Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - February 5, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Economic Indicator Shows Signs of Slower Growth
Feb 5, 2019 | Material Handling & Logistics
By David Sparkman
The United States’ economy is continuing to grow but at a much slower pace than last year, according to a leading economic indicator published each month by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Called the Chemical Activity... -
Committee Approves Wheeler, Other Bills and Nominees
Feb 5, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler cleared one hurdle today as he moves toward full Senate confirmation to lead the agency. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Wheeler's nomination as head of... -
ADAO Asks EPA To Reconsider Asbestos Petition Denial, States File Petition
Feb 5, 2019 | Inside Epa
By Maria Hegstad
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) is urging EPA to reconsider its denial of the group's request that the agency amend chemical reporting rules to increase reporting on asbestos importation and use in the United... -
Wheeler’s Bid for EPA Chief Clears Senate Environment Panel (2)
Feb 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Andrew Wheeler is one step closer to securing his spot as permanent EPA chief. The Senate Environment and Public Works committee voted 11-10 along party lines Feb. 5 to advance Wheeler’s nomination to be Environmental... -
Senate Panel Advances Wheeler to Lead EPA
Feb 5, 2019 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider, Alex Guillén and Anthony Adragna
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today cleared Andrew Wheeler’s nomination to be the permanent administrator of EPA on an 11-10 party-line vote. Senators of both parties, including EPW member Shelley... -
'EPA Was Always Bad on Drinking Water'
Feb 5, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Public health advocates familiar with the recent history of drinking water regulations were disappointed by reports last week that EPA would not set a legal limit for toxic nonstick and firefighting chemicals found in drinking water. But... -
Fluorinated Chemical Activists Share Spotlight at State of the Union
Feb 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A senator and two representatives will highlight communities’ struggles with a persistent group of chemicals contaminating water supplies by inviting local health advocates to join them at the State of the Union address Feb. 5. -
Official Helping Craft EPA Response On Toxic Chemicals Once Worked For Koch Brothers
Feb 5, 2019 | Huffington Post
By Nick Visser
David Dunlap, a deputy in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development, has played a lead role in crafting the EPA’s policies on several toxic chemicals found in drinking water, raising concerns about... -
Drinking Water PFAS Contamination Crisis: Ex-Koch Chemicals Executive Playing Key Role in Shaping EPA's Response
Feb 5, 2019 | EcoWatch
A former chemical and fossil fuel industry executive who recently oversaw the anti-environmental agenda of the Koch brothers is playing a lead role crafting the Trump administration's plan to address the crisis of PFAS contamination in... -
Peters Urges Air Force Cooperation with State on PFAs Cleanup Efforts
Feb 5, 2019 | Iosco News
U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI), ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, urged Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson to cooperate with the State of Michigan on per- and polyfluoroalkyl... -
New York Must Explain Rejection of Gas Pipeline
Feb 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bernie Pazanowski
New York must explain why it won’t permit a natural gas pipeline to traverse the western portion of the state when the federal government and Pennsylvania have already approved the project, the Second Circuit said in an unpublished... -
Assembly Votes to Ban Offshore Drilling in State Waters
Feb 5, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
The New York state Assembly has voted to ban offshore drilling off the state's coast. The Democrat-controlled chamber passed the measure yesterday. It's expected to pass the Senate in the coming days, and is supported by... -
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Would Reshape the Economy in 10 Years. That Could Shock the Energy Sector
Feb 5, 2019 | CNBC
By Tom DiChristopher
The millennial architects of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal appear to be drawing inspiration from the old mantra of their generation's most iconic company: "Move fast and break things." That company, Facebook, has... -
Texas Democrats Caught Between Climate Change and the Energy Economy
Feb 5, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Houston Democrat Lizzie Fletcher was elected to Congress last November as part of a progressive groundswell against President Donald Trump, winning over a stretch of wealthy Houston suburbs where the oil industry has long... -
Breaking Down Bioplastics Myths, Realities
Feb 5, 2019 | Plastics News
By Karen Laird
Ask any 10 people what bioplastics are, and the odds are that nine will get it wrong. In the past, misunderstandings and misconceptions about bioplastics have tended to color the perception of these materials in the market, and these... -
Feds Given 12 Months to Release Chemical Safety Rule
Feb 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The federal government must issue regulations within one year establishing the reporting requirements for accidental chemical releases into the ambient air, a federal trial court ruled. U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Investigation... -
D.C. Circuit Sets Deadline for Chemical Regs
Feb 5, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The Chemical Safety Board must issue regulations on reporting requirements for accidental chemical releases into ambient air within the next year, a federal court said yesterday. The ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District... -
NTSB Updates List of Most Wanted Safety Improvements
Feb 5, 2019 | Progressive Railroading
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday unveiled its 2019-20 list of most wanted transportation safety improvements. Launched in 1990, the most wanted list serves as a primary advocacy tool to help save lives... -
Senate Panel Advances Wheeler’s Nomination to Be EPA Chief
Feb 5, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate committee on Tuesday voted along party lines to advance President Trump’s nomination of Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for a coal company and other energy interests, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
After Delay, House Democrats to Begin Climate Push
Feb 5, 2019 | Roll Call
By Elvina Nawaguna
The partial government shutdown stalled House Democrats’ plan to address climate change out of the gate, but they’ll turn their attention to the issue this week with hearings in the two main energy and environment committees as... -
Ewire: Details Emerge on 'Green New Deal' Legislative Proposal
Feb 5, 2019 | Inside EPA
Initial details are emerging about pending legislation that would begin to flesh out the as-yet-undefined “Green New Deal” calling for a rapid decrease in carbon emissions, including that the forthcoming measure would seek “net-zero”... -
Climate Change on Front Burner After 8 Years of GOP Rule
Feb 5, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama
For the first time in years, the House will hold two congressional hearings on fighting climate change this week, breaking with the skepticism that prevailed during the past eight years of GOP leadership. The simultaneous 10 a.m...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Economic Indicator Shows Signs of Slower Growth
Feb 5, 2019 | Material Handling & Logistics
By David Sparkman
The United States’ economy is continuing to grow but at a much slower pace than last year, according to a leading economic indicator published each month by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Called the Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), it posted a 0.3% decline in January on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. This marks the barometer’s third consecutive month-over-month drop and suggests a slower rate of economic growth, the council says.
On a year-over-year (Y/Y) basis, the barometer is up 0.8% (3MMA), a pronounced slowdown in the pace of growth as compared with late last year, ACC reports. The unadjusted measure of the CAB was flat (0.0%) in January and declined 0.2% in December and 0.8% in November.
“The CAB continues to signal gains in U.S. commercial and industrial activity through mid-2019, but at a much slower pace as growth (as measured by year-earlier comparisons) has turned over,” observes Kevin Swift, chief economist at the ACC. “Despite three straight months of decline in the barometer, the cumulative decline is 1.0%—well below the 3.0% that would signal negative growth in the U.S. economy.”
The CAB covers four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators. Applying the CAB back to 1912, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to fourteen months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
The CAB indicators relate to the production of chlorine and other alkalies, pigments, plastic resins and other selected basic industrial chemicals; chemical company stock data; hours worked in chemicals; publicly sourced, chemical price information; end-use (or customer) industry sales-to-inventories; and several broader leading economic measures (building permits and new orders).
The importance of the barometer can be pegged to the fact that the chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy’s business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends, according to the ACC.
Major components of the barometer were mixed in January. Trends in construction-related resins, pigments and related performance chemistry were mixed, suggesting slow housing activity. Plastic resins used in packaging and in consumer and institutional applications turned positive, performance chemistry gained, and U.S. exports were mixed. Equity prices retreated sharply again this month, and product and input prices fell as well. Inventory indicators were positive, the ACC adds.
The diffusion index was stable at 53%. The council notes that this index marks the number of positive contributors relative to the total number of indicators monitored.
ACC earlier predicted that following growth throughout 2018, the chemical industry is expected to see healthy demand continue throughout this year for basic chemicals, with most specialty segments predicted to benefit from growing demand as well, especially in construction markets.
https://www.mhlnews.com/global-supply-chain/economic-indicator-shows-signs-slower-growth
-
Committee Approves Wheeler, Other Bills and Nominees
Feb 5, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler cleared one hurdle today as he moves toward full Senate confirmation to lead the agency.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Wheeler's nomination as head of EPA on a party-line 11-10 vote.
The Senate confirmed Wheeler in April of last year as deputy administrator. He has been acting chief since July after his predecessor, Scott Pruitt, stepped down facing allegations that he had misused his public office.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the EPW panel, said he hoped that Wheeler would take a different tack from Pruitt when it came to the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
"It brings me no joy to say today he has not done what I would hope he would do in many important respects," Carper said.
The senator noted EPA's proposed reworking of the agency's mercury air toxics limits as well as its rollback of Obama-era fuel efficiency standards for cars.
EPA has butted heads with California, which has tougher clean car rules, while Carper has pushed "a 50-state deal" he says the auto industry wants.
"With respect to fuel efficiency standards and a path forward, they [the auto industry] are united in saying they want a 50-state deal," Carper said, adding, "I'm very, very frustrated in this regard."
Carper has pushed for a number of policy concessions from EPA in exchange for speeding up Wheeler's confirmation, including action on the Kigali Amendment, an international agreement to reduce hydrofluorocarbons; the deadly paint-stripping chemical methylene chloride; and the PFAS class of chemicals.
Wheeler has also run into concern from Republicans over PFAS, which have been linked to widespread water contamination in various states. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) voted on the panel to advance Wheeler's nomination today and said she met with Wheeler to hear what EPA planned to do about the chemicals.
"I intend to closely track the steps EPA and other agencies are taking to address this public health and environmental health crisis," Capito said, noting it has affected her state of West Virginia.
Carper also asked the Senate to take its time with Wheeler. "I want us to slow this down just a little bit," Carper said, noting that Wheeler can remain as acting administrator for 210 days under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Republicans pushed back. "I wouldn't want to hesitate or delay it at all. I think we need to get him on the job and working," said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) about Wheeler at this morning's markup.Peter Wright
The committee also cleared the nomination of Peter Wright, a former DowDuPonts lawyer, to lead EPA's solid waste office on a party-line 11-10 vote. The Senate failed to confirm Wright during the last Congress.
Carper said he had negotiated several policy concessions with EPA last year to help speed up Wright's confirmation. The agency, however, had not made the same commitments this year, so Carper said he would withhold support.
Also, as part of today's markup, the committee signed off on its own rules package and budget resolution. And it approved the nomination of former Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) to be assistant secretary of Commerce for economic development on a 15-6 vote.
Senators approved on a voice vote the nominations of Nicole Nason to be administrator of the Federal Highway Administration and John Ryder to be a member of the board of directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, as well as several pieces of legislation, including the following:S . 268, from EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the "Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act," to promote wildlife conservation and help with the management of invasive species (E&E Daily, Jan. 31). S. 163, from Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), the "Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act" (E&E Daily, Jan. 11). S. 94, from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the "Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act." S. 310, from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the "Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation Act."
After adjourning today's markup, Barrasso said the Senate may vote on Bill Barr for attorney general first. But he indicated to reporters that it's possible Wheeler's nomination to lead EPA could move next.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/05/stories/1060119683
-
ADAO Asks EPA To Reconsider Asbestos Petition Denial, States File Petition
Feb 5, 2019 | Inside Epa
By Maria Hegstad
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) is urging EPA to reconsider its denial of the group's request that the agency amend chemical reporting rules to increase reporting on asbestos importation and use in the United States, a request that comes as state attorneys general are filing their own petition asking EPA to take the same actions.
In a Jan. 31 letter to Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, ADAO notes that the attorneys general (AGs) of 14 states and the District of Columbia have, on the same day, “petitioned EPA under section 21 of [the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)] to require reporting on asbestos under the Act.”
“Since the state petition seeks similar asbestos reporting requirements, ADAO is asking EPA to reconsider its denial of the September 25, 2018 petition by public health groups. Attached is a rebuttal to the EPA petition denial which demonstrates that it was based on errors of law and fact, misrepresented the basis for the petition and ignored information in the asbestos docket and EPA’s own past statements.”
EPA last month denied the petition of ADAO and five other environmental and public health groups, stating that that it “does not believe that the requested amendments would result in the reporting of any information that is not already known to EPA.”
The groups' petition sought a series of EPA actions, including adding asbestos to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program and strengthening reporting mandates by lowering the reporting threshold, eliminating exemptions for natural substances, impurities and 'articles' and requiring reporting by processors. The petition also asked EPA to “determine that reports submitted on asbestos are not subject to protection as confidential business information (CBI) because disclosure is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health under section 14(d)(3) of TSCA.”
The Jan. 31 petition from the attorneys general asks EPA to “issue a new asbestos reporting rule to: (i) eliminate any applicability of the 'naturally occurring substance' (NOCS) exemption in the CDR for asbestos reporting; (ii) apply the CDR reporting requirements to processors of asbestos, as well as manufacturers, including importers, of the chemical substance; (iii) ensure that the impurities exemption in the CDR does not apply to asbestos; and (iv) require reporting with respect to imported articles that contain asbestos.”
TSCA section 21b allows citizens to request that EPA take certain actions under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6 or 8 and requires EPA respond to the petitions within 90 days of receipt. In this instance, both the environmentalists' original petition and the new petition from the AGs ask EPA to undertake a TSCA section 8(a) rule to amend CDR. Should the agency fail to respond by deadline, or if EPA denies such a petition, section 21 allows petitioners to sue EPA in a federal district court.
An environmentalist attorney familiar with the petitions says the groups' request for reconsideration is “not necessary before filing suit,” nor does it preclude filing suit.
The source explains that “because of the overlap between the” petitions, advocates felt both “should be in the mix as EPA considers the state petition -- that way, if EPA decides to grant the state petition, it could reverse its denial of” the first petition at the same time. “Also . . . the rationale for EPA’s denial of [the] petition was weak and flawed” and they “wanted to make sure that EPA had [the] rebuttal in front of it when reviewing the state petition.”
'Limited' Understanding
ADAO and the other groups rebut each of the arguments in EPA's denial of the petition in their request for reconsideration, starting with the agency's argument that the requested rule changes would not provide any information the agency does not already have.
The petitioners argue, “EPA has greatly overstated its knowledge of asbestos use and exposure in the United States,” and its asbestos problem formulation reveals that the agency’s understanding of asbestos use is in fact limited and incomplete. They note they problem formulation said “'the import volume of products containing asbestos is not known' and that '[c]onsumer exposures will be difficult to evaluate since the quantities of these products that still might be imported into the United States is not known.'”
They also question EPA's argument that “manufacturers and importers of asbestos are already required to report asbestos under the CDR rule if they meet the production volume threshold of 2,500 pounds.” EPA said that its July 2017 finding at the request of Occidental Chemical that the company's imports qualified for the NCOS exemption was specific, not general. The finding formed the basis of ADAO's original petition.
They say EPA's letter to Occidental explains asbestos is exempt from reporting as a NOCS because prior to the point of import, the asbestos has only been processed by mechanical and gravitational means. But, they argue, this is true for all raw asbestos exported from its country of origin and is not unique to Occidental.
The EPA letter also said that post-import are irrelevant to whether the imports themselves are entitled to the NOCS exemption, which ADAO says means that no imported raw asbestos is subject to CDR, regardless of how it is used or processed after entering the United States.
The petitioners also note that in its denial of their petition, EPA emphasizes its reliance on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) knowledge of asbestos imports. But USGS itself has acknowledged that insufficient data were available to reliably identify all asbestos uses and that, in 2016, an unknown quantity of asbestos was imported within manufactured products, possibly including brake linings and pads, building materials, gaskets, millboard, and yarn and thread, among others, ADAO says.
States' Petition
Given the similarities in the petitions' requests and arguments, it is unclear why the states filed their petition after EPA denied ADAO's earlier petition, without addressing the denial further. A spokesperson for California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
The law firm Bergeson & Campbell writes in a Feb. 1 post on its TSCAblog that the states' “petition cites EPA’s denial” of the advocates' petition “seeking similar action that the Attorneys General are requesting, but does not address the many reasons that EPA denied the first petition. Why the Attorneys General would follow up EPA’s well-reasoned denial with a petition of their own with very similar requests and only marginal additional facts, is unclear.”
The states say that EPA's “statements directly contradict those previously made by EPA in its Asbestos Problem Formulation [documents for the ongoing assessment] where the EPA specifically identifies its lack of data on the import of asbestos-containing products -- for example, '[i]t is important to note that the import volumes of products containing asbestos is [sic] unknown.'”
Like the environmental and public health groups, the states argue that the requested CDR changes are necessary because the CDR does not generate such comprehensive data since it exempts imported raw asbestos as NOCS, exempts asbestos as an impurity and as a chemical substance imported as part of an article, and applies only to those who manufacture asbestos but not to those who process it.
“These limitations deprive the agency of crucial information regarding asbestos exposure pathways necessary for the agency to fulfill its statutory mandate to prevent unreasonable risks of injury,” the attorneys general say.
Both groups point to EPA's ongoing evaluation of asbestos' human health risks, as one of the first 10 chemicals or substances evaluated under Congress' changes to TSCA. EPA faces a December 2019 deadline for completing these 10 assessments, and is expected to release a draft assessment for public comment and peer review soon.
But the states -- much like the advocates -- argue that “[a]ny TSCA risk evaluation that EPA conducts without access to accurate and complete asbestos data cannot satisfy TSCA’s risk evaluation criteria, including TSCA’s requirement that EPA use the 'best available science' in carrying out TSCA’s mandate to eliminate unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment . . . Moreover, without EPA gathering such information about asbestos, our states are hampered in their ability to design and implement programs necessary to protect the public’s health from this highly toxic chemical.”
The states say the rule changes they are requesting “would be an important right-to-know tool to give our states and the public access to information that may be critical for avoiding potentially dangerous exposures to asbestos-containing products.” They also note that “Under TSCA Section 14(d)(4), a state may qualify for access to reported information even if the information is claimed to be [CBI].”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/adao-asks-epa-reconsider-asbestos-petition-denial-states-file-petition
-
Wheeler’s Bid for EPA Chief Clears Senate Environment Panel (2)
Feb 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Andrew Wheeler is one step closer to securing his spot as permanent EPA chief.
The Senate Environment and Public Works committee voted 11-10 along party lines Feb. 5 to advance Wheeler’s nomination to be Environmental Protection Agency administrator. Wheeler, who currently serves as the EPA’s acting head, took the helm of the agency in July 2018 after scandal-plagued former Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned. President Donald Trump tapped Wheeler to lead the agency permanently in January.
Senate Republicans aim to move Wheeler’s nomination quickly to a full vote. Sen John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Bloomberg Environment that Senate leadership could bring Wheeler’s nomination to the floor within a couple weeks. The Senate will first take up the nomination of William Barr to be attorney general.
But Wheeler’s path to quick confirmation could hit a speed-bump amid sharp opposition from Senate Democrats and bipartisan concerns over Wheeler’s reluctance to commit to setting a national drinking water limit for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. A group of 20 senators, including two Republicans, in a Feb. 1 letter urged Wheeler to include in the EPA’s pending national plan to address the contaminants, also known as PFAS, a commitment to develop enforceable federal standards.
Bipartisan Calls
PFAS compounds—which have been used to manufacture nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and other consumer and industrial products—may cause adverse health effects such as developmental effects to fetuses and testicular and kidney cancer, according to the EPA.
“Without enforceable drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, it is doubtful that a national management strategy will sufficiently confront the challenges PFAS chemicals pose to states and affected communities,” the group of senators, who included Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), wrote.
The senators also requested the EPA brief their offices on the agency’s efforts to address PFAS and provide regular updates.
Carper has also led Senate Democrats in urging Wheeler to make commitments to walk back policies the EPA advanced under Pruitt, including a proposal to freeze federal fuel economy limits for passenger vehicles at 2020 levels. Carper has pressed Wheeler to commit to reach a deal on the standards with California, which has the ability to set its own tailpipe greenhouse gas limits under the Clean Air Act.
But it isn’t clear whether Carper will secure that commitment. Wheeler told Bloomberg TV in a Feb. 4 interview the Trump administration and California officials remained “pretty far apart” from reaching an agreement on the car standards.
Wright Nomination
The committee also voted on party lines to again advance Peter C. Wright’s nomination to head the EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management, which includes the Superfund program and other hazardous waste management, coal ash disposal permitting, and emergency response efforts.
Trump renominated Wright in January after his nomination expired at the end of the 115th Congress. Wright spent nearly two decades at Dow Chemical Co., most recently as managing counsel. He started working as special counsel to Wheeler after retiring from Dow last June.
Wright was left out of a group of EPA nominees confirmed Jan. 2 because of concerns Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) had about Wright’s work at Dow, a spokesman for the senator said in a Jan. 10 email. Menendez took issue with Wright’s defense of dioxins, which persist in the environment and can cause cancer.
Diesel BillThe Senate environment panel, by voice vote, also voted again to approve legislation, S. 163, that would ease EPA limits on particulate matter from diesel generators in remote areas of Alaska. The bill, introduced by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), passed the Senate last year but failed Dec. 21 to win the two-thirds in the House needed to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Sullivan re-introduced the bill Jan. 16.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/wheelers-bid-for-epa-chief-clears-senate-environment-panel-2
-
Senate Panel Advances Wheeler to Lead EPA
Feb 5, 2019 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider, Alex Guillén and Anthony Adragna
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today cleared Andrew Wheeler’s nomination to be the permanent administrator of EPA on an 11-10 party-line vote.
Senators of both parties, including EPW member Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), expressed concern over POLITICO’s report last week that Wheeler will not set drinking water limits for PFOS or PFOA. But the issue did not prove to be a hurdle to advancing his nomination.
It is unclear how quickly Republican leadership will bring Wheeler’s nomination to the floor, with the chamber’s time also being dedicated to confirming a new attorney general and the Feb. 15 government funding deadline.
Although Wheeler is widely expected to be confirmed eventually, Democrats and a handful of Republicans are holding out hope that they can extract a reversal on the drinking water decision. Twenty senators, including Capito, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), signed onto a letter last week urging EPA to “develop enforceable federal drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS.” Manchin is the one Democrat still in the Senate who backed Wheeler for the No. 2 spot in 2018.
WHAT’S NEXT: Wheeler’s nomination heads to the Senate floor for a final vote.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2019/02/senate-panel-advances-wheeler-to-lead-epa-2624762
-
'EPA Was Always Bad on Drinking Water'
Feb 5, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Public health advocates familiar with the recent history of drinking water regulations were disappointed by reports last week that EPA would not set a legal limit for toxic nonstick and firefighting chemicals found in drinking water.
But they weren't surprised.
EPA hasn't regulated any new contaminants in drinking water since 1996, when Congress passed the most recent amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Erik Olson, who leads the Natural Resources Defense Council's public health program, described the PFAS news as the latest "poster child for how broken the law really is."
EPA did not respond to requests for comment on this article but has pushed back against reports that it does not plan to set a legal limit for two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) — in drinking water. The agency says it has not finalized or publicly issued its management plan and is "moving forward using its authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act" (E&E Daily, Feb. 5).
But the Trump administration has often come under fire for its handling of the contaminants, including reports last year that EPA political appointees had blocked release of a PFAS study by the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
A White House official was concerned about the study, calling it a "potential public relations nightmare," according to emails obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The official said the study would show that low levels of PFOS and PFOA are harmful (E&E Daily, May 21, 2018).
Ronnie Levin, a former EPA staffer who now manages the water and health program at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has been a frequent critic of the Trump administration. Still, she says the recent PFAS controversy is not unique.
"I don't want anything to take away from how bad I think the Trump administration is on public health," she said. "But while this is not the finest hour for EPA, EPA was always bad on drinking water."
Most of the nation's drinking water standards were set between 1986 and 1996. During that time, federal law required EPA to issue regulations for 83 contaminants by 1989 and for 25 new contaminants every three years after that.
But drinking water utilities couldn't keep up with the new regulations and pushed back. In 1996, Congress removed the regulatory schedule from the Safe Drinking Water Act and instead created clunky requirements meant to help EPA target priority toxins for regulations.
The law directs EPA to create new drinking water standards if a contaminant might have adverse health effects and is common enough in public drinking water systems that it could cause a public health concern. Before deciding to regulate a chemical, EPA must consider whether regulating the contaminant could meaningfully reduce the public health risk. The agency also is required to conduct an economic analysis of any new drinking water standards to ensure the benefits of regulation justify the costs.
Levin said that many of those requirements don't make sense and that starting the process to regulate a toxin only after it has been found in drinking water is "regulating after the horse is out of the barn."
Water utilities and chemical companies often push back against any indication that EPA might consider regulating a chemical.
New regulations require utilities across the country not only to treat drinking water for new chemicals, which can be costly, but also to spend thousands of dollars a year monitoring for each contaminant. That can be a big financial burden on smaller systems, especially if it turns out the chemical isn't present in the water system. Drinking water standards can often become cleanup levels for groundwater contamination at Superfund sites, leaving companies and government agencies on the hook for expensive and technically complicated cleanups.
"What we basically have is a 'see no evil' approach where we aren't even monitoring for chemicals we know are harmful," said Waterkeeper Alliance General Counsel and Advocacy Director David Estrin, whose group filed a lawsuit last week trying to force EPA to create new regulations or update old ones for numerous contaminants (Greenwire, Jan. 30). "This approach is not protective of public health."
Missed deadlines
After EPA decides to examine whether a chemical is worth regulating, it can still take 10 years under the Safe Drinking Water Act to set a standard for the toxin.
EPA often misses those deadlines by years, with the agency choosing to review the same contaminants multiple times without coming to any conclusions about whether to regulate them.
"They'll put restrictions on themselves," Levin said. "They'll say they have to prove that the harm comes from ingesting a chemical in drinking water, even if you know it's a harmful chemical and it's in drinking water."
Steve Via, director of federal regulations at utility trade group American Water Works Association, said his group wants EPA to set standards for harmful chemicals but has asked the agency to be mindful of costs to utilities in its economic analysis.
Those analyses don't always take into account "secondary costs" of regulations, he said. For example, Via is worried that if a drinking water standard were set for PFAS, EPA would not consider the costs water utilities would have to pay to safely dispose of the chemical once it was removed from drinking water.
"What we have asked is that they do the analysis, get us a [maximum contaminant level] and regulation that gives us the health benefit we are looking for," he said. "That's what is needed."
Via admits that EPA has been sluggish to respond to new contaminants but argues that accurately analyzing the health impact of contaminants can be technically difficult for man-made chemicals that haven't been reviewed before.
He also described EPA as overtaxed, noting that the agency is reviewing a "contaminant candidate list" that includes more than 100 chemicals.
"The problem is we don't have enough focus," he said. "If you focus on a few chemicals, you can take what limited dollars are available and do what you need to do to move them forward."
He added, "If EPA doesn't have the resources to actually get the data it needs to do the research and make informed decisions, you're going to see the agency continuing to be challenged the way it is now."
Perchlorate parallels
Many experts say the debate over PFAS today closely parallels the ongoing EPA effort to regulate perchlorate, a chemical found in jet fuel that can harm the thyroid.
Calls for EPA to regulate perchlorate began in the 1990s after testing found the chemical in hundreds of wells. Almost immediately, the Pentagon and defense contractors began pushing back, even issuing their own studies trying to prove perchlorate wasn't as dangerous as the public believed. After EPA came out with a draft reference level in 2002 — the first step toward regulation — the issue became so contentious that the White House asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to take over and do its own study of perchlorate and its public health impacts.
In a decision widely seen as political at the time, EPA in 2008 said it would not regulate the chemical. The announcement created a public uproar that lasted for years. Lisa Jackson, who led EPA during the first years of the Obama administration, was forced to promise during her confirmation hearing that she would review the decision.
EPA finally decided to regulate perchlorate in 2011. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the agency had two years to propose safeguards and another 18 months to finalize standards.
It hasn't done either.
NRDC sued the agency in 2016 to prompt action, and EPA agreed in a settlement that it would propose a perchlorate standard by October 2018. The agency has since asked for an extension.
"That's the upshot: The Safe Drinking Water Act is broken," Olson said.
Olson said the perchlorate case is a dramatic example of how ineffective EPA is at ensuring the nation's drinking water is safe.
"EPA has failed to use the new contaminant process to set new standards, and the public continues to drink a lot of threatening contaminants without any EPA rules to protect them," he said. "If EPA wanted to make a finding for PFAS today, they could. Or for perchlorate, they could."
David Andrews, senior scientist at Environmental Working Group, agreed.
"EPA's inability to protect human health is frightening," he said.
Estrin, at Waterkeeper, said the regulatory process is similarly broken when it comes to updating drinking water standards written decades ago.
For example, EPA has yet to develop new regulations for tetrachloroethylene (perc) or trichloroethylene (TCE), despite determining in 2010 that existing regulations for the solvents should be revamped to better protect human health.
The agency also hasn't updated standards set for chromium in 1991. Back then, the agency assumed the chemical would not cause cancer through oral exposure, a theory the National Toxicology Program has since proved incorrect.
"There seems to be a systemic problem at the agency of not taking these deadlines and obligations seriously," Estrin said. "It's really hard to understand why these decisions have been made."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/05/stories/1060119665
-
Fluorinated Chemical Activists Share Spotlight at State of the Union
Feb 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A senator and two representatives will highlight communities’ struggles with a persistent group of chemicals contaminating water supplies by inviting local health advocates to join them at the State of the Union address Feb. 5.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), and Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.) will bring representatives from affected communities in their districts in the hopes of spurring national action to address the contaminants poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances.
The substances, also known as PFAS, are found in nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and other consumer products. They’ve also been found in public water supplies across the country.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has chosen one of the affected communities, the former Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, N.H., for a pilot project investigating how people may be affected by drinking PFAS-contaminated water.
Andrea Amico, founder of community activism group Testing for Pease, will accompany Shaheen, according to an announcement from the senator’s office.
Hoosick Falls, N.Y., ResidentThe agency’s pilot project will help determine what other locations to choose for a nationwide study of the health effects of PFAS. Amico will represent the Pease community on the agency’s Community Assistance Panel for the pilot project.
Delgado’s guest is Michael Hickey, a resident of the Village of Hoosick Falls, N.Y. The village has installed specialized filters to remove the chemicals from its drinking water supply. The state’s department of health is offering blood tests to Hoosick Falls residents who believe they have been exposed to the substances.
Kildee’s guest is Cathy Wusterbarth of community activism group Need Our Water, which represents local concerns about PFAS contamination from Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, Mich. The base used firefighting foam containing PFAS substances, which have migrated into groundwater, threatening the community’s drinking water, according to an announcement from Kildee’s office.
Kildee and Delgado are members of the Congressional PFAS Task Force, which Kildee and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) started in January to write legislation addressing the substances and meet with congressional leaders to press for action. Kildee introduced a bill (H.R. 535) Jan. 14 that would give the Environmental Protection Agency the power to order cleanups of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
The EPA is working on a national strategy to address PFAS. Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said Feb. 4 the plan would be finished by next week.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/fluorinated-chemical-activists-share-spotlight-at-state-of-the-union
-
Official Helping Craft EPA Response On Toxic Chemicals Once Worked For Koch Brothers
Feb 5, 2019 | Huffington Post
By Nick Visser
David Dunlap, a deputy in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development, has played a lead role in crafting the EPA’s policies on several toxic chemicals found in drinking water, raising concerns about conflicts of interest due to his previous work at Koch Industries.
Politico on Monday first reported that Dunlap has helped spearhead the EPA’s policies on a class of chemicals linked to cancer: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Dunlap was hired in October after working for the chemical giant Koch Industries for more than eight years as a lead expert on water and chemical regulations.
Dunlap attended at least nine meetings on the substances during his first six weeks at the agency, according to copies of his calendars obtained by Politico through a Freedom of Information Act request. At the same time, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler was deciding if the agency would choose to regulate some of the most notable chemicals in the PFAS class.
Politico reported last week that Wheeler ultimately decided not to set a limit for two of the toxic chemicals that have been found in drinking water ― perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOS, and another called perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. The decision has not yet been made public, but the calendars show Dunlap was involved in the decision-making process shortly after he started at the agency.
A bipartisan group of 20 senators issued a forceful letter urging Wheeler to reconsider this week, saying a failure to regulate the substances “would be a major setback to states and affected communities.”
“We urge you to develop enforceable federal drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS,” the lawmakers, led by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), wrote.
Dunlap’s role doesn’t require Senate confirmation, but as Politico notes, the president has not appointed anyone to run the EPA’s research office, effectively giving Dunlap broad power to work on the agency’s policies. The agency has an ethics requirement that would prohibit him from working on anything “involving specific parties” related to his work at Koch, but it doesn’t appear he’s barred from work on PFAS.
Koch told Politico that the chemicals were not part of his work during his time at the corporation.
Any significant regulation of chemicals like PFAS could require companies that produce them to assume liability for cleanup costs. Georgia-Pacific, a subsidiary of Koch, has used the chemicals in some products it produces and has owned plants where the chemicals were disposed.
The EPA celebrated Dunlap’s past work at Koch in a statement upon his hiring, saying he would play a “pivotal” role in the EPA’s mission.
“As a chemical engineer, Mr. Dunlap has worked on environmental issues for nearly 30 years with a focus on assessing risk. His extensive experience on regulatory issues will be pivotal in our mission to protect human health and the environment,” Ryan Jackson, the EPA’s chief of staff, told Courthouse News Service after Dunlap was hired.
Politico’s reporting has set off alarm among public health advocacy groups. The Environmental Working Group said that it hoped Dunlap would follow the EPA mission statement “instead of the demands of the chemical industry.”
“When Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, installs a former Koch executive to clean up toxic chemicals in drinking water, the chances of it happening are about as likely as snowfall in San Diego,” Scott Faber, the group’s senior vice president of government affairs, said in a statement. “We hope both Wheeler and Dunlap will follow EPA’s mission statement instead of the demands of the chemical industry and adopt a health-protective drinking water standard that will reduce PFAS in the drinking water serving millions of people.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-dunlap-epa-pfas-chemicals_us_5c591ba3e4b00187b554649f
-
Feb 5, 2019 | EcoWatch
A former chemical and fossil fuel industry executive who recently oversaw the anti-environmental agenda of the Koch brothers is playing a lead role crafting the Trump administration's plan to address the crisis of PFAS contamination in the nation's drinking watersupply, according to a report Monday by Politico.
David Dunlap, a top political appointee in the Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has played a significant role in shaping the agency's plan for addressing PFAS contamination in the tap water supplies of more than 100 million Americans. According to documents obtained by Politico through a public records request, Dunlap began working on the issue almost immediately after coming to EPA, in October, and has participated in at least nine meetings on PFAS, including one briefing with Andrew Wheeler, the agency's acting administrator.
Dunlap, a chemical engineer, had been the director of environmental affairs at Koch Industries since 2010, before coming into the Trump administration. On his LinkedIn profile, Dunlap described his position at Koch Industries as a "subject matter expert" on water, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, chemical management and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Before working for Koch, Dunlap worked at the Chlorine Institute.
Last week, Politico Pro's Annie Snider reported that, according to her sources, Wheeler will not move to regulate any of the PFAS family of fluorinated chemicals by setting a legal limit, known as a maximum contaminant level, under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Studies have linked PFAS chemicals to cancer, kidney disease, weakened childhood immunity and other health problems.
"When Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, installs a former Koch executive to clean up toxic chemicals in drinking water, the chances of it happening are about as likely as snowfall in San Diego," said EWG senior vice president of government affairs Scott Faber. "We hope both Wheeler and Dunlap will follow EPA's mission statement instead of the demands of the chemical industry and adopt a health-protective drinking water standard that will reduce PFAS in the drinking water serving millions of people."
EWG and researchers at Northeastern University have tracked 172 PFAS contamination sites in 40 states. Drawing on unreleased data from EPA tests, EWG estimates that water supplies for as many as 110 million Americans may be contaminated.
https://www.ecowatch.com/david-dunlap-koch-brothers-epa-2628051010.html
-
Peters Urges Air Force Cooperation with State on PFAs Cleanup Efforts
Feb 5, 2019 | Iosco News
U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI), ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, urged Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson to cooperate with the State of Michigan on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) decontamination efforts in the area surrounding the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Iosco County.
In a letter to Secretary Wilson, Peters also invited her and Assistant Secretary John Henderson to meet with community members impacted by the contamination from the former base. According to Peters, PFAS are linked to health problems, including certain cancers, and families across Michigan and the nation have been exposed to dangerously high levels of PFAS through contaminated drinking water.
Peters’ effort comes after news reports this week that the Air Force notified the state of Michigan that it would not make new efforts to cleanup PFAS in Iosco County and criticized the state Department of Environmental Quality.
“I am writing to express my significant concern that the United States Air Force is not working in good faith with the State of Michigan regarding environmental contamination surrounding the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Iosco County, Michigan…This aggressive and defensive posture amidst the ongoing dispute resolution process with the state is unproductive at best, and it concerns me that so little has been accomplished since PFAS was confirmed at Wurtsmith in 2010,” wrote Senator Peters.
“The Air Force’s refusal to meet the state of Michigan’s water quality standards only serves to reinforce my sense that Congress must move swiftly to direct the Environmental Protection Agency to establish enforceable and protective federal standards.”
Surface water in Clark’s Marsh near the former Wurtsmith Air Base has been found to contain PFAS levels of 42,000 parts per trillion, greatly exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recommended standards.
http://www.iosconews.com/news/article_5d1a4072-2962-11e9-adf1-1b18fd1b2bc8.html
-
New York Must Explain Rejection of Gas Pipeline
Feb 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bernie Pazanowski
New York must explain why it won’t permit a natural gas pipeline to traverse the western portion of the state when the federal government and Pennsylvania have already approved the project, the Second Circuit said in an unpublished opinion Feb. 5.
The state’s denial letter didn’t adequately examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, the summary order said. It didn’t explain any rational connection between facts found and choices made, it said.
In particular, the letter doesn’t have any record citations to particular projects or studies the state considered, the court said.
New York also relied on considerations outside the pipeline’s proposal and mistakenly identified project features, the court said.
Though New York wasn’t required to adopt the conclusions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the denial letter failed to address evidence in the record that supported FERC’s conclusion, the court said.
The case was remanded to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Judges Rosemary S. Pooler, Richard C. Wesley, and Peter W. Hall were on the panel.
Sidley Austin LLP represented the pipeline company. The New York Attorney General’s Office represented the state.
The case is Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, 2d Cir., No. 17-1164-cv, unpublished 2/5/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-york-must-explain-rejection-of-gas-pipeline
-
Assembly Votes to Ban Offshore Drilling in State Waters
Feb 5, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
The New York state Assembly has voted to ban offshore drilling off the state's coast.
The Democrat-controlled chamber passed the measure yesterday. It's expected to pass the Senate in the coming days, and is supported by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
The legislation would specifically bar the state from granting permits for drilling or oil or gas exploration in offshore areas controlled by the state. While the state can't control areas overseen by the federal government, supporters say a state ban would make it much harder for any drilling to occur close to coastal New York.
The action comes after the Trump administration proposed to open more offshore areas to drilling.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/05/stories/1060119649
-
Feb 5, 2019 | CNBC
By Tom DiChristopher
The millennial architects of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal appear to be drawing inspiration from the old mantra of their generation's most iconic company: "Move fast and break things."
That company, Facebook, has connected about a third of the world's population in just over a decade. The insurgent political movement behind Ocasio-Cortez has something more ambitious in mind: remaking the planet's largest economy in order to save the world from climate change.
As the the progressives begin to release the early sketches of their plan to create a zero-carbon economy, some policymakers and researchers worry the Green New Deal will literally break things. The concern is that Ocasio-Cortez's plan to achieve climate goals in just 10 years will not only tee up defeat but unleash disruptions and unintended consequences that reverberate from U.S. power markets to Central African mines.
In one possible scenario, a rapid transition creates vulnerabilities in the system that leave the nation exposed to power shortages during times of peak demand, like last week's polar vortex. While conservatives have long evoked rolling blackouts as a bogeyman in the debate over renewable power, energy researchers do express concern about the time frame for achieving Ocasio-Cortez's goals.
"From a vantage point like mine, they're certainly outside the realm of what is achievable, and I'm not sure that by putting those proposals forth, we're actually really moving the ball forward for the agenda," said Francis O'Sullivan, head of research at the MIT Energy Initiative.
A Green New Deal would mobilize the nation's capital — its money, manpower and know-how — to advance clean tech and overhaul the American energy and transportation sectors. The goal is to drive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions to zero and prevent the potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change.
Ocasio-Cortez and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are the latest advocates for such a plan. Their vision also strives to achieve economic justice with proposals like a federal jobs guarantee, basic income and universal health care. Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Sen. Edward Markey are expected to introduce legislation into both chambers of Congress to move the plan forward soon.
The progressive coalition has yet to propose policies to reach this clean energy future, and Ocasio-Cortez has only floated ideas for how to pay for it — including a charge on carbon emissions and a 70 percent marginal tax rate for wealthy Americans. However, the coalition has set broad, ambitious goals:Generate 100 percent of the nation's electric power from renewable sources.Build a national, energy-efficient "smart" electric power grid.Upgrade every residential and industrial building for energy efficiency.Eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation sector, as well as from farms, factories and other industries.Fund "massive" investment, and make the U.S. a leading exporter of clean-tech products and services.
In her proposal to establish a House select committee, Ocasio-Cortez said she wants to hit the targets within 10 years of passing legislation authorizing a Green New Deal.
To be sure, the goals are not promises, said Demond Drummer, executive director at New Consensus, the think tank charged with fleshing out the deal and other progressive policies.
"We're not promising anything. We're setting a goal," he said. "We're setting a goal, and we're going to get there."
"Ten years is the statement. It really communicates we need to take bold, aggressive action."
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's office declined to make the Congress member or an aide available for this story and did not respond to written questions.
Hitting mid-century goals by 2030
Policies aimed at achieving zero emissions have historically targeted mid-century for two reasons, according to Dr. Noah Kaufman, who studied pathways to decarbonization on the White House Council on Environmental Quality under President Barack Obama.
First, climate scientists generally believe cutting emissions by 80 percent to 100 percent by 2050 would allow nations to collectively prevent global temperatures from rising above 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, the headline goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Beyond that threshold, climate scientists warn the impacts of global warming grow less predictable and perhaps exponentially more devastating.
Second, a longer timeline allows reductions to occur without major disruptions to the way companies and citizens go about their business. The 10-year target for Ocasio-Cortez's goal, for example, would force utilities to shut down natural gas plants long before their useful life is over, said Kaufman, now a research scholar at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.
Drummer confirms the Green New Deal would phase out all fossil fuel and nuclear plants, though he said it would be done "responsibly and justly."
"The reason why we think it's worth looking into is because the science says we actually don't have 10 years. The science says this should have happened 10 years ago from yesterday," Drummer said.
Drummer points to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent warning that "unprecedented changes" are necessary to meet the more ambitious goal of holding global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The world is on pace to exceed that level as soon as 2030, the Nobel Prize-winning panel composed of climate scientists said.
Policymakers and scholars tell CNBC a broad, overarching strategy to combat climate change is necessary, and they welcome the attention that Ocasio-Cortez has brought to the issue.
Kaufman does not doubt the nation could drive emissions close to zero in 10 or 20 years, provided the United States treats climate change as a national emergency and reaches political consensus. However, he and others warn that a sudden, rapid transition could create problems that undermine green goals.
"Looking at something like 10 years, it's not a lot of time to look around at what's going on and react to it," Kaufman said. "If you give yourself a little more time, you have more opportunity to see what's working and make tweaks to make sure you're on the right path and accomplishing your policy objectives."
100 percent renewable power: "A really big stretch"
Currently, only some parts of the country, like California and Texas, are seeing renewables go from playing a marginal role in the power system to a meaningful role, said O'Sullivan, the MIT researcher.
"The idea of a wind and solar future — 100 percent in 10 years' time — that's a really big stretch in many places. A very considerably cleaner system in 10 years' time, now that's much more realistic in regions where you have some hydro, aggressive additional buildup of wind and solar and quite a bit of nuclear hanging out as well."
Renewable-energy sources generated 17 percent of the country's electric power in 2017, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Hydropower accounted for 7.4 percent, followed by wind at 6.4 percent. Solar contributed just 1.3 percent.
Meanwhile, nuclear power plants generated 20 percent of the nation's electric power and 63 percent of its zero-carbon power.
Scaling up wind and solar power would require replacing hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission and distribution lines with high voltage wire, in addition to outfitting the infrastructure with sensors to create a smart grid.
O'Sullivan said the United States is "nowhere near" implementing a national smart grid, and he is skeptical the country could stand one up in 10 years. Building out that infrastructure is a tortuous process that entails navigating a thicket of stakeholders, from local landowners to federal regulators.
In 2011 the Electric Power Research Institute estimated the cost of a national smart grid, including storage, at $338 billion to $476 billion. EPRI said the grid would create $1.3 trillion to $2 trillion in economic benefits and cut emissions by nearly 60 percent from 2005 levels. EPRI is mostly funded by utilities.
Even at today's modest levels, rapid deployment of renewables has created technical and market complications, said O'Sullivan. California solar and wind farms have curtailed large amounts of supply because they were generating more power than could be used or stored at times. The spike in renewable power also drove prices down to levels that create problems in power markets.
These complexities "are surmountable, but they are not surmountable in unrealistic time frames — in time frames that just do not mesh with the overall inertia of the system," O'Sullivan said.
More batteries, more problems
The Green New Deal also requires installing systems to store energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
The United States currently has 1.4 Gw of installed energy battery storage capacity, and it's on pace to grow that capacity to 4 Gw by 2023, according to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. That pencils out to 3 percent to 4 percent of the electric power the nation can generate.
"There is no solution for 100 percent renewable that doesn't require massive amounts of storage," said Daniel Finn-Foley, senior energy storage analyst at Wood Mackenzie Power and Renewables.
That's where the Green New Deal's vision for electric power intersects with its transportation sector goal — replacing all internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles. The dominant technology behind both EVs and electric power storage is lithium-ion batteries.
Wood Mackenzie forecasts that under current conditions, annual electric vehicle sales will reach 2.9 million by 2030, accounting for 16 percent of all lightweight vehicles sold in the United States.
Getting to 100 percent around 2030 would be a "huge" jump, and one that raises serious geopolitical, humanitarian and environmental concerns, said Ravi Manghani, director of storage research at Wood Mackenzie Power and Renewables.
That's because lithium-ion batteries rely on rare earths like cobalt.
There are serious concerns about the environmental impacts on lithium-producing nations. Meanwhile, more than half of the world's cobalt supply comes from Democratic Republic of Congo, a central African nation with a record of instability and a history of child labor in the mining industry.
Lifting EV sales from 16 percent to 100 percent by 2030 would require a roughly five- to sixfold increase in mining, Manghani said. He is concerned that a huge surge in demand over a short period could incentivize environmental and labor abuses and even tip DRC further into instability.
One solution is to prioritize new battery technologies that use less cobalt, and certainly, the Green New Deal calls for mobilizing the nation on a scale similar to World War II and the Space Race to accelerate innovation.
Still, Drummer acknowledges that some technologies, like zero-carbon airplanes, are unlikely to emerge at commercial scale over the next decade.
"That may take 50 years, but the point is, we've got to try," Drummer said. "We're not moving currently with the urgency we need to be moving to actually address this existential threat."
He added: "The unintended consequence of moving fast must be weighed with the known consequences of not moving fast enough."
-
Texas Democrats Caught Between Climate Change and the Energy Economy
Feb 5, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Houston Democrat Lizzie Fletcher was elected to Congress last November as part of a progressive groundswell against President Donald Trump, winning over a stretch of wealthy Houston suburbs where the oil industry has long reigned supreme and Democrats had not won an election since the late 1960s.
But within a month of her taking office, Democrats’ potential headwinds in suburban Texas are in full view as a proposal from the party’s progressive wing to rapidly shift the United States away from fossil fuels gains momentum amidst increasingly dire forecasts on climate change.
“I don’t think it’s something you want to touch with a 10-foot pole in our district,” said David Feldwisch, a Fletcher supporter and president of the Upper Kirby-based civic group Oil Patch Democrats. “Even with Democrats, you’re not going to find anyone denying climate change, but you’re going to find a split between people who want to do something really drastic right now and people who want to something more gradual.”
As the newly resurgent Democratic Party pushes Congress to consider climate change legislation for the first time since 2009, Democrats from oil-rich states like Texas are being pulled between the party’s growing call for carbon-free energy and the drilling industry that has long driven their economy.
While the so-called Green New Deal proposed by rising progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., might play well in Democratic strongholds like New York and California, in Texas any shift away from the oil and gas sector is viewed hesitantly for its potential to wreak havoc on the state economy.
Matt Angle, director of the Lone Star Project, a Washington-based consulting firm that works with Democratic candidates in Texas, said it was critical Democrats presented a pragmatic approach to climate change that did not “arbitrarily put the brakes on fossil fuels.”
“Within the Texas delegation there are some pretty cool heads on energy issues,” he said. “I think you’ll find that Ocasio-Cortez has brought energy, but the substance is going to be worked out by people with progressive credentials but also real experience and understanding of what’s palpable politically.”
So far Texas Democrats in Washington are largely taking a wait-and-see approach, awaiting draft legislation from Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a Washington veteran whose landmark climate legislation came close to passing into law a decade ago.
Fletcher, a former energy attorney and chair of the House Science Space and Technology’s subcommittee on Environment, said it was critical Texas plays a prominent role as climate policy is worked out.
“It’s good to have excitement and attention focused on our energy future,” she said in an interview. “Houston is the energy capital of the world. Any conversation about our energy future we need to be a part of.”
But there is also a sense the pressure to take action on climate is building.
Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Dallas, said it was critical Democrats "act with urgency to dramatically counterattack irresponsible decisions made by the Trump Administration."
"Democrats understand this reality, and have made it a priority to work towards policy solutions that would decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, and bring more renewable energy to the grid," he said in a statement.
Among Democrats in Washington, Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is being embraced but only to a point. Initially proposed late last year as a 10-year plan to convert the U.S. power grid to 100 percent renewable energy and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector through a massive federal investment, those goals have already been dismissed by many Democrats as unrealistic.
Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire and former Republican mayor of New York City who is considering a presidential run, has himself endorsed a Green New Deal but called Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal “pie in the sky.” And even some environmentalists concede the politics of shifting away from fossil fuels so quickly will be difficult.
Luke Metzger, director of the advocacy group Environment Texas, said while he believed decarbonizing the U.S. economy over the next decade to be “absolutely necessary,” he understood getting Texas Democrats on board would be a tall order.
“That’s going to be politically tougher,” he said. “Texas is different than California and New York. The pressures are different.”
For now, there is little expectation of a Green New Deal coming for a vote anytime soon.
Even if Democrats were to win enough support to pass legislation out of the House, Republicans control the Senate and White House and so far have dismissed the Green New Deal as a non-starter. The current push is widely viewed as an opening move by Democrats, to have legislation ready should the 2020 election go their way.
It is enough to get the attention of oil and gas lobbyists, who are painting Ocasio-Cortez as naive of the energy sector and the damage that such a dramatic shift could have on the national economy.
“Frankly, they’ve done a good job of framing the issue. The problem is what they’re asking for,” said Scott Segal, a Washington energy attorney with clients in the oil and gas sector. “If you mandate that which is not technologically achievable, you end up getting your mandate repealed and the movement gets set back.”
For Texas Democrats, just the perception they are Green New Dealers risks alienating many of the independent voters they made gains with in the last election and hope to ride to victory in 2020.
Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced it would be targeting six congressional seats in Texas, including Houston-area Republicans Michael McCaul and Pete Olson. And critical to that election will be centrist Texans who “while liking the environment also like jobs,” said Mark Jones, a political science fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute.
“The Green New Deal has the potential to help the Republicans running for these seats,” he said. “You can imagine the campaign: ‘My opponent is going to be voting with Nancy Pelosi and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez to end fossil fuels by 2025.’”
But like politicians anywhere in the United States, Texas Democrats also face an increasingly vocal coalition demanding politicians heed scientists’ warning that climate change an existential threat to the planet.
Their numbers might not be as large as other parts of the country, but they are not going to walk away quietly either, said Feldwisch, of the Oil Patch Democrats, who described himself as deeply concerned about climate change but supportive of a gradual approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
“The environmentalists are very strong and have a very loud voice,” he said of the Texas Democratic Party. “They drive the policy quite a bit compared to other people.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Texas-Democrats-caught-between-climate-change-and-13588971.php
-
Breaking Down Bioplastics Myths, Realities
Feb 5, 2019 | Plastics News
By Karen Laird
Ask any 10 people what bioplastics are, and the odds are that nine will get it wrong.
In the past, misunderstandings and misconceptions about bioplastics have tended to color the perception of these materials in the market, and these prejudices are still evident even today. Feedstock, supply and processability concerns, coupled with a lack of insight into the various different types of bioplastics, have long hampered the broader acceptance of these materials by the industry.
One common, very persistent error is the belief that bioplastics are the same thing as biodegradable plastics. This, to be clear, is categorically false.
While many early, primarily starch-based bioplastics may have been created to be biodegradable, this was certainly not the case for all. One of the earliest proponents of bioplastics was Henry Ford, who thought that industry and agriculture should be complementary to one another. He believed that plastic made from soybeans could be developed into a strong, lightweight and safe substitute for traditional metals. In the 1930s, he built a soybean laboratory in Greenfield Village, where experiments led to the development of soy-based oils and plastics for use in Ford Motor Co. vehicles. However, the outbreak of World War II halted all research efforts in this area, and the post-war availability of cheap and plentiful petroleum brought down the cost of manufacturing plastics based on oil.
As a result, Ford's dream of farmers being part of the industrial process receded into the background — but never wholly died. In France, the merits of plant-based plastic continued to be recognized. In fact, specialty chemical company Arkema celebrated in 2017 the 70th anniversary of Rilsan, its nonbiodegradable castor oil-based family of bio-based nylons. One of its first applications was to make the fuel lines of the legendary Citroën DS, back in the 1950s.
Bio vs. bio-based
Dispelling the notion that bioplastics do not equal biodegradable plastics has proven more arduous that expected, leading the bioplastics industry to reconsider the terms used to designate these materials.
Properly speaking, bioplastics refer to materials based on biomass, materials that are biodegradable, or a combination of both. However, there are fossil-based plastics that are biodegradable, and there are renewably based plastics that are not. Biodegradability is therefore simply one of the properties a particular plastic may have — among many others — and not a defining factor for classifying a material as a bioplastic, or not.
For this reason, the preference today is to use the term bio-based to distinguish these materials from conventional, petroleum-based plastic materials. Biobased plastics are plastics — biodegradable and nonbiodegradable — that are derived either in part or wholly from hydrocarbons derived from renewable resources, such as biomass.
Natural vs. manmade
Many bio-based polymers occur naturally, requiring only to be extracted and slightly modified to become a bio-based plastic material. The backbone chain of the natural polymer is retained. Examples include polysaccharides, cellulose, starch, proteins and even the PHAs produced by bacteria.
There are also various bio-based polymers that, while derived from renewable biomass, nonetheless qualify as synthetic. Such polymers are derived from bio-based monomers that subsequently undergo chemical reactions to become bio-based polymers. Examples include the biopolyesters PLA and PEF, sugarcane-based biopolyethylene, nylon 4/10 and 11, which are derived from castor oil.
Feedstock debate
A much-heard argument against bio-based plastics is that using arable land to grow food crops to produce plastics is wrong. Currently, the two main crops grown for this purpose are corn and sugarcane and, to a lesser extent, sugar beet and cassava. The amount of land this required at the end of 2017, according to calculations by European Bioplastics, equaled 0.016 percent of the global agricultural area.
"Even with the predicted high growth rates of the bioplastics industry over the next years, the land-use share would only slightly increase to up to 0.021 percent of the agricultural area by 2022," says the association.
Manufacturers of bio-based plastics are exploring the use of other biomass sources — lignocellulosics, sewerage, methane, nonfood crops and agricultural byproducts and food crop waste, to name but a few. And a group of leading global brands, including Coca-Cola Co., Danone, Ford Motor Co., H.J. Heinz Co., Nestle, Nike Inc., Procter & Gamble Co. and Unilever, have set up the Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance to support the responsible development of plastics made from plant material and help to build a more sustainable future for the bioplastics industry.
"Consumers across the world increasingly are looking for more sustainable products, including those made from plant-based plastics. With increasing market demand for food and fiber in the coming decades, responsible sourcing of these materials is the key to enabling sustainable growth," the Alliance states on its website.
Not everyone is convinced of the need for nonfood crop feedstocks, however. As Michael Carus, the founder and director of nova-Institute an independent institute, offering research and consultancy with a focus on bio- and CO2-based economy, has repeatedly argued: "Second- and third-generation feedstocks are expensive to process, requiring more energy and more resources. But most important, planting fields with food crops means that these can always be diverted back for use as food, if necessary, in the case of famine. We are not in competition with food, then, but offer a backup plan."
Why bother?
If they're not biodegradable, then why the push to develop bio-based plastics at all? It is a question often asked by consumers and processors alike, and one that is perhaps best answered by Michigan State University professor Ramani Narayan.
As he explains it, bio-based plastics make sense because of the inherent value of reducing the carbon footprint of plastic materials. What is more, plant biomass is renewable and grows everywhere, creating opportunities for rural, agrarian economies.
Derived from biomass, a bioplastic will have a smaller carbon footprint by virtue of the fact that at the end of life, the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere will never exceed the amount originally absorbed by the plant from which it was made. This is far less disruptive to the carbon cycle than when using conventional petroleum-based plastics, which, in addition to the fact that they are based on a depletable resource, by their very use add new carbon to the atmosphere from fossil sources.
End of life
With bioplastics, just like conventional plastics, the end of life is an aspect that needs to be managed.
Biodegradable bio-based plastics are a case in point. A common misconception is that biodegradable means that a product made from these materials will somehow disintegrate spontaneously in the environment. The fact is most bio-based biodegradable plastics will degrade only under specific conditions such as those found in industrial composting facilities.
Some types have been engineered for home composting. A small number of companies have developed a few PHA grades said to be marine-degradable. Danimer Scientific announced the development of the first fully marine biodegradable plastic straw in September 2018, while Bio-on SpA produces a PHA product designed to replace microplastic beads in cosmetics.
Nonetheless, biodegradable bio-based plastics are emphatically not the solution to plastic waste, litter or the plastic soup. Where they are useful are in applications where biodegradability is functional — think mulch films — or in single-use food packaging, which is often too contaminated to be adequately recycled.
The circular future
As the world moves away from a linear system toward a circular economy, the realization is growing that plastics — bio-based and otherwise — are a resource far too valuable to simply consign to landfill.
In a circular system, just as for fossil-based plastics, the preferred end-of-life option is recycling. Bio-based PET and polyethylene resins — the so-called drop-ins that have a chemical structure that is identical to their fossil-based counterparts — are recyclable within the current recycling system. For the newer materials, such as PLA, the volumes have been too low to establish a separate, efficient recycling stream. For the establishment of a truly circular and environmentally optimal system, the recycling rates of these plastics must increase.
And where recycling is not possible, incineration or anaerobic digestion is the next best solution, at least according to the report "Bio-based Plastics in a Circular Economy" by CE Delft, a Dutch consultantcy firm.
According to the report, incineration with energy recovery and anaerobic digestion with biogas production both lead to the production of renewable energy at the end of life. The main difference with incineration of fossil plastics is the emission of biogenic CO2 instead of fossil CO2.
More importantly, as they emphasize, the current plastics system is a linear one: There is as yet no circular fossil economy, so replacing petroleum-based plastics with renewably sourced materials will not automatically result in the emergence of a circular economy.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190205/NEWS/190209953/breaking-down-bioplastics-myths-realities?CSAuthResp=1%3A373709544458507%3A284601%3A38%3A24%3Aapproved%3AFE0229ED20A9706D7E2966424F834F57
-
Feds Given 12 Months to Release Chemical Safety Rule
Feb 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
The federal government must issue regulations within one year establishing the reporting requirements for accidental chemical releases into the ambient air, a federal trial court ruled.
U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Investigation Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing for 29 years to promulgate accidental release-reporting regulations, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said.
Air Alliance Houston and several other public interest groups filed the suit in 2017, alleging the CSB unreasonably delayed issuing the regulations, which were mandated in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that created the board.
The court rejected the CSB’s argument that the delay was reasonable given its “limited resources and competing priorities.”
If their inaction is caused by a lack of resources, the board should not ignore the congressional directive, the court said. Instead it should return to congress to ask for relief from the statutory requirement, the court said.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, United Support and Memorial for Workplace Fatalities, and Neil Carman, the clean air program director of the Sierra Club’s Texas chapter, were also plaintiffs in the action.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
Judge Amit P. Mehta issued the opinion.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/feds-given-12-months-to-release-chemical-safety-rule
-
D.C. Circuit Sets Deadline for Chemical Regs
Feb 5, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The Chemical Safety Board must issue regulations on reporting requirements for accidental chemical releases into ambient air within the next year, a federal court said yesterday.
The ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a win for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and three other groups, which argued that the regulations would increase transparency and are long overdue.
"This ruling vindicates a community's basic right to know what chemical insult has been visited upon it," PEER General Counsel Paula Dinerstein said in a statement. "Accidents do not relieve industries of their clean air obligations or their duties to protect both worker and public health."
Such regulations were called for in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, which stated that CSB shall "establish by regulation requirements binding on persons for reporting accidental releases into the ambient air subject to the Board's investigatory jurisdiction," the groups argued.
The agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on chemical release reporting in 2009 but took no further action to move the proposal forward.
CSB argued that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue the agency and that its inaction was not "unreasonably delayed."
"The court finds neither argument has merit," Judge Amit Mehta wrote in the memorandum opinion for the court.
Joining PEER in the lawsuit were Air Alliance Houston, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and United Support and Memorial for Workplace Fatalities.
The groups filed the lawsuit in 2017 shortly after an Arkema Inc. chemical plant in Houston exploded and caught fire in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.
More than a dozen first responders were hospitalized, and seven of them are suing the chemical company, claiming it was grossly negligent in the way it prepared for and responded to the disaster (Energywire, Sept. 8, 2017).
CSB did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/05/stories/1060119673
-
NTSB Updates List of Most Wanted Safety Improvements
Feb 5, 2019 | Progressive Railroading
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday unveiled its 2019-20 list of most wanted transportation safety improvements.
Launched in 1990, the most wanted list serves as a primary advocacy tool to help save lives, prevent injuries and reduce property damage resulting from transportation accidents, NTSB officials said in a press release. In 2017, the NTSB changed it from an annual to biennial list to provide list developers and recipients more time to implement recommendations, some of which are longstanding safety issues the board believes continue to threaten the traveling public.
The 10 items on the 2019-20 list are:
• eliminate distractions;
• end alcohol and other drug impairment;
• ensure the safe shipment of hazardous materials;
• fully implement positive train control (PTC);
• implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce speeding-related crashes;
• improve the safety of certain aircraft flight operations;
• increase the implementation of collision avoidance systems in new highway vehicles;
• reduce fatigue-related accidents;
• screen for and treat obstructive sleep apnea; and
• strengthen occupant protection.
The following six items are repeated from the 2017-18 list: eliminate distractions; reduce fatigue-related accidents; end alcohol and other drug impairment; ensure the safe shipment of hazmats; increase the implementation of collision avoidance systems; and strengthen occupant protection.
In terms of hazmat safety, the NTSB is calling on the rail industry to meet existing federal deadlines for replacing or retrofitting tank cars. Failure to meet safety standards by or ahead of deadlines places communities near tracks at unacceptable risks, board members believe.
As for PTC, the technology must be fully implemented before the extended end-of-2020 deadline to ensure the safety of rail passengers and the people who live and work near tracks, according to a summary of recommendations.
There are 267 open safety recommendations associated with the current most wanted list and the board is focused on implementing 46 of them within the next two years, NTSB officials said. The majority of the recommendations — roughly two-thirds — seek critical safety improvements by means other than regulation, they said.
"We at the NTSB can speak on these issues. We can testify by invitation to legislatures and to Congress, but we have no power of our own to act," said NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt. "We are counting on industry, advocates and government to act on our recommendations."https://www.progressiverailroading.com/safety/news/NTSB-updates-list-of-most-wanted-safety-improvements--56674
-
Senate Panel Advances Wheeler’s Nomination to Be EPA Chief
Feb 5, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate committee on Tuesday voted along party lines to advance President Trump’s nomination of Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for a coal company and other energy interests, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11 to 10 to approve Wheeler and send him to the full Senate for consideration at the panel’s meeting.
All Republicans voted for Wheeler and all Democrats voted no, including announced or potential 2020 candidates Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democratic senators.
Wheeler has been the acting administrator at the EPA since July, when former administrator Scott Pruitt stepped down under the pressure of numerous ethics and spending scandals. The Senate confirmed Wheeler in April 2018 to be deputy administrator
Republicans have cheered Wheeler’s continuation of Pruitt’s aggressive deregulatory agenda, and said his seven months at the EPA’s helm showed he is capable of leading the agency on an official basis.
“Mr. Wheeler’s done an outstanding job leading the Environmental Protection Agency these past six months,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the Environment Committee’s chairman, said before the vote.
To Democrats, Wheeler’s continued leadership at the EPA means more danger and harm to public health, the environment and the climate.
Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the committee’s top Democrat, pointed to a letter he wrote to Wheeler shortly after he took over in July, urging him to turn the agency around and learn the lessons from Pruitt’s agenda.
“It brings me no joy to say that he has not done what I’d hoped he would do in a number of important respects — not all respects, but a number of important respects,” Carper said.
“In fact, in many instances, Mr. Wheeler has gone further than his predecessor in his rejection of important measures that are supported by a broad list of environmentalists and industry,” he continued, pointing specifically to Wheeler’s proposals to rescind the justification for the 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule for coal-fired power plants and to freeze auto fuel-efficiency standards in 2021 and cancel the planned increases in stringency for the following years.
The Environment Committee also advanced the nomination of Peter Wright, Trump’s nominee to be the EPA’s assistant administrator for land and emergency management, which includes the Superfund cleanup program. That vote was also 11 to 10, along party lines.
Wright has generated controversy, including that he was previously a top attorney at Dow Chemical Co., which, along with DuPont and Co., with which it merged last year, is responsible for dozens of Superfund sites around the country.
EPA hired Wright last year to be an advisor despite the Senate not having a chance to vote on his nomination, which Democrats said ran counter to the Senate’s constitutional duty to advise and consent on senior officials’ nominations.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/428497-senate-panel-advances-wheelers-nomination-to-be-epa-chief
-
After Delay, House Democrats to Begin Climate Push
Feb 5, 2019 | Roll Call
By Elvina Nawaguna
The partial government shutdown stalled House Democrats’ plan to address climate change out of the gate, but they’ll turn their attention to the issue this week with hearings in the two main energy and environment committees as pressure mounts from the party’s progressive wing to confront what it considers an urgent crisis.
Two committees will hold hearings Wednesday focusing on warming global temperatures and how to mitigate the catastrophe scientists are predicting.
“It threatens to undermine the health of our families, the security of our nation and indeed America’s economic future, and its consequences will be felt for generations,” Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, said in video announcing his panel’s hearing.
The hearings will take place against the backdrop of nationwide demonstrations as activists across the country plan calls and visits to the district offices of Democratic leaders. The demonstrators will deliver petitions with 100,000 signatures demanding adoption of the so-called Green New Deal, an ambitious plan to overhaul the economy, including by transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy.
With the first Energy and Commerce climate change hearing in six years, according to Tonko, Democrats have an opportunity to build a “powerful record” in Congress on the cost of federal inaction on pollution and provide a better understanding of what it takes to transition to a clean energy economy.
“Year after year, politicians have ignored this threat and denied the science,” Tonko said. “We can’t afford to let them stand in the way any longer.”
House Democratic leaders have been driven to push climate change to the top of their agenda after demands from young activists and newly elected progressive members. The new fervor follows years of a Republican-controlled Congress that dismissed climate action and questioned the science and federal regulations aimed at controlling earth-warming greenhouse gases.
Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, will testify before the House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday. She plans to make “a strong case” that the country needs to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and present options for a low carbon future, she said.
Comprehensive Policy
“This is information that has been out there for a very, very long time, yet has not been translated into comprehensive policy,” Cobb told CQ in a phone interview.
“I think that continued delays in developing a comprehensive federal level policy around climate change . . . we can’t endure them anymore,” Cobb said, adding that she hopes that lawmakers will follow the hearings with a variety of bills on the House floor and engaging Senate Republicans and the White House.
Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., the ranking member on the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his expectations for the climate hearings and whether he can find areas of bipartisan agreement with Democrats.
But Cobb said energy efficiency is an area where Republicans and Democrats can work together to reduce consumption, emissions and the cost of energy.
“It’s not all about shutting down coal and putting up solar,” Cobb said.
Democrats have been divided on how to pursue their climate change goals, and it is not yet clear what kind of comprehensive legislation will follow the hearings.
Different options have been offered, including a carbon dividend bill by Florida Reps. Ted Deutch, a Democrat, and Francis Rooney, a Republican. Another bill by Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., aims to reduce carbon emissions by gradually transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 and creating a national energy efficiency standard. Lieu’s bill would also direct the EPA to write regulations to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 2050 to at least 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The more progressive section of the party is focused on that Green New Deal, recently popularized by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. It calls for a speedy transition to renewable energy, massive investment in green infrastructure and jobs, and social and environmental justice overhauls.
Ocasio-Cortez has been working with Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., on a resolution related to the Green New Deal, according to a spokesman for Markey’s office, who said the measure could be introduced this week.
Politico reported Monday evening that the resolution would not set a specific timetable for the elimination of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions and would embrace the use of still-unproven technology to reduce or eliminate carbon from some fossil-fuel emissions.
Democrats face a challenge in devising legislative language to support that proposal in a way that pleases various constituencies, including labor groups worried that rapid decarbonization of the economy could hurt members in carbon-dependent industries, on the one hand, and climate activists pushing for the fastest possible transformation on the other.
“We can’t wait around for some magic bullet. . . . We can’t play games,” said Nicole Ghio, fossil fuels program manager at Friends of the Earth U.S., who will be participating in a “week of action” this week planned by activists around the country to push for the Green New Deal.
Tonko has not publicly endorsed the Green New Deal, and although an increasing number of Democrats have signaled their support, there remains some apprehension about the cost involved with the scale of overhauls the plan would require. Progressive climate activists have a launched a petition to demand he support the plan.
“The problem with this version of the Green New Deal is that any serious attempt to pursue it would wreck the economy,” Bipartisan Policy Center founder Jason Grumet wrote in an opinion piece published in Roll Call on Monday. “As a result, lawmakers are forced to choose between offering disingenuous support or dismissing it out of hand.”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/delay-house-democrats-begin-climate-push
-
Ewire: Details Emerge on 'Green New Deal' Legislative Proposal
Feb 5, 2019 | Inside EPA
Initial details are emerging about pending legislation that would begin to flesh out the as-yet-undefined “Green New Deal” calling for a rapid decrease in carbon emissions, including that the forthcoming measure would seek “net-zero” greenhouse gases by 2030.
Politico is reporting on the forthcoming release of a resolution outlining elements of the plan from Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
The article notes that a draft text does not have a firm end date for fossil fuel development, and that it could leave the door open to technologies such as nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) that have been opposed by far-left environmental groups.
“The goal is to be a zero-carbon economy in 10 years,” an Ocasio-Cortez spokesman told the story. “The door is open for technology to solve this problem, sure.”
The draft could reflect lawmakers' desire to ease the friction between environmentalists and the labor movement, aspects of which have been wary of the Green New Deal because many of their members work in fossil fuel-dependent industries.
Axios also reports that Ocasio-Cortez is circulating a “dear colleague” letter to build support for the measure, and that initial co-sponsors are Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Brendan Boyle (D-PA), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).
Her letter says the measure would achieve net-zero emissions “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers” while also creating millions of high-wage jobs.
In addition, it would invest in sustainable infrastructure; secure clean air and water and help adapt to climate-related damages; and prevent and repair “historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.”
The lawmakers are reportedly planning to introduce the resolution this week.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-details-emerge-green-new-deal-legislative-proposal
-
Climate Change on Front Burner After 8 Years of GOP Rule
Feb 5, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama
For the first time in years, the House will hold two congressional hearings on fighting climate change this week, breaking with the skepticism that prevailed during the past eight years of GOP leadership.
The simultaneous 10 a.m. hearings Wednesday in neighboring Capitol Hill buildings represent an unprecedented push by the new Democratic majority to put climate front and center in their agenda after Republican resistance to policies that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The events in the Energy and Commerce and the Natural Resources committees — the panels that oversee the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department, respectively — will be the first hearing for both committees in the 116th Congress.
Dan Lashof, U.S. director for the World Resources Institute, said the timing is notable, both for the messaging strategy and the policy implications.
“It is significant that these are some of the first hearings of the 116th Congress and that the focus is on solutions,” Lashof said. “The message is important, but more than that, Congress has an opportunity to make progress by enacting incremental bipartisan bills this year while laying the groundwork for more sweeping legislation.”
The hearings will be a key indicator of where Democrats plan to go on climate, how they will integrate scientific studies such as last year’s United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and how aggressively they will move toward drafting legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions and help communities adjust to the impacts.
The hearings won’t be the only climate effort by Democrats this week. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is expected to introduced legislation soon with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to put power behind her Green New Deal push.
The new bill is expected to focus on crafting a plan to bring the country to 100 percent renewable electricity and eliminating fossil fuels from industries such as transportation and manufacturing.
The environmental focus by Democrats, which began almost immediately after they won control of the House in November, includes aggressively fighting President Trump’s deregulatory policies, including rolling back climate change rules for power plants and vehicles.
The Energy and Commerce hearing, hosted by the subcommittee on environment and climate change, is labeled “Time for action” and will explore the environmental and economic repercussions from human-induced climate change. Leaders say it’s the first time the panel has broached the issue in six years.
“It is long past time for this committee to begin seriously examining how climate change is affecting our communities, environment and economy, and take action to reduce its harmful effects,” Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the full committee’s chairman, and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the subcommittee chairman, said last week in a joint statement.
“The science has been indisputably clear for years now — climate change is real and caused by human activity including burning fossil fuels. We are committed to combating climate change and standing up for those left to suffer in its wake,” the two lawmakers said, promising it would be “the first of many” hearings on climate change.
To drive home their points, Democrats invited witnesses Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Michael Williams, deputy director of the BlueGreen Alliance.
Republicans, led by subcommittee ranking member Rep. John Shimkus(Ill.), are countering with Barry Worthington, executive director of the U.S. Energy Association, and Rich Powell, head of the conservative clean energy group ClearPath.
The witness list suggests Republicans on that committee aim to highlight what businesses are doing to combat climate change, instead of trying to challenge the science behind the issue.
The Natural Resources Committee hearing will focus on the effect climate change has on communities. The event will feature Govs. Roy Cooper of North Carolina (D) and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts (R), as well as academics and advocates.
The GOP committee members, led by ranking member Rob Bishop (Utah), have invited Derrick Hollie, president of the pro-fossil fuel group Reaching America, and retired climatologist Judith Curry, a popular voice in the climate change skeptic community who has argued that the science is less certain than popularly believed and that scientists are too hostile toward skeptics.
Notably, neither hearing will have any Trump administration officials testifying.
“Communities across the country have been feeling severe climate impacts for years and hoping for relief from Congress,” Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in a statement Monday.
“Republicans and their industry allies told them it was all in their heads. Democrats on this Committee aren’t just acknowledging those communities — we want to put them front and center to tell their stories, inform the country, and help us take action in Washington,” Grijalva added. “The contrast couldn’t be any clearer.”
The two hearings will mark a significant departure from those run under Republican leadership that often focused on the benefits of fossil fuels and included witness testimony from climate skeptics and fossil fuel industry representatives. For example, the Natural Resources panel held a hearing in July titled “Assessing innovative and alternative uses of coal.”
Both Grijalva and Pallone say they have long sought to put a magnifying glass on the industries that contribute to climate change and what the lawmakers described as the Trump administration’s failures to address the issue.
The hearings are coming shortly after the president doubled down on his climate change skepticism, tweeting during last week’s record low temperatures in the Midwest amid the polar vortex: “People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Warming? Please come back fast, we need you!”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/428453-climate-change-on-front-burner-after-8-years-of-gop-rule
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested