Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 2/8/2019

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Real Time Economics: Trump and Xi Won’t Meet? No Big Deal.
Feb 8, 2019 | Wall Street Journal

It's looking less and less like the U.S. and China will strike a comprehensive trade deal ahead of a March 1 deadline. Do you think that means a new round of tariffs, or a new deadline and more talks?
(ACC Mentioned) Another Gov't Shutdown Would Harm U.S. Economic Growth: Survey
Feb 7, 2019 | Xinhua

As a deadline to reach a deal over border-wall funding draws closer, economists have warned that a second government shutdown would hurt U.S. economic growth, which was already undermined by a 35-day partial shutdown.
(ACC Mentioned) Top Dem Prepares Full-Body Cavity Search of Trump’s Finances
Feb 7, 2019 | Vanity Fair
By Bess Levin

All this week, Donald Trump has raged against Democrats for subjecting him to congressional oversight—cruel and unusual treatment that he never once experienced during his first two years in office, when the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans...
(ACC Mentioned) Plantgistix Growing Again in Texas
Feb 7, 2019 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito

For the second time in 16 months, logistics firm Plantgistix will open a major new resin shipping center in Baytown, Texas.
(ACC Mentioned) Western Pa. Colleges Take Steps to Reduce Plastic Usage
Feb 8, 2019 | Tribune-Review
By Joe Napsha

Colleges are taking steps to reduce the amount of plastic tossed out, or even recycled, by encouraging students and staff to reuse plastic bottles.
US EPA Adds External Science Advisers
Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue

Panels that provide science advice to the US Environmental Protection Agency have 34 new members, almost evenly split between academics and industry consultants.

TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

Fluorochemical Suits Could Continue Even if EPA Acts
Feb 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Lawsuits against companies that have made or used emerging drinking water contaminants could continue to grow even if EPA sets national limits for them, according to attorneys who deal with the issue.
PFAS Superfund Listing Would Trigger Liability, But No National Standard
Feb 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

Legal experts say if EPA follows through on an expected plan to list two commonly found per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund law, it would trigger Superfund liability for releases of the chemicals...
EDF to OMB: Ban on Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers Must Protect Workers in Addition to Consumers
Feb 8, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick and Joanna Slaney

Today, EDF met with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft final rule on methylene chloride-based paint strippers. We urged the office to ensure the ban on methylene chloride-based paint and coating removers...
Air Force Disputes Michigan Violation Notice for PFAS at Wurtsmith Base
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan

The Air Force is disputing Michigan's allegation the military violated a state water quality standard for a perfluorinated compound at a former military base, in part contending the state lacks jurisdiction because the substance at issue is not a “hazardous substance” under the federal Superfund law.
9th Circuit Grants EPA Rehearing of Order Compelling Chlorpyrifos Ban
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has granted EPA’s request for rehearing of a panel’s ruling that vacated former Administrator Scott Pruitt's reversal of an Obama-era proposed ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, raising the possibility the court could undo...
Pittsburgh Water Settlement Obligates $50 Million to Replace Lead Lines
Feb 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas

he Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority will spend nearly $50 million this year to replace thousands of old lead water lines under a settlement the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approved Feb. 7.

Energy News

Appalachian Spring
Feb 7, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board

Perhaps no state suffered more from the Obama regulatory assault than West Virginia as coal production and business investment plunged. As Democrats roll out their Green New Deal, it’s worth highlighting the state’s economic renaissance powered in part by fossil fuels.
Permian Basin to Corpus Christi Pipelines Get Final Federal Permits
Feb 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa

A pair of pipelines to move crude oil and natural gas liquids from the Permian Basin to Corpus Christi have received their final federal permits.
Energy Industry Puts Houston at Center of Trade War
Feb 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Aaron Padilla

The back-and-forth trade dispute between the United States and other global powers such as China might seem like a far-off concept for many Texans.
BLM Dropped Ball On Utah Oil and Gas Leases, Suit Says
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers

The Bureau of Land Management approved dozens of oil and gas leases across thousands of acres of public lands in Utah without conducting proper environmental and cultural studies, a new lawsuit alleges.
National Security Risk Feared in Foreign Clean Energy Tech (1)
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill

A U.S. economy based on clean energy technologies such as smart electric meters must produce and develop those devices domestically to protect national security, analysts said.

Chemical Security News

Federal Judge Rules Public Has Right to Know About Chemical Accidents
Feb 7, 2019 | Daily Breeze
By David Rosenfeld

A federal judge ruled this week that communities have a right to know what chemicals are released by industrial accidents, the result of a lawsuit filed by a coalition of environmental groups.
Regulators to Focus on Security, Infrastructure
Feb 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro

The nation's utility regulators and hundreds of industry players affected by state laws and rules will gather in Washington, D.C., starting this weekend.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Familiar Funding Fights Imperil Broad Package
Feb 8, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow

The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee yesterday grappled with a perennial question: how to pay for a broad infrastructure package.

Environment News

Some Climate-Hawk Democrats Cool on Green New Deal (2)
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott

Many Democrats who have been active on climate change aren’t rushing to embrace the Green New Deal resolution unveiled Feb. 7, saying Congress is too far from a consensus on what to do about the issue.
Select Committee Dems Still Rely on Fossil Fuels
Feb 8, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar

The panel that House Democrats created to combat global warming is called the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, but the fossil fuel connections of the members named yesterday suggest to some environmentalists a certain lack of urgency.
Green New Deal Would Cut U.S. Emissions & More: BGOV Closer Look
Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor

The U.S. would achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years under nonbinding resolution released by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
Dems Downplay Divisions over Green New Deal
Feb 7, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama, Miranda Green and Mike Lillis

House Democrats on Thursday downplayed talk of any internal divisions over support for a Green New Deal plan and how bold the party should be in combating climate change.
Research Funding Legislation Returns
Feb 7, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Dylan Brown

Senators today revived two bipartisan bills bent on boosting carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) in the United States.
House Democrats Highlight State Climate Efforts Amid Trump Inaction
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

As part of their initial blitz of Capitol Hill hearings on climate change, House Democrats are seeking to spotlight efforts by a bipartisan group of state officials to both fight global warming and adapt to its impacts, contrasting those policies with the Trump administration’s climate...
A ‘Green New Deal’ Is Far From Reality, but Climate Action Is Picking Up in the States
Feb 8, 2019 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer

Even though talk of a “Green New Deal” is getting louder in Congress, the odds of major federal climate legislation passing in the next two years remain extremely low.
EPA Leaves Air Toxics Limits for Friction Materials Unchanged
Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA

EPA in a final rule slated for release in the Feb. 8 Federal Register is leaving unchanged its Clean Air Act toxics emission limits for manufacturing of friction materials such as brake and clutch components, following a risk-and-technology (RTR)...
EPA Lacks Authority to Undo Mercury Power Rule, Top Lawyer Says
Feb 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid and Abby Smith

The EPA can’t legally withdraw Obama-era toxic air pollution standards for power plants, even as it rewrites the cost justification for those limits, the agency’s top lawyer said Feb. 7.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Real Time Economics: Trump and Xi Won’t Meet? No Big Deal.

Feb 8, 2019 | Wall Street Journal

It's looking less and less like the U.S. and China will strike a comprehensive trade deal ahead of a March 1 deadline. Do you think that means a new round of tariffs, or a new deadline and more talks? Good morning. Jeff Sparshott here to take you through the day's top economic news. Send us your questions, comments or suggestions by replying to this email.
DEAL OR NO DEAL
President Trump is “highly unlikely” to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping ahead of a March 1 deadline. Officials say they remain optimistic they will reach a trade accord, but more work remains before the two presidents can complete a deal, Alex Leary reports. The U.S. in December suspended plans to raise tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods to 25% from 10% to give negotiators a chance to settle issues. The truce runs out in three weeks.
The sides are far from an agreement. U.S. negotiators are set to meet with their counterparts in Beijing next week.
DEADLINE OR NO DEADLINE
Top American business figures are pushing the Trump administration and its Chinese counterparts to compromise on a trade deal. Blackstone Group Chief Executive Stephen Schwarzman has been phoning Mr. Trump to warn that failure will undermine the economy and roil markets. At the same time, Mr. Schwarzman and other business leaders, including former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, are urging senior Chinese officials to make enough concessions to allow Mr. Trump to claim a victory, Bob Davis reports.
Given the wide gaps in negotiating positions and the pressure on Mr. Trump, some trade experts figure he will settle for a partial agreement by March 1 and continue negotiations. Some trade associations worry that won't be enough to ensure systemic change in Beijing.
WHAT TO WATCH TODAY
Canada's employment report for January is out at 8:30 a.m. ET.
The San Francisco Fed's Mary Daly speaks at an economic forecast conference at 1:15 p.m. ET.
TOP STORIES
A JOBS BOOM
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is creating lots of jobs—in the tax industry. Accounting firms are staffing up as companies analyze the law, restructure operations and rely on tax experts to do all the work flowing from the legislation and IRS regulations, Richard Rubin reports. “It’s created just a whole lot of new complexity and it’s given us mountains of new guidance to figure out and to deal with,” said David Noren, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery. Republicans sold the tax law on the premise that the new system would be simpler, and that’s true for many individuals. Many companies, however, are encountering complex new provisions that create demand for sophisticated tax advice and seasoned experts.
Accounting and bookkeeping services employment, 1-year changeSource: Labor DepartmentNote: Seasonally adjusted
%
Tax law enacted2016’17’18’19-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
ANOTHER SHUTDOWN DEADLINE
Economists say a fresh government shutdown would take a toll on U.S. economic growth as a deadline to reach a deal over border-wall funding approaches next week. Most of the private-sector economic forecasters, 58.9%, surveyed by The Wall Street Journal said another shutdown would have “somewhat” of an impact on economic growth, while 16.1% said it would have a significant impact, Harriet Torry reports. “A second shutdown would severely erode consumer and business confidence,” said Thomas Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
Still Feeling WorriedThe average probability of the U.S. economy being in a recessionwithin the next 12 monthsSource: WSJ Survey of Economists%
2011’12’13’14’15’16’17’18’1905101520253035
STAY IN SCHOOL
A year into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s term, private-sector economists say he isn’t performing quite as well as his two most recent predecessors. Asked to grade the performance of each of the past four Fed chairs, economists surveyed this month by The Wall Street Journal assigned an average score of B-minus to Mr. Powell. Previous chairs Janet Yellen (2014-18) and Ben Bernanke (2006-14) each received B-pluses. Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) also earned a B-minus, Paul Kiernan reports. “While Chair Powell had proven an apt communicator early in the semester, he seemed to lack focus and concentration in the approach to the finals,” said Gregory Daco, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.
THE DISAPPEARING PETROLEUM DEFICIT
Some overlooked news in the latest trade report: The U.S. petroleum deficit hit its lowest level in decades and looks like it's on its way to disappearing all together. At $623 million, the gap is less than a single day's American crude oil production (at $53 a barrel). That's a testament to the nation's shale boom.
So why is the U.S. trade deficit still so big? Americans are buying more of everything else. The nonpetroleum deficit likely hit a new record in 2018.
BREXIT ROUNDUP
1.) European Union leaders again rebuffed British Prime Minister Theresa May’s request to reopen the U.K.’s legally binding withdrawal agreement.
2.) Mrs. May said she would keep pushing for “legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement.”
3.) Bank of England Gov. Mark Carney warned a messy divorce with the EU could push the U.K. into recession.
4.) The British government hopes that as the March 29 Brexit deadline approaches, U.K. lawmakers will swallow their objections and back Mrs. May's latest deal. However, an extension to the negotiating period looks increasingly likely, Laurence Norman and Max Colchester report.
TWEET OF THE DAY
Bill Bishop✔@niubi
trump saying he is not meeting xi this month is not evidence there will not be some kind of a deal, or extension by march 1. the daily ups and downs are just getting stupid. people, and the markets, just need to chill out for a few weeks over this3012:53 AM - Feb 8, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy18 people are talking about this
WHAT ELSE WE'RE READING
Demand for high-skilled female workers is outpacing demand for high-skilled men. "The key driver seems to be growing demand for social skills, such as empathy, communication, emotion recognition and verbal expression, in which evidence from psychological research indicates that women have a comparative advantage," University of Zurich's Nir Jaimovich writes in a UBS Center Policy Brief.
What's hair worth? "We survey balding men and elicit their willingness to pay to move from their current sad situation to a more plentiful one. Then we comb-over the results. What’s the average willingness to pay to move from a glistening cue ball to a luscious mane? About $30,000," Appalachian State University's David McEvoy, O. Ashton Morgan and John Whitehead write in a working paper.
Editor's note: Your trusty correspondent likes his shiny pate and wouldn't pay a dime to change it.
https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2019/02/08/real-time-economics-trump-and-xi-wont-meet-no-big-deal/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Another Gov't Shutdown Would Harm U.S. Economic Growth: Survey

Feb 7, 2019 | Xinhua

As a deadline to reach a deal over border-wall funding draws closer, economists have warned that a second government shutdown would hurt U.S. economic growth, which was already undermined by a 35-day partial shutdown.
According to a recent survey by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) released Thursday, nearly 60 percent of the private-sector economic forecasters said another shutdown would have "somewhat" of an impact on economic growth, while 16 percent said the impact would be "significant."
"A second shutdown would severely erode consumer and business confidence," the WSJ quoted Thomas Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council, as saying.
The record-long partial shutdown, which ended Jan. 25, cost the U.S. economy approximately 11 billion U.S. dollars, a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said last week.
The five-week shutdown reduced real gross domestic product (GDP) in the fourth quarter of 2018 by 3 billion U.S. dollars, or 0.1 percent, and could lower GDP in the first quarter of 2019 by 8 billion dollars, or 0.2 percent, the report said.
Despite an expected rebound in the subsequent quarters, the CBO estimated that about 3 billion dollars lost in real GDP won't be recovered. That equals 0.02 percent of the projected annual GDP in 2019.
President Donald Trump signed a bill two weeks ago to fund the government through Feb. 15, leaving more time for the White House and Democrats to negotiate over border security, the impasse over which led to the longest-ever government shutdown.
When delivering his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Trump resumed his defense of his long-demanded U.S.-Mexico border wall, saying that "I'll get it built."
The president said the border wall with Mexico will be "a smart, strategic, see-through steel barrier -- not just a simple concrete wall."
If the White House and the Democrats fail to reach an agreement to provide funding for the border wall before Feb. 15, the government could be partially shut down again.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-02/08/c_137805568.htm

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Top Dem Prepares Full-Body Cavity Search of Trump’s Finances

Feb 7, 2019 | Vanity Fair

By Bess Levin

All this week, Donald Trump has raged against Democrats for subjecting him to congressional oversight—cruel and unusual treatment that he never once experienced during his first two years in office, when the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans who probably would have let him stash a body in their basements if it came to it. “An economic miracle is taking place in the United States—and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations,“ he insisted, bizarrely, during Tuesday night’s State of the Union. “Congressman Adam Schiff . . . is going to be looking at every aspect of my life, both financial and personal, even though there is no reason to be doing so,” he ranted Thursday morning, adding, like a feral pigeon, “Never happened before! A continuation of Witch Hunt! PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! It should never be allowed to happen again!”
Unfortunately for Trump, investigating whether or not the president of the United States is under the thumb of foreign governments or other individuals is a thing that is allowed, and Schiff and Co. do not appear to be intimidated by tweets, even in all caps. On Wednesday night, Representative Eric Swalwell, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee with Schiff, told Axios, “We are going to take an M.R.I. to any Russian financing that the Trump Organization and the president may have had,” adding, “We are not going to be so naïve to assume that he’s faithful to the Russians. There may have been other countries who have tried to financially influence him.” And in a sign that Schiff’s full-body cavity search will be deep and wide-reaching:
Schiff has hired one former career official at the National Security Council, Abigail Grace, who left the White House last year. She has a congressional e-mail address and is listed in a directory as working for the Intelligence Committee’s Democratic majority. A second career employee detailed to the Trump White House is also considering joining Schiff’s staff, according to people familiar with the matter. They didn’t identify the person.
Grace didn’t respond to an e-mail requesting comment, and her duties under Schiff aren’t known. But the California Democrat’s attempts to hire people with experience working under Trump have led to speculation among Trump’s aides and allies that Schiff is looking for insider knowledge of the White House as he probes whether the business dealings of the president and his family have made them vulnerable to espionage.
An official associated with the House panel told Bloomberg it was “appropriate” for the committee “to seek people with prior National Security Council experience for agency oversight,” and that none were “hired directly from the White House.” That’s apparently of little comfort to Trump, who claimedThursday that Schiff has been “stealing people who work at [the] White House!” and appears to be extremely worried about what’s coming next—which, to be fair, he probably should be!
White House economic adviser: no idea if we’ll get a trade deal with China before make or break deadline
Back in December, in an effort to soothe jittery markets put on edge by his ongoing, not-so-easy-to-wintrade war with China, Donald Trump announced that he’d struck an “incredible” deal with president Xi Jinping. This was a lie, and it was debunked almost immediately. Instead, the two leaders had merely agreed to a temporary 90-day truce in their dispute that will expire on March 1. After that, the Trump administration has vowed to apply additional tariffs to Chinese goods, levies that will be paid for by U.S. companies and consumers, a prospect that is looking more and more likely:
President Donald Trump on Thursday said he would not meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping before the March 2 deadline to reach a Chinese-U.S. trade deal.
Trump’s remarks came hours after CNBC reported, citing a senior administration official, that it was “highly unlikely” for the meeting to happen in the coming weeks. While Trump and Xi are still expected to meet eventually, there’s too much work to do to flesh out a deal with China and prepare Trump for a high-stakes meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un . . . Trump and Xi may still meet “shortly after” March 2, said the official, who requested anonymity, citing a lack of authorization to speak publicly about the talks.
According to Bloomberg, companies are making contingency plans in the event they can’t count on a capricious toddler to strike a deal, including moving production out of the U.S., which was presumably not part of the White House’s plan when it launched the trade war that got Gary Cohn to say screw thisand quit:
Paul Shekoski’s company relies on imports of weather-monitoring devices it has made in China. But last year, it paid more in duties than it made in profit because of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Now he’s examining every legal option to avoid the duties—including relocating his production to Mexico.
“It has the potential of putting us out of business if we don’t do anything,’’ Shekoski, chief executive of the Wisconsin-based Primex Family of Companies, said by phone from Hong Kong, where he was investigating potential changes to his Chinese supply chain.
Asked about the likelihood of a trade deal before the deadline expires, National Economic Council adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters: “Will they bring home the bacon? I don’t know.”
Economists: another Trump-induced shutdown could really screw the economy
On February 15, temporary funding for government agencies shut down by Trump’s wall demands will expire, unless a bipartisan House-Senate panel is able to strike a deal. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saidWednesday she’s confident “there will not be another shutdown,” but, as always, the wild card is the man-boy in chief, who no one thought was actually going to shut down the government the first time around. And if he does go 2-for-2, this time will even worse than round one;
Economists say a fresh government shutdown would take a toll on U.S. economic growth as well as business and consumer sentiment, as a deadline to reach a deal over border-wall funding approaches next week.
Most of the private-sector economic forecasters, 58.9 percent, surveyed in recent days by The Wall Street Journal said another shutdown would have “somewhat” of an impact on economic growth, while 16.1 percent said it would have a significant impact. The impact on confidence “would be much bigger than direct impact of government spending and services,” said economist Robert Fry of Robert Fry Economics LLC.
“A second shutdown would severely erode consumer and business confidence,” Thomas Kevin Swift,chief economist at the American Chemistry Council, told The Wall Street Journal, a data point that may or may not concern the president, who said during the first shutdown that he was willing to keep the government closed for years if that’s what it took to get his wall.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/adam-schiff-prepares-full-body-cavity-search-trumps-finances

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Plantgistix Growing Again in Texas

Feb 7, 2019 | Plastics News

By Frank Esposito

For the second time in 16 months, logistics firm Plantgistix will open a major new resin shipping center in Baytown, Texas.
The new center will open March 1. At 337,000 square feet, it's slightly larger than a similar center that the Houston-based contract packaging firm opened in Baytown in December 2017.
The new facility is needed because of massive growth in exports of resin — primarily polyethylene — from the U.S. to other parts of the world. Exports of PE from the U.S. and Canada grew by more than 5 billion pounds in 2018, according to the American Chemistry Council.
North American PE makers need export markets to absorb new capacity that they've added to capitalize on low-priced feedstocks sourced from shale gas. That's created an opportunity for Plantgistix and other logistics firms.
"I was hesitant for us to add on capacity at first, especially since we had just opened one facility," CEO Marc Levine said in a Feb. 7 interview with Plastics News. "It seems like every time an industry expands, everyone does it and then there's too much capacity."
But Levine changed his mind after talking to DowDuPont Inc. and other PE makers who've been adding capacity.
"The [PE] producers look at it as needing certainty," he explained. "It might look like there's too much today, but they're nervous about needing export packaging."
The new site is 15 minutes away from the Port of Houston — a major shipping hub — and will be equipped with two new packaging lines, boxing and 55-pound bagging, along with 84 dock doors, more than 3,000 feet of private rail spurs and daily switching services for rail cars serviced by Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway.
The new facility will boost Plantgistix's inbound hopper car capacity by at least 250-300 cars per month. The plant will be the firm's third facility, bringing its total warehouse space to more than 1.3 million square feet. The new plant represents a $30 million investment for Plantgistix and will create around 20 new jobs.
Executives with PE makers DowDuPont and Westlake Chemical, both Plantgistix customers, complimented the firm for its decision to expand. DowDuPont North America outplant leader Mark Waldmann said that Plantgistix "has been a great service provider and partner to DowDuPont and the plastic industry over the past several years."
"We are very excited about Plantgistix's recent commitment to the industry and the Baytown area by expanding their supply chain capabilities and service offerings," he added.
Westlake logistics manager Chris Anderson said in the release that Plantgistix "continually anticipates the needs of the industry and expands to ensure capacity for its customers."
Plantgistix, formerly United DC, has been working with resin makers for seven decades. The firm was one of the first in the U.S. to provide contract packaging to the plastics industry. Its history dates back to the early days of the U.S. plastics industry, when brothers Harry and Louis Levine founded injection molder Commonwealth Plastics in Leominster, Mass., in the 1930s.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190207/NEWS/190209920/plantgistix-growing-again-in-texas

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Western Pa. Colleges Take Steps to Reduce Plastic Usage

Feb 8, 2019 | Tribune-Review

By Joe Napsha

Colleges are taking steps to reduce the amount of plastic tossed out, or even recycled, by encouraging students and staff to reuse plastic bottles.
At Saint Vincent College, the student environmental awareness club recently acquired multi-purpose reusable cups that can be bought at the college bookstore for $8.
Although Saint Vincent has plastic recycling bins on its Unity campus, the student club decided to do more to decrease the amount of plastic waste generated in the cafeteria, barista and The Shack, which offers food and drink.
Plastics are a rapidly growing amount of the municipal solid waste in the nation, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Of the 33.4 million tons of plastic generated in 2014, only 3.2 million tons — roughly 10 percent — got recycled. More than 25 million tons of plastics were dumped in landfills in 2014, according to statistics from the American Chemistry Council, a trade group.
Plastic takes more than 400 years to degrade, and only 12 percent of all plastics ever made has been incinerated, National Geographic reported .
Water bottle filling stations are available at Seton Hill University, the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg and Penn State New Kensington.
A 2018 graduate at Seton Hill conducted an honors capstone project related to recycling initiatives on campus that led the Greensburg school to increase the availability of reusable carryout containers in dining facilities, said university spokeswoman Jennifer Reeger.
“These are containers that students can fill up with food, return to the dining hall to be washed and pick up when they want to use them again to help decrease the amount of take-out container waste,” Reeger said.
The fountains at Pitt Greensburg “encourages the campus community to use their own refillable water bottles, rather than relying on one-time-use, disposable bottles,” said school spokeswoman Susan Isola.
Penn State New Kensington also has water bottle filling stations to cut down on plastic use, as well as recycling receptacles that allow users to separate waste.
“We as a campus and university also realize the importance of educating and helping our local communities be sustainable as well, so we not only are strengthening efforts on campus, but we’re going out in the communities so that the region can begin collaborating and learning about sustainability from a holistic approach,” said spokeswoman Corinne Coulson.
https://triblive.com/local/regional/14588703-74/area-colleges-take-steps-to-reduce-plastic-usage

Return to headline | Return to top
US EPA Adds External Science Advisers

Feb 7, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Cheryl Hogue

Panels that provide science advice to the US Environmental Protection Agency have 34 new members, almost evenly split between academics and industry consultants. They include a skeptic of human-caused climate change and several consultants who have worked on behalf of chemical companies.94%
Percentage of the newly appointed US EPA science advisers who are men
In his picks, acting EPA head Andrew Wheeler hewed to a 2017 policy instituted by his predecessor that bars academics who receive grant money from the agency from serving as advisers. Wheeler says the newly appointed experts, who will serve three-year terms, represent a variety of disciplines and reflect geographic diversity.
Wheeler added eight experts to the agency’s flagship Science Advisory Board (SAB), which overall now consists of 35 men and 10 women. Five of those people come from Texas, while a sixth is an emeritus professor of Texas Tech University who now lives in Maryland. Perhaps the best-known appointee is John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who argues that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity aren’t heating the planet as much as climate models show.32
Number of states with residents serving on the EPA Science Advisory Board or its subpanels, in addition to the District of Columbia
The other 26 appointees will serve on one of the SAB subpanels on chemical assessment, drinking water, agricultural science, and radiation. Among those added to the chemical-assessment panel is Richard B. Belzer, a consultant who has argued that the EPA’s chemical-hazard assessments exaggerate risks.
Genna Reed, science and policy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells C&EN that many of Wheeler’s picks emphasize scientific uncertainty to argue against environmental protections. They could help Wheeler carry out President Donald J. Trump’s agenda of deregulation, she says.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/legislation/US-EPA-adds-external-science/97/i6

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

Fluorochemical Suits Could Continue Even if EPA Acts

Feb 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Lawsuits against companies that have made or used emerging drinking water contaminants could continue to grow even if EPA sets national limits for them, according to attorneys who deal with the issue.

“I suspect you’ll see more litigation around the country” as sampling to detect per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances increases, said Matthew D. Thurlow, a partner in BakerHostetler LLP’s Washington and Los Angeles offices. “You’re just seeing the tip of this litigation.”
New Hampshire and other states are pursuing regulations that would increase mandatory sampling of PFAS, said Thurlow, whose law firm often represents major corporations in personal injury and other legal challenges. Thurlow spoke Feb. 7 during a session on the emerging contaminants held during the Environmental Law 2019 forum in Washington, D.C.
Whatever action the Environmental Protection Agency takes is unlikely to quell litigation, Stephen G. Schwarz, a managing partner with Faraci Lange, LLP’s Rochester, N.Y. office, told Bloomberg Environment following a presentation he gave at the legal forum.
Nonstick, But Stick Around
Research on the two most well-studied members of the PFAS class, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), has shown they don’t break down in the environment and they concentrate in people’s bodies, said Schwarz, who is representing plaintiffs exposed to PFAS from industries in Hoosick Falls, N.Y., and Petersburgh, N.Y.
A panel of independent scientists that examined PFOA’s effects on Ohio and West Virginia residents found the chemical was “more probable than not” to be associated with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure during pregnancy, Schwarz said.
Some PFAS chemicals, such as ones that break down to become PFOS and PFOA, have been used for decades to make consumer and industrial products including heat-resistant cables and gaskets, nonstick cookware, and water- and stain-resistant fabrics.
But once the chemicals break down into PFOS and PFOA there is little natural degradation, meaning they remain in the environment for decades or even centuries, said Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.
“We only know a lot about the health effects of some of them, but we have concerns about the class of them,” which has been estimated to include some 5,000 chemicals, she said.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said Feb. 4 the agency would finalize a national strategy to address PFAS next week.
Wheeler has declined to promise lawmakers whether, as part of that plan, the agency will set enforceable Safe Drinking Water Act limits for PFOS or PFOA. Currently the agency offers health guidance but not specific limits for water utilities and waste site managers.
Waste, Resources, Nuisance Suits
Uncertainties about whether PFAS chemicals are causing illnesses in people, combined with monitoring data that showed only 4 percent of public water utilities serving 10,000 or more people found PFOA and PFOS exceeding the EPA’s health advisory of 70 parts per trillion, mean neither chemical may meet the Safe Drinking Water Act’s criteria for setting an enforceable limit, Thurlow said.
Whether or not EPA opts to regulate PFAS, the lawsuits being brought against companies, municipalities, and other organizations aren’t limiting their challenges to personal injuries alone, he said.
Plaintiffs are asserting that companies have violated hazardous waste disposal standards, that PFAS releases have damaged natural resources under the Superfund law, and that the chemicals have encroached on private property causing nuisances, Thurlow said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/fluorochemical-suits-could-continue-even-if-epa-acts

Return to headline | Return to top
PFAS Superfund Listing Would Trigger Liability, But No National Standard

Feb 8, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

Legal experts say if EPA follows through on an expected plan to list two commonly found per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund law, it would trigger Superfund liability for releases of the chemicals and likely aid plaintiffs' PFAS tort cases, but it would also still leave communities without a national, uniform cleanup standard.
Attorneys following PFAS issues vary on how significant a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) listing would be in triggering actions to clean up groundwater, drinking water or other media contaminated with PFAS.
For instance, one attorney with expertise on PFAS issues says it would be “huge” if EPA lists the PFAS perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as hazardous substances as it would trigger Superfund liability for sites all over the country where PFAS are found. The attorney points out that government entities would then be able to recover cleanup costs, bringing claims for strict, joint and several liability. The source also says such a designation would “go a long way” in helping plaintiffs prove tort claims, no longer having to prove the chemicals are causing harm.
But a CERCLA listing would not create an enforceable cleanup standard, and “likely would not alter the patchwork of state regulations and enforcement,” a second attorney with expertise on PFAS notes in a written response to questions. The source notes that if EPA has not set health-based drinking water standards for PFAS, which are used in cleanup remedies for groundwater responses, and states have differing drinking water standards, then “that will create inconsistent response actions between the states.”
An industry source says listing the two PFAS is “probably the best way to show something is being done” and that most contaminated sites are being flagged without EPA setting a level. With Superfund cleanups, the agency can examine the contamination on a site-specific basis, and can cut off all exposure without having to treat to a certain level, the source points out.
As part of a national PFAS management plan, EPA has been weighing adding PFOA and PFOS -- two commonly found PFAS -- to the CERCLA list of “hazardous substances,” while also considering whether to develop enforceable drinking water standards -- maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) -- under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for the two chemicals. But, as recently reported by Politico, EPA is now indicating it is likely to reject setting MCLs at the same time it is likely to give the green light to the CERCLA listings.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) during a Feb. 5 Senate Environment & Public Works Committee meeting, called on EPA to stand by assurances offered by Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler late in 2018 where the agency would have added both PFOA and PFOS to the CERCLA hazardous substance list, among various other concessions, following confirmation of Peter Wright to become EPA’s top waste official. The deal fell apart at the end of the 115th Congress after one Democratic senator sought a recorded vote under tight time constraints.
Since then, Wright has been re-nominated, and his nomination advanced in committee Feb. 5 along a 11-10 party-line vote.
But Carper called on EPA to uphold the concessions before the full Senate votes on Wright's nomination, with Carper noting he was withholding support for the nomination as EPA has not yet indicated where it stands on those commitments.
And Carper said Democrats are asking for an EPA pledge to enact enforceable drinking water limits on PFOA and PFOS within two years as one of several conditions on Wheeler's confirmation.
If EPA does move ahead with the CERCLA hazardous substance listing, the effort would nonetheless likely take considerable time, with then-EPA PFAS policy chief Peter Grevatt telling a Senate subcommittee last September that it could take years to finalize a listing of PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA or other laws.
PFAS Reporting
The hazardous substances listing could establish the threshold for PFAS release reporting under CERCLA, although a third attorney predicts such reporting would be limited due to exclusions under the law and says such reports would go to the National Response Center, rather than drinking water supply customers. Therefore, there is a “gigantic loophole,” the source contends, saying no rational person could say that a hazardous substance listing is a substitute for a regulatory determination under SDWA.
Under CERCLA, notification and testing for PFAS in drinking water would generally not be required, the source says, noting that in contrast, a SDWA drinking water standard would trigger testing for the chemicals and treatment by water suppliers, the source says.
A fourth attorney with expertise on emerging contaminants notes the ripple effect that could occur with a CERCLA hazardous substance designation for the two chemicals. Some states and other federal agencies within their enforcement requirements incorporate hazardous substance designations from CERCLA, the source notes. The effect of such a listing on those enforcement authorities has yet to be determined, but it could be important, the source says.
And a former senior EPA official says in a written response to questions that for contaminated drinking water, in the absence of an MCL, the hazardous substance listing “could also create the requisite basis for an enforcement action in the event that [PFAS] were deemed to present an imminent and substantial endangerment.”
But another attorney familiar with PFAS downplays the impacts of such a designation, noting that EPA and states have already brought actions against companies even without PFAS being listed.
Nonetheless, the source concedes listing would make it easier on EPA and states to make a finding triggering a remedial or removal action. If a chemical is a hazardous substance, EPA only has to make a finding of a release or threat of release of that substance to trigger an action. But if the substance is not designated as such, but rather a pollutant -- as PFAS has been -- then EPA has to meet a higher standard, showing an “imminent and substantial endangerment,” according to the source.
While a hazardous substance listing would make cleanup efforts easier, it would not be a “silver bullet,” and it does not solve the real problem: a lack of widely accepted numbers for cleanup goals, the source says.
The second attorney says such a listing would not determine the level of cleanup required -- “how clean ‘clean’ is.” Listing these two chemicals “does not end the inquiry when considering cost recovery,” the source writes. While EPA would lack federal MCLs or a health-based maximum contaminant level goal for the chemicals, groundwater standards or drinking water standards set by some states “might become” applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) -- standards that must be considered when determining remedies under CERCLA, the source says.
“EPA could impose those in a remedy selection, or it could use its judgment to impose a site-specific remedial action objective,” the source says. “Listing of the substance means that EPA can use CERCLA to clean it up, but it doesn’t establish those [remedial action] triggers or objectives,” the source adds.
The source also says given the ubiquitous nature of the two PFAS, a listing could also possibly spur more litigation or complicate current litigation, which would not speed cleanups. The source notes that parties that arranged for disposal of waste with PFOA or PFOS to a site with releases may now be liable, but such parties could also attempt to assert a divisibility or equitable allocation defense.
A listing could also potentially ease arguments emerging between states and the military services over cleanup of PFAS. For instance, in Michigan, the Air Force in part has been disputing a notice of violation (NOV) issued by the state for an alleged breach of a water quality standard at the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base. While part of the Air Force’s argument against the NOV hinges on it disputing that it is discharging under the Clean Water Act, it also contends that the two PFAS are not CERCLA hazardous substances. Therefore, the Air Force says it is immune from the state enforcing its own laws for the release of anything other than CERCLA hazardous substances.
Liability Risks
Meanwhile, the impact of a hazardous waste listing for PFOA and PFOS on landfills and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), which may unintentionally release PFAS into the environment, is unclear although sources generally are downplaying CERCLA liability risks.
As for POTWs, which treat domestic sewage, the former senior EPA official says it is possible POTWs could be liable, but adds that there are hundreds of other hazardous substances listed under CERCLA, and PFAS would just be one more substance added to that list. Further, CERCLA exempts federally permitted releases -- those containing hazardous substances but that are in compliance with permitted effluent limits or other permitted authorizations, the source says.
“So if POTWs suspected PFAS from industrial sources, including stormwater, they would be wise to ensure that their permit provided legal protections,” the source says.
The source also points to an October ruling -- Miller v. D.C. Water & Sewer Authority -- by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that found domestic sewage is exempt from CERCLA.
As for potential releases of PFOA or PFOS from landfills, the industry source does not see significant new impacts, noting that those substances would just be added to the list of substances regulators are looking at if a landfill already has a release it is cleaning up.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pfas-superfund-listing-would-trigger-liability-no-national-standard

Return to headline | Return to top
EDF to OMB: Ban on Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers Must Protect Workers in Addition to Consumers

Feb 8, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Lindsay McCormick and Joanna Slaney

Today, EDF met with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft final rule on methylene chloride-based paint strippers. We urged the office to ensure the ban on methylene chloride-based paint and coating removers covers both consumer and most commercial uses – as the agency originally proposed.
Removing these deadly products from stores, workplaces, and homes is a critical step to protecting public health. Methylene chloride is acutely lethal. Exposure to the chemical has led to over 50 reported worker deaths since the mid-1980s, more than 40 of which are attributed to use of methylene chloride-based paint strippers. Many more deaths have likely gone unreported. The chemical is also associated with a host of other serious health effects, including neurotoxicity, cancer, and liver impairment.
Despite the facts that workers represent the vast majority of reported deaths and face the highest risks of other health effects, it appears that EPA is poised to finalize a rule that excludes a ban on commercial uses entirely – and will instead merely initiate a lengthy, uncertain process that may lead to certification and training approaches EPA had already considered and rejected as inadequate to protect workers.
During our meeting with OMB, we reiterated our full support for a ban on consumer uses, which is long overdue and absolutely necessary; but we urged that workers not be left behind. The key points we raised are the following:
·       EPA must act because it has already identified unreasonable risks. The evidence is overwhelming that methylene chloride-based paint and coating removers present unreasonable risks to both workers and consumers. In its 2014 risk assessment and 2017 proposed rule, EPA identified that the use of these products poses clear risks that are orders of magnitude higher than acceptable levels for both cancer and non-cancer health effects. EPA is legally obligated under TSCA to mitigate the unreasonable risks it has identified – to workers in addition to consumers.
·       A ban is the only option that provides sufficient protection. The record is clear that approaches short of a ban, such as certification and training programs, are not sufficient to address the risks to workers EPA identified. A simple ban on commercial uses of methylene chloride would also be far less costly, easier to implement, and more effective than risk management through a certification system or occupational respiratory protection program. EPA discussed and rejected both approaches in its proposed rule, due to their major limitations.
·       Without a commercial ban, EPA cannot fully prevent consumer use. EPA’s apparent bifurcation of its approaches to address consumer and commercial uses could still allow consumers to gain access to such products intended for commercial use.
·       TSCA only allows exemptions from restrictions needed to mitigate unreasonable risks for uses of a chemical that are critical or essential. The law provides no basis for EPA to exclude from restrictions any non-critical or non-essential uses – yet that appears to be what EPA is doing by excluding all commercial uses from the ban.
In the last two weeks, more than 11,000 concerned Americans have also voiced concern over any ban that leaves workers unprotected, by sending over 35,000 messages to their Members of Congress demanding that OMB and EPA finalize a ban covering both consumer and most commercial uses.
The health threat posed by methylene chloride in paint strippers to workers, consumers, and the general public isn’t up for debate. Or, at least, it shouldn’t be. EDF strongly urges EPA to finalize a ban that protects all Americans.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/07/edf-omb-urge-methylene-chloride-paint-stripper-ban-protect-workers-consumers/

Return to headline | Return to top
Air Force Disputes Michigan Violation Notice for PFAS at Wurtsmith Base

Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Suzanne Yohannan

The Air Force is disputing Michigan's allegation the military violated a state water quality standard for a perfluorinated compound at a former military base, in part contending the state lacks jurisdiction because the substance at issue is not a “hazardous substance” under the federal Superfund law.
The dispute is the latest in a string of objections from the Air Force to state efforts to enforce per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) groundwater and surface water requirements but could be tempered if EPA follows through on an expected plan to list the chemical as a hazardous substance, which could chip away at the military's arguments against following state standards addressing PFAS.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is seeking to enforce a water quality standard at the groundwater surface water interface (GSI) for the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance known as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) at the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base near Oscoda, MI. But the DEQ is meeting with resistance from the Air Force.
A DEQ spokesman could not comment on the state's next steps, and deferred to the state attorney general's office. A spokeswoman for that office did not respond to questions by press time.
The DEQ spokesman did say the department “is aggressively working to hold the US Air Force accountable for PFAS-containing firefighting foam contamination coming from the former Wurtsmith base,” add the state's approach is “science-based and data-driven.” He also lamented the Air Force's slow response, which he called “unacceptable.”
The military faces significant potential liability at a host of sites across the country where it trained, or fought fires, with firefighting foam containing PFAS.
But the military's resolve could weaken if EPA follows through on commitments to label PFOS and another common PFAS -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), in exchange for Senate Democratic support of the Trump administration's nomination of Peter Wright to become the next EPA waste chief.
EPA has been weighing the addition of the two chemicals to the CERCLA hazardous substance list as part of a national PFAS management plan, and Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) Feb. 5 called on EPA to stand by assurances that it would follow through on the designations, among other concessions, in exchange for support in confirming Wright. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Wright's nomination Feb. 5 on a party-line vote, but he still must pass the full Senate.
Air Force's Defense
At issue at Wurtsmith is a notice of violation (NOV) issued by the DEQ finding the former base in violation of water resource protection requirements under the state's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), according to an Oct. 19 letter from the DEQ. Specifically, groundwater data from compliance monitoring wells near Clark's Marsh were found to be vastly exceeding the state's 12 nanograms per liter (ng/l) water quality standard for the chemical. “Failure to meet water quality standards for discharges of venting groundwater” violates the law, the letter says. Levels were detected as high as 42,000 ng/l, according to the letter.
The Air Force in a Dec. 7 response to the NOV argues the state lacks jurisdiction to enforce the NOV -- both under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the latter, the service says it is assuming the state is alleging a CWA violation through its state law, NREPA. But it says while NREPA categorizes discharges of so-called venting groundwater in the same manner as point source discharges, the CWA does not. The federal water law does not acknowledge venting groundwater as a point source discharge, and such venting is not subject to regulation under the CWA, the letter says.
Further, “the regulation of 'venting groundwater' into waters of the United States is a construct of state regulation to which the [Air Force] has not waived sovereign immunity,” it says.
On the issue of hazardous substances, the letter goes on to say that PFOS is not a hazardous substance under CERCLA, even if the state defines it as a hazardous substance under state law. “Because a state-listed hazardous substance does not qualify as a CERCLA 'hazardous substance,' the federal government waiver of sovereign immunity under [CERCLA section 120] does not extend to state attempts to enforce against the federal government state requirements concerning environmental contaminants that do not constitute CERCLA 'hazardous substances.'”
A CERCLA hazardous substance listing is key because Michigan's regulations at issue only apply to venting groundwater, and the definition of that term relies on the definition of hazardous substance. The Air Force “is immune under CERCLA from a state enforcing a requirement related to substances that are not CERCLA hazardous substances,” the service says.
The Air Force, however, concedes that while it is immune to Michigan's enforcement of venting groundwater laws and regulations, it is bound by CERCLA “to evaluate those same state statutes and regulations” as potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements when the service later chooses remedial actions at the former base.
The military also says the NOV is precluded by an ongoing formal dispute resolution process between the state and service that began in December 2017 over the same issues related to the GSI.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/air-force-disputes-michigan-violation-notice-pfas-wurtsmith-base

Return to headline | Return to top
9th Circuit Grants EPA Rehearing of Order Compelling Chlorpyrifos Ban

Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has granted EPA’s request for rehearing of a panel’s ruling that vacated former Administrator Scott Pruitt's reversal of an Obama-era proposed ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, raising the possibility the court could undo the order and reject environmentalists' bid to block the substance from the market.
In a Feb. 6 statement on the court's decision, environmental group Earthjustice faults acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler for defending Pruitt’s reversal of the Obama-era proposed ban, and says the rehearing process will allow continued sales because no ban is yet in effect, despite risks to children’s brains.
“EPA’s own scientists have said for more than two years that chlorpyrifos is harmful, particularly to children,” said Patti Goldman, the plaintiffs’ attorney. “Any delay to ban this toxic chemical is a tragedy. Chlorpyrifos should be banned based on the agency’s own scientific conclusion, and the law."
In a Feb. 6 order in the case, League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Wheeler, the 9th Circuit says a majority of nonrecused judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc, by the full court of a three-judge panel’s divided ruling ordering a ban.
In a second Feb. 6 order, the court schedules oral argument for the week of March 25, putting the case on a potentially fast track for a second ruling.
The order grants EPA’s Sept. 24 request for rehearing in which Justice Department (DOJ) attorneys argued that the three-judge panel lacked jurisdiction to review Pruitt's order because the agency had not completed its administrative process of responding to objections, and that the panel exceeded its authority by requiring a ban.
The lawsuit challenged Pruitt’s March 2017 order reversing the Obama-EPA’s proposed rule banning use of chlorpyrifos on food. Pruitt said the rule was based on novel studies of human exposures that warranted further review as part of the agency's registration review process for the substance, which is scheduled to continue through 2022.
The panel’s 2-1 Aug. 9 ruling finding that chlorpyrifos posed risks to children and ordering EPA to ban the substance was a major win for environmentalists who first petitioned EPA for a ban in 2007.
The court’s granting rehearing comes after the three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that EPA had failed to justify Pruitt's controversial reversal of the proposed ban on chlorpyrifos given the risks the substance poses to children.
"There was no justification for the [Trump] EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children," the ruling said.
But in the request for re-hearing, DOJ drew on Judge Ferdinand Fernandez's dissenting opinion that petitioners lacked standing, and that precluding EPA from completing its process of responding to objections to Pruitt's order reversing the proposed Obama-era ban would allow for “premature attacks” on matters committed to agency expertise.
DOJ also claimed that the court exceeded its authority in ordering the agency to specifically ban the substance, rather than reconsider the reversal on remand.
Earthjustice in an Oct. 16 response, acknowledged that the majority’s ruling ordering EPA to ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days failed to comport with the advocates' request to ban use of chlorpyrifos on food, or Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) procedures for canceling pesticide registrations.
But the advocates said the case did not raise issues that merited rehearing en banc and argued that EPA was slow-walking its administrative objections process as a ploy to allow chlorpyrifos to remain on the market. The groups asked the court to modify the panel's order for a ban to comply with cancellation procedures under federal pesticide law.
“A FIFRA cancellation entails certain procedures, including internal review and a 30-day public notice, that could take more than 60 days,” environmentalists say. “Petitioners, therefore, agree that the order should be modified to give EPA additional time to cancel food and feed registrations after the associated tolerances are revoked.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/9th-circuit-grants-epa-rehearing-order-compelling-chlorpyrifos-ban

Return to headline | Return to top
Pittsburgh Water Settlement Obligates $50 Million to Replace Lead Lines

Feb 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Leslie A. Pappas

he Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority will spend nearly $50 million this year to replace thousands of old lead water lines under a settlement the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approved Feb. 7.
The joint settlement between the authority, the PUC’s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement, the Office of Consumer Advocate, the Office of the Small Business Advocate, and Pittsburgh United—a coalition of faith, labor, and environmental groups—was approved by the commission in a 5-0 vote.
The settlement will allow the authority to move forward on solving lead contamination issues that have plagued the water system for several years. Lead exposure is associated with adverse developmental, behavioral, and mental health impacts.
“This settlement puts Pittsburgh on a path to safe, affordable water for everyone,” Jennifer Rafanan Kennedy, executive director of Pittsburgh United, said in a statement after the commission vote.
The settlement comes just days after Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) announced criminal charges against the utility for allegedly replacing lead service lines for 161 households without notifying them or conducting required water quality sampling afterward.
In November 2017, the authority was fined $2.4 million after environmental regulators discovered the utility had altered the chemicals it used to control pipe corrosion in its water system without regulatory permission.
The most recent round of tests showed that a high enough number of water samples had lead concentrations of 20 parts per billion or more to warrant a response as they exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s action level of 15 parts per billion.
The settlement will boost the utility’s annual revenues by $21 million by increasing the monthly bill for a typical residential customer by an average of $8.87 per month. The utility had originally asked for a $10.61 per month increase.
The PUC dockets are R-2018-3002645 and R-2018-3002647.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pittsburgh-water-settlement-obligates-50-million-to-replace-lead-lines

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Appalachian Spring

Feb 7, 2019 | Wall Street Journal

By Editorial Board

Perhaps no state suffered more from the Obama regulatory assault than West Virginia as coal production and business investment plunged. As Democrats roll out their Green New Deal, it’s worth highlighting the state’s economic renaissance powered in part by fossil fuels.
After years of deficits, West Virginia last month reported a $180 million surplus as revenues exceeded budget projections by 10% over the last half of 2018 and were up 14% from the prior year. Natural-gas severance taxes rose by $71 million (51%) and accounted for the bulk of the surplus, but corporate (42%), sales (13%) and income (9%) tax revenue also enjoyed healthy bumps.
The budget bounce reflects a humming economy. Salary and wage income increased 5.3% on an annual basis during 2018’s first three quarters compared to 4.3% for the U.S., according to the latest data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Wages in durable manufacturing (not including mining) were up 7.1% amid increased business investment.
Higher incomes have reduced government dependence. Transfer receipts—e.g., Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps—during the Obama Administration grew 3.5 times faster than wages. Over the last seven quarters, wages have grown 1.8 times faster than transfer receipts. The state’s Medicaid rolls have shrunk 6% since December 2016.
West Virginia’s revival started in early 2017 as coal and natural-gas production picked up. Coal had been in free-fall amid competition from cheap natural gas and Obama hostility. But exports and the Trump Administration’s deregulation have lifted the industry.
Coal production has increased by more than 20% over the last two years, though still down from several years ago. Exports soared 40% last year amid higher prices and scaled- back Chinese production. Note to President Trump: Metallurgical coal used for steel production accounted for the bulk of West Virginia’s coal exports.
The state also overlays the rich Marcellus and Utica shale deposits, and natural-gas production has risen by a third in the last two years. Construction of several natural-gas pipelines has created thousands of jobs and will promote more shale drilling.
While unemployment remains relatively high at 5.1%, West Virginia appears to have turned the corner. Some liberal state lawmakers warn the good times won’t last, and they’ll be right if the Green New Deal becomes law.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/appalachian-spring-11549586057#comments_sector

Return to headline | Return to top
Permian Basin to Corpus Christi Pipelines Get Final Federal Permits

Feb 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

By Sergio Chapa

A pair of pipelines to move crude oil and natural gas liquids from the Permian Basin to Corpus Christi have received their final federal permits.
San Antonio pipeline operator EPIC Midstream Holdings LP announced on Wednesday that the company had obtained the final permits needs for the company's crude oil and natural gas liquids pipelines.Recommended Video
00:0000:00
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Nationwide Permit 12 for the projects, giving the company approval for final construction activities and placing the pipelines into service.
"The issuance of the Corps permit further demonstrates our ability to safely and responsibly build these two pipelines and I would like to thank all stakeholders involved in the approval process," EPIC Midstream Holdings CEO Phil Mezey said in a statement.
Already largely complete, the EPIC Y-Grade Pipeline is a 700-mile project to move natural gas liquids, or NGLs, from the Permian Basin of New Mexico and West Texas to a facility in Robstown.
Construction for the EPIC Crude Oil Pipeline is expected to be completed by January 2020. The 650-mile project will move crude oil and from seven terminals in the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale of South Texas to a facility in Robstown.
As part of a plan announced in October, EPIC plans to temporarily use its natural gas liquids pipeline to ship crude oil starting in the third quarter.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit comes days after a subsidiary of Houston oil company Noble Energy bought stakes in both pipelines.
Los Angeles private equity firm Ares Management is backing both the natural gas liquids and crude oil pipelines.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Permian-Basin-to-Corpus-Christi-pipelines-get-13598295.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Industry Puts Houston at Center of Trade War

Feb 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

By Aaron Padilla

The back-and-forth trade dispute between the United States and other global powers such as China might seem like a far-off concept for many Texans. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross dismissed the impact of this dispute as a “rounding error,” implying that most Americans would never notice its costs. But these trade wars result in tariffs that have wide-ranging consequences in communities across the country, and the burdens imposed on the natural gas and oil industry put Texas at the center of a trade war that shows few signs of ending.
The Greater Houston Partnership found that the Houston area alone is home to nearly 5,000 businesses in the energy industry, with 250,000 employees making up almost 10 percent of the local workforce. Natural gas and oil provide and support millions of jobs throughout Texas and across the United States. When the industry is affected by burdensome and misguided government policies, the consequences are anything but trivial.
The tariffs on imported steel under Section 232 cause uncertainty and delays for U.S. energy projects and sometimes result in significant project cost increases, hurting companies and workers across the country. The ‘steel tax’ — as the Section 232 tariffs are often referred to — added $40 million to a Plains All American project in the Permian Basin. The project, which generated 2,600 construction jobs, is dependent on specialty steel elements not produced in the United States. That steel had to be imported from Greece. This American energy project, with thousands of construction workers, was affected negatively by the tariffs imposed by this administration on European allies.
These trade policies are doubly damaging to infrastructure projects thanks to quotas, which restrict the amount of steel American companies can import. Projects could be significantly delayed due to material shortages in addition to rising costs. Even more troubling is the discussion of future quotas with Canada and Mexico. Those quotas not only run counter to the spirit of free trade that underpins the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade deal, they actively hurt American businesses that rely on imported materials in order to operate and create jobs. If there is no relief provided for the existing tariffs and quotas, the effects will be felt in countless industries throughout the country, including right here in Texas.
In addition to U.S. tariffs and quotas, retaliatory tariffs from China have significantly affected the export markets for American natural gas and outlook for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities here in the United States. With a rapidly growing but still nascent LNG industry, the United States depends on access to overseas markets to help grow the American LNG sector and create jobs.
Reuters recently reported that only six LNG vessels went from the United States to China in the second half of 2018 as a result of retaliatory tariffs, down from 25 for the same period in the previous year. That decline raises serious red flags. Last year, China’s LNG purchases reached an all-time high. The fact that American LNG exports to China have dropped so precipitously shows that when the United States is unable to economically fill the energy needs of a major overseas market, other countries will readily fill the void.
The United States is right to fight to put us on a level playing field with our global competitors. However, the current approach is causing ongoing pain for the energy industry - an important driver of Texas’s economy. The administration needs to shift course quickly, before the impact of its trade policies becomes even more painful. Our economy and our workers are depending on it.
Padilla is senior advisor for international policy at the American Petroleum Institute in Washington, D.C.He leads API’s work to determine and represent the natural gas and oil industry’s public policy positions on key international issues, including cybersecurity, trade and global economic policy, and sustainability.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Energy-industry-puts-Houston-at-center-of-trade-
13599430.php

Return to headline | Return to top
BLM Dropped Ball On Utah Oil and Gas Leases, Suit Says

Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Steven M. Sellers

The Bureau of Land Management approved dozens of oil and gas leases across thousands of acres of public lands in Utah without conducting proper environmental and cultural studies, a new lawsuit alleges.
The 43 leases over 51,400 acres put at risk significant archaeological sites in San Juan County, some of which have yet to be surveyed, the Friends of Cedar Mesa claim.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, asks the court to stop the development and set aside the leases as violative of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other federal laws.
Bluff, Utah-based Friends of Cedar Mesa contends the leases threaten thousands of historic properties and archaeological sites on the tract in violation of BLM’s duty under the NHPA to make a “reasonable and good faith effort” to identify them.
BLM also “ignored its obligations to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the potential impacts of leasing activities on threatened and endangered species” in its initial draft plan.
Those species allegedly include the Southwestern willow flycatcher, Mexican spotted owl, and the Yellow-billed cuckoo.
The bureau made no substantive revision to its draft leasing plan despite concerns voiced by Friends of Cedar Mesa, and failed to properly assess the potential “visual, atmospheric or audible” intrusions the wells may cause, the complaint states.
It also allegedly failed to properly consider alternative, less intrusive means to accommodate the competing interests, as required by NEPA.
BLM didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Advocates for the West and Nonprofit Legal Services of Utah represented Friends of Cedar Mesa.
The case is Friends of Cedar Mesa v. U.S. Dep’t. of the Interior, D. Utah, No. 19-cv-00013, filed 2/6/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/blm-dropped-ball-on-utah-oil-and-gas-leases-suit-says

Return to headline | Return to top
National Security Risk Feared in Foreign Clean Energy Tech (1)

Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Bobby Magill

A U.S. economy based on clean energy technologies such as smart electric meters must produce and develop those devices domestically to protect national security, analysts said.
“It’s a national security imperative that we support R and D in these areas,” Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Council on Foreign Relations, told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 7.
Clean energy technologies need to be developed and produced in the U.S., Jaffe added.
The U.S. is amid a transformation in how it produces and consumes energy, as renewable energy use rises globally and within six years, consumers will primarily choose electric vehicles because of their low cost, Ethan Zindler, head of Americas and policy analysis for Bloomberg NEF, said at the hearing.
Electric vehicles will rely on advanced grid-connected charging stations in homes and on highways, and utilities could eventually use their batteries for electricity storage when parked.
‘Using America’s Products’
The biggest mistakes electric utilities and policy makers could make is to “assume that the energy world we have today is the one we’ll have tomorrow,” Zindler said.
Jaffe’s national security concerns related to new technology come after the Trump administration took steps against Chinese technology giant Huawei Technolgoies Co. Ltd. to prevent it from selling components for the 5G wireless network in the U.S.
China is expected to spend $6 trillion on clean technology and advanced nuclear reactors in the coming years, Jaffe said.
“If we are going to buy Chinese products for vehicles and robo-taxies, we have to worry about maintaining the safety of digital devices and our electricity grid from hacking,” she said. “How are we going to do that if we’re not using America’s products and instead use China’s products?”
The administration fears Chinese telecommunications technology could be vulnerable to cyberwarfare and allow China to spy on Americans.
Similar national security concerns apply to electronic devices that will help modernize the electric power grid in the U.S., according to Jaffe.
Research Clusters
The U.S. should invest in regional research and development clusters in partnership with the private sector and national laboratories to advance clean energy technology domestically and develop a domestic work force for national security reasons, Jaffe said.
She advocated for the U.S. to boost its crude oil exports while developing clean energy technology domestically.
“That doesn’t solve the problem of climate change,” Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), said at the hearing.
But national security, clean energy, and oil exports are intertwined, Jaffe said.
If the U.S. lowers its greenhouse gas emissions and develops clean energy technology, it benefits from supplying oil to countries that don’t yet have access to clean energy technology, so they do not look to Russia or the Middle East for their energy, Jaffe said.
“During this immediate moment of transition, let’s get our energy here to focus on clean technology and get oil intensity of our transportation sector down so we can provide energy immediately that are not able to transition yet?” she said.
The Energy Department already has innovation hubs, and national laboratories are performing the clean energy research functions Jaffe is advocating, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said during the hearing.
“A lot of this is going on,” Simpson said, referring to the research. “The climate is changing and our policies in the future need to observe that and we need to look at that.”
Electric cars are only part of the answer, he added.
Marine Energy
Projections for the advancement of clean energy technology in the U.S. have limits, however.
When asked by Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) about the U.S. development potential of marine energy technologies such as offshore wind and hydrokinetic energy, which includes wave and tidal energy, Zindler said the forecast is mixed.
The Energy Department is researching hydrokinetic energy in western Washington state, Kilmer said.
Offshore wind energy is poised to boom in the U.S., because of rapidly declining costs and competitive federal leasing off the East Coast, Zindler said.
“We are less bullish on other technologies around marine and others,” Zindler said.
Wave and tidal energy are too costly for near-term development, he said.
(Updated with comments in the ninth and 10th paragraphs.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/national-security-risk-feared-in-foreign-clean-energy-tech-1

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Federal Judge Rules Public Has Right to Know About Chemical Accidents

Feb 7, 2019 | Daily Breeze

By David Rosenfeld

A federal judge ruled this week that communities have a right to know what chemicals are released by industrial accidents, the result of a lawsuit filed by a coalition of environmental groups.
The ruling by Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, Feb. 4, requires the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) to determine and disclose what air pollutants are accidentally emitted by any industry the board monitors.
Locally, the ruling could improve monitoring and reporting of chemical releases at oil refineries such as the Valero Wilmington Refinery and Torrance Refinery, which use the toxic modified hydrofluoric acid. A local citizen group has been pushing for the chemical’s prohibition after an explosion at the Torrance Refinery in 2015.
The lawsuit was filed in December 2017 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which argued the CSB should have been reporting chemical releases for many years. While the 1990 law that created the CSB required it, the national safety board has never adopted such a mandate in its nearly 30-year existence.
Daniel Horowitz, managing director of CSB from 2000 to 2018, advocated for greater public reporting of chemical accidents during his tenure, he said.
“The big problem for community groups right now is there is no reliable database of chemical accidents,” Horowitz said. “The hope is with a rule like this there will be a one-stop shop for community groups and first responders to find out about chemical releases — what chemicals, what quantities and their effects.”
In California, reporting requirements are more stringent than in many other states, making the job of finding out information a little easier, but not much, Horowitz said.
“You really need a lot of expertise to find out what accidents have happened,” he said. “There is often a lot of leg work required.”
AB 1647, a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) and signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017, will require by 2020 fence-line and community air quality monitoring around oil refineries along with reporting of the readings from those devices in real-time.
The South Coast Air Quality Management Agency in 2017 directed $2.77 million to enhance the monitoring and alert systems at the Torrance Refinery. But there is still a lot the public is not aware of.
At the SCAQMD’s board meeting on Feb. 1, it was revealed for the first time publicly that 10 leaks of modified hydrogen fluoride or hydrofluoric acid (MHF) occurred since 2017 from the Torrance and Wilmington refineries. Those releases were detected using sensors on refinery property.
Four of the incidents involved the release of MHF at quantities greater than 10 parts per million (PPM). The lowest lethal dose for inhalation is estimated between 50 and 250 PPM for a five-minute exposure.
The 10 leaks in the past two years was news to Steve Goldsmith, co-founder of Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, who follows the issue closely. About three or four of the 10 disclosed by SCAQMD last week were reported in the media, he said.
“Increased monitoring and increased information about the monitoring is what we have been lacking in this battle for a long time,” Goldsmith said.
https://www.dailybreeze.com/2019/02/07/federal-judge-rules-public-has-right-to-know-about-chemical-accidents/

Return to headline | Return to top
Regulators to Focus on Security, Infrastructure

Feb 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Rod Kuckro

The nation's utility regulators and hundreds of industry players affected by state laws and rules will gather in Washington, D.C., starting this weekend.
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' winter policy meeting will feature a robust roster of federal officials, including acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, Energy Information Administration chief Linda Capuano and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Neil Chatterjee.
The event that runs until Wednesday will focus on developments that possibly could change the nature of regulation across the natural gas, electric, water and telecommunications sectors, NARUC President Nick Wagner said.
They would include the expanding role of natural gas and the creation of so-called smart communities, he said.
But a key area of emphasis will be protecting critical infrastructure and how to respond to a crisis such as a cyber assault, physical attack or extreme weather.
Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that countries such as China have "the ability to launch cyberattacks that cause localized, temporary disruptive effects on critical infrastructure — such as disruption of a natural gas pipeline for days to weeks — in the United States" (Energywire, Feb. 1).
Pertinent sessions on the agenda begin Sunday when the Committee on Critical Infrastructure hears from Karen Evans, the Department of Energy's assistant secretary in charge of the new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response.
She will be joined by officials from DOE, the Department of Homeland Security, FERC and the Electric Power Research Institute.
On Monday, a discussion will center on crisis response and recovery with DHS's George Renteria, acting chief of the agency's emergency services section.
NARUC's Water Committee will look at how large U.S. water companies are adding cybersecurity technology to their infrastructure.
On Tuesday, Bruce Walker, DOE's assistant secretary for electricity, will speak on resilience and investing in the grid.
Attending the NARUC winter meeting, Wagner said, is "especially critical for some of those new commissioners who are dealing with some of these issues for the first time or looking at the issues from a different perspective. But it's also an opportunity for those of us who have been involved for a long time to stay engaged and to stay educated, as well. Because things are definitely changing."
Not only does the threat of cyberattacks affect all of the industries NARUC regulated, "it's part of our responsibility of ensuring reliable and resilient services for our customers," Wagner said.
Wagner was named to a one-year term as president of NARUC in November.
Since 2013, he has been a member of the Iowa Utilities Board. His term ends April 30, but he said he is confident that Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) will nominate him to another term.
Wagner said NARUC "absolutely" still wants the Trump administration to nominate someone with experience as a state regulator to FERC.
"I think the approach and the experience that state commissioners have plays very well at the FERC," he said.
"As you see the blurred lines of jurisdiction" between federal and state jurisdiction, "we feel very strongly that state commissioners have a unique background and can serve very well as a member of FERC. It's been quite a few years since FERC did not have someone with that state experience as a sitting member," he said.
FERC Commissioner Bernard McNamee will make his first public remarks Tuesday in a conversation with Judith Jagdmann, chairwoman of the Virginia State Corporation Commission and a former Virginia attorney general.
McNamee was chief deputy attorney general in Virginia in 2005-06 under Jagdmann.
FERC Commissioner Richard Glick also will be featured speaker Tuesday.
On Wednesday, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Chatterjee are to deliver remarks.
The future of coal will get some play with sessions slated on carbon capture and utilization, new high-value products made from coal, how states will be affected by EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule replacing the Clean Power Plan, and considerations in the retirement of baseload power plants.
As of yesterday, more than 1,400 people had registered to attend.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/08/stories/1060119999

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Familiar Funding Fights Imperil Broad Package

Feb 8, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Maxine Joselow

The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee yesterday grappled with a perennial question: how to pay for a broad infrastructure package.
The hearing, titled "The Cost of Doing Nothing: Why Investing in Our Nation's Infrastructure Cannot Wait," comes as momentum builds for an infrastructure deal in the 116th Congress.
President Trump repeatedly touted a $200 billion infrastructure plan last year, only to see talks fizzle on the Hill.
There was a bipartisan consensus yesterday that the nation's roads, highways and bridges are in a state of disrepair. But lawmakers differed in their approaches to funding mechanisms.
Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) stressed in his opening statement that failing to act on infrastructure ultimately drives up the cost.
"I'm going to focus on the costs of inaction," DeFazio said. "It has incredibly serious consequences that far, far exceed the cost if we were to belly up and put in the money we need."
Ranking member Sam Graves (R-Mo.) said he was pleased to hear Trump mention infrastructure in his State of the Union address. The president devoted a handful of lines to the issue, leaving the details to Congress (E&E Daily, Feb. 6).
"It's extremely encouraging that after Tuesday's State of the Union address, we know that infrastructure is a priority of the president," Graves said, adding, "I have to stress that we can't waste this opportunity."
Then came the disagreement over funding.
DeFazio reiterated his support for raising the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, which hasn't been increased since 1993.
The gas tax was created to help ensure the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. But the tax hasn't kept pace with inflation, and the Congressional Budget Office recently projectedthat the fund's transit account would be drained of money by 2021 unless Congress intervenes.
DeFazio sought to refute the notion that raising the gas tax would be politically toxic. He noted that 26 states have increased their own gas tax since 1993, without any negative repercussions for the state lawmakers sponsoring the move.
But Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a new addition to the T&I Committee and chairman of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, pushed back on this idea.
"We're talking about doing things bold," Meadows said. "I don't know that a gas tax is bold because quite frankly, it's a short-term solution."
Newly elected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) also noted that the rise of electric vehicles has dampened the power of the gas tax, since EVs don't typically use gasoline.
"I want to be clear: As we move to electrification ... the gas tax doesn't hold as big a punch," Walz said.
VMT
The next funding mechanism to get the spotlight was a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) fee, which would involve charging people based on the distance they drive.
Proponents of VMT say it would better account for the rising number of electric and autonomous vehicles on the nation's roads (E&E Daily, Dec. 17, 2018).
"I believe the only viable future lies in a transition to VMT, or vehicles miles traveled," Graves said. "I see this as the best way to ensure that everyone contributes to the [Highway] Trust Fund."
But former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said VMT isn't enough on its own. He called for including VMT in a broad suite of funding proposals that the T&I Committee would present to the Ways and Means Committee.
"You can't fix America's problems with infrastructure with just tolling, with just VMT, with just public-private partnerships. You have to create a big pot of money," said LaHood, a Republican who served under President Obama and now works as a senior policy adviser at the law firm DLA Piper.
Resilience
Lawmakers and witnesses also highlighted the need to rebuild the nation's infrastructure in a resilient manner, so that it can withstand future hurricanes and other extreme weather events that experts suspect are fueled by climate change.
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) noted that his state had recently seen wild swings in temperature, which could threaten the structural integrity of roads and bridges. "In some places, there's going to be a need for some sort of resiliency," he said.
Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) said, "Where there's an example of the cost of doing nothing, it's in the case of resiliency. So it's great for me to hear, especially from my colleagues across the aisle, this recognition of the dangers and the damages caused by climate change, and the need to address that moving forward."
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, surprisingly, said he thinks Trump recognizes the need to account for resilience in infrastructure planning.
"I've spoken to President Trump about this personally," Garcetti said, adding, "I think you can engage the White House on this issue of resilience as well."
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao this week penned an opinion piece for Fox News calling for Democrats to collaborate with the White House on infrastructure. The piece did not address how much an infrastructure package should cost or where new funding sources should come from.
6-month window
As the hourslong hearing drew to a close, it remained unclear whether the 116th Congress would ultimately succeed in passing a broad infrastructure package, given the familiar debates over pay-fors and other concerns.
Sources have privately expressed skepticism that the package will materialize. They say it's more likely that Congress will simply reauthorize the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which expires in 2020.
One thing is clear: Lawmakers only have a short window to act.
"If we don't do it in the next six months, it isn't going to get done under this administration," said Meadows.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/08/stories/1060119983

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Some Climate-Hawk Democrats Cool on Green New Deal (2)

Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dean Scott

Many Democrats who have been active on climate change aren’t rushing to embrace the Green New Deal resolution unveiled Feb. 7, saying Congress is too far from a consensus on what to do about the issue.
The Green New Deal’s ambitious approach, outlined in a resolution by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), has the backing of some of the Senate’s heavy hitters. They include several vying to be the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, such as Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
But a split exists among Democratic backers of climate action on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, a panel that includes Gillibrand and Booker, that would have to do the heavy lifting on any climate legislation.
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) all told Bloomberg Environment they aren’t ready to endorse the resolution. The same is true for some other usually reliable backers of climate action who aren’t on the committee, including Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats.
Rallying behind the green deal now, Whitehouse said, risks making it an easy target for powerful opponents, including the fossil fuel industry and Republicans who still control the Senate.
“I fear that those forces that vehemently oppose climate action and are constantly up to no good around here will take every opportunity to try and use something like this to divide us—when in fact there’s enormous agreement that something big needs to be done on climate,” Whitehouse said. “But we’re more likely to do it and win and be effective if we stay united and work with each other rather than get into the usual Democratic circular firing squad.”
Whitehouse is perhaps the most vocal Senate climate activist, who since 2012 has delivered hundreds of weekly “time to wake up” speeches urging Congress to act on the issue.
Markey spokeswoman Giselle Barry said Feb. 7 that as many as 10 Senate Democrats are expected to endorse the resolution by day’s end.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), became a cosponsor, saying in a statement that he welcomes “seizing the opportunity to transform our economy to generate millions of good-paying jobs, more opportunities for communities, and a more just and more prosperous nation that gives everyone a chance to thrive.”

Similarly, fellow Oregon Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he hopes to use his position on the finance panel to target incentives for fossil fuel energy.
“What’s appealing to me is that there’s a process for reform on several fronts,” Wyden said.
“I’m going to work with all those good folks to throw the many dirty energy relics, the dirty energy tax relics of yesteryear, into the garbage can and put front and center clean energy, from sea to shining sea,” Wyden said.
Divisions Spilling Out
Friends of the Earth president Erich Pica complained that the resolution had abandoned an earlier call for an end to fossil fuels, though he backed other parts.
The proposal also calls for moving away from nuclear power, which some climate advocates back because it’s largely carbon-free, according to a fact sheet on the plan distributed by Ocasio-Cortez’s office.
The resolution isn’t a bill containing specific legislative proposals, but rather is meant to define the scope, scale, and purpose of the Green New Deal, according to the fact sheet.
At least for now, Markey’s backing hasn’t registered with the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, including Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the panel’s top Democrat. He says it’s far too early to endorse one approach.
The resolution is useful in that it can “start a conversation and articulate a vision,” Carper said in a Feb. 7 statement. He urged his committee colleagues to examine the measure “and consider the ways in which we may be able to incorporate its ideas within our work this Congress.”
Maryland’s Van Hollen, who is revising a carbon tax bill from the last Congress that would refund the proceeds to U.S. households, said he supports “a major investment in clean energy and addressing climate change,” but isn’t ready yet to endorse the resolution.
Schatz, of Hawaii, said he will wait for the legislative process to begin. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the former ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she is still mulling over the resolution.
An ‘Existential Threat’
But California’s Harris, who hopes to make climate change a key issue in her 2020 campaign, said the resolution calls for the kind of ambitious action needed to tackle climate change.
“It’s an existential threat,” said Harris, who endorsed the concept of a Green New Deal in January. “If we don’t address it with a smart and efficient and immediate response, we are going to look at the deterioration of this planet.”
In the House, more than 40 Democrats endorsed the Green New Deal, including House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who said he signed on earlier this week.
But the chairman stressed that it will be up to House committees, including the Energy and Commerce panel, with input from the new House select climate panel, to determine what specific legislation to move.
“We have a select committee, we have chairs of jurisdiction, and they are all agreed they are going to put their heads together and come up with a road map on how we will move forward,” McGovern said. “But I can’t tell you where the majority of them are going to be, or where they’re at now, on policy.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) didn’t throw her support behind the package, but lauded the backers’ "enthusiasm.”
—With assistance from Tiffany Stecker.
(Adds comment from Sen. Jeff Merkley in 9th paragraph.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/some-climate-hawk-democrats-cool-on-green-new-deal-2

Return to headline | Return to top
Select Committee Dems Still Rely on Fossil Fuels

Feb 8, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Corbin Hiar

The panel that House Democrats created to combat global warming is called the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, but the fossil fuel connections of the members named yesterday suggest to some environmentalists a certain lack of urgency.
Industry advocates, however, support the watered-down aims of the panel and defend the campaign and pocketbook ties its nine Democratic members have to fossil fuel companies (Greenwire, Feb. 7).
During the 2018 election cycle, those lawmakers or their leadership political action committees (PACs) received nearly $238,000 from the oil and gas and electric utilities industries, according to contributions analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks money in politics.
Of that total, about $190,000 came from electric utilities, not all of which primarily rely on planet-warming fossil fuels to produce power.
Many of the committee members — including Chairwoman Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) — also have investments in fossil fuel assets, E&E News found during a review of their financial disclosures.
"This points to the pervasive ways in which the fossil fuel industry is unfortunately present in far too much of our economies, both political and financial," said David Turnbull, a spokesman for Oil Change USA, one of the environmental groups pushing lawmakers to sign a pledge rejecting fossil fuel campaign contributions (E&E Daily, Jan. 30).
"We need to divest from fossil fuels in all sectors of our society — they're bad investments, bad actors, and bad for our climate and communities," he said.
So far, just 41 of the House's 435 members have taken the "pledge to not take contributions from the oil, gas, and coal industry and instead prioritize the health of our families, climate, and democracy over fossil fuel industry profits." No Republicans have signed on (E&E Daily, Jan. 30).
The only current pledge-taker on the climate crisis committee is Rep. Mike Levin, a freshman Democrat from California. ` Meanwhile, the Democratic committee member who raked in the most oil, gas and electric utility cash last election cycle was Luján, the former chairman of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. He and his PAC accepted some $113,000 from energy interests last campaign, almost $88,000 of which came from utilities.
Luján's personal finances are similarly tied to the fossil fuel industry. In his handwritten House financial disclosure statement, Luján listed more than $50,000 in the New Mexico public employees pension plan.
Six of that plan's top 10 stock holdings are in oil and gas pipeline companies, including Dakota Access pipeline builder Energy Transfer Partners LP and Enbridge Inc., which in 1991 was responsible for the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.
"My values and voting record are clear," said Luján, who during his congressional career has sided with the League of Conservation Voters 96 percent of the time. "I respect and recognize New Mexico's long history as an energy state, that is why, throughout my career, I have fought to ensure that New Mexico is a leader in our clean energy future."
Republicans haven't yet named which of their lawmakers will join the panel.
Grand ambition to political reality
Soon after Democrats won the House, some upstart environmentalists and newly elected progressive lawmakers began pushing party leaders for a select committee tasked with crafting a sweeping climate policy by 2020, without any influence from fossil fuel companies (Greenwire, Nov. 30, 2018).
Instead, they got the climate crisis committee, which lacks the power to write legislation or issue subpoenas.
Castor, the seven-term lawmaker whom Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) chose to lead the panel, was quick to downplay progressives' expectations for it. Soon after being tapped last December, she argued that Democrats couldn't bar members from serving on the committee if they take money from the fossil fuel industry.
"I don't think you can do that under the First Amendment, really," said Castor, whose campaign and PAC accepted a total of more than $7,000 from electric utility interests last election (Greenwire, Dec. 20, 2018).
Then news broke later that month that Castor and her husband had an investment worth over $50,000 in a mutual fund comprising mostly holdings in utility companies.
They "divested from the Franklin Utilities Fund to build confidence in her leadership of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis," Caster spokesman Steven Angotti said in an email published by the investigative news site Sludge on Jan. 30.
But the day before that story went up, Castor acknowledged in a House report that they'd purchased more than $15,000 of stock in Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which has rejected calls to drop its fossil assets, and invested at least $1,000 in common units of Blackstone Group LP, which also has oil and gas holdings.
When asked about the chairwoman's mixed messages on fossil fuel investments, Castor's office responded only with her statement announcing the committee's Democratic roster.
"The newly appointed Democratic members of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis are ready to stand up to corporate polluters and special interests as we press for urgent action to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move toward a clean energy economy with a qualified workforce and a just transition," Castor said.
"Climate deniers, fossil fuel companies and other special interests have had an outsized influence in promoting outdated, dirty policies and we will stand up to these forces — we have no choice."
'Set an example'
Some environmentalists are calling on the chairwoman, whose net worth was estimated by Roll Call last Congress at around $3 million, to go further.
"Representative Castor could send a strong signal to these banks and fund managers and set an example to other lawmakers by moving her assets out of any funds or stocks with fossil fuel assets unless and until they fully divest their businesses and investments from fossil fuel activities," Oil Change USA's Turnbull said.
The investment portfolio of Bonamici — a committee member who's also worth about $3 million — contains mutual funds with significant fossil fuel assets, as well.
Her most recent disclosures show she and her husband own over $50,000 worth of iShares MSCI EAFE Value ETF, 15 percent of which is composed of companies with significant coal, oil and gas reserves, according to As You Sow, a nonprofit shareholder advocacy group.
And Bonamici's husband, U.S. District Judge Michael Howard Simon, owns more than $250,000 of shares in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, 10 percent of which is invested in fossil fuel assets.
"The Congresswoman has demonstrated unwavering commitment to fighting climate change throughout her career in Congress and in the state legislature," spokeswoman Natalie Crofts said in an email.
"On the Select Committee she will continue her work to combat climate change and make bold investments in clean renewable energy to protect the health of communities across the country, our oceans, and our planet," Crofts added. "She has repeatedly fought back against the fossil fuel industry and will continue to do so."
The electric utility industry gave Bonamici and her leadership PAC nearly $19,000 last election cycle, and oil and gas interests chipped in over $3,000.
But industry advocates don't see anything wrong with taking campaign contributions from fossil fuel companies and consider the divestment push an extreme and unnecessary move.
"I think the pledge is unreasonable because many of these members have a broader focus than just the progressive, aggressive climate issues," said Frank Maisano, a senior principal at the firm Bracewell LLP.
Criticizing committee members because of their personal fossil fuel investments, he added, is "another red herring that activists groups who want to oppose reasonable members that are going to take a more reasonable approach might find to get them out of being a participant in this."
Reporter Niina Heikkinen contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/08/stories/1060120009

Return to headline | Return to top
Green New Deal Would Cut U.S. Emissions & More: BGOV Closer Look

Feb 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adam M. Taylor

The U.S. would achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years under nonbinding resolution released by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
The resolution outlines what proponents are calling a “Green New Deal,” referencing the resolution’s focus on climate change and the post-Depression policies of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The resolution’s preamble credits federal efforts during World War II and the New Deal with creating “the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen,” but says that many communities were excluded from those benefits.
“This resolution sets out a non-exhaustive list of several major projects that need to be completed fast,” according to an FAQ from Ocasio-Cortez’s office. “These include upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency, building 100% greenhouse gas neutral power generation systems, removing greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture and more.”
Green New Deal
The resolution would set out five core goals:
·   Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a transition fair to all.
·   “Create millions of good, high-wage jobs” and ensure economic security for all.
·   Invest in sustainable industry and infrastructure.
·   Secure clean air and water, climate resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for future generations.
·   Promote justice and equity by ending and undoing the effects of discrimination against marginalized groups, including indigenous peoples, communities of color, deindustrialized and depopulated communities, the poor, women, the elderly and the young, persons experiencing homelessness, and those with disabilities.
The resolution would lay out several policies to achieve the goals, including by meeting all U.S. demand for electricity with “clean, renewable, and zero-emission” sources. Other policies include:
·   Investments to build resiliency against climate change.
·   Rebuilding infrastructure to eliminate pollution and guarantee access to clean water.
·   Upgrading the energy and water efficiency of every building in the country and promoting distributed and “smart” power grids.
·   Collaborating with farmers and ranchers to decarbonize the agricultural sector. Overhauling the transportation sector through investments in public transit, high-speed rail, and zero-emission infrastructure and manufacturing.
·   Enforcing labor and environmental protections in trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments to keep jobs in the U.S.
·   Removing greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere through “proven low-tech solutions” such as land preservation and creating new forests on treeless land.
·   Promoting international adoption of similar policies through exchange of technology, expertise, and funding.
The resolution would also call for providing everyone in the U.S. with health care, housing, and economic security.
It includes provisions to support the creation of a jobs guarantee with “family-sustaining” wages and benefits, strengthened collective bargaining rights, and increased protections against “unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies.”
Climate Background
The largest focus of the resolution is preventing and counteracting climate change, which it calls a direct threat to U.S. national security.

The resolution’s preamble cites conclusions from an October 2018 United Nations report and a November 2018 federal climate assessment that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change. The reports said that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and achieving global net-zero emissions by 2050 will be required to prevent global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels, which scientists say would have devastating effects.
The resolution calls for “massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as technologically feasible.”

The resolution doesn’t include an outright ban on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, which remain the largest source of electric power generation, though it would call for deriving 100 percent of U.S. power from “clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources.”
Omitting a fossil-fuel ban could make the proposal more acceptable to labor unions and Democratic presidential candidates, Bloomberg News reported.
The resolution doesn’t call for any additional investment in nuclear power, which is currently the largest carbon-free source of electricity in the country, though it leaves the door open for continued operation of existing plants.

Regulating Carbon
Previous strategies to regulate emissions through a cap-and-trade regime or a carbon tax aren’t mentioned in the resolution.
Those policies could be a “small part” of the Green New Deal, according to the Ocasio-Cortez FAQ, but the primary focus would be rolling out replacement technologies.
“We cannot simply tax gas and expect workers to figure out another way to get to work unless we’ve first created a better, more affordable option,” the FAQ says.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the cap-and-trade bill the House passed in 2009 (H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress), when Democrats last controlled the chamber, would be the starting point for climate legislation this year. Under that framework, limits on greenhouse gas emissions would be imposed and a market for permits to exceed them would be created.
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced a bill (H.R. 763) this year to impose a price on carbon emissions, which would be paid to the government and rebated to households. That measure had eight Democrats and one Republican as cosponsors as of Feb. 6.
Fee-and-dividend, also called tax-and-dividend, programs are widely supported by economists as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Bloomberg News reported.
Economic Provisions
The resolution’s preamble describes several “related crises” in the U.S., including declining life expectancy, wage stagnation, erosion of workers’ bargaining power, and income inequality. It states that climate change and other environmental degradation has exacerbated existing “systemic injustices” that have disproportionately affected vulnerable and marginalized groups.
The resolution’s jobs, health care, and housing guarantees would require an expansion of welfare programs. The transition to a carbon-free economy “will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process,” according to the FAQ.
The resolution wouldn’t define specific programs that would achieve its goals. For instance, it doesn’t specify the means by which Congress should ensure all Americans have health care coverage -- whether through expansion of the Affordable Care Act or through a variant of “Medicare for All.”
Several Democrats have discussed proposals under that name, though there isn’t agreement on a particular plan or definition. Some proposals would expand Medicare coverage to include anyone 55 or older, or allow anyone under 65 to enroll in the program by paying a premium, while others would create a single-payer healthcare system similar to Canada or the United Kingdom.
Environmental Groups Supportive
Climate advocacy and progressive groups including Sierra Club, the Sunrise Movement, Center for American Progress, and Indivisible SUPPORT pursuing a Green New Deal.
“America has a choice to make: We can come together to create high-quality jobs in the industries of the future, protect our communities from extreme weather and economic damage, and build a better and more equitable country for our children and grandchildren—or we can stick our heads in the sand,” Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, said in a Feb. 7 news release.
Presidential Candidates on Board
Several declared and potential Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential election are SUPPORTING the resolution, such as Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Conservatives Opposed
Those OPPOSED to increasing federal investment to counter climate change and pursue other goals in the resolution include the American Enterprise Institute.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, expressed “serious concerns about the potential adverse economic and employment impacts of” the policies falling under the Green New Deal during his opening remarks at a Feb. 6 Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee hearing.
“Americans deserve better than to foot the bill for the Green New Deal’s reckless, expensive, and unattainable goals,” Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla) said. “The Green New Deal, just like proposals for free college or Medicaid for All, is nothing but an empty promise that leaves American taxpayers on the hook.”
Click here to download the charts from this analysis.

https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/green-new-deal-would-cut-u-s-emissions-more-bgov-closer-look

Return to headline | Return to top
Dems Downplay Divisions over Green New Deal

Feb 7, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama, Miranda Green and Mike Lillis

House Democrats on Thursday downplayed talk of any internal divisions over support for a Green New Deal plan and how bold the party should be in combating climate change.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the plan’s lead sponsor, pushed back Thursday afternoon on the appearance of party infighting between senior Democratic leadership — namely Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — and herself over how best to address the climate crisis.ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) during the highly anticipated rollout of her Green New Deal resolution, Ocasio-Cortez said the party was “100 percent in this together.”
“Nancy Pelosi is the leader on climate change, she has always been a leader on climate and I will not allow our caucus to be divided up on silly notions, we are in this together. We are 100 percent in this together,” she told reporters at the press conference. “We have different solutions, different mechanisms, different cars we have to drive to get there."
Her remarks contrasted with comments a day earlier from Pelosi, who appeared to diminish the significance of the Green New Deal.
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said in an interview with Politico. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”
Pelosi struck a decidedly different tone on Thursday after the resolution was introduced. She hailed the zeal of the liberal supporters pushing the plan, but still stopped short of endorsing the Green New Deal.
“Quite frankly, I haven’t seen it, but I do know that it’s enthusiastic,” she said during a press briefing that started at 10:45 a.m. ADVERTISEMENT
The resolution was made public about four hours earlier.
“We welcome all the enthusiams that are out there,” Pelosi said.
Earlier in the day, after the resolution had been released, Pelosi named eight House Democrats to a new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis — timing that some viewed as an attempt to somewhat overshadow the rollout of the Green New Deal.
Some backers of the Green New Deal said they were shocked that Pelosi announced the climate change committee members on the same day as the Green New Deal introduction.
One source with knowledge of the rollout said there was an expectation that the committee member announcement from Pelosi would come the following week.
“Our understanding is that she was going to drop it next week, and she choose to do it today as she was hearing this was being announced,” said the source.
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, disputed that account.
“No, it was never planned for next week,” he told The Hill.
The climate panel will not include Ocasio-Cortez, who had fought — unsuccessfully — to ensure the committee was empowered to draft legislation that would help lay out a path to accomplish the Green New Deal goals.
“The American people have spoken, and demanded bold action to take on the climate crisis, which is the existential threat of our time,” Pelosi said in a Thursday statement announcing the panel’s roster, led by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).
“We are thrilled to welcome so many visionary leaders and strong voices to our new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which will be vital in advancing ambitious progress for our planet,” Pelosi added.
Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats were quick to dismiss suggestions of jurisdictional tension.
“There is no greater champion of climate change issues than Nancy Pelosi,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the sponsor of the Green New Deal resolution in the Senate.
House Natural Services Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who has endorsed the Green New Deal, said he didn’t see any conflict between Thursday’s resolution and the new climate committee.
“I don't see it as duplicative; I don't see it as running counter to; and I don't see it as competitive,” Grijalva said. “I think [Pelosi’s] point is that there's due diligence to be done. Let's do it.”
Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, told reporters that she was asked to be on the special committee.
“Speaker Pelosi and I have spoken at length about climate,” she said. “She did in fact invite me to be on the committee, so I don’t think this is a snub. I don’t think it is anything like that.”
“We can have the conversation about the committee another day, but today is about looking forward and the actual legislative plan,” Ocasio-Cortez added.
When asked why she turned down the seat on the climate panel, Ocasio-Cortez said she had other committee commitments and will also be focusing on the Green New Deal resolution.
Democrats have had various disagreements over how to tackle global warming since Democrats won back the House in November. And they didn’t deny those differing viewpoints on Thursday.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued that the various panels would only shine a brighter spotlight on the climate change crisis.
“The onslaught of all of these activities is going to create a lot more attention to the issue, which is ultimately a win,” he said. “Sometimes creative tension works for the advantage of getting something moving in Congress."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), who previously ran a clean energy company and was named to the climate committee, didn’t directly criticize the Green New Deal, but indicated a more moderate pace.
“There’s a tendency to say, ‘Let’s use this committee as a place to put together a whole host of things we could pass in the 117th Congress,’” he said, referring to the session of Congress that will start in 2021.
“You have to be practical about what you can do right now,” Casten added. “There is something radical about being practical in this place.”
One of the Green New Deal’s goals is to achieve 100 percent renewable energy in the U.S. by 2030.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal measure and a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said it was typical for lawmakers to step on each other’s toes.
“There is a lot of space for people,” he said. “The select committee will do it a little different than the people who want to organize behind the Green New Deal. Every congressional committee has a role that they can play, and I think the more the merrier.”
“We’re Congress, we're always stepping on toes, including our own. That doesn’t bother me,” Blumenauer added. “If we aren’t stepping on toes we’re not moving.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429062-dems-downplay-divisions-over-green-new-deal

Return to headline | Return to top
Research Funding Legislation Returns

Feb 7, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Dylan Brown

Senators today revived two bipartisan bills bent on boosting carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) in the United States.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced the latest "Utilizing Significant Emissions With Innovative Technologies Act," S. 383.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) put forward the "Carbon Capture Modernization Act."
"Congress needs to help make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising costs on consumers," Barrasso said in a statement. "This bill supports groundbreaking innovation to address climate change. Carbon capture and utilization technologies hold the key to major emissions reductions."
The bill would direct EPA to conduct CCS research through an amendment to the Clean Air Act. It would also make CCS and carbon dioxide pipeline projects eligible for streamlined permitting under the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, the last national infrastructure package passed by Congress.
The bill would task the White House Council on Environmental Quality with creating guidance to help project developers.
The legislation also looks to extend and expand the Section 45Q tax credit for CCS projects. Under a 2018 law, projects that qualify for the tax credit must start construction by 2023.
Hoeven's bill would modify another coal tax credit, Section 48A, to encourage more CCS use.
Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) was a key champion of both bills, as well as the Furthering Carbon Capture, Utilization, Technology, Underground Storage and Reduced Emissions Act that passed last year (E&E Daily, Nov. 6, 2018). Her Republican replacement, Sen. Kevin Cramer, is a co-sponsor of both bills introduced today.
"We've proven we can pass sensible bills like this with broad bipartisan support," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "Now let's do it again."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/02/07/stories/1060119969

Return to headline | Return to top
House Democrats Highlight State Climate Efforts Amid Trump Inaction

Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

As part of their initial blitz of Capitol Hill hearings on climate change, House Democrats are seeking to spotlight efforts by a bipartisan group of state officials to both fight global warming and adapt to its impacts, contrasting those policies with the Trump administration’s climate rollbacks and its spurning of international commitments.
The dynamic was on display at a Feb. 6 hearing hosted by the Natural Resources Committee, which featured testimony from two East Coast governors, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) and Massachusetts Gov. Charles Baker (R), both of whom have joined the 20-state U.S. Climate Alliance formed in response to President Donald Trump’s pledge to leave the Paris climate deal.
At the hearing, panel Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) pressed the governors on measures they are taking to curb greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate-related risks, in lieu of federal action.
“The Trump administration chooses to mock science and mislead the public about what our country will look like if we do nothing,” he said in his opening statement. “President Trump seeks to expand fossil fuel production on public lands, roll back protections for clean air and clean water, suppress the role of science, and turn his back on international agreements. That’s why states, local community leaders, businesses and many others are stepping up.”
The state leaders responded by stressing that harmful climate impacts are already occurring. In his testimony, Cooper focused on the flooding and other damage done to North Carolina by recent major hurricanes, saying the state has been hit by two “500-year” floods within two years, and three such floods within 20 years. He further cited extreme heat that has killed poultry, and the Defense Department’s listing of military installations in the state as vulnerable to wildfires and rising seas.
It is not enough just to “pick up the pieces,” Cooper said, adding that action is necessary to curb GHGs that cause climate change. States need flexibility to use federal funding for disaster relief to build “resiliency” for the next extreme weather event, he added.
“I urge this Congress and all our federal partners to match the same level of determination brought to disaster recovery in our fight to reduce the effects of climate change,” Cooper said.
Among the climate mitigation measures North Carolina has taken since Cooper took office in 2017 are his executive order setting a goal to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2025, to increase building efficiency and promote zero-emission vehicles. Cooper further touted steps the state is taking to reduce the vulnerability of coastal areas to storms, including relocating people and buildings most at risk.
The Tar Heel State governor stressed that “we need federal legislation and regulation” to support technological innovation and help states achieve their climate goals. On the costs of fighting climate change, Cooper said “we can’t afford not to take urgent action.”
With respect to federal measures, he said “we don’t want to roll back environmental safeguards.” He also stressed the need for the United States to be a “world leader once again,” drawing an implicit contrast with Trump’s vow to leave the Paris Agreement.
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) pressed Cooper on the benefits of the forest products industry in North Carolina, specifically the wood pellet industry now supplying European countries with biomass fuel they deem carbon neutral under their carbon emissions trading program.
The Trump administration also views biomass power as carbon neutral, though many environmentalists strongly oppose this stance because they argue it is speculative to rely on future forest regrowth to offset high, upfront emissions from biomass combustion. Advocates have also cited pellet plants themselves as a major source of air pollution.
This dynamic put Cooper in an awkward position. “We need to be careful about going too far with it,” he said, acknowledging “concern” about the wood pellet industry. Asked about the European demand for wood pellets, Cooper declared, “I don’t know about that.”
Can’t Solve ‘Alone’
Baker, meanwhile, touted his state’s embrace of offshore wind energy as part of its broad strategy to curb GHGs, emphasizing the cost-effectiveness of recent projects achieved by competitive bidding. He also cited the importance of energy storage in making renewable energy sources a more attractive and practical choice over fossil fuels.
The Bay State governor stressed states’ progress on climate, but also cited the need for federal engagement. “I am proud of our record of climate leadership in Massachusetts, and there is much to learn from how states and regions have approached this issue; but states cannot solve this problem alone,” he said in written testimony.
He added: “We need strong federal leadership and a bold bipartisan vision on climate change that seeks compromise and prioritizes practical market-based solutions, while affording states the flexibility to design strategies that work for their unique challenges while continuing to grow their economies.”
Baker also leveled some direct criticisms at the Trump administration. “We believe it is essential to establish federal emission reduction targets that can vary by state or region with policy flexibility for states to design solutions that work for their unique circumstances,” he said, in contrast to Trump’s reticence to set federal climate goals.
Baker cited the Trump EPA’s proposed rollback of Obama-era vehicle fuel economy standards as a particular problem for Massachusetts, where mobile source emissions are a significant contributor to GHGs and air pollution.
“Our transportation sector targets are particularly important now. While predictability and compromise have made cost-competitive renewable energy projects possible, recent proposals to roll back the current federal fuel economy standards are creating uncertainty for the automobile industry and will undermine national and state emission progress,” he said.
Massachusetts recently joined other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to adopt stricter emissions targets out to 2030 in their power sector cap-and-trade program, and many of the same states in the region are pledging to craft a carbon pricing program for the transport sector by the end of this year.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-democrats-highlight-state-climate-efforts-amid-trump-inaction

Return to headline | Return to top
A ‘Green New Deal’ Is Far From Reality, but Climate Action Is Picking Up in the States

Feb 8, 2019 | New York Times

By Brad Plumer

Even though talk of a “Green New Deal” is getting louder in Congress, the odds of major federal climate legislation passing in the next two years remain extremely low.
It’s a different story at the state level, however: The midterm elections in the fall brought in a new wave of governors who are now setting climate goals for their states and laying out more ambitious plans to cut emissions and expand low-carbon energy.
In the past month, newly elected Democratic governors in Michigan, Illinois and New Mexico have joined the United States Climate Alliance, a group of 19 states and Puerto Rico that has vowed to uphold the Paris climate agreement despite President Trump’s disavowal of the accord. With the new additions, the alliance now covers one-third of America’s greenhouse gas emissions and nearly half its population.
“It essentially says to the world that Michigan is going to live up to the promise that we, as a country, made at one point” to address climate change, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan said when she announced that her state would join the alliance and establish a new office of climate and energy.
States can only do so much to tackle global warming by themselves. But they can serve as laboratories of sorts, testing which climate policies work well and which ones are ineffective or too costly. And, by advancing technologies like wind, solar or electric vehicles, they could pave the way for more ambitious federal action — should that moment ever arrive.
Here are some of the biggest steps states have taken recently on climate policy.
More wind and solar power
For years, the go-to climate move for states has been to require utilities to use more renewable electricity, a task made easier by the rapid decline in costs for wind and solar power. Governors are now poised to accelerate those policies.
In Maine, the new governor, Janet Mills, a Democrat, has vowed to restore incentives for rooftop solar and to boost wind power locally — moves that had been stymied by her Republican predecessor.
In New Mexico, another Democrat, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, is backing a bill requiring electric utilities to get 50 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2030, keeping pace with neighbors like Colorado and Nevada.
(Nevada voters in November approvedtheir own requirement for 50 percent renewables by 2030.)
The most striking development, though, has been the array of governors who are now floating plans for their states to get 100 percent of their electricity from zero-carbon sources. Legislators in California and Hawaii have already set deadlines for utilities to meet this target by 2045. In recent months, the governors of Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey and New York have pledged to pursue similar goals.
These states are all venturing into uncharted territory, and there’s no guarantee they will succeed. As states rely on ever-larger amounts of wind and solar power, it becomes more challenging to juggle these intermittent sources. Getting all the way to 100 percent zero-carbon electricity, experts say, could require extensive new nationwide transmission lines, novel energy storage techniques or help from untested technologies like advanced nuclear power.
For now, states are experimenting with varied approaches. Hawaii, for example, wants to meet its goal entirely through renewable energy. In New Jersey, by contrast, Gov. Philip D. Murphy signed legislation to keep his state’s nuclear plants open as part of a broader low-carbon portfolio. And New York is soliciting bids for large new offshore wind farms.
Cutting pollution from cars
Electricity is responsible for about one-third of America’s carbon dioxide emissions. To go further, states will also have to clean up the cars and trucks on their roads, which account for another third.
In December, nine Eastern states and the District of Columbia announced they would work together to put a price on emissions from transportation fuels and invest the revenue in lower-carbon solutions, potentially including mass transit, electric buses or new charging stations to make it easier for people to own plug-in vehicles.
Some of the states involved, like Pennsylvania and Maryland, are in danger of missing their self-imposed climate goals unless they can halt the stubborn rise in driving emissions.
While the finer details of the policy will be hashed out this year, the states are modeling their efforts after the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade system in the Northeast that auctions a steadily dwindling supply of carbon pollution permits to power plants and uses the revenue to invest in efficiency and clean energy programs.
“Transportation is going to be even more complex than electricity — there are so many moving parts,” said Vicki Arroyo, the executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center, which has been working closely with the states on the initiative. But, she said, referring to Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont, “It’s notable that we have three Republican governors here who are committed to stepping up on this.”
More carbon pricing
In November, voters in Washington State rejected a ballot initiative to impose a statewide tax on carbon emissions — a sign that putting a price on carbon, a favorite solution of many economists, remains a tough sell politically.
But the idea is far from dead: In neighboring Oregon, the Legislature is now considering a statewide cap-and-trade system that would put a price on emissions from a wide range of polluters, including manufacturers, paper mills, refineries and utilities. (Oregon already gets the vast majority of its electricity from hydropower dams, so it has less room to expand renewable power than other states.) The bill faces a tough battle, but if it were to pass, Oregon could link up with California and Quebec to create a carbon trading system.
Elsewhere, New Jersey and Virginia are planning to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Although Virginia’s governor, Ralph Northam, a Democrat, has faced intense pressure to resign over a racist yearbook photo, state regulators are still laying the groundworkto participate in the cap-and-trade program.
How far can states go?
In September, a report by America’s Pledge, a coalition of states, cities and businesses that have promised to stick with the Paris Agreement, found that current state and city climate policies would, if followed through, get the United States about two-thirds of the way toward its commitment under the accord.
Nathan Hultman, an author of that report and director of the Center for Global Sustainability at the University of Maryland, said the flurry of new state policies could help push the United States closer to its Paris goal, a reduction of emissions at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, though it would take time to gauge their full impact.
“It’s still the case that federal leadership is going to be absolutely essential, and right now that’s absent,” he said. “But we also knew that federal action alone wasn’t going to be enough, because so many important decisions have to be made at the state and city level. And one thing we’ve seen in the past two years is that states are starting to think seriously about what more they can actually do to deliver real and meaningful emissions reductions.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/climate/states-global-warming.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Leaves Air Toxics Limits for Friction Materials Unchanged

Feb 7, 2019 | Inside EPA

EPA in a final rule slated for release in the Feb. 8 Federal Register is leaving unchanged its Clean Air Act toxics emission limits for manufacturing of friction materials such as brake and clutch components, following a risk-and-technology (RTR) review for the sector that finds no need for stricter limits to protect public health.
The final rule conforms to a recent Trump EPA pattern of leaving emissions limits unchanged after RTRs, which are required by the Clean Air Act eight years after the agency first issues an air toxics rule for an industry sector. If the agency finds that public health threats remain high from a sector’s emissions, or if new air pollution control technology exists to further cut emissions, the agency can revise its years-old air toxics rules.
As with other Trump RTR rules, the frictions materials rule eliminates regulatory exemptions for excess emissions released during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), to comply with rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finding such exemptions unlawful.
The friction materials rule also alters reporting and recordkeeping requirements for plants manufacturing these products. Other Trump RTR rules have tended to provide industry with more flexibility in recordkeeping and reporting, sometimes weakening compliance provisions.
For example, a contested RTR rule for the cement sector left emissions limits in place. But that rule grants a grace period from compliance that environmentalists suing over the rule in the D.C. Circuit suit Downwinders at Risk, et al v. EPA, et al say is open to abuse by the industry to avoid meeting emissions limits.
However, the friction materials rule does not on its face appear to loosen reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
According to EPA, the new final rule applies to two facilities in the United States that are considered “major” sources of air toxics, meaning that they emit more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs. EPA predicts the rule will have no emissions impact, as the plants already comply with their emissions limits even during SSM periods.
The agency has recently issued guidance, to be followed by a formal rule, allowing major HAP sources to escape maximum available control technology (MACT) emissions controls by reducing their emissions to below these regulatory thresholds and hence being considered “area” sources. Environmentalists and the State of California are suing EPA over the guidance, which they claim will result in plants reducing their emissions to just below the thresholds in order to escape stringent MACT controls, resulting in an increase in emissions, not a decrease.
Further, in a departure from the trend with other RTR rules, EPA’s proposed RTR to modify the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants does propose eased acid gas limits for a small number of power plants burning waste coal -- although the proposal would otherwise leave MATS emissions limits unchanged. Environmentalists say EPA cannot lawfully use RTRs to weaken emissions controls.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-leaves-air-toxics-limits-friction-materials-unchanged

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Lacks Authority to Undo Mercury Power Rule, Top Lawyer Says

Feb 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid and Abby Smith

The EPA can’t legally withdraw Obama-era toxic air pollution standards for power plants, even as it rewrites the cost justification for those limits, the agency’s top lawyer said Feb. 7.
“We don’t believe we have the legal authority to do that,” EPA General Counsel Matthew Z. Leopold said at the Environmental Law 2019 conference. He cited a 2008 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in New Jersey v. EPA that “closed that door.”
In that decision, the D.C. Circuit struck down the Bush administration’s Clean Air Mercury rule, which had sought to use a market-based mechanism to control mercury from power plants. The EPA under the Obama administration issued new requirements in 2012 for controlling mercury from power plants, but those standards and their cost justification were also challenged in court.
The Trump administration proposed Feb. 7 to reconsider how the cost justification was reached. The proposal would eliminate calculation of the rule’s indirect benefits—reductions of particulate pollution—and show that they are outweighed by the power industry’s compliance costs reducing mercury. Environmental advocates have raised the alarm that the move is a predicate to undoing the 2012 limits.
‘Can’t Get Rid’
But Leopold said the D.C. Circuit was very specific in the 2008 case that the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to delist the electric power sector from toxic air pollution standards, which he added would be “a predicate to any kind of getting rid of emissions standards.”
The agency, he said, has to meet a health-based standard articulated in the Clean Air Act.
“We don’t think that based on the New Jersey case we could delist the source category,” Leopold told Bloomberg Environment on the sidelines of the conference. “So that means, if you can’t delist the source category, you can’t get rid of the emissions standards for mercury.”
Leopold’s comments come as EPA officials, including acting head Andrew Wheeler and air chief Bill Wehrum, have repeatedly sought to reassure the numerous electric power industry groups, Democratic lawmakers, and environmental groups that the EPA’s proposed reconsideration (RIN 2060–AT99) of the costs wasn’t a prelude to getting rid of the 2012 standards.
Specific Statute
Leopold also suggested the EPA might not be able to adjust or weaken the 2012 standards due to prior case law.
“The standards are very specific in terms of setting the maximum achievable control technology, or MACT,” Leopold said.. “The recipe, if you will, for MACT is very specific, as well, so again we’re controlled by our setting of MACT and the specific statutory requirements.”
But environmentalists point out the EPA asked for comment in its proposal on how to approach the 2012 standards.
“There was no need for this proposal,” said Vicki Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
Leopold, though said the agency’s asking for comment on its proposed rulemaking “is a way to make the standards more defensible.”
The agency will be accepting comments on its proposal until April 7.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-lacks-authority-to-undo-mercury-power-rule-top-lawyer-says

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested