Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 2/12/2019
-
States Ramp up Chemicals Management Legislation Despite TSCA Reform
Feb 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
At least 22 states are ramping up efforts to approve chemicals management legislation despite the sweeping overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that some proponents hoped would end a patchwork of state chemicals rules... -
(ACC Mentioned) How Trump Administration Has Pulled Back on Regulating Toxic Chemicals
Feb 12, 2019 | Yale Environment 360
By Eric Lipton
TCE is a clear, colorless liquid with a sweet odor that has proven itself for decades as an especially effective way for dry-cleaning shops to lift stubborn stains off of clothing, be it eye makeup, shoe polish, or ballpoint ink. -
(ACC Mentioned) Anchorage Assembly Considers Ban of Potentially Dangerous Fire Retardant Chemicals
Feb 12, 2019 | KTUU
By Derek Minemyer
Products meant originally to increase escape time during residential fires have been associated with adverse health affects, and the Anchorage Assembly is working to ban them for good. -
New York Times Editorial On Cosmetic Safety Misses The Mark
Feb 11, 2019 | American Council on Science and Health
By Josh Bloom
A recent New York Times editorial"Cosmetics Safety Needs a Makeover" calls for better FDA regulation of the ingredients found in cosmetics. -
Retailers At Risk From New Glyphosate Liability Theories
Feb 12, 2019 | Law 360
By Lori Elliott Jarvis, Elizabeth Reese and Emily Mordecai
Glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, dominated headlines in 2018, as Monsanto battled thousands of lawsuits brought by consumers claiming that the chemical causes cancer. -
Arctic Drilling Ban in House Faces Headwinds in Senate
Feb 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A bipartisan House bill seeks to ban oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but it faces uphill battle in the Senate given efforts by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to open drilling in a 2017 tax law. -
Pipeline Safety Rule Gets Support from U.S. Industry Groups
Feb 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard and Austin Weinstein
A coalition of pipeline industry organizations has reached an agreement with U.S. federal regulators over new safety measures and is asking them to finalize a new rule that will mandate how natural-gas conduits are inspected. -
California Bill Would Impose Oil and Gas Extraction Tax
Feb 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Mahoney
A California senator wants to impose a 10 percent tax on oil and natural gas extracted in the state. -
NYC Weighs Plan to Shut down All Fossil Fuel Plants
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
New York City officials want to explore exactly how soon renewables and battery storage could displace natural gas as the Big Apple's core source of backup power. -
To Cut Carbon Emissions, the Nuclear Option Isn't Optional
Feb 12, 2019 | The Hill - Opinion
By Maria Korsnick
Climate is taking center stage in the 116th Congress: the U.S. House of Representatives is held its first hearings on climate change, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced legislation for a Green New Deal. -
FRA Issues CRISI Grants For 18 Rail Projects
Feb 11, 2019 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) last week announced the award of $56 million in grant funding for 18 rail projects in 16 states. -
EPA Faces Broad Criticism over Compliance Delays for Ozone NAAQS
Feb 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is facing broad criticism from environmentalists on its proposal to give areas around the country an additional year to attain a 2008 federal ozone standard and avoid a “bump-up” to more stringent emissions control requirements, with critics saying the areas’ ozone... -
New York Plans to Sue EPA Over Smog From Upwind States
Feb 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
New York plans to sue the EPA after waiting months for a response to a March petition seeking a crackdown on ozone pollution from nine upwind states. -
States Are Already Working on 'Green New Deal'
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Green New Dealers found themselves at loggerheads last week. Members of the nascent movement agree that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an urgent priority. -
Trump Tells Texans 'Green New Deal' Won't Happen
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
President Trump again took aim at the "Green New Deal" last night during a campaign event in El Paso, Texas, mocking the landmark climate resolution as an unrealistic "high school term paper." -
Democrats Press EPA on Rule Rollbacks
Feb 11, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Niina Heikkinen
House Democrats are renewing pressure on EPA to explain rollbacks for three major climate rules in the face of experts' warnings of the urgent need to cut greenhouse gas emissions globally. -
Lawmakers Float Resolution Rebuking Trump on Paris Exit
Feb 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
More than 50 House Democrats and a lone Republican are co-sponsoring a resolution rebuking President Donald Trump for his plan to exit the Paris climate Agreement and affirming Congress’ support for the international deal.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
States Ramp up Chemicals Management Legislation Despite TSCA Reform
Feb 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
At least 22 states are ramping up efforts to approve chemicals management legislation despite the sweeping overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that some proponents hoped would end a patchwork of state chemicals rules, with observers saying states are “filling in” regulatory gaps EPA cannot address under the toxics law.
A recent analysis from Safer States, a coalition of national and state-based environmental groups, lists some 97 news bills in 22 states, ranging from Alaska to Mississippi. The bills target individual chemicals or substances, or groups of chemicals, for elimination or reduction, a change from some states' efforts before TSCA reform when they sought to establish their own chemicals management programs.
“We've seen a lot more states going after chemical classes,” Safer States' Strategic Advisor Gretchen Salter tells Inside EPA, adding that many of the bills are seeking to address exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or organohalogen flame retardants.
“States are really tired of the whack-a-mole approach,” she said, referring to the not uncommon situation where a toxic or otherwise problematic chemical is replaced by a substitute with similar or different concerns.
Safer States' website shows 12 states have proposed bills on PFAS, while 14 states have proposed bills on flame retardants. Salter also described a trend of bills proposing disclosure of chemicals in products, such as the cleaning product disclosure laws that California and New York have passed in recent years.
Asked to explain states' continued interest in legislating on chemicals in the wake of TSCA reform, Salter said “the problem is incredibly massive. [The original] TSCA was a failure. There is a lot of work to be done, and states can't just rely on EPA alone. States are filling in where EPA can't get to it.”
An industry source says that comprehensive state chemical management bills fell out of favor following TSCA reform, in part because of the more robust EPA chemicals program the law created, and because of the cost and enormity of the work. As the revised TSCA took effect and gave EPA new powers to regulate chemicals, “many organizations with a presence in the states were touting what [it] could do for chemicals management,” the source says.
“And quite frankly, some states, like California, can afford to do things like that, but it’s a heck of an undertaking for smaller states,” the source adds.
But Salter, like many other critics of the original TSCA, pointed to the thousands of chemicals that EPA has not assessed and has little information about -- a legacy of the 1976 TSCA's language largely grandfathering existing chemicals, those that were on the market in 1976, and those that EPA has since allowed to enter the market through its new chemicals program.
The industry source agrees that states' interest in regulating chemicals persists despite the sweeping TSCA revisions signed into law in June 2016. “We've seen a good number of bills into this year, and last year, and the year before that,” the source says.
A major driver for industry to join other stakeholders in TSCA reform efforts was the growing number of states' legislative efforts, which they feared would disrupt interstate commerce. But the industry source acknowledges that “it's tough with TSCA. … Sometimes states don't like the feds telling them what to do."
The source noted that there have also been “some big political shifts” in state legislatures in the last election, with “a number of big shifts in state legislatures previously held by Republicans.”
Some states are “not seeing what EPA is doing. TSCA is not a one-day thing. It's a very pragmatic approach; I think everyone who understands that appreciates that,” the source adds.
‘Slow Process’
Salter agrees that regulating chemicals under TSCA is “a slow process,” though she argues that the Trump administration is in part at fault. “The Trump EPA has really shown itself to not be interested in doing anything but the chemical industry's bidding,” she said.
As an example, she points to the administration's failure to complete a ban on methylene chloride in paint stripping products that the Obama EPA proposed. The proposal has since lingered without action until EPA sent the rule to the White House for review in January. Many suspect the rule bans only consumer products containing methylene chloride, and not commercial products, a change to the original proposal that environmentalists are protesting.
“People are literally dying from [using] paint strippers,” Salter said of the potent, methylene chloride-containing products. It's pretty clear to the states that EPA is not going to act. … It's not like there's a debate about the science” on methylene chloride's toxicity.
Safer States' list includes two states, Maryland and New Jersey, whose legislatures are considering bans on methylene chloride and an alternative, n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), in paint stripping products. The Obama EPA also proposed banning NMP's use in paint stripping products, but the status of that rule is unclear.
The industry source, however, protests the idea that the Trump EPA is not acting. “With TSCA, EPA is vilified as not doing anything. We know that's not true,” the source says. “They're meeting all their deadlines. It's yeoman's work.”The source adds that most states are “very early on in their legislative sessions” so it is unclear how far the bills in the Safer States' roundup will advance, or if additional bills may be introduced over the course of the legislative season. “There are a lot of bills, but [the legislatures] may spend all their time on other issues that in their minds are more important for states,” the source says. “We haven't reached the number of bills that were introduced last session.”
Most states' sessions end in June, while just a handful of states have legislatures that meet year-round, the source says. Noting that most states also are required to pass a budget, the source says some by statute or practice tackle the budget before considering any other legislation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-ramp-chemicals-management-legislation-despite-tsca-reform
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Trump Administration Has Pulled Back on Regulating Toxic Chemicals
Feb 12, 2019 | Yale Environment 360
By Eric Lipton
TCE is a clear, colorless liquid with a sweet odor that has proven itself for decades as an especially effective way for dry-cleaning shops to lift stubborn stains off of clothing, be it eye makeup, shoe polish, or ballpoint ink. NMP is another all-but-magic solvent, although it usually has a slightly yellow tint and a fishy odor. It is such a potent paint remover that if you spray it on a wall — as many city governments have done for years — you then can use a rag to simply wipe graffiti away.
There is just one complication with both of these modern conveniences: These substances are extremely harmful to your health. In fact, high levels of exposure to TCE in particular can kill you, while NMP causes birth defects, research shows.
That’s the reason that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in late 2016, moved to ban many of the ways these two products are used, as well as uses of a third even more toxic chemical called methylene chloride, which has been blamed in dozens of deaths.
This was a revolutionary step by the EPA For the prior 25 years, the agency had been paralyzed when it came to regulating toxic chemicals, after a court ruling in 1991 had effectively curtailed its ability to remove known hazards like asbestos from the market. But thanks to landmark legislation passed by Congress in 2016, the EPA’s powers were now clear again, and it was poised to enter a new era of activity on behalf of the public’s health as it aggressively moved to remove from the marketplace widely used chemicals that were known to cause serious health threats or even death.
“For the first time in a generation, we are able to restrict chemicals already in commerce that pose risks to public health and the environment,” Jim Jones, then the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in December 2016, as he proudly announced the planned ban on certain uses of TCE. “Once finalized, today’s action will help protect consumers and workers from cancer and other serious health risks.”
At least that was the plan. But then came the Trump administration. More than two years later, no final action has been taken on any of these three proposed bans. And while the agency has said it soon intends to move at least on methylene chloride, no action is currently planned for TCE or NMP, despite the well-established public health threats associated with both these chemicals.
Similarly, on pesticides, the Trump-era EPA rejected a proposed ban on the use of chlorpyrifos, which is used on more than 60 crops, particularly in California, and has been blamed for sickening farm workers and causing development disabilities in their children. Instead, the EPA has agreed to simply to do more studies on the threats of chlorpyrifos.
The pullback on the planned restrictions on these substances reflects the massive shift in management and regulatory philosophy that has taken place at the EPA during the Trump era — not just in the way it handles toxic chemicals, but across the agency’s public health and environmental mission, from the way it protects clean air and clean water to efforts to combat climate change.
This has not simply been the typical pendulum swing that occurs anytime the party in charge at the White House flips.
Jones, the former EPA official, was no tree-hugging liberal. He had spent 30 years at the agency, under both Democrat and Republican administrations, and after he left the EPA in early 2017 he took a job with an industry trade association that represents major industrial chemical companies such as the BASF Corporation.
But well before 2016, it had been obvious to just about anyone who tracked how toxic chemicals are regulated in the United States that the time had finally come for the EPA to make some tough choices — choices that in some cases meant restricting the use of certain chemicals that might be profitable sales lines for the manufacturers. Yet once the agency had documented that specific chemicals were clearly a threat to public health, it needed to be able to move to prohibit their use.
The federal government had fallen so far behind in this task that major retailers like Wal-Mart and Target had become de facto regulators, as they were making decisions to stop selling certain harmful products, including methylene chloride, even before the EPA took action.
As a reporter at The New York Times based in Washington, I have had a particular interest in how the EPA regulates toxic chemicals and pesticides, given just how directly decisions related to these products impact the daily lives of so many people in this country — from farmworkers and dry-cleaning shop employees, to homeowners and consumers.
Prior to the election of President Trump, I specialized in writing about corporate lobbying in Washington, looking at such topics as how the pharmaceutical industry worked to kill off any price controls, or how the energy industry successfully moved during the Obama administration to get the ban on the export of crude oil lifted.
Once Trump moved into the White House, I watched his team fill key spots across federal agencies. Every president appoints experts who have views that reflect his own, and these people have work experience in the fields and industry sectors they are charged with helping to regulate.
David McIntosh, a former air pollution attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of the country’s most influential environmental groups, took a job early in the Obama administration as a senior legislative adviser to then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Michael Goo, NRDC’s former legislative director on climate issues, soon thereafter joined McIntosh at the EPA and helped Jackson craft what would become the Clean Power Plan; after leaving the EPA, Goo was hired by NRDC as a lobbyist.
o why is it any different that the Trump administration appointed a former American Chemistry Council executive, Nancy Beck, to help oversee toxic chemical regulation, or that the EPA itself is now run by a former coal lobbyist and the Interior Department is run by a former oil industry lobbyist? That is a question I get asked frequently, particularly by conservatives.
My answer is that both sides — liberals and conservatives — do basically stack the decks, filling key jobs with people who are sympathetic to their world views and committed to executing on that mission. But there is something materially different about this alignment in the Trump era — it is such an extreme flipping of roles, with huge consequences on public policy.
Beck, in her role as a top executive at the American Chemistry Council — a trade association that represents an industry that sells at least $500 billion worth of products each year — had helped lead the charge against the regulation of certain toxic chemicals and against the rules the EPA intended to use to decide when their use should be banned or restricted.
Within a matter of weeks of her arrival at the EPA, Beck was dictating major revisions in proposed EPA policies detailing how the agency was going to define “risk” and prioritize which chemicals it would examine. The changes she ordered reflected arguments, almost word for word, that she had pushed as an industry advocate. She engineered these changes over the strong objection of long-time EPA professional staff.
And that was just the first of a long series of steps that have been taken that repeatedly suggest the agency is moving, with a certain urgency, to protect the interests of chemical manufacturers.
Consider the letter sent in March 2017 to the EPA by a group known as the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, a trade association that represents makers of TCE and other chemicals. The group urged the EPA to “withdraw the proposed rule” banning certain uses of TCE, arguing that the proposed move by the agency, which was made after years of study, was “based on a very deficient risk assessment.” The industry group backed up this plea with two in-person, private meetings at the EPA headquarters, agency records show.
The chemical manufacturers also asked Squire Patton Boggs, one of the most prominent lobbying firms in Washington, to intervene with the House of Representatives to press the Republican-controlled body to pressure EPA to slow down any ban on TCE, NMP, or methylene chloride.
Soon enough, language had been written into the annual House appropriations report for the EPA asking (although not mandating) that the agency drop the proposed bans, using language that not so coincidentally echoed the pleas that the industry group had made directly to the EPA.
Separately, the industry group joined with other chemical and pesticide manufacturers in challenging the way the EPA evaluates academic and medical research, attacking what critics of the EPA have called “secret science.” The industry group cited what it called “the transparency problem” with the research that the EPA had in part relied on to conclude that TCE contamination of drinking water was a cause of heart defects in newborn children. The “data quality concern” was “sufficient to preclude” the study “from being used as the basis for regulation,” the industry contended.
So just what has the EPA done?
As requested by the chemical industry, it is no longer moving ahead with the proposed rule to ban TCE and NMP, and instead has restarted the process to broadly re-evaluate these two toxic chemicals. This has caused a major delay, which as far as the chemical industry is concerned is a victory. Sales can continue, unimpeded.
The proposal to ban the commercial use of methylene chloride as a paint stripper is still being considered, but the draft final rule now awaiting final action by the White House would significantly narrow the ban, according to information collected from environmental groups, as it would likely only apply to sales to consumers, not commercial users of the product.
And the EPA is considering a proposed new rule called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science that would — just as the chemical industry wants — restrict the agency’s ability to rely on certain research, if the data is not publicly available. Scientists and environmentalists have noted that key health research data often cannot be released due to privacy issues. Yet the proposed new E.P.A rule would likely knock out dozens of studies that have found harm caused by toxic chemicals and pesticides and make it harder for the EPA to justify any move to ban or restrict their use.
And what about the apparent conflict of interest that Beck had, as she switched from fighting the EPA to try to block restrictions on certain toxic chemicals to helping run the office that adjudicated these matters?
The Trump-era EPA simply issued two separate “impartiality determinations” that allow Beck to participate in these debates, citing that her “unique expertise, knowledge, and prior experience will ensure that the Agency is able to consider all perspectives, including that of the regulated industry’s major trade association.”
The regulated, in short, had become the regulators. And then the ethics office had signed off on this role reversal as the new norm.
So what does this mean for public health? Consider chlorpyrifos: About 6 million pounds are sprayed onto fields nationwide each year — particularly on such crops as almonds, alfalfa, and citrus. If President Trump had not been elected, that pesticide would almost certainly now be off the market. The EPA in late 2016 had started the process of banning chlorpyrifos, before Trump’s first EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, overrode that effort in March 2017, just a month after he took office.
Instead, the spraying continues, as do the cases of workers falling ill — and reports of childhood respiratory complications, developmental disorders and lower I.Q.s.
It is a choice the Trump-era EPA has made.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-trump-administration-has-pulled-back-on-regulating-toxic-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) Anchorage Assembly Considers Ban of Potentially Dangerous Fire Retardant Chemicals
Feb 12, 2019 | KTUU
By Derek Minemyer
Products meant originally to increase escape time during residential fires have been associated with adverse health affects, and the Anchorage Assembly is working to ban them for good.
Flame retardant chemicals, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, have been used since the 1970's in home furnishings, electronics, construction materials, and more. In the last decade or so, the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences has studied these chemicals because of their abundance in the environment and their impact on human health -- finding growing evidence that the chemicals affect the endocrine, immune, reproductive, and nervous systems. Some studies have shown long-term exposure can even lead to cancer.
For these reasons, the Anchorage Fire Department, Health Department, Assembly, and grassroots organizations are working to ban the sale and manufacture of the chemicals. AFD Fire Chief Jodie Hettrick remembers two prominent figures in the fire service family who are believed to have died after contracting cancer from long-term exposure to toxic gases while in the line of duty.
"In Alaska, we have two significant cases: Andy Mullen, we lost not very long ago to cancer directly related to his work with the fire Department. And in the Fairbanks area we lost Chief Phil Rounds — same thing," Hettrick said. "Both of them were a big loss to the fire service family. Andy, because Andy was such a great guy and he contributed so much to this community, and Chief Rounds, who was a mentor to many of us."
Anchorage Assembly Chair Eric Croft sponsored the ordinance proposing the ban of flame retardant chemicals by 2020, which will be introduced for public testimony at Tuesday's regular Assembly meeting.
“We know that it increases risk. And we know for some firefighters, that have died because of cancer related to their firefighting work. And we know having these in homes when there’s a fire poses a big risk to firefighters," Croft said. "So it’s a risk to our children who are crawling around on it, it’s a risk to our firefighters, and it’s a risk we can eliminate. We don’t need it.”
Croft says the proposed ban has encountered opposition from a group representing the chemical industry, the American Chemistry Council.
“The American Chemistry Counsel, chemical industry, continues to oppose any even responsible legislation. So that was kind of sad," Croft said. "But I think we’re going to make a local decision. I’m not going to make a decision on my constituents’ behalf based on what a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council says.”
The Environmental Health and Justice Research and Advocacy Organization is no stranger to these lobbying efforts, says Executive Director Pamela Miller, who has been working to ban these chemicals in Alaska for over a decade.
“They have the resources, and the people, and the money to go and oppose these types of public policies anywhere they appear, whether it’s Massachusetts, or California, or Alaska," Miler said. "They are there to oppose these types of measures, even though we know that phasing out these harmful flame retardants is important to protect public health.”
The North American Flame Retardant Alliance, NAFRA, an extension of the American Chemistry Council, released a statement outlining their opposition to the Assembly ordinance:
"Flame retardants are an important component of a comprehensive approach to fire safety. They can provide an important layer of fire protection by stopping or delaying the onset or spread of fires. Finally, (the ordinance) will have the unintended consequence of putting Anchorage’s retailers and small businesses at a competitive disadvantage. The ordinance would impose a broad range of restrictions and obligations that are significantly different and inconsistent with existing state and federal regulations contributing to an even further fragmented regulatory environment for business."
Jodie Hettrick is a career firefighter, with over 30 years in service to her community. She says firefighters are comfortable taking risks to keep people safe so that others don't have to. It's upsetting to her that the science is there showing a correlation between exposure to certain flame retardant chemicals and impacts on health, but the chemical industry still follows a business-first model.
"It’s an expectation that you would hope that corporate America would be looking out for the best interest of the public that they serve, but they follow a different model than we do in public service," she said. "That’s not their motto is public service and safety. If it was, maybe they would look at the science and we would have some different products.”
The ordinance will be made open for public testimony at the Assembly Chambers at Loussac Library in Anchorage Tues., February 12, starting at 6:00 p.m.
https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Anchorage-Assembly-considers-ban-of-potentially-dangerous-fire-retardant-chemicals-505707211.html
-
New York Times Editorial On Cosmetic Safety Misses The Mark
Feb 11, 2019 | American Council on Science and Health
By Josh Bloom
A recent New York Times editorial"Cosmetics Safety Needs a Makeover" calls for better FDA regulation of the ingredients found in cosmetics.
While this may be an admirable endeavor, the intended goal of improving cosmetic safety can only be met if regulations are based on sound science. Although it is not unreasonable for the Times Editorial Board to call for an update of FDA regulations of cosmetics (they were last updated in 1938), the board makes a common error in evaluating toxicology -- the omission of dose (exposure) in determining the magnitude of risk, if any, of the chemical in question.
In the absence of information about exposure, almost any chemical can be made to sound scary and harmful, when, in fact, its risk may be minuscule or even nonexistent. Following are some examples of chemicals that were featured in the editorial.
1. Formaldehyde
Although the statement above is technically true, it sends a misleading and incorrect message -- that trace amounts of formaldehyde in cosmetics will give you cancer. It will not.We consume small amounts of formaldehyde every day. The chemical is found naturally in a wide variety of foods, such as fruit, vegetables, seafood, and meat. Our bodies are capable of rapidly detoxifying formaldehyde within minutes.Not only can we detoxify formaldehyde, but we actually need it. Formaldehyde is an essential building block of DNA, which means it is required for all life - from humans down to bacteria. To ensure that there is adequate formaldehyde to make DNA living organisms make it using a metabolic process called the "one-carbon pathway." (1) In this process, formaldehyde is synthesized, used and then detoxified. It has been estimated that 50,000 mg - tens of thousands of times more than we would ever encounter from cosmetics or apple juice - of formaldehyde is turned over daily in the human body.
2. Lead
It is indisputable that lead is a neurotoxin. But do trace quantities of lead in cosmetics present a real risk to either adults or children? Historical data on children's blood lead levels (BLL) suggest that the risk, if any, is small. With the advent of unleaded gasoline and the ban on lead paint, blood levels of the element have markedly decreased in the past 60 years.
Additionally, my colleague Alex Berezow, has written that even during the Flint "water crisis" average BLLs were lower than they were at any time during the years 2006-2012.
And if there has been any increase in BLL due to lipstick that it is marketed to children, one of the products mentioned in the Times, it is difficult to find anything of the sort when examining the percentage of children with elevated lead levels between 1997-2006 (Figure 1).
3. Toluene
Toluene is a very common solvent, which is used routinely in both chemistry labs as well as manufacturing facilities. It is also a component of gasoline. Although its chemical structure and properties are nearly identical to those of benzene, it has largely replaced benzene, which is a known carcinogen. Two common consumer uses of toluene are as a solvent (paint stripper) or a component of glue. "Glue sniffing" (inhalant abuse) usually involves the recreational inhalation of toluene fumes. Toluene is also used (in combination with other solvents) as a nail polish solvent.
It is here where the Times fails to make the distinction between occasional and occupational use of the chemical. When used in a chemistry lab toluene is handled within a negative pressure fume hood to minimize exposure to the vapor. While chemists will often detect small quantities of toluene, which has a distinctive odor, this is not a concern for us. On the other hand, workers at nail salons have no such protection. Nor do paper masks, which reduce exposure to dust and particular matter, protect workers from toluene vapors, which can move through such masks just like air.
While the Times claims, "nail polish can contain toluene, which has been linked to respiratory toxicity," it fails to make the distinction between regular exposure to the solvent. Salon workers, especially those who work in poorly ventilated locations, may very likely be exposed to dangerous levels of the solvent. But for someone who applies nail polish every two weeks the risk of harm is little or none. Once again, by failing to distinguish between occupational and occasional use of a chemical the Times has ignored exposure.
4. The real scare is cancer, but this is unfounded.
The underlying message is most chemical scares is that we a swimming in an "ocean of chemicals" and that this is contributing to soaring rates of cancer. Comments following the article makes this clear.
"I suspect that the toxic chemicals in makeup are contributing to the incidence of cancer in women."
"I know this is absurdly anecdotal but I know three very young people -- all under the age of 40 -- afflicted with aggressive cancers. Two of them are dead and the other's body is ravaged by the treatments. All three are women. I wonder what the statistics are on new incidences of cancer by gender for people ages of the 30-40 age group."
"Why are cancer rates soaring? (Not only because of better detection...)
It is difficult to blame chemicals for the "soaring" rate of cancer; the rate is not soaring. The incidence of cancer (Figure 2) has held steady for decades. (2,3)
While the Times editorial mey be well-meaning this is not enough. No one would argue against safer cosmetics (or any other product), but attempting to ensure safety without having in place the correct science to do so can only lead to a vast, expensive, and ultimately useless effort, which may very well do more harm than good.
NOTES:
(1) Burgos-Barragan, G., Wit, N., Meiser, J., Dingler, F. A., Pietzke, M., Mulderrig, L., … Patel, K. J. (2017). Mammals divert endogenous genotoxic formaldehyde into one-carbon metabolism. Nature, 548(7669), 549–554. doi:10.1038/nature23481
(2) It is important to distinguish between cancer deaths and the incidence (number of cases) of the disease. The former has been dropping steadily because of improvements in detection and treatment. The decrease in cancer deaths tells us little or nothing about the role of environmental chemicals in causing cancer. The incidence may or may not reflect individuals' chemical exposure.
(3) Although the graph show a large increase in prostate cancer in the early 1990s, this is an artifact, not a real increase. The apparent increase was caused by the introduction of the PSA text in 1990.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/02/11/new-york-times-editorial-cosmetic-safety-misses-mark-13803
-
Retailers At Risk From New Glyphosate Liability Theories
Feb 12, 2019 | Law 360
By Lori Elliott Jarvis, Elizabeth Reese and Emily Mordecai
Glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, dominated headlines in 2018, as Monsanto battled thousands of lawsuits brought by consumers claiming that the chemical causes cancer. Now, other companies in the retail supply chain are beginning to feel pressure, as consumer groups and plaintiffs lawyers turn their attention to other, less obvious targets following early success against Monsanto in both state and federal courts.
But as the potential pool of defendants has expanded, so too has the disconnect between the plaintiffs’ success in court and the scientific and regulatory landscape, suggesting that reliance on science will do little to mitigate the risk and cost of glyphosate litigation for companies in the retail industry.
Monsanto Facing Historic Verdicts and Lawsuits Despite Strong Scientific and Regulatory Evidence
Although the scientific and regulatory communities have disagreed about the alleged carcinogenicity of glyphosate for years, the debate drew little attention from the general public until August 2018. Then, a California state jury slammed Monsanto with a $289 million verdict for a groundskeeper who claimed that his exposure to Roundup weed-killer caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in Johnson v. Monsanto.[1]
While the Johnson court later slashed the punitive damages award by $211 million on due process grounds, it ultimately left the jury’s causation findings intact. And the reduction in damages has done little to quell the media attention on glyphosate.
With the Johnson verdict still fresh in the public’s mind, Monsanto now faces the first bellwether trials in the Roundup multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where nearly 900 cases are currently pending. With the causation phase of the first bellwether trial beginning this month, the scientific and regulatory disagreement regarding the alleged carcinogenicity of glyphosate will come into sharper focus both in court and in the public arena, and add further fuel to the media frenzy surrounding the chemical and products that may contain it.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC — a subdivision of the World Health Organization — first classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. Two years later, in December 2017, the United States Environmental Protection Agency released a risk assessment classifying glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” A majority of regulators around the world have since sided with the EPA, including multiple European agencies, and agencies in Australia and New Zealand.
California initially placed glyphosate on its Prop 65 list of chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer” in July 2017 — just before the EPA released its risk assessment. But in February 2018, a federal court temporarily enjoined the state from requiring companies to place Prop 65 warning labels on foods that may contain traces of glyphosate, finding that requiring labels would violate the First Amendment because, aside from IARC, “almost all other regulators have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.”[2]
Judge Vince Chhabria, the federal judge presiding over the Roundup multidistrict litigation, weighed in on the controversy in July 2018, calling the bulk of the plaintiffs’ scientific expert testimony “shaky,” but ultimately admissible under the Daubert standard.[3]
What Could the Roundup Federal Bellwether Trials Mean for Glyphosate Litigation?
Although Judge Chhabria’s decision to admit the plaintiffs’ scientific evidence was certainly a setback for Monsanto, he recently granted Monsanto’s request to “reverse-bifurcate” the upcoming bellwether trials. Unlike the Johnson trial, the federal bellwether trials will be separated into two phases: an initial causation phase, and then (if necessary) a second phase to determine liability and damages.[4] This trial structure will provide Monsanto with an opportunity to defend the safety of glyphosate without the added distraction of the plaintiffs' lawyers offering “evidence” that may divert jurors’ attention away from the core scientific causation issues in the case.
Perhaps most importantly, while the plaintiff’s lawyers in the Johnson trial were permitted to freely introduce and reference what have become known as the “Monsanto Papers” — internal Monsanto documents that initially became public during discovery proceedings in the federal MDL — most of those documents will not be admissible unless and until the jury decides that glyphosate can indeed cause cancer. Plaintiffs lawyers and consumer groups have used the Monsanto papers in the past to paint a damning picture of Monsanto, attacking the company for engaging in what they have characterized as “ghostwriting” of favorable scientific studies, colluding with federal officials to improperly influence agency reviews of glyphosate and employing third parties to post positive comments online defending Monsanto and its chemicals.
Those documents undoubtedly played a major role in the Johnson jury’s verdict and punitive damages award. Their near-exclusion from the first phase of the federal trials is an important victory for Monsanto.
How Monsanto fares in the causation phase of the first bellwether trial will unquestionably set the tone for glyphosate litigation in 2019. If Monsanto prevails, it could drive down — at least temporarily — the plaintiffs bar’s interest in bringing new personal injury suits, especially against downstream retailers whose products may contain only trace levels of glyphosate.
But that does not mean that plaintiffs will stop filing glyphosate suits. Instead, plaintiffs lawyers will likely continue to capitalize on the growing public interest in the glyphosate controversy by simply shifting tactics and filing costly class actions against defendants on non-personal-injury theories, like false advertising.
Any success for Monsanto in federal court will likely also mean increased glyphosate filings in state courts, particularly those known as plaintiff-friendly “judicial hellholes,” where procedural safeguards are weak, causation standards are lower and expert testimony is liberally admitted. And, of course, if Monsanto loses, potential plaintiffs will be armed with a favorable finding of causation from a federal court — meaning that the floodgates opened after the Johnson verdict will only widen.
Regulators Around the World Face Increased Scrutiny on Glyphosate
While Monsanto and other companies facing the threat of glyphosate lawsuits may believe that they have science on their side, the Johnson verdict and federal MDL Daubert decision make clear that that argument may not be enough to win in court or in the public eye.
Since the Johnson verdict, plaintiffs and consumer groups have continued to grab headlines by calling glyphosate carcinogenic, increasing pressure on companies to respond to consumer inquiries and defend the safety of their products. Likewise, decisions as to the carcinogenicity of glyphosate made by regulatory agencies around the world have come under fire as Monsanto’s legal battles continue to make front-page headlines.
In September 2018, the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, teamed up with eight major food companies to petition the EPA to reduce the current glyphosate tolerance level in oat-based products from 30 ppm to 0.1 ppm, the original level set by the EPA in 1993.[5] The petition criticizes the EPA’s stance on glyphosate, and cites the IARC classification in support of its claims that glyphosate causes cancer.
The petition also touts EWG’s own self-commissioned “study,” which reportedly found that the majority of the food samples tested by EWG contained glyphosate levels higher than what it considers to be safe — although none of the products exceeded current legal limits. EWG followed up with a second round of tests on oat-based cereals and breakfast products in October 2018, claiming that it detected traces of glyphosate in all 28 samples tested.
EWG also attacked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after the agency released a report in October 2018 concluding that over 99 percent of United States-sourced foods it tested in 2016 complied with federal glyphosate tolerance levels. The FDA also found that over 90 percent of imported foods complied with federal glyphosate tolerance levels, and it found that 52.9 percent of domestic foods and 50.7 percent of imported foods contained no pesticide residue at all.
While glyphosate residue was found in 173 of the corn samples and 178 of the soybean samples tested by the FDA, none of the samples contained glyphosate residue in excess of the federal glyphosate tolerance levels. EWG struck back quickly, seeking to change the narrative by criticizing the FDA’s testing methods, and pointing out that the FDA did not test oat- or wheat-based products — products that EWG claims are the two major crops on which glyphosate is used as a drying agent, and which EWG had tested for its self-published report.[6]
Agencies in the United States are not alone in facing criticism for their decisions on glyphosate. In August 2018, a federal judge in Brazil ruled that new products containing glyphosate would not be permitted, and existing product registrations would be suspended until the Brazilian government re-examined its toxicological basis for permitting the chemical, though that ruling was overturned the next month just as Brazil’s soybean planting season was set to begin.[7]
More recently, in January 2019, a French court banned sales of a Roundup product nationwide after deciding the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety did not adequately account for the alleged health risks of glyphosate when it approved Roundup Pro 360 in 2017. Also in January, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment faced a backlash from members of the European Parliament with the release of a report claiming the agency plagiarized several portions of its glyphosate evaluation from a renewal application submitted by several pesticide companies including Monsanto.[8]
What’s Next?
Regardless of whether Monsanto prevails in the causation phase of the first bellwether trials in the federal MDL, the continued debate in the regulatory and scientific communities means that glyphosate-related lawsuits are here to stay. Plaintiffs attorneys have already expanded their targets beyond Monsanto and traditional personal injury lawsuits, after receiving additional fuel from consumer groups like EWG, who are working to keep glyphosate in the public eye by criticizing prominent companies for alleged glyphosate residue in their products.
At least three different food companies have been hit with putative class action suits based, at least in part, on the results of self-commissioned studies published by consumer groups. In July 2018, a putative class action suit was filed in a New York federal court against Florida’s Natural Growers Inc. and Citrus World Inc. — the companies behind Florida’s Natural orange juice — after a 2017 report from consumer group Moms Across America claimed to have identified glyphosate residue in the product.[9] That case was swiftly dismissed after the court found in December 2018 that no reasonable consumer would understand the label “Florida’s Natural” to mean that the product was free from any traces of glyphosate.[10]
But plaintiffs lawyers have not been discouraged. Six days after the Johnson verdict, General Mills was hit with a putative class action suit in Florida, relying on EWG’s report in alleging that General Mills deceived consumers by failing to disclose that Cheerios products contain traces of glyphosate.[11] The new claims against General Mills came just as the company agreed to remove the phrase “natural” from its granola products to settle a two-year-old lawsuit alleging that the “100% Natural Whole Grain Oats” label misled consumers because the products contained traces of glyphosate.[12]
A third putative class, also citing EWG’s report, recently sued Kellogg Co. in California federal court for failing to disclose traces of glyphosate allegedly contained in two of its popular food products.[13]
Other consumer product companies will likely be pulled into the glyphosate litigation as plaintiff’s attorneys test the waters with new theories of liability following the early success against Monsanto. Reports that glyphosate has been detected in diapers,[14] women’s feminine hygiene products,[15] vaccines,[15] cotton clothing products[17] and pet foods[18] are already making the news, and should put all retail companies on notice of the risk that their products may be thrust into the spotlight following independent testing they may not even know about.
As companies await the outcome of the causation phase of the bellwether trials in the Roundup MDL — which will inform plaintiffs lawyers’ strategy going forward — they should take stock of the growing threat of glyphosate litigation, and evaluate their products to assess their relative risk. The Johnson verdict is cause for concern for any company whose products may contain glyphosate, even in trace amounts, given the Johnson jury’s punitive damage award and the substantial (and costly) risk of proliferating litigation after early success.
Companies that advertise their products as “natural” or “organic” or tout their products’ health benefits should be particularly aware of the threat of glyphosate litigation, especially because plaintiffs lawyers tend to bring false labeling and deceptive trade practices claims as nationwide class actions. Those types of claims are unlikely to disappear from plaintiffs lawyers’ playbooks any time soon, even if Monsanto wins the causation issue in federal court.
In fact, they may even multiply if Monsanto wins and personal injury claims become more difficult to prove. And all companies should take the opportunity now — before being hit with litigation — to review their product lines and supply and distribution agreements to evaluate and negotiate risk-shifting and indemnification provisions associated with products that may be the subject of glyphosate litigation.https://www.law360.com/articles/1127601/retailers-at-risk-from-new-glyphosate-liability-theories
-
Arctic Drilling Ban in House Faces Headwinds in Senate
Feb 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A bipartisan House bill seeks to ban oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but it faces uphill battle in the Senate given efforts by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to open drilling in a 2017 tax law.
The yet-unnumbered bill, introduced by Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), would ban oil and gas drilling that was permitted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Its future in the Senate remains uncertain given there is currently no companion bill, and Murkowski has backed the drilling in the Coastal Plain region of the 19.3 million-acre federally recognized wildlife region in Alaska.
“We’re going to push this as far and as fast as we can,” Huffman said at a Feb. 11 press conference on the bill.
“The Trump administration is in a red hot hurry to get leases in place, and we all know why—they know a Democratic administration is going to undo this wrong-headed thing that they’re trying to rush through,” he said.
Huffman told Bloomberg Environment after the press conference that he is still looking for senators to introduce a companion bill.
“There are a bunch of senators in both parties that do not want to see this special place spoiled. Whether they are willing to cross a powerful chairwoman like Lisa Murkowski, I don’t know,” he said.
The bill would repeal Section 20001 of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which allowed drilling in the 1.6 million acre Coastal Plain region. The bill said repealing drilling protects the rights of the Gwich’in people in the eastern Alaska and northwestern Canada and the habitant of the Porcupine caribou herd, which the Gwich’in have relied on for millennia.
Murkowski’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/arctic-drilling-ban-in-house-faces-headwinds-in-senate
-
Pipeline Safety Rule Gets Support from U.S. Industry Groups
Feb 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard and Austin Weinstein
A coalition of pipeline industry organizations has reached an agreement with U.S. federal regulators over new safety measures and is asking them to finalize a new rule that will mandate how natural-gas conduits are inspected.
While oil and gas pipeline companies often disagree with safety advocates over regulations, “in this case consensus was achieved on many important pipeline safety topics,” groups including the Pipeline Safety Trust and the American Petroleum Institute said in a letter last week to the Department of Transportation.
“You really have got all of the sides of this discussion on the same page, which I think is pretty significant,” Don Santa, chief executive officer of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, another of the letter’s signatories, said Feb. 11 in an interview. “For purposes of the industry’s credibility with the public, I think it’s important that we have a proposal here that’s supported not only by the industry but by the pipeline safety advocates.“
The rule has been under discussion for years. It would require the testing of lines that had previously been exempt, and expand certain integrity assessments beyond highly populated areas. It would apply to transmission lines, large pipes that transport fuel longer distances. Those pipelines are facing more opposition than ever, particularly in the Northeast U.S., where legal and regulatory setbacks have hiked costs and delayed start dates for key projects aimed to carry fuel out the Marcellus, America’s biggest shale gas play.
The regulations are aimed at addressing concerns that have stemmed from high-profile incidents such as the 2010 deadly explosion in San Bruno, Calif. The next step will be a review by the Department of Transportation.
“The Pipeline Safety Act is up for re-authorization this year, and we all think that it would be good for PHMSA to be able to finalize these rules before Congress starts looking at the next authorization,” Santa said, referring to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation. The department and PHMSA didn’t immediately respond to requests seeking comment.
Under the Obama administration, regulators shifted from an approach focused on voluntary standards to more prescriptive measures. One 2016 proposal would have regulated pipelines -- both transmission and gathering lines— in modestly populated areas for the first time, but it was panned by groups including the API, which estimated its cost to be more than $33 billion.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pipeline-safety-rule-gets-support-from-u-s-industry-groups
-
California Bill Would Impose Oil and Gas Extraction Tax
Feb 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Laura Mahoney
A California senator wants to impose a 10 percent tax on oil and natural gas extracted in the state.
Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D) introduced S.B. 246 to levy the severance tax based on the average price per barrel of oil or average price per unit of gas extracted. Wieckowski said California should join the roughly 30 other oil and gas producing states that already impose a severance tax.
“While oil companies rake in enormous profits and other states take in billions of dollars in revenue for critical programs like education, California is failing to be comparably compensated for the removal of these natural resources,” he said in a news release.
The bill can be considered in committee 30 days after it has been in print. Wieckowski announced the bill Feb. 8, and it is likely to be in print Feb. 12.
Not the First TimeLawmakers have tried and failed at least 13 times in the past 25 years to levy an oil and gas severance tax. Most recently, a 2013 bill would have imposed a 9.5 percent tax on oil extraction and 3.5 percent on gas extraction. That proposal would have generated $1.5 billion a year, according to the State Board of Equalization.
The Western States Petroleum Association and business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association opposed the idea before and are likely to oppose it again.
Supporters of the severance tax in the past have included environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and labor unions such as the California Teachers Association and California State Building and Construction Trades Council.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-bill-would-impose-oil-and-gas-extraction-tax
-
NYC Weighs Plan to Shut down All Fossil Fuel Plants
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By David Iaconangelo
New York City officials want to explore exactly how soon renewables and battery storage could displace natural gas as the Big Apple's core source of backup power.
A bill under consideration by the City Council's environmental committee calls for sustainability authorities to study the storage potential of six battery types and whether they could allow renewable power to supplant all fossil fuel power plants — including 21 gas-fired ones — located in the city.
Sponsored by the environmental committee's chairman, the legislation got its first hearing yesterday, where representatives from the office of Mayor Bill de Blasio and investor-owned utilities voiced support.
The study, due by the end of 2019, would need to recommend an "expedited" timeline for the transition to storage-backed renewables if such a transition can happen, said committee Chairman Costa Constantinides (D).
"And we know it can," he added.
The city's power plants, nearly all of which are fired by natural gas or oil, can generate enough electricity to meet about 80 percent of demand on the most power-intensive days. They only operate during those peak times.
But when they do run, they pollute at unusually high levels, partly due to their obsolescent technologies. Most of the plants have existed for 40 years, and many are located in low-income and minority areas in western Queens.
"We in the city have historically consistently shunted these uses to poor communities and communities of color, and those communities bear the burden of power generation that all of us need and use. And that's wrong," Rebecca Bratspies, a law professor and director of the City University of New York's Center for Urban Environmental Reform, said during panel testimony.
'Flowing upstate to downstate'?
Constantinides and the other five co-sponsors of the bill want officials to figure out how soon the plants could be closed, and what the effect would be on reliability and cost of service.
The city and state already have some of the country's most ambitious goals for energy storage development, and utilities are carrying out analyses of how to best deploy it within city limits.
But it's not clear how much storage would be necessary, where it would be sited and where the renewable power would come from — particularly in the near term, before the state's offshore wind industry is expected to hit its stride.
One possibility is to source more of the power from upstate, where most of the power generation is carbon-free and where there's more land available to site new resources.
Officials in the mayor's office backed that idea, saying the state needed to invest in new transmission capacity to carry that upstate power into the city.
"It's clear that New York City will require significant amounts of renewables flowing upstate to downstate," said Susanne DesRoches, deputy director for infrastructure and energy for the mayor.
Another solution floated by Constantinides was the construction of a large-scale solar farm on Rikers Island, where authorities are planning to close a notorious jail. A study on that is forthcoming, he said.
The effect of gas plant closures on greenhouse gas emissions may not be entirely clear, either. At some of the plants, Consolidated Edison Inc. also produces steam that serves as a heating and hot water system for 3 million customers in Manhattan.
"Right now, we use natural gas to produce the steam," said Kyle Kimball, Con Edison's vice president of government relations. An alternative technology, he added, "doesn't currently exist to create the amount of steam we need."
The hearing yesterday also included questioning of Con Edison officials over a December transmission line accident that threw off a strange blue glare late one evening, spooking residents across much of the city and exciting fevered imaginations on social media.
One council member, Donovan Richards (D), joked that he regretted the absence of police representatives at the hearing.
"I just want the NYPD to know I'm concerned
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/02/12/stories/1060120301
-
To Cut Carbon Emissions, the Nuclear Option Isn't Optional
Feb 12, 2019 | The Hill - Opinion
By Maria Korsnick
Climate is taking center stage in the 116th Congress: the U.S. House of Representatives is held its first hearings on climate change, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced legislation for a Green New Deal.
With every new report of rising carbon emissions and its consequences — including recent findings that oceans are warming unsustainably and Antarctica’s ice reserves are disappearing at a dangerous rate — the argument that we can afford to neglect or reject emissions-free sources like nuclear grows more absurd.ADVERTISEMENT
The answer to the climate crisis won’t be as simple as replacing carbon with renewables and batteries. Our power grid must rely on other sources of power for times when demand is greater than wind and solar production. And, despite the appeal of a fully-renewable electric system backed with battery storage, such a system is currently not feasible, even with dramatically reduced battery costs.
And for all the hopes that a revolutionary technology will emerge, we already have in nuclear what a clean energy system demands: a reliable, resilient, emissions-free source that can complement renewables and run around the clock.
Even as coal plants closed last year at a record pace, carbon emissions increased more than three percent, the second-largest increase in two decades. When nuclear plants close, states are forced to turn to dirtier sources for their energy and emissions go up. A recent peer-reviewed study concluded that leaving nuclear out of a clean electricity system actually makes the effort more expensive.
As the climate changes, so do opinions. The Union of Concerned Scientists, which hasn’t always been so sympathetic to nuclear, now agrees that keeping today’s nuclear reactors running is vital to the emissions fight. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s climate change experts; The Nature Conservancy, the world’s largest environmental organization; and even Google, one of the world’s largest energy consumers, also agree that nuclear energy can play an essential role in cutting carbon emissions.
It’s not hard to see why. Nuclear is by far our nation’s largest carbon-free energy source, able to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, even in extreme weather. Nuclear energy is already responsible for 20 percent of the country’s total electricity and more than half of our carbon-free energy. We rely on nuclear for energy, and to keep local economies humming; across 30 states, nuclear creates jobs for nearly a half a million Americans.
Yet, at a time when we should make the most of our most resilient, clean energy options and increase our nuclear footprint, the outlook for nuclear is decidedly mixed. The good news is that policymakers in Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey and New York now recognize nuclear plants for their zero emissions and other attributes.
The bad news is that seven nuclear plants have already closed, and 12 more are slated to close. Those plants alone produce enough clean energy to power all of the homes in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania for a year.
Plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania sit on the chopping block. Their demise would imperil our energy supply, job market and public health. In Pennsylvania alone, nuclear supplies 42 percent of the state’s electricity, 93 percent of Pennsylvania’s clean energy, and employs more than 16,000 people. In Ohio, we are talking about 4,300 jobs and 90 percent of the state’s clean energy.
The first actions taken by Congress this week will help define the conversation for months if not years. How will we as a nation address the climate crisis? What policy options do we pursue? Now is not the time to shun or shut down plants that will keep the air cleaner, keep the lights on, and keep America energy independent. To keep today’s reactors running, we must create a policy framework that gives innovators and investors confidence that there will be a market for their new nuclear technologies, just as we’ve successfully done for wind and solar. We need to adopt clean energy standards that combine nuclear and renewables to help cut emissions rapidly, reliably and affordably.
Many of our unprecedented climate and carbon challenges are confounding — so when we see an obvious way forward, we should follow it. If we want to stop the surge of carbon emissions, we have to prevent closure of our nuclear reactors and start investing more in making our most reliable energy option even better. Protecting our energy, economy and environment means that nuclear isn’t optional at all.
Maria Korsnick is president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/429487-to-cut-carbon-emissions-the-nuclear-option-isnt-optional
-
FRA Issues CRISI Grants For 18 Rail Projects
Feb 11, 2019 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) last week announced the award of $56 million in grant funding for 18 rail projects in 16 states.
Issued under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program, the funding will help to improve the safety, efficiency and reliability of passenger- and freight-rail systems, according to an FRA press release.
The notice of funding opportunity reserved at least 25 percent of the awards for rural projects. The
2017 Appropriations Act required $10 million for projects that contribute to the restoration or initiation of intercity
passenger rail service, FRA officials said.
"We're extremely pleased that the CRISI grant program directs much-needed critical investment to rural America," said FRA Administrator Ronald Batory.
When selecting the projects, the FRA considered such objectives as: supporting economic vitality; leveraging federal funds to attract other sources of funding; preparing for project life-cycle costs; using innovative approaches to improve safety and expedite project delivery; and holding recipients accountable for achieving specific, measurable outcomes.
Grant awards exceeding $2 million and their related projects include:
• up to $10 million for the Millbrook Road grade separation sealed corridor project on a CSX line in North Carolina;
• up to $7,170,346 to replace the Broadway Truss component of the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis' MacArthur Bridge in Missouri;
• up to $6,363,000 for the New York State Department of Transportation's plan to replace timber bridge decks with ballast decks on three bridges on the Hudson Line in New York;
• up to $5,083,719 to reconfigure the Lenox interlocking in Mitchell, Illinois, to increase the speed and operational flexibility for passenger and freight services;
• up to $5,050,000 to construct a second platform serving Amtrak riders at the Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport;
• up to $3,470,500 for the Iowa Interstate Railroad Ltd.'s Booneville Bridge project in Iowa;
• up to $3 million for the Quonset freight-rail enhancements and expansion for Mill Creek Railyard in Rhode Island;
• up to $2,585,080 for the Missouri Department of Transportation's rail corridor consolidation and grade crossing safety plan;
• up to $2,373,441 to install safety features at 48 crossings along the South Florida East Coast Rail Corridor;
• up to $2,164,255 for a proposal to install new ballast and ties on the Panhandle Northern Railroad line, which connects to a BNSF Railway Co. mainline, to improve safety and security of transporting carloads of hazardous materials;
• up to $2,082,519 to the Vermont Agency of Transportation to construct slope stabilization measures along 80 miles of the New England Central Railroad line;
• up to $2,035,000 to construction landslide mitigation measures at two locations along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor in Mukilteo, Washington; and
• up to $2,027,192 for the Heart of Georgia Railroad upgrade project.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/mow/news/FRA-issues-CRISI-grants-for-18-rail-projects--56733
-
EPA Faces Broad Criticism over Compliance Delays for Ozone NAAQS
Feb 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is facing broad criticism from environmentalists on its proposal to give areas around the country an additional year to attain a 2008 federal ozone standard and avoid a “bump-up” to more stringent emissions control requirements, with critics saying the areas’ ozone problems are so bad they do not justify the extensions.
The criticisms are detailed in written comments groups submitted to EPA on the proposal, which affects many states. Environmentalists are also likely to reiterate the attacks on the plan at a Feb. 15 agency hearing in Washington, DC, and through additional written comments due by an updated deadline of Feb. 22.
Environmental groups and others say EPA cannot justify delaying compliance by multiple “nonattainment” areas with the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) set by the George W. Bush administration. EPA proposed one-year compliance extensions for several areas, potentially enabling them to escape being pushed to a more serious level of nonattainment that would require local regulators to impose tougher pollution controls on industry, but also give areas longer to attain the NAAQS.
However, the agency is receiving support from industry groups and some states for its proposed compliance extensions. States and industry typically seek to avoid being labeled nonattainment, as this requires states to craft state implementation plans (SIPs) detailing ozone emissions reduction steps they will take to meet the standards, or face the ultimate sanction of losing federal highway funds if they fail to attain the limits.
In Dec. 14 comments recently uploaded to EPA’s regulatory docket, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) on behalf of itself and WildEarth Guardians, National Parks Conservation Association, Colorado Sierra Club, Colorado Rising, and the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County says, EPA should “not grant a one-year extension of the date by which the Front Range must come into compliance” with the 2008 NAAQS.
“Rather, EPA should deny the extension, determine that the Front Range did not come into compliance with the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the original date EPA set, and ‘bump up’ the Front Range” from its current “moderate” nonattainment status “to a serious classification.”
The groups say that the Colorado Front Range area around Denver is not even close to attainment of the 2008 NAAQS, so there is no purpose in delaying the “inevitable” bump up from moderate to serious status.
Further, tightening controls now will help the area attain the tougher 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb set by the Obama administration, they say. The groups point to oil and gas drilling activity in the vicinity as responsible for an increase in ozone-forming emissions of volatile organic compounds.
WildEarth Guardians in separate Dec. 14 comments says, “allowing the state of Colorado to avoid its obligation to provide clean air for all those who live and recreate in the Denver Metro-North Front Range area is entirely contrary to the purposes of the Clean Air Act and cannot stand, especially in light of the extreme ozone exceedances the area has experienced” in 2018.
However, other groups including the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Oil and Gas Association and nonprofit advocacy group Defend Colorado in their comments back EPA’s decision to grant a compliance extension.
Defend Colorado, which describes itself as a pro-jobs group seeking to support the state’s economy, also urges EPA to “consider and account for the effect of international emissions on ozone concentrations throughout Colorado at this time and in future attainment date reviews.”
The group claims that Colorado could claim to meet the 2008 NAAQS “but for” international air pollution, meeting the Clean Air Act requirement for an extension. The Trump EPA has sought to make it easier for states to comply with NAAQS by allowing more-extensive use of an existing exemption for international emissions, which the Obama EPA sought to limit to border areas impacted by Mexican or Canadian emissions.
NAAQS Extensions
Meanwhile, environmental group Clean Wisconsin is opposing EPA’s proposed one-year compliance extension for Sheboygan County, WI.
In Dec. 14 comments, the group says that again, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) “seeks to delay air quality protections for Sheboygan County residents by another year, as it did prior to the County’s bump up to ‘moderate’ attainment status in 2016. A full decade after adoption of the 2008 standard, WDNR impermissibly seeks another delay, despite increasing monitored levels of ozone pollution that exceed the 2008 standard. EPA must not grant this extension as it is contrary to law, unreasonable, and arbitrary and capricious.”
“Arbitrary and capricious” is the air law standard to scrap an EPA regulation, indicating a possible intention on the part of Clean Wisconsin to file suit. The group is already suing the agency in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over its final nonattainment designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which saw the agency walk back some of its proposed nonattainment designations at the last minute.
In Dec. 14 comments, WDNR says the proposed compliance extension for Sheboygan County, “is supported by monitoring data and should be finalized by EPA, as proposed.” However, the state disagrees with EPA’s proposed partial nonattainment designation of Kenosha County, WI, pointing to the heavy influence of out-of-state emissions on Wisconsin. The state should not be punished for such emissions, WDNR says.
In some instances, environmentalists are defending EPA’s nonattainment designations.
For example, EPA proposes to bump-up to “serious” the nonattainment status of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI combined nonattainment area, a move supported in Dec. 14 comments by the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a Midwestern environmental group.
“Any unnecessary delay in implementing technology that has already been identified as “reasonably available” will cause unnecessary adverse health impacts for Midwesterners,” says the group, referring to the need for areas designated “serious” nonattainment to impose reasonably available technology (RACT), a strict level of emissions control, on more of their industrial sources.
The Indiana Steel Environmental Group, a coalition of steelmakers, in Dec. 14 comments says that EPA’s proposed designation of Lake and Porter Counties, IN, in nonattainment as part of the Chicago-Naperville area is “both technically and legally flawed.”
The group says that, among other arguments, EPA has included all of the counties in the nonattainment area instead of only part, that it has failed to account for international emissions and that it has failed to explain why most of the two counties are designated attainment for the tougher 2015 ozone NAAQS.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-faces-broad-criticism-over-compliance-delays-ozone-naaqs
-
New York Plans to Sue EPA Over Smog From Upwind States
Feb 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
New York plans to sue the EPA after waiting months for a response to a March petition seeking a crackdown on ozone pollution from nine upwind states.
The lawsuit plan, announced Feb. 8 by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, would open up another legal front in East Coast states’ efforts to prevent air pollution from out of state that contributes to elevated ozone levels in places like New York.
The upwind states cited by New York are Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The lawsuit would seek to force the EPA to respond to New York’s request for more pollution controls in upwind states. The EPA has denied other similar requests and recently said an existing pollution trading program for power plants would improve air quality to healthy levels.
Named SourcesNew York’s March petition, unlike similar actions by other East Coast states, named more than 350 power plants, factories, and oil and gas operations in the upwind states as major emitters pollution that contribute to ozone formation.
Ozone is a lung irritant that exacerbates conditions like asthma.
New York’s petition targeted several industrial and energy companies, including AEP, Alcoa, ArcelorMittal, Archer Daniels Midland, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, and U.S. Steel.
The EPA didn’t respond to the March petition within the 60 days required in the Clean Air Act, and then failed to meet its own extended deadline of Nov. 9, the state said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), in a Feb. 7 letter, gave the EPA 60 days’ notice of the state’s intent to sue if it doesn’t act on the petition.
A regional spokesman for the EPA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-york-plans-to-sue-epa-over-smog-from-upwind-states
-
States Are Already Working on 'Green New Deal'
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Green New Dealers found themselves at loggerheads last week. Members of the nascent movement agree that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an urgent priority.
But how, exactly, to do it causes friction. Particularly vexing is the role of nuclear power in America's future clean energy mix.
For now, the debate on Capitol Hill is academic. There will be no "Green New Deal" as long as President Trump occupies the White House and Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader from coal-reliant Kentucky, runs the Senate.
But the outlines of a carbon-free electric sector are already becoming apparent outside the nation's capital. Minnesota, New Mexico, New York and Washington state are all considering legislation this year to decarbonize their power sectors. With the exception of Minnesota, where Republicans control the Senate, those bills stand a reasonable chance of passing.
The states offer a potentially important blueprint for national climate hawks. Each bill proposes dramatic increases in renewable energy generation. Yet they also leave the door open to traditional low-carbon resources like nuclear and hydro, as well as potential new technologies.
"We plan to pursue a portfolio approach, where the most cost-effective resources that are zero carbon come forward," said Alicia Barton, president and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
New York is illustrative of the wider trend. A bill backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) would require 70 percent of all the Empire State's electricity to come from renewables by 2030. The measure calls for hiking the state's target for offshore wind from 2,400 megawatts in 2030 to 9,000 MW in 2035 and doubling its level of distributed solar from 3,000 MW in 2023 to 6,000 MW in 2025. Hydropower would also qualify as a renewable resource under New York's plan, potentially allowing for significant amounts of electricity to be imported from Quebec.
In 2040, all the state's power would need to come from carbon-free sources.
"The entire goal here is to focus on decarbonization," Barton said. "Carbon is really the attribute that we're solving for.
"Pipe dream no longer?
The idea of a zero-carbon power grid would have seemed implausible, if not impossible, not long ago. Renewables' rapid cost declines, grid operators' increasing comfort with handling intermittent generation and energy efficiency measures have turned the tables in recent years.
Xcel Energy Inc., a Minneapolis-based power company, became the first major utility to commit to decarbonizing its electricity supply last year (Climatewire, Dec. 5, 2018). The announcement built on a steady stream of utility pledges to make deep cuts in their carbon emissions, and it followed Xcel's decision to close two coal units in Colorado early and replace their power with renewables.
"It really helps change the conversation in the state for what's possible," said Minnesota state Rep. Jamie Long, a Democrat who authored a bill for greening the state's power sector. "I'm hoping we can match some of that boldness with legislative policy for what we want to achieve as a state."
The requirements in Long's bill vary slightly by utility, but it would require power providers to generate at least 80 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2035. All the state's power would need to be carbon-free by 2050. That leaves a carve-out for other technologies, Long said.
His counterparts in other states follow a similar approach. New Mexico would require that half the state's electricity be generated by renewables in 2030, and 80 percent in 2040. Washington would make all its electricity sales greenhouse-gas-neutral by 2030 but would allow its utilities to buy credits for 20 percent of their power. By 2045, all electricity would need to come from renewables and other carbon-free resources.
"We know how to get to 80-90 percent renewable affordably. That last 10 percent is still an open question," Long said. "We know there will be more technological innovations in the next 30 years that will help us get there, but we're not sure what those are and when we'll get there. I wanted to leave that open for flexibility."
Greens are ecstatic about the trend. Outside of California, which passed a bill to decarbonize its power sector last year, the wave of clean electricity legislation represents the most concerted attempts at passing ambitious climate legislation since Trump took office.
All renewables vs. carbon-free
That hasn't stopped debate over whether states should be pursuing 100 percent renewable standards or the carbon-free standards being pursued today. The disagreement seeped into the rollout of the "Green New Deal" in Washington, D.C., last week, with the movement's members seemingly split on the appropriate role for nuclear.
A fact sheet posted on the website of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the high-profile freshman Democrat from New York, called for phasing out nuclear, America's largest source of zero-carbon electricity today. After a brief tussle among supporters of the plan, the fact sheet disappeared from the congresswoman's website (Energywire, Feb. 8).
Advocates of an all-renewable solution argue that new nuclear facilities are too expensive to build, while the problem with their waste remains unresolved. They also contend that new demand management tools, microgrids and other upgrades to America's electric grid will make it possible to power the country on wind, solar and other technologies, like small-scale hydro and geothermal.
"We sent people to the moon, we can transition our aging electric grid to run on 100 percent renewable energy if we put the right policies in place and commit to making that our reality," said Jodie Van Horn, who leads the Sierra Club's Ready for 100 campaign.
Others urge caution in placing too much weight on the backs of renewables, arguing that states should set technology-neutral standards that foster innovation. There's no telling what technology might be available in coming decades, they note, pointing to the rapid decline in renewable costs and the explosion in hydraulic fracturing a decade ago.
"I think we should not limit by technology, nor should we limit by whether the resource is supply side or demand side," said Katherine Hamilton, chairwoman of 38 North Solutions, a consulting firm. "The less costly, more efficient solutions will rise to the top and first deployed in any case."
There is widespread agreement among climate hawks about this: There are more immediate concerns facing would-be carbon-cutters. In the near term, closing coal plants, fighting new natural gas plants and building lots of renewables is what's required in both the 100 percent renewable and carbon-free scenarios, they note.
The state efforts illustrate the logistical challenges of greening the grid. In New York, large-scale renewables face land constraints onshore. There is also the matter of transmission. Much of the state's renewable generation is upstate, while the demand is located in and around New York City. Offshore wind would help ease congestion of New York's transmission lines, but it alone doesn't solve the problem, analysts said.
Across the country, Washington state boasts one of the least carbon-intensive power grids in the country, thanks to the large supply of hydropower. But Washington's investor-owned utilities have little access to that hydro, which is supplied by the Bonneville Power Association and purchased by the state's public utilities.
That leaves three investor-owned utilities with roughly 1.7 million customers facing a heavier lift. One of the big questions is whether the investor-owned utilities can squeeze more electricity out of the Bonneville Power Association and the other independent dam owners who sell power in the region, said Wendy Gerlitz, policy director for the NW Energy Coalition.
In a hearing with state lawmakers, the utilities pleaded for flexibility that would allow them to meet the state's goals.
"I understand the state is choosing a new policy path. We're looking at how to do that with you, but how do we do that in an equitable way?" Brandon Houskeeper, director of public affairs at Puget Sound Energy Inc., told a House committee exploring the issue. "That's going to include making sure we have proper off-ramps for reliability purposes, to make sure if transmission or other barriers, we recognize them and we're allowed to run thermal units. It means having cost caps for customers so they don't shoulder this load alone."
That sentiment is widely echoed across the utility industry. Xcel, in a statement, touted its efforts to expand renewables but raised concerns about the potential costs associated with high renewable mandates. Development of new clean energy technologies potentially holds the key to a carbon-free grid, it said.
Power companies are supportive of cutting power emissions and have shown they can do so in the absence of government mandates, said Emily Fisher, general counsel at the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group representing the country's investor-owned utilities. Flexibility is key, she said.
"The industry has always been committed to affordability and reliability. We're getting to a point where it is becoming more affordable and reliable to provide even cleaner energy," Fisher said.
Of the distinction between 100 percent carbon-free and renewable, she added, "I don't think 100 percent clean is diminishing committment to renewables, but it also gives an opportunity to recognize other clean resources that can also help to keep electricity reliable and affordable.
"Nuclear and hydro's role
One factor that could add some urgency to the carbon-free versus renewable debate: the potential for nuclear plant retirements. The Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm, estimates that as many as half of the country's nuclear plants could retire by 2030. Nuclear today represents about 20 percent of all U.S. power generation and 60 percent of the country's carbon-free electricity.
"It's not just about tons in the future. It's about tons now. We've got to get emissions down quickly," said John Larsen, a director with Rhodium. "We could ramp up renewables substantially in that decade, but we might end up standing still when it comes to clean generation. That is leaving tons on the table, so to speak."
Washington state Rep. Gael Tarleton (D) has heard the definition of clean energy debated at length over the last nine months, as she helped craft the bill now under consideration by lawmakers in Olympia. Washington has one nuclear plant, the Columbia Generating Station. Her bill doesn't propose eliminating the plant, but it does not qualify as a renewable resource, she said.
Yet Washington has changed course in other areas. Incremental power production from dam improvements would qualify as a renewable resource under the bill, which is part of a broader package of climate legislation proposed by Gov. Jay Inslee (D) (Climatewire, Dec. 11, 2018).
"That is a significant departure from the demand of the environmental community up until this year. The only reason why this piece of legislation includes it is because they acknowledge it was necessary to give credit to incremental hydro to more rapidly adopt a clean energy system," Tarleton said.
Of course, decarbonizing the electric sector is only part of the challenge. Transportation is now the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions nationally, accounting for more than 40 percent of Washington's emissions, the most of any sector.
But if greens are to decarbonize transportation, where emissions are more diffused and harder to tackle, they need to show people tangible evidence that sweeping change is possible. Like in the power sector.
"If we can figure out a way to clean up our grid, then it will give us the confidence to tackle the carbon pollution in transportation," Tarleton said. "We need a victory to show people we can make conscious choices to change the way we live our lives."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/02/12/stories/1060120293
-
Trump Tells Texans 'Green New Deal' Won't Happen
Feb 12, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
President Trump again took aim at the "Green New Deal" last night during a campaign event in El Paso, Texas, mocking the landmark climate resolution as an unrealistic "high school term paper."
Trump — whose remarks came during a meandering campaign rally billed as an event to discuss border security and promote his demands for a border wall — spent several minutes criticizing the nonbinding legislation introduced last week (E&E Daily, Feb. 7).
"It sounds like a high school term paper that got a low mark," Trump said, although he did not name the resolution's main backer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Ocasio-Cortez, 29, is the youngest member of Congress.
Trump, who earlier touted oil and gas production to the Texas crowd, continued by taking aim at the resolution's focus on encouraging the growth of high-speed rail and public transit.
"It would shut down American energy, which I don't think the people in Texas are going to be happy with that," Trump said. "It would shut down a little thing called air travel. How do you take a train to Europe?"
Trump's remarks echo those he posted to Twitter on Saturday. They're also part of a broader GOP effort to use the plan against Democrats.
"It would be great for the so-called 'Carbon Footprint' to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military — even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!" Trump tweeted.
Last night, he repeated his concerns about the projected cost of transitioning to a renewable energy economy, criticizing an estimated cost of "$100 trillion," citing a figure used by the conservative Manhattan Institute's Brian Riedl.
"Not going to happen, folks. Don't worry, it's not going to happen. Not going to happen," Trump said.
He concluded by criticizing the resolution's push for more sustainable buildings. "Let's rip down every building in New York City and rebuild it environmentally slightly better," he said.
Some of Trump's characterizations of the "Green New Deal" don't conform to the actual resolution but to an earlier fact sheet, which was critical of nuclear power and called for scrapping the internal combustion engine (E&E News PM, Feb. 11).
House Republicans have seized on the "Green New Deal" as a potential campaign issue. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a political action committee that backs GOP House lawmakers, launched ads against two Democrats yesterday (Greenwire, Feb. 11).
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D), who ran for Senate last year and may run for president, spoke during an anti-Trump rally also in El Paso last night.
Asked about the "Green New Deal," O'Rourke told Buzzfeed News, "It is the best proposal that I've seen to ensure that this planet does not warm another two degrees celsius, after which we may lose the ability to live in places like El Paso."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/02/12/stories/1060120309
-
Democrats Press EPA on Rule Rollbacks
Feb 11, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Niina Heikkinen
House Democrats are renewing pressure on EPA to explain rollbacks for three major climate rules in the face of experts' warnings of the urgent need to cut greenhouse gas emissions globally.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairwoman Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler requesting information and documents relating to the rollbacks of the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for vehicles, and a rule on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
The letter, sent Friday, follows up on a previous request the lawmakers sent Nov. 20. It seeks presentations, briefings, memorandums and other materials from the agency from Jan. 20, 2017, to the present.
They point out that a recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report forecasts dangers such as water shortages, dangerous flooding and loss of species as global temperatures rise, without dramatic changes in energy and land use.
"Despite these warnings, the Trump Administration abdicated the United States' role as a global leader in meaningful climate action by announcing its intention to withdraw the United States from the landmark Paris Climate Accord and disregarding consensus science that humans are a major driver of warming," the lawmakers wrote.
Lawmakers called out EPA for attempting to renew changes to the New Source Review program as part of its replacement for the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Aug. 21, 2018).
They said that proposal, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, would increase emissions from the "oldest and dirtiest" power plants. And they note EPA's own analysis predicted it would lead to 1,400 more deaths from exposure to fine particle pollution in 2030.
The letter also details the economic repercussions of the rule changes.
With the changes in fuel economy standards, the American public could stand to see an estimated $236 billion in additional fuel costs by 2035. The automotive sector could also lose its investment in new fuel-saving technologies, they said.
The lawmakers also warn of the strong heat-trapping capacity of methane and the importance of preventing the release of the greenhouse gas from the oil and gas sector.
They request documents regarding EPA's Optimization Model for Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases From Automobiles. The Trump administration did not use the computer model employed by the Obama administration in crafting its rollback of the rule (Greenwire, Dec. 4, 2018).
They also asked for materials on how changes to the NSR program would affect air quality under the ACE rule, as well as any information about how changes to methane controls on the oil and gas industry would affect "children, the elderly, outdoor workers and minority communities."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/02/11/stories/1060120261
-
Lawmakers Float Resolution Rebuking Trump on Paris Exit
Feb 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
More than 50 House Democrats and a lone Republican are co-sponsoring a resolution rebuking President Donald Trump for his plan to exit the Paris climate Agreement and affirming Congress’ support for the international deal.
House Concurrent Resolution 15, introduced Feb. 8 by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), says Congress “reaffirms its commitment to the Paris Agreement and that the United States is still in and should not withdraw.”
The measure has 53 co-sponsors, including one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), who is a member of the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus.
The resolution also notes that the agreement’s goal to limit global average temperature increases to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius is “not only achievable but necessary,” that “the United States is stronger when joining with global efforts to address climate change” and that the U.S. “plays an indispensable role in global leadership.”
Fitzpatrick is also a cosponsor of a bipartisan carbon tax bill that was introduced earlier this session. He said the resolution sends a message to the world that the people of the United States are committed to addressing climate change despite the position of the president.
Trump plans to depart the Paris deal at the earliest available opportunity under the pact -- November 2020. Such a timeline means that if a Democrat defeats Trump in the 2020 elections, the future administration could quickly re-join the agreement.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/lawmakers-float-resolution-rebuking-trump-paris-exit
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested