Alaska and the Wilderness Society.
Five Democratic senators — Tom Udall of New Mexico, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Tom Carper of Delaware, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Ed Markey of Massachusetts — also pressed Interior to give the public more time to comment on the draft EIS (E&E News PM, Jan. 9).
In a letter sent last week to Interior acting Secretary David Bernhardt, the senators argued that additional time is needed "due to the extreme sensitivity of the resources affected by leasing, the great complexity of the analysis, the overlapping public comment periods for other actions taking place in the Refuge and the continued government shutdown."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/01/16/stories/1060116453
-
EPA Cites Shutdown to Seek More Time for CPP Status Report
Jan 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA attorneys are citing the ongoing government shutdown to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to extend a deadline for the agency to file a routine status report in long-paused litigation over the Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule.
The agency faces a Jan. 21 deadline to submit its next 30-day status report in the case, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al., which has been stayed since April 2017 at EPA’s request while the agency crafts a narrow replacement policy known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.
Work on finalizing the ACE proposal is similarly being delayed by the agency's lapse in funding.
EPA has been filing status reports with the court at regular intervals, and they have all generally reiterated a call for the D.C. Circuit to continue to hold the case in abeyance until EPA finalizes ACE.
But a Jan. 16 motion filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is also subject to the shutdown, asks for an extension of the filing deadline “until seven days after Congress has restored appropriations to [DOJ] and EPA.”
The request details the history of the case, which was argued before the full court in September 2016, and says, “At the end of the day on [Dec.] 21, 2018, the appropriations act that had been funding [DOJ] expired and appropriations to the Department lapsed. The same is true for several other Executive agencies, including [EPA], for which appropriations lapsed as of [Dec.] 29, 2018. The department does not know when funding will be restored by Congress. Absent an appropriation, [DOJ] attorneys and employees of the EPA are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.’”
DOJ adds: “Therefore, although we greatly regret any disruption caused to the court and the other litigants,” it is nonetheless seeking the deadline extension until the agencies “are permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions.”
The motion says states and power companies that support the agency’s proposal to replace the CPP do not oppose the extension, while states and environmentalists seeking to retain the Obama rule “take no position on this motion.”
The filing was signed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Brightbill and two DOJ attorneys, Eric Hostetler and Chloe Kolman. It does not explain how they were able to do the work during the lapse in appropriations.
EPA told Senate Democrats that it was allowed to have employees work during the shutdown to prepare acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler for his Jan. 16 Senate confirmation hearing. While the majority of staff is furloughed, the agency says the confirmation-related work is considered “essential” and lawful, and is related to the president’s constitutional power to nominate top officials.
On Dec. 21, the court ordered the next status report due in 30 days and rejected plaintiffs’ requests to issue a decision on the merits of the long-stalled cause. In a per curiam order, the court extended abeyance for another 60 days, until Feb. 21, even though some of the judges had earlier expressed unease with continued abeyance given that the CPP’s implementation has also been stayed by the Supreme Court.
The decision to reject issuing a merits ruling prompted observers to believe that the case will remain stayed until EPA finalizes ACE. Whether the shutdown -- which shows no signs of nearing an end after 26 days -- will affect the court’s view on the matter remains to be seen.
EPA and other agencies have separately begun recalling thousands of employees now deemed “essential,” though they will not be paid during the funding lapse.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-cites-shutdown-seek-more-time-cpp-status-report
-
Dems Ask Interior to Stop Offshore Drilling Work During Shutdown
Jan 17, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Top House Democrats are asking the Trump administration to reverse its decision to bring dozens of furloughed employees back to open more areas for offshore oil and natural gas drilling.
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) joined House Appropriations Committee subpanel on Interior Chairwoman Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) in slamming the decision by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
“This is an outrageous step, and the justifications provided in the BOEM contingency plan — that the employees are needed ‘to comply with the Administration’s America First energy strategy,’ and that ‘failure to hold these [offshore] sales would have a great negative impact on the Treasury and negatively impact investment in the U.S. Offshore Gulf of Mexico’ — are farcical and make it clear that the administration cares only about the impacts on its favorite industry and not about workers, their families, and ordinary Americans,” the Democrats wrote Wednesday to acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.
They asked Bernhardt to “reverse the actions immediately,” or give them a detailed briefing on how it complies with the law.
Grijalva told reporters Wednesday that the legality of the move isn’t his main concern.
“It’s just ironic that energy extraction, during this shutdown, is something that is being spared,” he said.
“Everything else [is affected], from Native American clinics to our parks to people working without pay, but this continues unabated. I think it’s very much a demonstration of where the priorities are at Interior.”
He said he is likely to bring Bernhardt to his committee for a hearing on the matter, but that would be after the shutdown ends. Grijalva has also questioned whether Interior has followed the law when it brought back from furlough workers to approve onshore drilling permits and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, among other actions.
The National Ocean Industries Association applauded the Trump administration’s action Wednesday, particularly as it related to preparing for upcoming drilling lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.
“While much of the work for the upcoming March sale in the Gulf of Mexico has already been completed, there are still t’s to be crossed and i’s to be dotted to ensure the public and the industry are properly notified,” Randall Luthi, the group’s president, said in a statement.
“It makes both economic and energy sense to continue work on this long-planned and approved sale.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/425714-dems-ask-interior-to-stop-offshore-drilling-work-during-shutdown
-
4 Things to Watch This Year at DOE
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Christa Marshall and Hannah Northey,
In 2018, Energy Secretary Rick Perry visited the Middle East and completed tours of all the national laboratories.
This year, he could be making more treks to Capitol Hill as newly empowered House Democrats vow to investigate everything from the Energy Department's solar grants to its connections with coal moguls. Indeed, one of the first public tweets this year from Perry was a photo with Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"Looking forward to working with you this Congress to advance @Energy, our national labs and American innovation," Perry said of Pallone, who has vowed to investigate DOE's record.
Outside Congress, there are a slew of unanswered questions facing DOE that could become clearer in 2019: Will Perry stay on through the end of President Trump's term? How will new office heads direct grant money? Will there be new efforts to bolster coal and nuclear?
Here are four things to watch:
The budget
It's expected that Trump will propose budget cuts for DOE again, but what's less clear is how newly empowered Democrats will react — and how much they will target DOE in their climate agenda.
The "Green New Deal" spearheaded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), for example, calls for 100 percent renewables and "state-of-the-art efficiency" in residential and industrial buildings within a decade but doesn't outline details of how to get there. That's prompted wide speculation about a push for incremental bills or a "green" stimulus package, an idea that likely would intersect with DOE.
Jeff Navin, a former acting chief of staff and deputy chief of staff at DOE, said in an email there is going to be a "really fascinating and important debate" about whether the Democratic strategy and the "Green New Deal" "elevates DOE's status" and focuses on research for things like transmission, carbon removal technologies and advanced nuclear.
"Are there proposals to move climate policy efforts (both domestic and international) into DOE? Do conversations about the Green New Deal or debate among Democratic Presidential candidates result in calls for increases in innovation, research or deployment dollars for DOE?" asked Navin.
Democratic committee chairs also could use the appropriations process as leverage by threatening to withhold funding for Trump priorities.
Another wild card is the starting point for budget negotiations after the interim departure of Mick Mulvaney as OMB budget director.
A budget document leaked to E&E News last year suggested that the White House could seek deeper cuts in fiscal 2020 for DOE budget programs than in fiscal 2019 (E&E News PM, June 27, 2018). That could mean at least a 60 percent proposed budget cut for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and proposed eliminations of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy and the weatherization assistance program.
Conservatives likely have an ally in Russell Vought, the acting leader of OMB who once worked as vice president of Heritage Action. The group is the sister organization of the Heritage Foundation, which has called for much steeper cuts than proposed by Trump, including eliminating most DOE applied offices.
Yet Trump nominated Lane Genatowski to be ARPA-E director last year after release of his budget proposal, suggesting there could be a shift in White House position on that agency. Technology experts say the nomination could also have resulted from miscommunication across the government, rather than a White House U-turn.
"I won't be surprised if [the budget] calls once again for zeroing out ARPA-E, just because of the general pressure to reduce overall spending ... and the ascension of Mulvaney from OMB to chief of staff," said David Hart, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Efficiency standards
Before the end of the year, OMB sent two rules to DOE for review that analysts say could overhaul the efficiency standards program.
One of them could reverse an Obama-era regulation that was projected to save double the energy of any other efficiency regulation in history, according to analysts.
It's unknown what the exact details are of that lightbulb rule, but a leaked document last year suggested that DOE planned to rescind standards requiring that a range of new types of lighting meet the efficiency of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) starting in 2020 (Greenwire, Aug. 8, 2018).
DOE said the legal justification for rules requiring that level of efficiency published on the eve of Trump's 2017 inauguration "misconstrued existing law."
A legal settlement required DOE to revisit the issue after the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) sued the department last year over the Obama-era standards. NEMA argued that the rules strayed far from the intent of Congress in covering lightbulb models in odd shapes that don't fit into standard lightbulb sockets.
Environmentalists disagreed, saying there are LED models for the types of bulbs covered in the plan.
A second rule that left OMB — but has not yet been released — also has angered environmentalists and would make changes to the "process rule" governing the administration of efficiency standards.
Andrew deLaski, executive director at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, said he expected the regulation to make it harder to release new or updated standards, perhaps by restricting the use of direct final rules or giving preferences to industry-written test procedures. DOE released a related request for information last winter.
"Our view is that the process rule revision has become an excuse to miss legal deadlines established by Congress," deLaski said. DOE has not released more than a dozen standards required by law for updates or new efficiency levels.
Industry groups like NEMA have been pushing for years for changes to the process rule and the efficiency program generally, arguing in 2017 comments that there is a "never-ending churn" of rulemaking.
DOE should amend standards only "if there are significant savings" and "no disproportionate burden on manufacturers," the groups said.
The rules are expected this year.
Will Perry stick around?
Perry's name is quick to surface anytime there's a vacancy in the Trump administration, from openings to be secretary of Defense to Veterans Affairs and more. While the former Texas governor has consistently stayed put while touting the "cool" factor of his current gig, some say the DOE chief may yet choose to move on.
One reason? More oversight. "Don't underestimate the pressures of oversight to make his job far less enjoyable," said one former DOE official.
Gavel-wielding Democrats in the House are already preparing to press Perry for details about the agency's unsuccessful proposal to boost coal and nuclear plants in the name of national security.
And Pallone has vowed to "conduct oversight of President Trump's efforts to upend competitive electricity markets by providing preferential rates and other subsidies to coal and nuclear generation" (Energywire, Sept. 11, 2018).
Perry is also facing pressure from industry groups to find other angles to boost nuclear and coal and fossil fuel exports. With coal, two things to watch are the outcome of proposals due this month for small modular coal plants and the degree DOE presses for funding on carbon capture technologies.
DOE has a direct role in licensing LNG exports and authority to determine whether it's in the national interest to export gas to specific countries, noted Christopher Guith, senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute.
With White House adviser Larry Kudlow making recent comments on spreading "energy dominance," he said he expected more announcements on exports "in the near future."
Guith said he would be closely watching whether DOE follows November recommendations from the National Coal Council, a DOE advisory committee. The council called for creation of a task force on coal exports.
DOE has "taken those recommendations running and is trying to do what they can," Guith added.
The Chamber and other groups are further looking for Perry, and administration officials, to push to reverse restrictions on financing nuclear projects at the World Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. The restrictions were less of an issue when the focus in the nuclear industry was more on large traditional reactors that weren’t a match for the group's modest funding levels, according to Guith.
"With the progress that has been made in the U.S. developing small modular reactors, all of the sudden it becomes an issue," he said.
Nominees
The White House moved last year to fill the majority of political positions at DOE, but gaps remain after the departures of some top officials and lags in Congress.
"I get the sense that morale is low and the agency is drifting," said Hart.
Last night, the White House sent multiple nominations to the Senate that failed to advance in Congress at the end of the year, including Rita Baranwal to be assistant secretary of nuclear energy, Genatowski as ARPA-E director and Christopher Fall as director of the Office of Science. Trump also nominated William Cooper as DOE general counsel.
How quickly Congress moves on these positions, and what agenda is set by confirmed officials, could determine DOE's direction on research, including goals to support advanced reactors and build greater alliances with energy companies. ARPA-E, for instance, moved its annual summit last year to Denver, with a stated goal of building more ties with investors and startups in the West.
At the end of last year, DOE released a review highlighting activities in 2018, including a cybersecurity pipeline initiative and recommendations to assist Puerto Rico as it continues to recover from Hurricane Maria.
Internally, DOE has moved to fill many positions, including an announcement this week that retired Navy Capt. Nate Martin would become director of DOE's Office of Enterprise Assessments at the end of the month, according to an obtained email.
Privately, officials say they are making progress on the Trump administration's goals, such as plans to build an "exascale" supercomputer by 2021.
Staffers also are awaiting oversight from Daniel Simmons after Perry swore him in yesterday as DOE assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy. At congressional hearings, Simmons pledged to not "slow walk" efficiency regulations and pledged to refocus DOE's solar office more toward grid reliability. How that might unfold with specific funding announcements and specific appliance standards is unclear.
Another question is the fate of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), the pre-eminent panel of experts at the department. The value of SEAB was that it produced studies that provide a "breadth" of opinions, said Carol Browner, a former administrator of EPA during the Clinton administration.
Two years in, Perry has yet to name a single person to SEAB, although DOE Deputy Secretary Dan Brouillette said at a congressional hearing last year the panel had not been disbanded.
As of yesterday, DOE's website said, "Prospective SEAB members are currently under active consideration. More information to follow."
On Inauguration Day in 2017, 19 members of SEAB resigned, and there's not a statute requiring it to be reconstituted (Energywire, May 11, 2017).
Reporter Rod Kuckro contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/17/stories/1060116953
-
Anti-Terrorist Chemical Security Program Extension Passes Senate
Jan 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michaela Ross
A program that works to ensure terrorists can’t get access to dangerous chemicals would be extended for 15 months under amended legislation that passed the Senate late Wednesday by unanimous consent.
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and committee ranking member Gary Peters (D-Mich.) this week agreed to an amendment for a limited extension to the Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program.
Johnson had earlier this month opposed the House-passed bill (H.R. 251) that would extend the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program for two years, stating he wanted changes made to the program before agreeing to a lengthy extension.
An aide to Johnson said in an email the extension will provide time to work this year on needed changes. Johnson last year led an unsuccessful push for a five-year reauthorization of the program (S. 3405 in the 115th Congress).
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who sponsored the House extension bill, told Bloomberg Government in an interview Wednesday he would be open to re-examining Johnson’s preferred changes to the program, such as new exemptions for companies.
“If there are concerns, then I think we’ll take this extension period and work it out,” Thompson said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/anti-terrorist-chemical-security-program-extension-passes-senate
-
Senate Dem Decries Shutdown Of Chemical Accident Probes
Jan 16, 2019 | Law 360
By Christopher Cole
A tiny federal agency that investigates chemical spills and related incidents in the energy sector can't do its job during the government shutdown, putting crucial probes into the causes of industrial accidents at risk, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Wednesday.
Kaine called for a spending measure to fund the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, saying the micro-agency, which has fewer than 40 employees, cannot investigate a recent chemical spill or any other disaster in the U.S. energy sector.
"This is a small agency and they have one job: investigate chemical spills, not to find fault, not to help a lawyer ... so they can determine what went wrong to prevent future chemical spills that are going to hurt Americans," Kaine said.
"President Trump [tweeted] last weekend that the reason he's forcing the shutdown is he promised to protect the safety and security of the American public," Kaine said. "He's hurting the safety and security of the American people."
Kaine said he heard from a CSB employee who was worried that investigators could not look into any chemical spills, including one she said was near Houston. Kaine didn't specify which accident he was referring to, but a CSB adviser told Law360 on Wednesday that the agency followed up on a Jan. 5 incident involving a utility pipeline in Pasadena, Texas, that turned out not to be under its jurisdiction.
The agency has an annual budget of $11 million. According to a CSB plan in December, in the event of a shutdown, it would call only four employees into work as necessary. The agency's senior adviser, Tom Zoeller, said in an email Wednesday that 75 percent of the staff is furloughed.
Kaine said he worries a protracted shutdown will strain the resource-challenged investigatory agency and it will not be able to find out the reasons for chemical accidents.
"You are hurting the security of the American people when you disable [CSB] from investigating chemical spills, from interdicting drugs if you're a Coast Guard or [Drug Enforcement Administration] agent, from doing law enforcement investigations if you're an FBI agent," he said.
CSB's priorities during a shutdown are to limit the creation of obligations to the minimum necessary to protect life and property, according to the agency's December plan.
"During a shutdown, no agency employee shall take any action to disburse federal funds," the plan said.
The impact of the shutdown aside, the CSB's fortunes as a fully funded investigative body have been thrown into doubt in recent years. President Donald Trump has already twice proposed to zero out money for the agency in his annual budget blueprints, but Congress has maintained CSB funding.
A chemical science expert told Law360 that if a disaster takes place in the sector while the CSB remains largely shuttered, the public could become concerned about whether the event can be adequately probed.
"If the shutdown continues and if there is an incident at a chemical facility, it would think lot of questions would be raised as to how the federal government is going to find out the root cause of this," Anthony Pitagno, director of government affairs and alliances at the American Chemical Society, said Wednesday.
He said it appears CSB has a "skeleton crew on board that's just monitoring any investigations that were going on" and that the agency would decide what kind of deployment to make if an incident were to occur during the shutdown.
It's also possible the executive branch will determine that should an incident like a chemical spill or explosion occur, more CSB employees will be called upon to deploy, he said.
"They could deem them essential after the fact," he said, noting the government has already brought some IRS workers and food inspectors back to work even though their agencies are technically out of cash.
Pitagno said it does not appear that CSB's long-term funding is in jeopardy despite Trump's plans to cut its budget.
"I think the odds of them being defunded through congressional actions are very, very low," he said.
But even the short-term lack of funding puts a dent into the work of CSB and other agencies that deal with chemical safety issues, he said.
"It's a mess. We would very much like to see this come to a conclusion along with a whole lot of other folks around here."--Editing by Marygrace Murphy.
https://www.law360.com/texas/articles/1119306/senate-dem-decries-shutdown-of-chemical-accident-probes
-
Review Can Wait on Failure to Check Sterilizing Plants: EPA Head (1)
Jan 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA Region 5’s order to halt inspections of facilities emitting carcinogenic ethylene oxide in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin doesn’t yet warrant an inspector general investigation, the agency’s top official said Jan. 16.
“This is news to me,” acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said during his Jan. 16 confirmation hearing to lead the agency on a permanent basis.
He told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he wanted to consult with his staff to see if the claims made about the lack of investigations, and Region 5’s orders were true before deciding whether to seek an investigation.
During the hearing, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) told Wheeler she was alarmed to learn about EPA Region 5’s directive.
She said was further alarmed that her staff upon checking the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online, or ECHO, database discovered that the agency hasn’t conducted any inspections of facilities emitting this carcinogen across the nation in the past six months.
Duckworth urged Wheeler to join her in asking the inspector general to find out why the inspections had dropped, and why the EPA Region 5 was ordered to halt inspections of facilities in Illinois.
When Wheeler balked at joining in the investigation, she pressed Wheeler to make sure that the agency retains all email exchanges and other documents pertaining to EPA Region 5’s order.
Formal RequestDespite Wheeler’s reluctance to join in the investigation, Duckworth still plans in the next couple of days to formally request an investigation of EPA Region 5’s directive on her own, Duckworth spokesman Sean Savett told Bloomberg Environment after the hearing.
Duckworth along with other members of the Illinois congressional delegation and Illinois itself have been trying to get the Environmental Protection Agency to set stricter standards for medical sterilization facilities that use ethylene oxide, particularly the Sterigenics U.S. LLC facility in Willowbrook, Ill., outside of Chicago.
In August 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry reported an “elevated cancer risk” among residents and off-site workers in the Willowbrook community around the Sterigenics facility.
Although Sterigenics said its emissions of ethylene oxide are well within federal standards, the facility has been in the spotlight in recent months with members of Congress and nearby residents calling for stricter limits on the toxic air pollutants.
The EPA is reviewing ethylene oxide emissions standards (RIN:2060–AM31) for sterilization facilities that were issued in 2005. The agency has indicated that it could an issue a proposal to tighten standards as early as mid-2019.
(Updated with additional reporting throughout.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/review-can-wait-on-failure-to-check-sterilizing-plants-epa-head-1
-
New Jersey Transit Locomotives Idle as Mandated Project Takes Toll
Jan 16, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Elise Young
New Jersey Transit pulled off the seemingly impossible by making a Dec. 31 deadline to install emergency-braking software ordered by Congress. But the race to finish peeled off staff from routine duties, delaying promised service improvements after months of commuter agony.
“A number of vehicles” are sidelined as a result of NJ Transit’s need to finish a multi-year project known as positive train control in less than 10 months, according to Nancy Snyder, a spokeswoman for the nation’s largest statewide mass-transportation provider.
The effort “required the use of NJ Transit maintenance staff to supplement contractor forces, creating this backlog in routine repairs, as well as federally required short- and long-term inspections and other work,” Snyder wrote in an email. “NJT employees are working overtime to reduce the backlog as quickly as possible.”Fare Discounts
NJ Transit discounted fares 10 percent for three months starting in November to compensate riders for canceled trains, delays and crowding while locomotives were pulled for software installations. When the railroad met its Dec. 31 deadline after years of little progress, the agency said customers’ frustrations would ease.
The agency also promised the re-opening of the Atlantic City line, with service to Philadelphia and about 2,000 daily riders. Those trains were stopped temporarily to make equipment available elsewhere in the system, and NJT Transit said the timing is still under consideration.
“These factors include equipment availability, continuing engineer staffing challenges and the potential effect of the continuing federal government shutdown,” Snyder said.
Governor Phil Murphy, at a news conference in Jersey City, said the Federal Railroad Administration will have the last word.
“The FRA has to approve that re-initiation, so we are awaiting that,” Murphy said.Trains Canceled
NJ Transit canceled two trains Tuesday and another Wednesday as a result of equipment shortages, Snyder said.
“NJ Transit must operate PTC-equipped locomotives or cab-control cars on the front and rear of all trains,” Snyder said. “This has had an impact on our flexibility to substitute equipment when an unplanned mechanical issue occurs.”
Federal Railroad Administration officials weren’t able to comment.
“Given prohibitions on conducting official business during the furlough, we’re currently unable to respond to inquiries,” Warren Flatau, an FRA spokesman, said in an email.
Murphy, in his State of the State speech on Tuesday, said a priority this year will be restoring NJ Transit to a high level of service. Budget-starved for eight years under Republican Governor Chris Christie, the railroad saw safety and reliability slip and rider dissatisfaction grow. Murphy’s administration has revamped procurement, stepped up engineer classes and advertised open positions. He cautioned reporters in Jersey City, though, that it will take years to overcome the neglect.
“We’re not building Rome in a day,” he said. “This is going to be one foot in front of the other.”
(Adds Atlantic City ridership in fifth paragraph. An earlier version had an incorrect reason for the delay of service improvements.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-16/nj-transit-locomotives-idled-by-shutdown-as-inspectors-off-job
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industries Defend EPA Move to Scrap 'Once In, Always in' Air Toxics Policy
Jan 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Groups representing major industries are defending EPA's move to scrap a long-running “once in, always in” policy forcing facilities to retain air toxics controls permanently even if the plants reduce emissions to below regulated levels, arguing in new legal briefs nothing in the Clean Air Act requires toxic emissions controls to be retained forever.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA, et al., environmental groups are suing EPA over its Jan. 25 guidance scrapping the 1995 policy. The Clinton-era decision said once plants are regulated as "major sources" of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) subject to tough maximum achievable control technology (MACT) mandates, they have to retain these controls regardless of their emission levels.
The new guidance on the policy, established in a memo from EPA air chief Bill Wehrum, allows plants to escape MACT regulation and also the need to apply for air law "Title V" operating permits if they reduce their potential to emit toxics to below the applicable thresholds and re-classify as "area sources" subject to lesser controls. The thresholds are 10 tons per year (tpy) of one HAP, or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs.
But environmentalists say this allows plants to reduce their emissions to just below these thresholds and remove MACT controls, resulting in more toxic air pollution, not less.
In a Jan. 14 intervenor brief, four industry groups defending Wehrum's memo agree with the agency the guidance is not a "final agency action" subject to judicial review, echoing claims in a recent EPA filing.
The groups -- the National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP), the Air Permitting Forum, Auto Industry Forum and the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) -- say if the court decides it has power to hear the case, then it should uphold the policy shift on its merits.
"The Wehrum Memo is a policy statement that is neither final agency action nor ripe for review, leaving this Court without jurisdiction," the groups say. Environmentalists claim EPA was required under the air law to conduct public notice-and-comment on the Wehrum guidance, but the industry groups say the agency had no obligation to do so. The guidance would only be "ripe" for litigation once implemented in a regulatory action, they argue.
"The interpretation reflected in the Wehrum Memo is compelled by and entirely consistent with the statutory language," they say. "The statutory provisions defining 'major source' and 'area source' make no mention of any temporal limitation on when those classifications take hold. Congress’s decision must be presumed intentional," they say.
The groups further claim Wehrum's guidance "is sound policy that promotes pollution prevention and continuous technological improvement," because it will remove a disincentive for plants to reduce their potential to emit.
A second coalition of industry groups in a Jan. 14 amicus brief also backs EPA and echoes this argument. "Contrary to the parade of horribles Petitioners predict, the 2018 Guidance appropriately and lawfully removes the disincentive for companies to innovate and reduce emissions beyond existing [MACT] requirements."
For plants, "removing their MACT pollution controls -- the central thesis of Petitioners’ argument -- is not a realistic option for both legal and practical reasons. To become area sources, facilities will more likely have to continue to operate their MACT controls and reduce their emissions beyond those currently achieved by existing controls" says the filing from groups including the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, American Wood Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, and National Association of Manufacturers.
The groups note many sources reclassifying to area source status would be subject to health-protective Clean Air Act area source standards. "There has not been, and . . . is not likely to be, a stampede by industry to reclassify major sources as area sources, and certainly not to remove air pollution control technology simply because EPA has now correctly interpreted the plain language" of the Clean Air Act, they say.
Oral arguments have not been scheduled in the case.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industries-defend-epa-move-scrap-once-always-air-toxics-policy
-
Wheeler Pushes Back on Reports Claiming Lax EPA Enforcement (1)
Jan 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler pushed back against recent reports from activist groups that his agency is too lax on those who violate environmental laws, questioning some of the data and claiming enforcement numbers are up.
During a Jan. 16 confirmation hearing on his nomination to lead the agency permanently, Republican senators gave Wheeler an opportunity to rebut two recent reports that analyzed Environmental Protection Agency data on enforcement cases and found double digit percentage drops in many categories since the Trump administration took office.
Wheeler told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that, contrary to what these reports found, the EPA issued 13 percent more administrative compliance orders in the 2017 fiscal year than the prior year, and that it opened more criminal enforcement cases in 2017 than the prior year, the first year-over-year increase since 2011.
Wheeler also told the committee that his agency prefers to focus more on “compliance assurance” than enforcement, drawing a distinction between helping businesses get back into compliance with the law versus taking punitive measures against those who are in violation.
He then pointed to what he said were “some simple mathematical errors” in the data analysis in these two reports, one from the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and the other from the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Leif Fredrickson, a researcher with EDGI and lead author of the report, said he re-ran his numbers after Wheeler’s comments at the hearing and came to the same result. He told Bloomberg Environment that the only explanation he can find for the discrepancy is that Wheeler is calculating the enforcement figures using nonpublic data that EDGI doesn’t have access to.
PEER did not respond to a request for comment.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the committee’s chairman, said, ultimately though, comparing enforcement stats like these are only useful to a point.
“How many enforcement cases are filed isn’t the best metric to measure the EPA’s success,” Barrasso said. “Our goal should be to actually make sure that people are following the law in the first place.”
—With assistance from Abby Smith.
(Updated with comment from Leif Fredrickson in the sixth paragraph.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/wheeler-pushes-back-on-reports-claiming-lax-epa-enforcement-1
-
Trump EPA Nominee Grilled by Sanders, Democrats on Climate Change
Jan 16, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna and Alex Guillén
A handful of potential presidential standard-bearers interrogated President Donald Trump’s candidate to head the Environmental Protection Agency on climate change Wednesday, with Sen. Bernie Sanders pressing him on whether he considered the issue to be a global crisis.
“I would not call it the greatest crisis, no sir,” Andrew Wheeler, the acting EPA chief who Trump has picked to head the agency permanently, said in response to aggressive questioning from Sanders (I-Vt.). “I would consider it a huge issue that must be addressed globally.”
Sanders was one of the group of senators at Wednesday's meeting who are expected to launch presidential campaigns and used Wheeler’s confirmation hearing to air their complaints about the Trump administration’s rollback of measures aimed at reducing the greenhouse gases that are driving climate change. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also dug into Wheeler, a former lobbyist for a coal company who had served as No. 2 at the agency under former Administrator Scott Pruitt until he exited the agency in July under a cloud of ethical scandals.
Missing from the hearing was Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was launching her presidential campaign in upstate New York on Wednesday.
While Democrats cannot block Wheeler’s confirmation, the potential 2020 hopefuls used the hearing as a platform to shine their credentials on an issue that has fueled a wave of young progressive seeking action on climate change, including through a Green New Deal.
Sanders — who rarely attends the Environment and Public Works Committee’s hearings — caused a stir as he entered the hearing room, prompting news photographers to begin clicking away. Sanders said he doubted that Wheeler was giving the issue the attention it needed.
“You are the nominee to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency and you just in your opening statement did not mention the words climate change,” Sanders said. “Here’s the point: We have people here who don’t believe in climate change,” Sanders said, gesturing to his Republican colleagues on the committee, including Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who regularly rails against climate science. “You are going to be the leader, perhaps of the [EPA]. We need your assistance now.”
Merkley asked the nominee to gauge on scale of 1-10 how seriously he worried about the changing climate. Wheeler said he ranked it as an “eight or nine,” prompting Merkley to reply with a skeptical “Really?”
He questioned how Wheeler could rate climate change as so worrying while he was proposing to weaken vehicle fuel efficiency standards, and he said Wheeler had given shifting estimates on how much a Trump EPA regulation would roll back the Obama administration’s carbon dioxide cuts for power plants.
Booker took a quieter tack, pressing Wheeler to justify moves like the weaker power plant rule or laxer efficiency standards for vehicles that EPA is seeking. “I’m trying to understand what is motivating this,” Booker asked. “Why are you pulling back on regulations that will ultimately help us to deal with what our climate scientists say we need to do in terms of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions?”
Wheeler contended that EPA was moving ahead on a “proactive basis.”
Under Trump, EPA has aggressively moved to gut efforts by the Obama administration to cut emissions of the gases that are driving up global temperatures and boosting sea levels. In addition to proposing a weaker regulation for power plant emissions and the roll back of the vehicle efficiency mandate, Wheeler has sought to narrow how the agency measures costs and benefits from the definitions used by the previous administration.
The agency has also proposed to ease rules governing coal waste, and sought to alter measures on how industrial facilities measure their emissions.
While Democrats cannot block Wheeler from being confirmed, they have nonetheless complained that Republicans were rushing his nomination through, and they opposed bringing back furloughed agency workers to help assist Wheeler in the preparing for Wednesday's hearing.
Under questioning from Sanders on whether he was concerned about the threats posed by rising sea levels, Wheeler said that “is a concern and we believe in adaptation.” And Wheeler put some distance between Trump's often-cited tweet calling climate change a hoax perpetrated by China, saying he has “not used the word hoax myself.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the committee, berated Wheeler for not yet being fully briefed on the federal government's most recent National Climate Assessment, a scientific report authored by experts from EPA and a dozen other agencies that was released in late November. Wheeler said he received one briefing on the report, but that subsequent briefings have been delayed by the shutdown.
“That’s unacceptable,” Markey replied. “You’re looking to be confirmed as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and we’re having a hearing on your worthiness for this job, and you very conveniently haven’t had enough time left to review whether or not there’s an extra level of urgency to this problem.”
Not having read the report is a “disqualification,” Markey added.
“I didn't say I didn't read it; I said I haven't finished being briefed on it by my staff, sir,” Wheeler replied.
Annie Snider contributed to this report.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/01/trump-epa-nominee-grilled-by-sanders-democrats-on-climate-change-1090078
-
White House Hopefuls Test Climate Messages at EPA Hearing
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
Democrats used Andrew Wheeler's confirmation hearing for EPA administrator as a dress rehearsal for their climate messages in the 2020 presidential primary.
Wheeler teed up the White House hopefuls by telling lawmakers not to worry about last year's bump in greenhouse gas emissions, which he blamed on the weather and heightened economic activity. The long-term emissions trend is downward, he said, thanks in part to the Trump administration's actions.
Democrats pounced. They said EPA's own analysis shows that's untrue. The administration's proposed rules on car standards and power-sector emissions acknowledge that more climate damage is likely when compared with policies enacted under former President Obama, they said.
Unlike his predecessor Scott Pruitt, Wheeler cast himself as accepting of mainstream climate science, despite continuing Pruitt's deregulatory agenda. He also distanced himself from Trump's dismissal of global warming as a "hoax."
"I stay awake at night worrying about a lot of things at the agency, and I would say [climate change registers at] 8 or 9 [on a 10-point scale]," said Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist.
For the 2020 contenders, it was a chance to frame climate action as an affront to Trump. It was also a signal of how much their presidential campaigns could focus on climate change compared with other issues.
No candidate was going to pick up voters from Wheeler's hearing, but the occasion did offer a chance to win over activists, donors and interest groups that are already planning how to intervene in the Democratic primary, said Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire's Survey Center.
Three potential candidates — Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) — used the hearing to hammer the Trump administration's pro-fossil-fuel agenda while mostly skipping over other environmental issues, like Superfund sites and lead in drinking water.
Absent from the dais was Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who was on the campaign trail after announcing her presidential plans earlier this week.
Sanders, Booker and Merkley have all endorsed the "Green New Deal," a general framework for quickly decarbonizing the economy through a massive jobs program. Sanders and Merkley have also sworn off fossil fuel contributions.
Sanders
The 2020 Democrats traced similar lines, all of which could be repurposed for the campaign trail.
They demanded Wheeler answer for Trump's climate denial. They pointed to disasters like California's wildfires to demonstrate the risk of inaction. And they highlighted scientists' alarm that warming will become catastrophic unless emissions are halved in the next decade.
"The scientific community has said that climate change is one of the great crises facing our planet," Sanders said. "Do you agree with the scientific community?"
"I would not call it the greatest crisis, no, sir. I consider it a huge issue that has to be addressed globally," Wheeler responded.
Sanders then asked if Wheeler is prepared to help lead other countries on climate change.
"We are implementing the laws that Congress has passed," said Wheeler, who was a lobbyist for Murray Energy Corp. when the coal giant asked the administration to quit the Paris climate agreement.
Sanders tried again: "Will you provide the leadership in this country and the world, to say that we are concerned about the future of this planet for our children and our grandchildren?"
Wheeler echoed him: "We are concerned about the future of this planet for our children and our grandchildren. And we are implementing the laws that have been passed by Congress."
Merkley
Merkley pressed Wheeler on climate change, and his questioning prompted the EPA nominee to say global warming is an 8 or 9 on his scale of concern.
The most combative questioner of the prospective White House hopefuls, he also contradicted Wheeler's claim that the administration is lowering emissions.
The administration's proposed rule to relax car emissions standards acknowledges that it would worsen greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on track for atmospheric carbon concentrations not seen in millions of years, when crocodiles lived as far north as the Arctic (Climatewire, Aug. 7, 2017).
And a new study suggests the administration's proposed electricity-sector regulation, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, could increase emissions in more than a quarter of regulated power plants (Climatewire, Jan. 16).
"You have in six states an increase in CO2 as compared to no regulation at all. How does a plan have integrity when you get more [carbon] reductions from no regulations than your plan?" Merkley asked.
Wheeler said he hasn't been able to review the ACE study, but he trusts his staff when it says the rule will lower emissions.
Merkley also slammed Wheeler for blaming wildfires on forest management rather than drought, disease and other factors exacerbated by climate change.
"I encourage you to actually become informed on this issue if you're going to publicly comment on it," Merkley said.
Booker
Booker focused on scientific reports outlining how much damage climate change could cause the economy.
Wheeler and Booker spent about a minute conversing before realizing they were talking about two different reports, one from the United Nations and the other from the federal government, including EPA.
Wheeler said his staff had briefed him on the National Climate Assessment once, given him additional background to read, then scheduled another briefing for January that had been postponed.
"I don't disagree with the findings," Wheeler said before clarifying: "I'm still examining the findings, I'm still trying to understand what was in it and what was covered."
Booker brought a hand to his chest.
"I find that frustrating because of the urgency of the challenges we face before us," Booker said.
Along with some shutdown queries, Republicans mostly talked about regulatory certainty, the Waters of the United States regulation and renewable fuels standards.
"You know exactly the questions I'm going to ask," Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said before asking about ethanol fuel blends.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/01/17/stories/1060117229
-
Jan 17, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced an ambitious set of clean energy goals yesterday that he framed as a "Green New Deal" for the state.
The agenda's slew of ramped-up targets, investments and planning initiatives touched on everything from renewable power and energy storage to building emissions and environmental protection, adding to the state's claim to be the East Coast's leader on climate action.
"Think about it in terms of a progressive governor putting a marker down, especially someone who seems motivated by competition for the leadership position," said Karl Rábago, executive director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center.
The plan follows Cuomo's announcement last month that the state would undergo a 100 percent transition to renewable sources of electricity by 2040 — the nation's fastest timeline — and raised the interim target from 50 percent to 70 percent by 2030.
To get there, the proposal called for a "globally unprecedented ramp-up of renewable energy," including doubling the deployment of distributed solar to the equivalent of 1 million homes and more than tripling the size of future offshore wind procurements. The latter would convert New York into the biggest engine of the Atlantic Coast industry.
Starting immediately, the state's planning on climate action is to be piloted by a Climate Action Council made up of state officials, clean energy experts, and environmental justice and workforce groups who would put together a road map for carbon neutrality.
The council will also make recommendations on regulation and emissions policies, and link with the U.S. Climate Alliance to explore the possibility of a multistate, economywide emissions program modeled after the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon trading system in the Northeast.
Released in tandem with Cuomo's State of the State speech and 2019 budget, the plan won praise from renewable advocates.
Nancy Sopko, director of offshore wind policy and siting at the American Wind Energy Association, said the governor had "redefined offshore wind ambition nationwide."
Sean Garren, senior director for the Northeast at Vote Solar, said the group was "thrilled" by the announcement, which included $1.5 billion worth of awards for large-scale solar, wind and energy storage projects located upstate.
All that new renewable capacity will be underpinned by an energy storage target of 3,000 megawatts, as recently approved by utility regulators.
Clean tech research, meanwhile, will get a boost from a State University of New York-led consortium and a $15 million innovation agenda for technologies that capture carbon and either store it or turn it into feedstock. There also is $3 billion for clean transportation, including funds for electric vehicles and EV chargers, that would be set aside from a new $10 billion Green Future Fund.
Environmentalists were also pleased with the announcement, although community and environmental justice advocates gave more qualified praise. The 150-member coalition NY Renews said in a release that it welcomed the agenda's aggressive goals, stating that it was "heartening to see progress toward a fossil-free New York."
But it pointed to the incorporation of community-level groups as an indispensable part of a fair energy transition and said a climate bill set to be reintroduced in the state Legislature would do more to prioritize investment for communities of color and workers.
Environmental justice and labor-friendly provisions were threaded into at least some of the governor's proposals and investments, such as in the establishment of an offshore wind workforce training center and an expanded community solar program for low-income New Yorkers.
One of the beneficiaries of Cuomo's plans, the offshore wind industry, could prove especially important down the road if the state finds itself at a loss for places to locate onshore resources close, said Anne Reynolds, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.
The agenda included $200 million in port infrastructure investments aimed at encouraging a local supply chain for turbine components and staging — a prized corner of the industry for many Northeast states that want their workforces to benefit instead of neighboring states.
"We want offshore wind in New York for climate change reasons, but we also want it for job reasons," said Reynolds.
Over the shorter term, the new 9,000-MW procurement goal for offshore wind will depend on federal officials, who will need to establish new wind energy areas in addition to those currently being considered for auction.
A spokesperson at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority said the state's coordination with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) over the years had positioned it to execute the 9,000-MW goal.
"Despite the U.S. federal shutdown, which is delaying current BOEM activities, the priority that BOEM has placed on leasing activities, both in scale and expediency, is indicative of the continued progress we expect in the coming months and years," said the spokesperson.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/17/stories/1060117061
-
Former Fed Leaders, Economists Rally Around Carbon Tax
Jan 16, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puko
An all-star roster of former Federal Reserve leaders and White House economic advisers are signing on to a new statement in support of a carbon tax on businesses that sends the revenue to U.S. citizens.
Former Fed chair Alan Greenspan and former Council of Economic Advisers chief Austan Goolsbee are among dozens of economists now backing a set of principles pushed by a group called the Climate Leadership Council. They join other peers including former Fed chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen who have already backed the group.
In all, 45 economists signed the new statement, which is being published on the opinion page of Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.
The plan advocates replacing many environmental regulations with a simplified tax on businesses that release carbon into the atmosphere, an incentive for them to use cleaner energy. While economists have long supported carbon taxes as a climate-change solution, the new statement shows broad support for a political sweetener: sharing the proceeds with American consumers.
The proposal would tax businesses such as oil and coal companies responsible for the carbon dioxide that burns off into the atmosphere. The council proposes an initial levy of $40 per ton of emissions, and the economists say it should increase every year until the country meets its goals of emissions reductions.
Proponents say the tax would generate roughly $200 billion a year to start and send an estimated $2,000 to a family of four, with the money intended to offset the impact of higher energy costs likely passed down to consumers.
Carbon taxes have failed to get much political support so far, but some Republicans and corporations have recently broken from intense opposition to addressing climate change.
A handful of Republicans who were in Congress in 2018, including Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, sponsored carbon-tax bills. Exxon Mobil Corp. , once a powerful skeptic of global warming, recently committed to spend $1 million lobbying for the Climate Leadership Council’s idea.
The movement has come as the effects of climate change became more immediate and the threats became more severe. U.S. scientists said 2018 joined the three prior years as the hottest on record and, unchecked, global warming could cause hundreds of billions of dollars a year in economic losses by the century’s end. The United Nations warned in two reports last year that the world is running out of time and behind on the commitments needed to avoid irreversible and catastrophic impacts from climate change.
“This statement represents a major tipping point in U.S. climate policy,” Ms. Yellen said in a statement. “It shows broad agreement among economists and experienced policy makers that carbon dividends are the most cost-effective, equitable and politically viable climate solution.”
Ms. Yellen joined the bipartisan group last year, one of the Democrats alongside Republican founders James Baker III and George Shultz, both former U.S. secretaries of state. Mr. Greenspan headlines a group of Republicans showing support for the group’s proposal for the first time, a group that also includes Michael Boskin and Harvey Rosen, Council of Economic Advisers chairmen for presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush respectively.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-fed-leaders-economists-rally-around-carbon-tax-11547684175?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested