Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - February 15, 2018
-
Ewire: Senate Republicans Tee up Floor Vote on EPA's Wheeler
Feb 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
Senate Republicans are planning a floor vote later this month to confirm acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler to lead the agency permanently, with his conformation all but assured despite recent controversy over the agency's plan to... -
US State Attorney- Generals Petition EPA On Asbestos Reporting Rule
Feb 15, 2019 | Kentucky News 24
By Robert Lewis
Recently, over twelve state attorney-generals have asked the EPA to form an asbestos reporting rule to be included under section 8 of TSCA. On January 31, 2019, TSCA section 21 petition was sent, which has asked the agency to... -
(ACC Mentioned) Leadership Hindered Chemical-Testing Program — Draft Report
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
EPA leadership has stalled research at the agency's program for toxic chemical risk assessments, according to a draft report from the government's watchdog agency. The Integrated Risk Information System "has been unable to release... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Unveils Long-Awaited PFOA Plan, Sidesteps Key Question
Feb 14, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Facing pressure from Congress and some state governments for tougher action around a class of chemicals used in fluoropolymer manufacturing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a long-awaited action plan on Feb. 14. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Unveils Plan for Chemicals Found in West Plains Drinking Water; Critics Say It’s Not Enough
Feb 14, 2019 | The Spokesman-Review
By Chad Sokol
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday unveiled a plan to address PFAS chemicals, a class of toxic man-made compounds that has contaminated drinking water around Fairchild Air Force Base and other communities... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA To Limit PFAS Chemical Contaminants Found In Some Ohio Valley Water Systems
Feb 15, 2019 | WKU Public Radio
By Brittany Patterson
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday it will move forward with a series of actions to regulate toxic fluorinated chemicals, including proposing drinking water limits by the end of this year. But environment and public... -
Nonstick Chemical Lawsuits Roll On as EPA Weighs Action
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
The EPA’s pledge to set limits on nonstick chemicals in drinking water won’t shield companies like 3M Co. and Chemguard Inc. from lawsuits already moving forward, but it could set the bar for future cases. -
The Energy 202: EPA Plan to Rid Drinking Water from Toxic Chemicals Sparks Divisions in Washington
Feb 15, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Environmental Protection Agency is calling it “comprehensive” and “historic.” Congressional Democrats are calling it another sign of “complacency” on the part of Trump administration regulators. The EPA's long-awaited... -
EPA Releases PFAS Action Plan
Feb 14, 2019 | National Law Review
By Tammy L. Helminski and Jeffrey S. Longsworth
The Environmental Protection Agency has released its much anticipated PFAS Action Plan, originally slated for release last fall. EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler held a webcast press conference on Feb. 14, 2019, to announce the... -
Michigan City Finds Fluorochemicals in Groundwater by School
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Michigan regulators are uncovering high levels of fluorinated chemicals that have endangered drinking water in Parchment, Mich. The tests indicate that groundwater across the street from a Parchment elementary school... -
Industry Groups Push 'California Model' of Right-To-Know Laws
Feb 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Industry groups have argued for using California law as a potential solution to fears that a "patchwork" of individual state actions on ingredient disclosure could damage larger federal efforts to give consumers the right to know what... -
Study: Microplastic Pollution Harbors Harmful Bacteria
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nathanial Gronewold,
Marine microplastic pollution poses a variety of toxic threats, according to a new study out of the National University of Singapore. Samples collected off the coastline in Singapore resulted in the discovery of more than 400 species of... -
It's Not Just Microbeads - These Are the Beauty Ingredients That Are Still Polluting Our Oceans
Feb 15, 2019 | Glamour
By Lottie Winter
Remember January 8th 2018? No? Well, it was a great day, namely because the UK government banned the production of microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics, including shower gels, soaps and face wash. The little balls of micro-plastics... -
Gas Glut or Shortage? Pipe Giants Differ on What U.S. East Needs
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
Two of the biggest North American pipeline companies appear to be split on whether the U.S. Northeast has too many shale gas conduits, or not enough. One of TransCanada Corp.’s natural gas pipelines in the region is moving about half... -
The US Natural Gas Industry: Surging Throughput, Falling Methane Emissions
Feb 14, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Jude Clemente
The U.S. natural gas business has been booming over the past decade. Since the shale revolution took flight in 2008, production has risen over 50% to 88 Bcf/d. With gas emitting 50% less CO2 than coal, and 30% less than oil, more gas... -
NTSB Recommends New Safety Measures Following Tank Car Chlorine Incident
Feb 15, 2019 | Progressive Railroading
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday issued five safety recommendations following its investigation of an August 2016 chlorine release from a ruptured tank car near New Martinsville, West Virginia. -
FRA Publishes Railroads’ 2018 Quarter 4 PTC Data
Feb 15, 2019 | American Journal of Transportation
When a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver was rejected last year, there were no illusions that it would mean the end of oil trains traveling through the Northwest. Oil remains a linchpin of the global economy, and the West -
Unshackle Federal Freight Funding From Modal Chains
Feb 15, 2019 | Waterways Journal
In testimony before a February 13 hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) argued that “nowhere in the country are there such stark examples... -
Compromise Bill Adds Millions For Maritime Programs
Feb 15, 2019 | Waterways Journal
By Jim Myers
Maritime programs will receive millions of dollars in new funding under a $333-billion compromise reached by House and Senate conferees to avoid another shutdown for about 25 percent of the federal government. According to the... -
It’s Time for Minnesota to Lead Again on Clean Energy
Feb 15, 2019 | MinnPost
By Rep. Jamie Long and Sen. Nick Frentz
Climate change is transforming Minnesota in ways we are only beginning to understand. If we fail to act, by the time children born today reach adulthood, Minnesota’s seasons, weather and natural landscape will look very different. This... -
House Republican Floats 'Green New Deal' Resolution
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Borrowing a move from Senate Republicans, a House GOP lawmaker has introduced a resolution that aims to bring Democrats' "Green New Deal" up for a vote. The measure, H.Res. 132, offered yesterday by Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.)... -
Big Enviro Groups Tread Lightly in Green New Deal Tent
Feb 15, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman
The political splash made by the Green New Deal represents a milestone for a raft of upstart environmental groups that have emerged and are pressuring older, established green organizations to support a far-left message that goes... -
GOP Looks to Turn Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal on Democrats
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
President Donald Trump calls it “brilliant.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promises to bring it up for a vote. And House Republicans want Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send it to the floor. Republicans are embracing Rep. Alexandria... -
Carbon Markets Roundup 2018 Year in Review
Feb 15, 2019 | National Law Review
By Brook J. Detterman, David C. Weber, Shengzhi Wang and Jacob P. Duginski
Last year saw significant efforts to either impose a price on carbon or reform existing programs, and in some cases roll those programs back. The Paris Agreement advanced a critical step, but without settling on rules for offsets and a...
Industry and Association News
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
-
Ewire: Senate Republicans Tee up Floor Vote on EPA's Wheeler
Feb 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
Senate Republicans are planning a floor vote later this month to confirm acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler to lead the agency permanently, with his conformation all but assured despite recent controversy over the agency's plan to address a class of persistent contaminants in drinking water.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed cloture on Wheeler's nomination Feb. 14, though the chamber is on recess all of next week for the Presidents' Day holiday. When senators return to work Feb. 25, Wheeler's nomination will be third in line to be considered.
That means that he could receive a vote by the end of the month or potentially early March.
Wheeler appeared to assuage some Republican concerns when he unveiled EPA's long-awaited comprehensive plan to address contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), though the agency faces continued scrutiny.
EPA's PFAS plan is “only a first step,” Senate environment committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) said in a statement. “As I have said before, EPA must speak clearly about the risk that this class of chemicals poses to public health and the environment. The agency must be willing to take decisive action where it is warranted. Industry and the Department of Defense must also play a constructive role,” he added.
Still, Democrats remain concerned, in part because they fear the Trump administration's sweeping deregulatory agenda could undercut where the agency ends up on PFAS.
“While EPA acts with utmost urgency to repeal regulations, the agency ambles with complacency when it comes to taking real steps to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, said in a statement.
Even so, Wheeler's confirmation is not entirely assured. For instance, five Republican senators are voicing “serious concerns” over the issue because they want more details on a plan to reform the renewable fuel standard (RFS) credit market.
“Without an adequate proposal to meaningfully lower the regulatory burden of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), we will have serious concerns with your nomination,” write Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (TX), Pat Toomey (PA), Bill Cassidy (LA), John Kennedy (LA) and Mike Lee (UT) in a Feb. 11 letter to Wheeler.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-senate-republicans-tee-floor-vote-epas-wheeler
-
US State Attorney- Generals Petition EPA On Asbestos Reporting Rule
Feb 15, 2019 | Kentucky News 24
By Robert Lewis
Recently, over twelve state attorney-generals have asked the EPA to form an asbestos reporting rule to be included under section 8 of TSCA. On January 31, 2019, TSCA section 21 petition was sent, which has asked the agency to start a regulation to deal with inadequacies in the current chemical data reporting (CDR) rule for asbestos.
Particularly, they have asked EPA take on a novel asbestos reporting rule, which:
Needs informing of the substance’s used in articles.
Blocks exceptions, which is present in the CDR for spontaneously occurring impurities & substances.
Increases the reporting needs to processors of asbestos.
It is essential, they demanded the EPA to adhere to its mandate to organize risk evaluations for asbestos under section six of TSCA & to take on guidelines to deal with arbitrary risk which may affect the climate as well as the health of humans.
Attorneys stated that it would be an essential tool to offer to the public and state access to data, which may be essential for escaping possible hazardous exposures to products that contain asbestos.
Earlier, a group of non-governmental organization submitted a similar petition, which was rejected by EPA. Hence, now the attorneys have submitted a petition.
In response, agency informed petitioners that they know about the continuous asbestos use & will have the information which would be received by the EPA, if they were to change the demands of the CDR.
It further added that petition was to be given, they are not in a position to establish new rule & gather data in the specified time to report its evaluation of risk. The top ten risk evaluations included in the reformed TSCA, in which asbestos is one of them, should be finished by December, with probably a 6 month extension.
Nevertheless, attorneys have mentioned in their petition that it is essential to public health that EPA takes into account the potential exposures & remove the pathways.
Attorneys further added responding to NGO petitioners that the aforementioned goals are difficult to be achieved. If EPA doesn’t have the important detailed information related to the producer & asbestos usage in the United States on which to act – information which presently EPA is not gathering under the CDR, as EPA acknowledges.
Attorneys from fourteen different states registered the petition, which includes, Oregon, Washington, California & Massachusetts and also the District of Columbia. The agency can deny or grant the petition in three months.
https://www.kyn24.com/local-state/us-state-attorney-generals-petition-epa-on-asbestos-reporting-rule-152323.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Leadership Hindered Chemical-Testing Program — Draft Report
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
EPA leadership has stalled research at the agency's program for toxic chemical risk assessments, according to a draft report from the government's watchdog agency.
The Integrated Risk Information System "has been unable to release any work since June 2018 while it was waiting for feedback from the Administrator's office," according to a draft Government Accountability Office report obtained by The Wall Street Journal.
The draft report found that the program's "progress toward producing assessments was delayed by EPA leadership deliberations about priorities," The Wall Street Journal reported.
Specifically, it found that EPA leadership told various agency program heads in October to limit the chemicals they wanted IRIS to examine. IRIS then dropped nine of its 16 chemical assessments, including one on formaldehyde, according to the draft report.
GAO declined to comment on the details of the draft report. A spokesman for the agency said it cannot comment on a report that has not been completed. It should be issued by March 6, the agency said.
An EPA spokesman said the draft report is "incomplete" and should not be treated as a final version.
He added that it did not include EPA's "extensive" comments and pushed back against the draft report's findings.
He said acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler "asked EPA's program offices last August to submit priority chemicals for IRIS assessment and those offices were given full autonomy to determine their priorities."
When Wheeler was questioned on the long-delayed study of formaldehyde's health risks during his Senate confirmation hearing, he said it was not identified by program offices as a top priority (E&E News PM, Jan. 29).
IRIS is a long-standing point of contention in the chemical regulatory world.
Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said it is "ridiculous to complain that the Administration has delayed IRIS decisions by a few months when the program is infamous for decades of low productivity and flawed assessments."
"The Trump EPA is right to devote some time to review this highly flawed program and should develop a reform plan that will better serve public health and human well-being," Logomasini said in a statement.
Earlier this week, she called for IRIS to be eliminated and its responsibilities split among other agency offices (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
Others, however, say this draft report reveals systematic efforts by the Trump administration to infuse politics into science.
The draft report did not name who in EPA leadership stalled IRIS work, but Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, pointed to Nancy Beck in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and David Dunlap of the Office of Research and Development as likely candidates.
Beck previously worked for the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents member companies that use and produce formaldehyde.
Dunlap left Koch Industries to join EPA in 2018.
Senate Democrats came to a similar conclusion in a letter to EPA last year demanding the release of the formaldehyde review (E&E News PM, May 18, 2018).
"It appears that the agency may be succumbing to pressure from industry in its attempt to delay or block the publication of the formaldehyde health assessment," the senators said. "This is exceptionally disturbing, and lends further credence to the belief, already widely held, that EPA has been captured by industry."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/15/stories/1060121235
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Unveils Long-Awaited PFOA Plan, Sidesteps Key Question
Feb 14, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Facing pressure from Congress and some state governments for tougher action around a class of chemicals used in fluoropolymer manufacturing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a long-awaited action plan on Feb. 14.
But EPA essentially kicked the can down the road on a key question: setting tougher safe levels in drinking water.
EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency will keep working on legal limits in water supplies around two chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid. PFOA has been a manufacturing aid in fluoropolymer production and today is at the center of water pollution concerns around some plastics factories.
EPA currently has an advisory level of 70 parts per trillion in drinking water for the chemicals, but some states have been moving ahead on legally enforceable standards at much lower levels, in some cases below 20 ppt.
Congress has sent a flurry of letters to EPA in recent weeks urging action, including a Feb. 1 letter from 20 senators who expressed concern over recent media reports that the agency did not intend to set a new enforceable standard.
At a Feb. 14 news conference in Philadelphia, Wheeler said the agency will move forward.
"Contrary to misinformation in the press in recent weeks, EPA is moving forward with a maximum contaminant level or MCL process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act for PFOA and PFOS," Wheeler said. "The action plan commits EPA to take important steps."
He said EPA will propose new MCL standards by the end of the year, but he did not say what level the agency would use. It could still take years for those proposed standards to become final.
"We feel right now that 70 parts per trillion is the safe level for drinking water," Wheeler said. "As we go forward with the MCL, we will be looking to see whether or not lower levels are required according to where the science directs us."
But even with the differing state standards, Wheeler said EPA is still working on cleanups with regulators in states that are setting lower levels.
"Regardless of what the national number is, we can work with the states using their numbers today," Wheeler said.
New York is one of those states. Its Drinking Water Quality Council voted last month to recommend a 10 ppt standard.
The issue came to widespread public attention there in 2016 with contamination around Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. factories in Hoosick Falls.
As well, DuPont Co. and Chemours Co. paid $670 million in 2017 to settle thousands of lawsuits over drinking water contamination from their fluoropolymer manufacturing plant in West Virginia.
Beyond setting an MCL, the EPA plan also includes potentially listing PFOA and PFOS under federal Superfund law, which could open up companies to paying more to fund cleanups.
Additionally, Wheeler said the new action plan would expand research and enforcement actions and possibly add the chemicals to Toxics Release Inventory, which would put them on a list of chemical emissions that factories are required to publicly disclose.
The class of chemicals, known broadly by the acronym PFAS, are used in a wide range of products, including firefighting foams and coatings for paper packaging, because of their strong performance, but they have been increasingly linked to health problems.
Wheeler and other EPA officials described the action plan as unprecedented in scope for the agency, pulling in staff from all of its programs to work on an emerging chemical issue and, for the first time, holding simultaneous news conferences in all 10 EPA regional offices, reflecting widespread national concern.
One local official deeply involved with concerns around the Saint Gobain factories criticized the EPA announcement as repeating what the agency's already said.
"This entire announcement has demonstrated the lack of guidance and leadership at the highest levels of EPA," Hoosick Falls Mayor Rob Allen said on his twitter feed. "When the country needed clear and tangible direction and guidelines on handling PFAS, we got a regurgitation of descriptor words with no clear action."
The Natural Resources Defense Council said it could take five to 10 years under federal law to finalize the standards EPA is proposing.
The American Chemistry Council said it looked forward to reviewing the details of the plan.
"We continue to support strong national leadership in addressing PFAS and firmly believe that EPA is best positioned to provide the public with a comprehensive strategy informed by a full understanding of the safety and benefits of different PFAS chemistries," ACC said.
Wheeler, who still faces a Senate confirmation vote to become the permanent EPA head, said the agency has to move deliberately on its rulemakings "in order to make sure they stand up in court."
He said EPA has not adopted any new MCLs since key changes were made in the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996.
"To be honest, the agency has not set a new MCL since the Act was passed in 1996, so we're charting a little new territory," Wheeler said. "I can't give you a definite answer as far as how long it will take. We have to go through the regulatory process as outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act and we're moving as quickly as we can."
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190214/NEWS/190219910/epa-unveils-long-awaited-pfoa-plan-sidesteps-key-question
-
Feb 14, 2019 | The Spokesman-Review
By Chad Sokol
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday unveiled a plan to address PFAS chemicals, a class of toxic man-made compounds that has contaminated drinking water around Fairchild Air Force Base and other communities across the country. PFAS chemicals, also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyls, are prized for their nonstick, stain-resistant and fire-retardant qualities.
The plan involves additional monitoring and increased research, cleanup and risk-communication efforts. The EPA also plans to take a first step toward setting an enforceable limit for PFAS chemicals in drinking water by the end of 2019, Chris Hladick, the agency’s regional director for the Pacific Northwest, said in a conference call with reporters.
But the first stage of that rule-making process only determines whether a maximum contaminant level, or MCL, is needed.
“If it’s a yes, then they’re still years away from setting an MCL,” said Barbara Morrissey, an expert in the environmental toxicology division of Washington’s Department of Health.
Environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers were quick to criticize the plan, saying it effectively delays much-needed regulations on PFAS chemicals, which have been linked to cancer and other health problems after decades of use in consumer products and firefighting foam.
“The EPA plan will not protect Washingtonians from these harmful chemicals that last indefinitely in the environment and get into drinking water,” Erika Schreder, science director for Toxic-Free Future, a Seattle-based advocacy group, said in a statement. “Washington state is far ahead of EPA in providing residents real protections from these chemicals and must continue to lead.”
A spokeswoman for Toxic-Free Future noted that Democrats in Olympia are sponsoring legislation that would require manufacturers to provide information on certain “priority chemicals,” such as PFAS compounds, to the state Department of Ecology. One of those bills passed the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology on Thursday.
EPA officials, including Hladick, described the PFAS plan as the first of its kind, a concerted nationwide effort that will address the “emerging” public health threat on multiple fronts. Andrew Wheeler, the EPA’s acting administrator and President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the agency permanently, called the plan a “pivotal moment in the history of the agency.”
U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington, were among 20 Democratic senators who signed a Feb. 1 letter to Wheeler, urging the EPA to quickly adopt enforceable drinking-water standards.
“Washingtonians should not have to worry if their water is contaminated with harmful chemicals,” Murray said in a statement Thursday, “yet once again the Trump administration has chosen to sacrifice public health in pursuit of loose rules for wealthy special interests that would further pollute our water supply and cause additional harm to our environment.”
In an email, an EPA spokeswoman said the agency is “committed to following the (maximum contaminant level) rulemaking process as established by the Safe Drinking Water Act – a process that is designed to ensure public participation, transparency and the use of the best available science and other technical information. This process will provide regulatory certainty, while ensuring the legal defensibility of EPA’s regulatory actions.”
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment Committee, said in a statement: “I urge Mr. Wheeler to reverse course and treat this public health threat with the urgency it deserves. And I ask my colleagues in the Senate to take note of Mr. Wheeler’s lack of urgency in addressing this threat as they consider his nomination to be EPA’s permanent administrator.”
A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers did not immediately have a comment on the EPA plan.
The two most prevalent PFAS compounds, known as PFOS and PFOA, were used for decades in food packaging, cookware and stain repellents. They were phased out of use in the United States by the mid-2000s, but experts say similar replacement chemicals, including one called GenX, may be just as hazardous.
The chemicals degrade extremely slowly, if at all, and are known to accumulate in the environment and in people. Tests on lab animals have linked the compounds to an array of health problems.
Their effects on humans are less clear, but Morrissey, with the state Health Department, said new studies are being published each week.
“It’s a really active area of research, and so I think we’re going to know a lot more in the next few years,” she said.
The EPA issued an unenforceable health advisory for PFOS and PFOA in 2016, saying concentrations in drinking water should not exceed 70 parts per trillion.
But a report released last summer by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that “minimum risk levels” for oral exposure to those chemicals are much lower than the EPA limit.
The EPA, under former Administrator Scott Pruitt, along with the White House, had sought to block the publication of the HHS report, with one Trump administration aide warning it would cause a “public relations nightmare.”
Fairchild officials first acknowledged in early 2017 that groundwater around the air base was contaminated by PFAS chemicals. They were key ingredients in aqueous film-forming foam, a widely used fire retardant that seeped into the water table from training sites on the base. The contamination prompted lawsuits and forced Airway Heights to flush millions of gallons from its drinking water system.
Tens of millions of people in the United States rely on tap water containing unsafe levels of the compounds, according to the Environmental Working Group. In their Feb. 1 letter to Wheeler, the Democratic senators wrote that a lack of clear guidance from the EPA “has led to a patchwork of conflicting drinking water standards and guidelines in nine states with widely varying maximum contaminant levels.”
Manufacturers of PFAS chemicals, including DuPont and 3M Co., have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle lawsuits over drinking water contamination. In a statement Thursday, the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobbying group, voiced support for the EPA plan.
“We continue to support strong national leadership in addressing PFAS and firmly believe that EPA is best positioned to provide the public with a comprehensive strategy informed by a full understanding of the safety and benefits of different PFAS chemistries,” the group said.
The New York Times reported in October 2017 that Nancy Beck – a top EPA political appointee and former executive at the American Chemistry Council – had pushed for rule changes that make it harder to regulate PFOA and other chemicals. Beck holds a doctorate in environmental health from the University of Washington and worked at the state Health Department from 1999 to 2000.
Morrissey said the EPA tends to rely on its own data when creating new regulations. The agency’s own sampling several years ago found PFAS contamination in only small pockets of the country, but later samplings by the military and other researchers found the problem was much bigger, she said.
“If the EPA doesn’t consider all of that, they might say, ‘Hey, we don’t need to regulate it because there’s not a significant occurrence,’” Morrissey said.
In an email, an EPA spokeswoman said the agency would continue monitoring efforts because new lab methods can detect PFAS chemicals at lower concentrations than previously possible.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/feb/14/epa-unveils-plan-for-chemicals-found-in-west-plain/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA To Limit PFAS Chemical Contaminants Found In Some Ohio Valley Water Systems
Feb 15, 2019 | WKU Public Radio
By Brittany Patterson
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday it will move forward with a series of actions to regulate toxic fluorinated chemicals, including proposing drinking water limits by the end of this year. But environment and public health advocates say that timeline is unacceptably slow given the health risks and extent of contamination.
In its long-awaited “PFAS Action Plan,” EPA laid out a series of actions to address the widespread contamination of fluorinated PFAS chemicals.
Those chemicals include PFOA, or C8, which has been detected in several water systems in the Ohio Valley. The chemicals were used in a variety of products, including non-stick cookware, stain resistant clothing, and flame retardants.
Some municipalities in Ohio and West Virginia have been dealing with C-8 contamination for decades, and a court-ordered health monitoring program in the Ohio Valley linked exposure to a variety of health risks.
“This action plan represents a pivotal moment in the history of the agency and a pivotal moment for public health environmental protection,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, speaking at a press conference in Philadelphia. “This is the most comprehensive cross-agency action plan for a chemical of concern ever undertaken by the agency.”
Among the actions outlined in the plan, EPA said it will: “Propose a regulatory determination,” or take the next step to determine a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, for PFOA and PFOS. Continue enforcement actions (EPA has already done eight). Clarify cleanup strategies for PFAS contamination and soon release interim groundwater cleanup recommendations for contaminated sites. Expand research into the human health and ecological effects of exposure, how PFAS chemicals spread and how best to remove them from the environment. Continue the process to of adding PFAS under the Superfund law. Consider placing PFAS chemicals in the Toxics Release Inventory, a publicly available database containing information on chemical releases and other waste management activities. Develop a plan to better communicate the risk to the public of exposure to these chemicals.
EPA’s plan was met with enthusiasm by some groups dealing with PFAS contamination. The National Ground Water Association, an Ohio-based trade group, said it was pleased with the agency’s actions to list PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law. Once listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, states affected by the chemical contamination will be able to receive federal help holding polluters accountable.
The group also praised the agency’s decision to move forward with the regulatory process for creating drinking water standards for two PFAS chemicals frequently found in drinking water, PFOA and PFOS.
Concerns Surface
As more details emerged from the agency, however, environmental groups and some lawmakers expressed concern about the agency’s timeline for setting drinking water standards.
“It has taken the EPA nearly a year just to kick the can even further down the road,” said Senator Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In a statement, Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia was more measured. Capito has repeatedly met with EPA Acting Administrator Wheeler on the PFAS issue and last week joined a bipartisan group of senators to urge the agency head to set a standard.
“It’s encouraging to see the EPA taking action to address something that has proven to be a real problem in a number of communities across the country—including in West Virginia,” Capito said. She added she intends to “remain actively engaged to push EPA to complete the process expeditiously and put that standard in place.”
In a call with reporters, Dave Ross, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water, stressed the agency will go through the rule making process set out by the Safe Drinking Water Act. That will include using the most up-to-date science and taking public comment.
“We are going to move as quickly as we possibly can to do this,” Ross said, adding that whatever EPA proposes will likely be challenged in court. “So we will move with all deliberate speed.”
Potential Delays
But what that speed could look like is “up in the air,” said Genna Reed, lead science and policy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The Safe Drinking Water Act gives EPA the authority to create drinking water standards for chemicals. MCLs set legally enforceable limits on the amount of a substance allowed in public drinking water systems.
In order to consider setting an MCL for a chemical, the agency must prove the pollutant adversely affects public health, is widespread in public water systems, and that regulation would reduce health risk.
EPA committed to starting that process in its action plan. Reed said now the agency will begin the process of filtering through the science surrounding these chemicals, a process she fears could face interference by political appointees at the agency who have ties to the chemical industry.
EPA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Nancy Beck, formerly worked at the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group. The White House’s nominee to head EPA’s Office of Land and Energy Management, which manages the Superfund program, is former Dow Chemical Co. counsel, Peter Wright.
“There absolutely could be a determination that PFOS and PFOA should not be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which we would argue is perhaps not in line with the best available science,” she said. “So, it’s really important to follow and see what the EPA does here and to make sure that they’re consulting with their science staff and really listening to what they're saying on these two chemicals.”
Currently, EPA has issued a health advisory for the chemicals of 70 parts-per-trillion, but some states, including New Jersey, have adopted lower acceptable contamination levels.
During his Thursday press conference, EPA Acting Administrator Wheeler said the agency is already taking enforcement actions to cleanup contaminated drinking water if levels are higher than the health advisory recommendation.
Reed, with the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted if a MCL is created for PFOA and PFOS, it would trigger much more monitoring. For example, water systems would be required to provide water quality reports showing how much of these chemicals are found in their systems.
Uncertain Risks
Public health advocates also raise questions about continued exposure to potentially unsafe levels of PFAS chemicals while the agency considers creating drinking water standards.
The Environmental Working Group estimates 110 million Americans drink water with dangerous PFAS levels. EPA estimates PFAS have been found in the blood of 98 percent of Americans.
A report released last year by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR), found PFAS chemicals can endanger human health at levels 7 to 10 times lower than the EPA says is safe.
The report, or toxicological profile, draws upon the best available research. At 852 pages, it is aimed at giving public health officials a comprehensive picture of how fluorinated chemicals may affect human health as well as highlight the different ways people may be exposed to them.
The study finds people are exposed to fluorinated chemicals in a variety of ways including through contaminated soil and water, food packaging laced with the chemicals, and some more directly by living near plants that manufactured C8.
It also finds exposure to high levels of some fluorinated chemicals may affect fertility, increase cholesterol levels and increase the risk of thyroid disease.
David Andrews, senior scientist with Environmental Working Group, said there is already an overwhelming body of scientific evidence about the health impacts of PFOA and PFOS, informed largely by a study conducted in the Ohio Valley following a settlement agreement with DuPont.
“At this point there is close to or over 100 studies of their impact on human health really indicating the potential to cause impacts to our immune system, reproduction, development as well as all the other health effects including cancer, impacts on liver, kidney,” Andrews said. “Really, it’s just an incredible range of our bodies’ functions that these chemicals can really interrupt and disrupt.”
He noted the agency’s new plan does not address the thousands of other chemicals in the PFAS class, many of which researchers know little about. In the United States, more than 600 PFAS chemicals are allowed for use. EPA said it intends to do toxicity assessments for a handful.
“It was very much unclear what if any action they would take for other chemicals in this class,” Andrews said.
Cincinnati-based attorney Rob Bilott successfully brought a class action lawsuit against DuPont, representing more than 70,000 people affected by the company's dumping of C8, or PFOA, in communities in the Parkersburg, West Virginia, and Marietta, Ohio, area.
Bilott said in a statement that EPA has for years shrugged off taking action and this latest plan followed the pattern. During the course of the litigation against DuPont, which lasted more than two decades, internal communications from the company were made public that showed the company knew about the chemical’s health effects since the 1950s.
In 2001, Bilott wrote to the EPA detailing what DuPont knew. Fifteen years later the agency released its health advisory.
“EPA has been promising to address the serious public health threat posed by PFAS chemical exposures for almost twenty years,” Bilott said. “Promising to conduct more studies, investigations and further work toward formal regulatory action at some point in the future, is not the same as actually taking formal regulatory action now.”
EPA's Next Moves
The agency said it will “explore” placing PFAS chemicals on its Toxics Release Inventory. If completed, that would allow for better tracking of how they are released into the environment.
EPA’s action plan states it intends to include PFAS in next Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or UCMR. During the last round of testing, EPA found that 1.3 percent of the public water systems monitored had concentrations of PFOA and PFOS that were greater than the agency’s health advisory limit.
When asked at what level the agency would screen for PFAS chemicals, Wheeler said career staff would make that determination.
http://www.wkyufm.org/post/epa-limit-pfas-chemical-contaminants-found-some-ohio-valley-water-systems#stream/0
-
Nonstick Chemical Lawsuits Roll On as EPA Weighs Action
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
The EPA’s pledge to set limits on nonstick chemicals in drinking water won’t shield companies like 3M Co. and Chemguard Inc. from lawsuits already moving forward, but it could set the bar for future cases.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Feb. 14 that it will by the end of the year decide whether to set nationwide drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, part of a family of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl compounds.
Those standards will likely take years to be completed and won’t halt dozens of lawsuits already filed over chemical contamination in drinking water. Whatever level of chemicals the EPA ultimately deems to be safe in drinking water could set the standard for future challenges.
“In places without regulation, it will help plaintiffs establish common law cases,” said New York attorney Larry Schnapf from the firm Schnapf Environmental Law.
The agency now recommends that the two chemicals not exceed 70 parts per trillion, but that standard isn’t federally enforceable. States like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have already set their own limits for the chemicals, but the EPA’s future standards could set the bar nationwide.
Most of the pending lawsuits fall along two lines: water agencies or municipalities suing to recover costs of treating contaminated water, and individuals claiming health issues as result of exposure to the fluorinated chemicals.
The chemicals have been used in nonstick coatings, for stain- and water-resistant products, and in firefighting foams. They don’t break down easily in water and can accumulate in the body, causing developmental issues in children and thyroid, kidney, and other ailments in adults.
Judges Weigh HarmWhile the EPA is deciding how to proceed, cases will still move forward and judges and juries will have to decide if testimony, experts, and evidence prove the cases.
“Without that standard being present, trial judges across the country are going to have to cope with this issue,” Daniel Riesel, a principal attorney with Sive, Paget & Riesel PC in New York, said. “This is something judges and juries decide all the time.”
More than 100 lawsuits against companies like 3M Co., Chemguard Inc., National Foam, and others have already been moved to a federal district court in South Carolina as part of a multi-district litigation proceeding known as In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation.
One judge is handling pretrial matters and discovery for similar cases. If the individual cases aren’t settled or dismissed, they go back to the jurisdiction where they originated.
A pretrial conference is scheduled for later in February, but it’s doubtful the EPA actions will be discussed, said Matt Edling, a partner with Sher Edling LLP in San Francisco who represents the Suffolk County Water Authority in New York in one of the cases.
While any standards that the EPA may set will guide future lawsuits, they may not be the last word on whether people can claim they were harmed by exposure to these fluorinated chemicals.
“You don’t need definitive standards to prove your case,” Riesel said. “You need convincing, credible testimony of a scientific nature.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/nonstick-chemical-lawsuits-roll-on-as-epa-weighs-action
-
The Energy 202: EPA Plan to Rid Drinking Water from Toxic Chemicals Sparks Divisions in Washington
Feb 15, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
The Environmental Protection Agency is calling it “comprehensive” and “historic.” Congressional Democrats are calling it another sign of “complacency” on the part of Trump administration regulators.
The EPA's long-awaited "action plan" on keeping a class of long-lasting chemicals out of Americans' drinking water, unveiled Thursday, is already turning into another bone of contention in Washington.
It had the potential to be a rare area of bipartisan agreement: Members of both parties agree that more must be done to control contamination from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds — also known as PFAS. It is widely accepted that these “forever chemicals” — they don't break down naturally — are associated with plethora of health problems, including infertility and certain cancers, and need to be kept out of drinking water. But Democrats and activists say the government is not moving quickly enough.
The agency on Thursday said it was setting long- and short-term goals for controlling PFAS. “We're protecting Americans' drinking water, which is very important,” acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told ABC. “We need to make sure that every American regardless of Zip code has safe, reliable drinking water.”
One of those goals is to set a legal limit on the concentration of two of the most commonly detected chemicals, called PFOS and PFOA, that can appear in drinking water.
“I want to be crystal clear about this — our intent is to establish a [maximum contaminant level] for PFOA and PFOS,” David Ross, assistant administrator in the EPA’s water office, told The Post's Brady Dennis and other reporters.
But critics, including Democrats in Congress and environmental activists in contaminated communities, say that scientists have ample evidence to set those limits because manufacturers have been using them for decades to make a long list of products, including perhaps most notably Teflon-coated cookware.
“It is unacceptable for the administration to drag its heels when it comes to the health and safety of our drinking water,” Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said in a statement.
But the agency isn't setting that limit just yet because, according to Ross, it wants to make sure any new rules will be defensible in court.
Many Democrats see that as a delay tactic. Their reaction to the “action plan” also belies a level of distrust that has developed between that party and the Trump administration for environmental regulation as the EPA and other departments move to rewrite Obama-era rules in often more industry-friendly ways.
“Andrew Wheeler’s EPA is punting on action to tackle a serious public health risk lurking in Americans’ drinking water,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Thursday. “Meanwhile, Wheeler is pushing as hard as humanly possible to roll back vital environmental protections he thinks stand between his polluter patrons and bigger profits.”
With Wheeler's nomination to be the permanent EPA administrator soon to come up for a vote, senators such as Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) spoke to Wheeler directly about the issue several times.
This month, a bipartisan group of 20 senators sent the agency a letter pressing it to develop legal standards for PFOA and PFOS. Without a standard, several states are working on creating their own.
Now with a public response from the agency, Senate Republicans are expressing cautious optimism.
“It’s encouraging to see the EPA taking action to address something that has proven to be a real problem in a number of communities across the country — including in West Virginia,” Capito said. “Today’s announcement is an important step in that direction, and I will remain actively engaged to push EPA to complete the process expeditiously and put that standard in place.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/02/15/the-energy-202-epa-plan-to-rid-drinking-water-from-toxic-chemicals-sparks-divisions-in-washington/5c65d0751b326b71858c6b96/?utm_term=.a731508bfb08
-
Feb 14, 2019 | National Law Review
By Tammy L. Helminski and Jeffrey S. Longsworth
The Environmental Protection Agency has released its much anticipated PFAS Action Plan, originally slated for release last fall. EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler held a webcast press conference on Feb. 14, 2019, to announce the elements of EPA’s plan. States, individuals and the regulated community have been awaiting this plan and for EPA to formally announce its nationwide action plan to address PFAS.
For background on PFAS, see our previous post, Fast Facts: What is PFAS?
The main elements of EPA’s PFAS Action Plan include:
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
EPA is moving forward with the regulatory process for evaluating MCLs under the Safe Drinking Water Act for PFOA and PFOS, two chemicals in the PFAS family for which EPA has already set lifetime health advisory levels. It is also gathering information to determine if additional PFAS compounds should also be regulated.
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR)
EPA will include PFAS in the next UCMR monitoring cycle, slated for pre-proposal input in 2019 and a proposed rule in 2020. While EPA collected data for six PFAS compounds under the UCMR conducted between 2013 and 2015, EPA did not state which or how many PFAS chemicals would be included or which analytical method would be used in this next UCMR. EPA uses the UCMR to collect data for contaminants that are suspected to be present in drinking water and do not have health-based standards set under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Hazardous Substance
EPA is pursuing designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, which opens up the CERCLA statutory pathway for cleanup cost recovery.
Cleanup Levels
In addition to designation as CERCLA hazardous substances, EPA said it will develop interim groundwater cleanup recommendations for use at sites being addressed under CERCLA and at federal-led RCRA corrective action sites.
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
EPA is considering adding PFAS chemicals to the TRI reporting requirements.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
EPA will use its authority under TSCA’s New Chemicals Program to evaluate new uses of PFAS, including following up on its 2015 Significant New Use Rulemaking for certain long-chain PFAS.
Closing Data Gaps
EPA will also continue research into three main areas, including human health and ecological effects, fate and transport, and remediation technology.
Continued Enforcement
EPA said it will continue to enforce cleanups using the current health advisory limit of 70 ppt for PFOA plus PFOS and it will continue to support state enforcement actions.
Risk Communication
EPA is developing a “risk communication toolbox” that government partners can use with the public.
EPA’s plan also includes a summary of 23 main concerns or challenges it received from stakeholder input and the EPA actions and timeframes to address each. Though this summary outlines the steps EPA is taking to get to some sort of regulatory endpoint and address concerns and challenges, it does not provide those regulatory requirements today or even in the next few months. The fractured and uncertain regulatory environment of different standards in different states will continue.
While EPA’s announcement and release of its PFAS action plan help fill in some of the regulatory landscape regarding PFAS, they also leave states and regulated parties a bit in the dark regarding immediate action plans to address PFAS contamination. Hence, these issues will continue to be addressed on a site-by-site basis and state-by-state basis.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-releases-pfas-action-plan
-
Michigan City Finds Fluorochemicals in Groundwater by School
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Michigan regulators are uncovering high levels of fluorinated chemicals that have endangered drinking water in Parchment, Mich.
The tests indicate that groundwater across the street from a Parchment elementary school exceeds Michigan’s 70 parts-per-trillion health advisory level for two types of the fluorochemicals known as PFAS.
That finding comes roughly six months after the local municipal water system was shut down and pumped due to high levels of fluorinated chemicals in drinking water.
Test results for Parchment were released Feb. 14—the same day the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a plan to make a determination by the end of 2020 on whether to set nationwide drinking water standards for some types of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
The EPA intended to release a plan late last year, but pushed back the date.
Samples in 14 other Parchment-area tests didn’t indicate levels above 70 parts per trillion. The testing was coordinated between Georgia Pacific, Tetra Tech, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Investigation ContinuesMichigan and other states continue to seek out the sources of these “forever chemicals,” used in nonstick pans, packaging, tanning, and firefighting foam.
Since late 2017, Michigan has mobilized scientists and engineers to assess polluted waters across the state and stop the chemicals from running off industrial and military facilities. This testing led to the realization that Parchment’s wells and municipal water were contaminated.
Roughly 2,000 Parchment-area residents were switched to nearby Kalamazoo’s municipal drinking water. Those residents with drinking water wells were initially supplied bottled water, then given water filters.
The investigation into the source of that contamination continues, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality spokesman Scott Dean told Bloomberg Environment in a Feb. 15 email.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/michigan-city-finds-fluorochemicals-in-groundwater-by-school
-
Industry Groups Push 'California Model' of Right-To-Know Laws
Feb 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Industry groups have argued for using California law as a potential solution to fears that a "patchwork" of individual state actions on ingredient disclosure could damage larger federal efforts to give consumers the right to know what is in their products.
According to data collected by the NGO Safer States, this year has already seen several states propose bills requiring ingredient disclosures and other labelling on certain products, including:Massachusetts, where there is a bill to establish a framework for listing chemicals of concern and require they be disclosed in children’s products; Mississippi, where two bills would require cosmetics manufacturers to disclose certain product ingredients on their website; and Virginia, where there is a bill that would require labels on menstrual products containing BPA.
At the end of January, New York governor Andrew Cuomo proposed requiring on-package labelling and increased ingredient disclosure for consumer products. This would expand the state’s existing cleaning product ingredient disclosure requirements to personal care products. The plan comes as a part of his 2020 executive budget proposal, and has not yet been introduced in the state legislature.
In the wake of the New York proposal, however, industry groups pointed out the importance of consistency, and expressed concern that the country will end up with many different right-to-know guidelines.
Both the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and the Household and Consumer Products Association (HCPA) argue for adopting a model based on California’s Cleaning Product Right to Know Act
This act was signed into law in 2017, and remains the most comprehensive statewide product labelling standard for cleaning products.
The ACI told Chemical Watch that state officials and legislatures – like Governor Cuomo – should consider adopting the California model as it would help enable consistency for consumers. Otherwise, it added, "creating a patchwork quilt of individual state bills will more than likely derail larger efforts to give consumers the right to know through comprehensive federal legislation".
And JD Darr, manager of state government relations and public policy for the HCPA, said California’s law had the support of a diverse group of environmental, health, industry and labour-related groups.
"This landmark California law should serve as the foundation for a potential national solution that is currently on the table and which is generating an unprecedented amount of support and momentum from key stakeholders," he said.
Both the ACI and HCPA filed a lawsuit in November 2018 opposing New York’s existing cleaning products ingredient disclosure policy, saying the state did not involve key stakeholders in its creation. They also highlighted California’s law as a model at that time, saying that it was "comprehensive and transparent", unlike the New York regulation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74319/industry-groups-push-california-model-of-right-to-know-laws
-
Study: Microplastic Pollution Harbors Harmful Bacteria
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nathanial Gronewold,
Marine microplastic pollution poses a variety of toxic threats, according to a new study out of the National University of Singapore.
Samples collected off the coastline in Singapore resulted in the discovery of more than 400 species of bacteria living on ocean plastic debris.
The growing problem of marine plastic trash is gaining in the international environmental consciousness, with the United Nations and multibillion-dollar corporations committed to curbing it. Aside from the aesthetic damage, it's been widely documented that plastic trash kills scores of fish, marine mammals and seabirds that mistake the plastic pieces for food, consuming them until their stomachs are literally bursting with waste.
Less is known about the chemical or biological threat, including from so-called microplastic pieces 5 millimeters in size or smaller.
But a new study on microplastic pollution discovered that these tiny particles can host harmful bacteria, including marine vibrio, which can cause wound infections in humans. The research also found microorganisms tied to coral bleaching — Photobacterium rosenbergii — living on the surfaces of microplastic waste, their presence a threat to the health of ocean ecosystems, according to scientists at NUS.
Not all the species of bacteria the team found are necessarily harmful, they acknowledged. Some samples hosted colonies of "Erythrobacter, which is capable of degrading plastic," they said. The scientists also discovered a type of bacteria sometimes used to help clean up marine oil spills.
Still, the presence of harmful bacteria should be cause for alarm, the researchers argued, and not only for the potential of plastic pollution to cause disease through the food chain. "The microplastics we studied were collected from locations easily accessible to the public and in areas widely used for recreation," NUS Ph.D. student Emily Curren wrote in the team's report.
While much remains unknown about the contamination risks of plastic and microplastic pollution, a study out of Europe last year argued there is now enough knowledge to begin regulations aimed at stemming the flow waste into the seas.
In the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, researchers from Spain and Germany zeroed in on the chemical additives found in some plastic waste that they say can act as endocrine disruptors, blocking hormones during development and potentially leading to developmental problems and cancer.
Given that these chemicals can enter the food chain at very small sizes and accumulate in larger organisms, the science team advocated for "strong policy actions to curb unnecessary plastic packaging on the demand side on the short term, such as the ban on free single-use plastic bags, or to substantially increase the collection rate of plastic waste." The research was prepared for parties to the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants and the Basel Convention on hazardous wastes.
Separate studies have also concluded that various chemical pollutants found in the ocean can attach and accumulate onto microplastic fragments due to the plastic particles' high surface-area-to-volume ratios, providing an avenue for heavy metals and toxic chemicals to enter the food chain through fish and even plankton.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/15/stories/1060121217
-
It's Not Just Microbeads - These Are the Beauty Ingredients That Are Still Polluting Our Oceans
Feb 15, 2019 | Glamour
By Lottie Winter
Remember January 8th 2018? No? Well, it was a great day, namely because the UK government banned the production of microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics, including shower gels, soaps and face wash.
The little balls of micro-plastics had been causing chaos for some time, flushing down our drains and eventually making their way into the oceans, polluting the water and killing marine life. And when you think that a single shower could result in 100,000 microbeads entering the water system, it's easy to understand how vast the issue was.
But while we may have won the battle with microbeads, we must not assume we've won the war. On the contrary, there are a throng of toxic ingredients still being used in our every day personal care products that are upsetting marine ecosystems and polluting the world's oceans.
Rinse-off toxins are continuously being released into the aquatic environment, and while the pharmaceutical industry also poses a particular problem with this issue, personal care products like shampoos, shower gels and face washes are almost ubiquitous in every household, making them a larger threat.
"When we wash bodies each day, the products we applied to it previously will all be washed down the drain with the water. Water waste treatment plants do not break down all the ingredients in beauty products and some then make their way to marine environments. Some of these ingredients cannot break down in aquatic environments causing aquatic toxicity, harming marine life and the ecosystem balance," says Nausheen Qureshi, founder of bio-designed skincare brand Elequra.
On top of that, the sewage systems and filtration technology aren't always able to clean these toxins out, which leads them to accumulate in sewage system sludge. This sludge is often used as fertiliser for common crops, therefore entering the human food chain.
Luckily, research is becoming more comprehensive on the subject, highlighting the main culprits as well as their effect on the environment. Here, we take a look at a few of them...
UV FILTERS
While awareness was raised last year when Hawaii announced there would be a ban on the sale of sunscreens that contain the ingredients oxybenzone and octinoxate starting in 2021, the rest of the world is yet to follow suit, and the ingredients are still present in thousands of common sun screens.
The ingredients have been shown to be toxic to marine life, including deformed coral larvae, plankton and algae, as well as accumulating in the muscles of fish and crustaceans (which humans then eat). On top of the threat to the marine eco-system, these two chemicals are known as endocrine disruptors, and may cause disruption to human hormones when absorbed through the skin or ingested through contaminated food. While there isn't enough research to say for certain, many researchers suspect that the chemicals may result in a host of health problems, including breast cancer, birth defects and DNA damage when they enter the blood stream.
TRICLOSAN
If you own an antibacterial hand gel, chances are it contains Triclosan. The ingredient is a common antimicrobial and antibacterial agent that can also be found in some toothpastes, soaps, deodorants and body washes.
After entering the water system, Triclosan accumulates in the cells of algae and marine mammals, restricting their growth, causing impairment of vital functions or else killing them. The toxin is also found in our drinking water and is thought to be of similar threat to humans.
SAPONINS
Saponins are natural surfactants that are used a cleansing agents in shampoos, shower gels, and bath foams, but also as moisturising ingredients in creams and lotions. Recent research has shown that these ingredients are toxic to a wide variety of aquatic organisms.
PARABENS
Opinion is still split on parabens within the industry. On the one hand they're a highly effective (and cheap) preservative, meaning that your products remain free from yeasts, moulds and bacteria for longer.
On the other hand, parabens are still entering our water system (despite waste water treatment in sewage plants) and traces have been found in the most remote marine locations - including Alaskan polar bears.
The concern is that parabens, like some UV filters, are endocrine disruptors, not only effecting the hormone levels in marine life, but potentially humans, too.
https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/beauty-product-toxic-ingredients-environmental-impact
-
Gas Glut or Shortage? Pipe Giants Differ on What U.S. East Needs
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
Two of the biggest North American pipeline companies appear to be split on whether the U.S. Northeast has too many shale gas conduits, or not enough.
One of TransCanada Corp.’s natural gas pipelines in the region is moving about half capacity, a sign that there may be too many pipes right now, Executive Vice President Stanley Chapman said Feb. 14.
“This very well could be the beginning of an overbuild to an extent in the U.S., where we have more capacity than we have production in the short term,” Chapman said on a conference call.
Enbridge Inc. struck a different tone on Feb. 15, with Chief Executive Officer Al Monaco stressing the need for more pipelines in the region. “It’s never been clearer that we need additional natural gas infrastructure, and nowhere is that more evident than in the U.S. Northeast.”
Timing FocusThe difference likely comes down to timing. While pipelines like TransCanada’s Mountaineer XPress are providing an outlet for drillers in Appalachia’s Marcellus basin, surging supply from the country’s biggest shale gas play may outpace gas infrastructure over the next decade.
But building a pipeline in the Northeast isn’t easy, with projects facing fierce opposition from environmental groups and landowners.
Two conduits under construction—Dominion Energy Inc’s Atlantic Coast and EQM Midstream Partners LP’s Mountain Valley—have been plagued by delays and ballooning costs as their developers fight legal battles. Others projects have failed to obtain key permits from state regulators.
“As we look out over the next 10 years and see the potential for the Marcellus to grow” from about 30 billion cubic feet to 40 billion cubic feet, “we think that there’s going to be a need for additional export capacity out of the region,” TransCanada’s Chapman said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/gas-glut-or-shortage-pipe-giants-differ-on-what-u-s-east-needs
-
The US Natural Gas Industry: Surging Throughput, Falling Methane Emissions
Feb 14, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Jude Clemente
Natural Gas and Methane
The U.S. natural gas business has been booming over the past decade. Since the shale revolution took flight in 2008, production has risen over 50% to 88 Bcf/d. With gas emitting 50% less CO2 than coal, and 30% less than oil, more gas has cut CO2 emissions in the U.S. power system to their lowest levels since 1985.
Utilities have made clear that gas is the go-to fuel for electricity and as the back-up needed to compensate for the natural intermittency of wind and solar power, for when the "wind isn't blowing" and "the sun isn't shining."
For these reasons, more gas is the cornerstone of the U.S. (and even global) grand energy strategy to grow the economy while also combating climate change.
Although most know about more gas meaning less CO2, one area of improvement for the U.S. natural gas industry that typically goes understated is the drastic improvement in reducing methane (CH4) emissions. This is no small feat of course: natural gas, after all, is itself, methane. Gas is comprised of 95% CH4.
These reductions in methane are essential because CH4 is also a strong greenhouse gas. So, the more the industry can slash them, the more sustainable its core business becomes.
Well below CO2's share of 82%, methane is about 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The oil and gas business accounts for a quarter of all U.S. methane emissions, indicating that oil and gas accounts for a paltry 2.5% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Not too shabby for an industry that supports over 10.5 million jobs, supplies 65% of our total energy, and generates 37% of our electricity, not to mention adds at least hundreds of billions of dollars in economic benefits every year.
Methane is a product of course, so the gas industry is naturally incentivized to cut its leakage into the atmosphere. This helps explain why companies have significantly reduced CH4 emissions without the overbearing and unnecessary regulations that many now want to unwisely saddle the industry with.
The technologies to reduce all emissions across the entire oil and gas value chain continue to improve with undeniable proven success. As just one example, the CH4 footprint continues to shrink while production and consumption continue to climb.
Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990–2017 demonstrate the progress by the oil and gas industry when it comes to cutting methane emissions despite so much more throughput.
Let's focus on natural gas because it is easily our fastest growing major fuel for demand.
Key Findings From EPA Data Reporting
Since 1990:Annual methane emissions from gas distribution systems have fallen 70-75%, despite the fact that gas utilities have added over 730,000 miles of pipeline to serve almost 20 million more customers.The gas emissions rate of production from distribution systems is now less than 0.1%.Industry-wide natural gas emissions as a rate of production (the "leakage rate") is 1.2%, well below the threshold required to justify fuel switching to gas on environmental grounds. The ratio of methane emissions per unit of gas produced has plummeted around 45%. Despite a 55% jump in production, total methane emissions from gas systems has fallen 18%.
The Future is Bright
This progress in reducing methane emissions for the U.S. natural gas industry is no surprise. Safety is a requirement for sound business operations, and the ability to continually curtail emissions positions natural gas as the go-to fuel to combat climate change here and around the world. Gas companies know that they must remain vigilant and constantly upgrade infrastructure through risk-based integrity management programs.
For example, using 2010 as the baseline, Dominion Energy recently announcedan industry-leading initiative to slash methane emissions from its natural gas infrastructure by 50% over the next decade. This will prevent more than 430,000 metric tons of CH4 from entering the atmosphere. For comparison sake, that is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road for a year, or planting nearly 180 million new trees.
These major declines in methane emissions are just another reason why natural gas is widely being promoted as a "destination fuel," playing a major role in both the current global "energy transition" and the future energy world beyond it.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/02/14/the_us_natural_gas_industry_surging_throughput_falling_methane_emissions.html
-
NTSB Recommends New Safety Measures Following Tank Car Chlorine Incident
Feb 15, 2019 | Progressive Railroading
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday issued five safety recommendations following its investigation of an August 2016 chlorine release from a ruptured tank car near New Martinsville, West Virginia.
Eight people were injured in connection with the accident, in which 178,000 pounds of liquefied compressed chlorine was released over two-and-a-half hours after a DOT-105 tank car sustained a 42-inch crack in its tank shell. The crack occurred shortly after the car was loaded at the Axiall Corp. Natrium plant, according to an NTSB press release.
As a result of its investigation, the NTSB issued three new safety recommendations to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and one each to the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and American Railcar Industries Inc.(ARI).
The NTSB also reclassified safety recommendation R-04-7 issued to the Federal Railroad Administration from "Open-Acceptable Response" to "Closed-Acceptable Action/Superseded" by safety recommendation R-19-001, which is one of the three issued to PHMSA yesterday.
The agency wants the AAR to ensure local post-weld heat treatment processes are sufficiently monitored to avoid damage to tank-car materials. Inspection and maintenance procedures to address cracks in cradle pad weld attachments is the focus of the NTSB's recommendation to ARI.
Recommendations to the PHMSA call for:
• promulgation of a final standard that includes enhanced fracture toughness requirements for tank heads and shells for pressure tank cars used to transport poison inhalation hazard/toxic inhalation hazard materials;
• prohibiting use of tank cars to transport poison inhalation hazard/toxic inhalation hazard materials that are constructed of non-normalized steels and are not constructed of steels meeting the highest available fracture toughness specifications; and
• maintenance guidance for owners of DOT-105 pressure tank cars transporting poison inhalation hazard/toxic inhalation hazard materials to establish structural integrity inspection frequency, define critical flaw size, repair and acceptance criteria for fracture-sensitive locations and nondestructive testing methods to detect and identify cracks.The full accident report is available here.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/safety/news/NTSB-recommends-new-safety-measures-following-tank-car-chlorine-incident--56784
-
FRA Publishes Railroads’ 2018 Quarter 4 PTC Data
Feb 15, 2019 | American Journal of Transportation
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today released a status update regarding railroads’ self-reported progress toward full implementation of positive train control (PTC) systems as of December 31, 2018. All required railroads either met the December 31, 2018, statutory deadline for fully implementing PTC systems, or submitted requests demonstrating they met or exceeded the statutory criteria for an alternative schedule provided for by law, permitting up to two additional years to complete full implementation.
“PTC will save lives, protect property, and make America’s vast rail network considerably safer. That’s why it’s so important that all 41 railroads meet the Congressionally mandated deadline of December 31, 2020,” said U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao.
Based upon the latest self-reported data, current as of December 31, 2018, four railroads have fully implemented PTC systems on their required main lines, and all other railroads subject to the Congressional PTC mandate satisfied the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an extension. Notably, Quarter 4 data also show PTC systems are in operation on almost 46,000 of the nearly 58,000 route miles where the technology systems must be deployed, and PTC systems are in revenue service demonstration on an additional 288 route miles.
By the end of 2018, all necessary PTC system hardware had been installed, radio spectrum acquired, employees trained, and testing initiated. The key remaining steps for full implementation include conducting revenue service demonstration (advanced testing on the general rail system), submitting a PTC Safety Plan and obtaining PTC System Certification from FRA, achieving interoperability between host railroads and tenant railroads, and activating the PTC system so it governs all operations on the required main lines.
As of December 31, 2018, host railroads’ operations are governed by a PTC system on 83 percent of the freight railroad route miles subject to the mandate and 30 percent of the required passenger railroad route miles. Of approximately 233 host-tenant railroad relationships, 16 percent have reportedly achieved PTC system interoperability as of December 31, 2018, which means the locomotives of a host railroad and a tenant railroad operating on the same main line can communicate with and respond to the PTC system, including uninterrupted movements over property boundaries. In addition, FRA has conditionally certified 12 host railroads’ PTC systems, based on their PTC Safety Plans; two PTC Safety Plans are currently under review; and 23 additional PTC Safety Plans must be submitted by June 2020.
“PTC is the most significant and complex infrastructure investment America’s railroads have ever undertaken,” said FRA Administrator Ronald L. Batory. “Operating and maintaining a safe and reliable national rail network while instituting PTC is paramount. FRA will continue to work with a sense of urgency to ensure all railroads, particularly commuter railroads, remain focused and vigilant in satisfying key deadlines ahead.”
On February 6, 2019, FRA convened the first of six PTC Collaboration Sessions planned through 2020 with all railroads responsible for implementing PTC under the congressional mandate, and major industry associations. At the session, FRA safety specialists outlined major steps the industry must accomplish within the next two years. In addition, FRA explained its approach to certifying railroads’ PTC systems and answered technical questions.
As of December 31, 2018, 33 railroads had submitted a written notification formally requesting FRA’s review and approval of an alternative schedule and sequence, and as of February 11, 2019, FRA has formally approved 25 requests.
https://www.ajot.com/news/fra-publishes-railroads-2018-quarter-4-ptc-data
-
Unshackle Federal Freight Funding From Modal Chains
Feb 15, 2019 | Waterways Journal
In testimony before a February 13 hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) argued that “nowhere in the country are there such stark examples of unmet infrastructure needs than in America’s ports, and in the land- and water-side transportation connections to them.”
“During the past six decades, there’ve been eight evolutions of the containership, resulting in ships today having capacities of 18,000 TEUs and beyond, while our country has relied upon essentially the same infrastructure to accommodate and facilitate an astronomical growth in freight volumes,” AAPA Chairman William D. Friedman, CEO of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, testified before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee this week. “Clearly, multimodal project funding levels and multimodal project eligibilities need to be improved.”
Friedman noted that in 2018, AAPA member port authorities identified more than $20 billion in multimodal funding needs over the next decade.
One of AAPA’s urgent recommendations deserves special notice. It is asking that all federal freight program funding be 100 percent multimodal (versus being mode-specific).
The FAST Act, for example, signed in 2015, authorizes $305 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 for highway, motor vehicle safety, public transportation, motor carrier safety, hazardous materials safety, rail, and research, technology and statistics programs.
Removing modal restrictions on federal freight and transportation grants makes great sense not only in general, but for inland waterways interests in particular. The old approach of seeing the different transportation modes as rivals or competitors is increasingly irrelevant. Not only are all freight modes becoming more interdependent, they are converging. Container-on-barge on the rivers is just one example of the modes becoming more tightly knitted together.
Removing modal restrictions would spur creative thinking and open the way for innovative partnerships in grant proposals. A barge terminal could partner with, say, a railroad or state highway agency for a particular proposal, strengthening its chances. An integrated transport vision would be built in from the start.
It would still be up to proposal teams to come up with innovative proposals. A lot of hard, creative work would have to be done. Removing modal restrictions would also fit in well with President Donald Trump’s stated goal of streamlining regulations and reducing bureaucratic delays.
Instead of “siloing” freight and transportation grants in the different modes, let the best proposals in all modes compete and win on their merits.
https://www.waterwaysjournal.net/2019/02/15/unshackle-federal-freight-funding-from-modal-chains/
-
Compromise Bill Adds Millions For Maritime Programs
Feb 15, 2019 | Waterways Journal
By Jim Myers
Maritime programs will receive millions of dollars in new funding under a $333-billion compromise reached by House and Senate conferees to avoid another shutdown for about 25 percent of the federal government.
According to the details posted on the comprehensive bill, the Maritime Administration will receive $1.1 billion that includes $300 million for a new training vessel for state maritime academies and $293 million for a ports infrastructure program.
The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) welcomed what was believed to be the first funding for Port Infrastructure Development Program.
John Young, AAPA’s director of Freight and Surface Transportation Policy, said the new funding has been a top AAPA priority because it not only funds much-needed port infrastructure projects but provides an important national platform for ports.
The Small Shipyard Grant Coalition also singled out $20 million for the 2019 Small Shipyard Grant Program that would allow MarAd to post a grant notice by early March with applications due in mid-April.
The Department of Transportation’s Office of the Secretary will be provided $1.2 billion that includes $900 million for BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development) grants.
“I am pleased that my fellow conferees and I were able to reach an agreement to secure the border and avoid another government shutdown,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Shelby urged lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to vote for the package, which must be signed into law by the weekend to avoid another funding lapse for about 25 percent of the government.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), vice chairman of the committee, also expressed support for the bill that will fund nine federal departments through the rest of fiscal year 2019.
President Donald Trump indicated he was ready to sign the measure into law if it comes to his desk without any “landmines.”
“I don’t want to see a shutdown,” Trump said when asked before the bill’s text was introduced whether he would
sign it. “A shutdown would be a terrible thing.”Even before the actual language was filed, congressional leaders of both parties urged their members to support the package. “This agreement is the last train leaving the station away from another dreaded government shutdown,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
“Neither side got everything it wanted in this bill, but both sides want to avoid another shutdown.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also expressed hope the legislation would become law before the Friday deadline, when funding runs out for about 25 percent of the government, including the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Coast Guard.
McConnell singled out key components such as nearly $1.4 billion for “new barriers” in high-priority areas and the capability to respond to surges in illegal immigration.
“It’s time to get this done,” he said.Infrastructure Hearing
Representatives of the waterways industry testified before two committees that will play important roles on putting together a major infrastructure package President Trump and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle say they want this year.
Kristin Meira, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that full use of the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) remains a top issue for the ports and navigation community.
Meira also expressed support for freight funding programs that are truly multimodal and with higher caps or no caps at all, and funding for first- and last-mile road and rail projects to connect ports to surface transportation systems more efficiently.
Appearing before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, William Friedman, chairman of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and president and CEO of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, also expressed support for full use of HMT revenues and more multimodal funding.
On the funding front, Friedman spoke of AAPA’s support for a 1 percent waybill fee, a gas tax increase and a vehicle-mile-traveled program.
Exchanges between the witnesses themselves and between witnesses and members of the two committees underscored how difficult it will be to reach a consensus on funding the kind of massive trillion-dollar, 10-year infrastructure package that Trump has pushed in the past.
One take on that challenge came from Ray LaHood, a former Illinois Republican congressman who served as U.S. transportation secretary in the Obama administration and currently serves as a co-chair of Build America’s Future, a bipartisan group that pushes infrastructure investment, and a senior adviser at DLA Piper.
LaHood predicted the House will have the ability to pass a “big, bold plan” complete with funding.
“But if President Trump is not with you on this, then it is going to be very difficult to pass in the Senate,” he told the House panel, adding a little punch when explaining the huge impact of having Trump on board.
“If that happens, boom! America is back in business,” LaHood said.TWIC Effectiveness
A federal agency is seeking comments to assess the effectiveness of a transportation security card program on enhancing security and reducing risks for regulated maritime facilities and vessels.
Through that program, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC).
A 2018 law bars the Coast Guard from implementing any rule requiring the use of biometric readers for TWIC until results of the assessment are submitted to Congress.
The Science and Technology Directorate is seeking the comments, and the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC), a federally funded research and development center operated by the RAND Corporation, will collect information from those involved in maritime security by conducting interviews at regulated maritime facilities and terminals.
Comments also can be submitted until April 8 to docket number DHS-2018-0052, at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, www.regulations.gov.
For additional information, contact Scott Randels at 202-254-6053.DOT Guidance
Public comments are being sought on existing guidelines of the Maritime Administration and other components of the U.S. Department of Transportation that might be “good candidates” for modification, replacement or even repeal.
Under the notice published by DOT in the Federal Register, comments must be received by April 8.
DOT explained it does not use guidance documents to impose new requirements, but the agency acknowledged that even non-binding guidance may spur cost-inducing actions by regulated entities.
While not unprecedented, the request for public comment on the entire breadth of DOT guidance is believed to be the first in recent history.
https://www.waterwaysjournal.net/2019/02/15/compromise-bill-adds-millions-for-maritime-programs/
-
It’s Time for Minnesota to Lead Again on Clean Energy
Feb 15, 2019 | MinnPost
By Rep. Jamie Long and Sen. Nick Frentz
Climate change is transforming Minnesota in ways we are only beginning to understand. If we fail to act, by the time children born today reach adulthood, Minnesota’s seasons, weather and natural landscape will look very different. This change is a result of the pollution we create by powering our day-to-day lives with fossil fuels. Climate change is a global crisis, but we are the only country in the world to reject the landmark Paris Climate Agreement (it used to be us and Syria, but even Syria joined). This makes action at the state level that much more critical.
Today, Minnesota has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lead our nation’s transition to clean energy, create tens of thousands of homegrown jobs in this new economy, and be a part of building the solutions to climate change. That’s why we’re introducing legislation to update Minnesota’s renewable energy standard to at least 80 percent by 2035 — and to get Minnesota to 100 percent clean energy by 2050.
A pragmatic, achievable way forward
This fall, a groundbreaking study from the McKnight Foundation found that Minnesota could cost-effectively obtain 91 percent of our electricity from renewable sources using current technology, while creating up to 50,000 renewable energy jobs. Moreover, this past December our largest utility, Xcel Energy, announced a nation-leading goal of delivering 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2050. Against this backdrop, our proposal is a pragmatic, achievable way forward with the potential to generate cheaper and cleaner energy produced by Minnesota workers right here at home.
Minnesota was once a clean energy leader. In 2007, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty, passed the farsighted Next Generation Energy Act. This legislation created a bold vision for our state by implementing a 25 percent renewable energy standard for Minnesota by 2025 and creating our first greenhouse gas reduction goals. Last year, Minnesota reached our 25 percent goal nearly 8 years early, a remarkable accomplishment.
But we are not on track to meet our greenhouse gas reduction goals, according to a report released last month by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. We have also lost our role as a national leader on clean energy policy. Other states have set more ambitious benchmarks that reflect the reality of our changing energy market and the scale of action the climate crisis requires. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers has made the call for 100 percent clean energy by 2050, and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis campaigned on 100 percent by 2040.
A critical choice
Clean energy is already a major success story for Minnesota. This sector is growing twice as fast as the state’s economy as a whole. So, we are faced with a critical choice. We can continue to send $13 billion out of state each year to buy fossil fuel energy. Or we can seize the enormous opportunity in front of us, and redouble our investment in wind and solar. What’s more, 40 percent of clean energy jobs are in Greater Minnesota – from the wind farms of the Southwest to the solar panel factory in Mountain Iron.
If Minnesota fails to lead the transition to clean energy, we are leaving major job-creating opportunities on the table, and continuing to threaten the overall health and prosperity of our communities. Minnesota’s farmers are expected to bear the immediate brunt of climate change, as rising temperatures and precipitation levels threaten to reduce Minnesota’s agricultural productivity. Doctors and nurses across our state are raising alarms about the health effects of climate change, including intensified problems with asthma and allergies and higher rates of heat-related and tick-borne illnesses. We also know that these health threats disproportionately impact low-income people and communities of color.
The time has come to regain our place at the forefront of climate and clean energy leadership — and pave the way to a more just, stable future for all Minnesotans. Minnesota’s electric utilities, dynamic workforce, and entrepreneurial businesses have never failed to meet the energy needs of our state. We believe in our ability as Minnesotans to build a successful, thriving clean energy economy. Let’s once again set the national bar for a smart and ambitious transition to clean energy.
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2019/02/its-time-for-minnesota-to-lead-again-on-clean-energy/
-
House Republican Floats 'Green New Deal' Resolution
Feb 15, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Borrowing a move from Senate Republicans, a House GOP lawmaker has introduced a resolution that aims to bring Democrats' "Green New Deal" up for a vote.
The measure, H.Res. 132, offered yesterday by Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), would provide for consideration H.Res. 109, floated last month by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Hice's move comes as Republicans have seized on the ambitious proposal to attack Democrats for sliding into socialism, with one senator this week charging the plan would be the end of ice cream (E&E Daily, Feb. 13).
The House measure also follows the move by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to set up a vote on the green deal when the Senate returns after the weeklong Presidents Day recess (E&E Daily, Feb. 14).
McConnell's move initially caught green deal supporters off guard, but Democrats are now using the upcoming Senate debate to attack Republicans for climate inaction (Greenwire, Feb. 14).
It's unclear what House Democratic leaders' plans are for a vote in that chamber, but Republicans have at least one parliamentary option for forcing members to go on the record on the plan: the motion-to-recommit, which allows the minority party a vote to send legislation back to committee, effectively killing it.
Both parties regularly employ the maneuver when in the minority to force difficult votes on the majority, and a House Democratic aide conceded today that the green deal may be a ripe target for Republicans.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/15/stories/1060121221
-
Big Enviro Groups Tread Lightly in Green New Deal Tent
Feb 15, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman
The political splash made by the Green New Deal represents a milestone for a raft of upstart environmental groups that have emerged and are pressuring older, established green organizations to support a far-left message that goes well beyond fighting pollution and climate change.
Those new groups, including the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats, have brought a young, racially diverse set of activists to Washington to press lawmakers for a plan that would hike taxes on the wealthy, rapidly transform the energy system and guarantee jobs for workers. Some of those proposals have built on the work by groups like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, which have been quick to offer praise for the increased ambition and enthusiasm, but others take their the cues from progressive groups that have pushed for policies to address economic and racial inequality.
That’s left the major green groups to try to figure out where they fit in the push for the Green New Deal as they work to coordinate with a set of new partners behind the scenes.
“There’s been a lot of introspection over the last few years” on diversity and inclusion, said Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation, which advocates for conservation. “The amazing grassroots energy is forcing people to address that not in theory, but in real time.”
The tension between rowdy activists and Beltway insiders is a long-running phenomenon in the environmental movement, as is the struggle of the biggest national green groups to overcome the perception that their issues are the domain of well-heeled whites. But the new, more aggressive organizations, some of them aligned with freshman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are breaking fresh ground by turning their fervor into legislation that swiftly drew endorsements from more than a half-dozen Democrats who have announced or are considering presidential runs.
Even before the Green New Deal proposal landed last week, traditional environmental groups had spent years trying to attract younger, more racially and economically diverse activists in an effort to build grassroots momentum the way the climate organization 350.org did a decade ago with its drive to end fossil fuel production. But the big groups have largely been on sidelines as the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats stormed the Capitol in recent weeks.
The non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced last week by Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) calls for a 10-year “national mobilization” to get the country off fossil fuels, expand union jobs and reduce economic and and racial inequality. It’s a technology-neutral plan that envisions a “net-zero emissions” economy, achieved by transitioning the electric grid to clean, renewable sources, axing emissions from buildings and boosting public transportation like high-speed railroads.
So far, it’s drawn support from nearly all the most prominent Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif). Elizabeth Warren(D-Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). But it's attracted scorching criticism from President Donald Trump and top Republicans, who have derided it as a socialist dream that would destroy the U.S. economy.
Aside from offering statements of support for the Green New Deal, the Sierra Club, NRDC, Environment America and the Environmental Defense Fund have largely adopted a wait-and-see approach. Those older groups were notably not included in a letter signed by more than 600 groups last month calling on aggressive action to end use of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, biofuels and hydropower. While some, like Sunrise Movement, have sought to distinguish that letter from the broader Green New Deal discussion, it exposed the divisions among the network of environmental activists.
Activists like Bill McKibben, who founded 350.org a decade ago and now serves as its senior adviser, says he expects the big environmental organizations will ultimately get behind the broad goals in the Green New Deal because the environmental conversation has adopted more aggressive proposals as climate change has worsened and scientists have called for more stringent greenhouse gas cuts in the coming decades.
“As the zeitgeist shifts, as public opinion shifts in dramatic ways, the window about what is possible and necessary will shift,” said McKibben. “It will not shift back that window. This is the new political environment we’re going to live in on climate change, which is good, because it’s much closer to being realistic than the last one.”
Some inside the new green groups say they are injecting vigor into the environmental movement — and expanding the debate to include social issues.
“This movement is a classic divide between the more establishment center-left and the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party,” said Waleed Shahid, spokesman for Justice Democrats, the group credited with recruiting Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress. “The organizers of the Green New Deal think of themselves as populists and socialists and think of it as a way to provide every American a job and take on fossil fuel billionaires.”
The young activists behind the push come largely from a generation that has grown up learning about climate change. A May 2018 Gallup poll showed that 51 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 34 believe climate change will pose “a serious threat” in their lifetime and 75 percent believe human activities are causing climate change. And among the overall population, at least 69 percent are “somewhat worried” about climate change and 29 percent are “very worried,” according to a December 2018 survey by Yale University and George Mason University.
“This whole new cohort of voters and activism and excitement are reflections of what’s happening and what these voters want. It’s a wake-up call,” said Kalee Kreider, a former adviser to Al Gore who has spent years in the environmental movement.
Some of those larger, established green groups say privately they’ve been surprised by the speed with which the Green New Deal push has struck a chord around the country. While those groups regularly conduct grassroots campaigns to raise money, turn out activists for rallies and get voters to the poll, their strategies tend to focus on decidedly Washington-style tactics: lobbying lawmakers and regulators, writing comments on regulations, fundraising for politicians and deploying teams of lawyers to fight for their cause.
That type of work has also yielded successes, such as the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, which has helped shutter 270 proposed or existing coal-fired power plants since 2010. Sierra Club achieved this in mundane ways, such as slogging through utility commission hearings to push to close old, dirty power plants and filing legal cases to enforce regulations.
Still, lawmakers and other observers downplayed the differences between the new groups, contending that the energy generated by grassroots groups like the Sunrise Movement complements the climate policy initiatives from the bigger groups.
"We’re going to need all of it. We’re going to need the crusty old philanthropists that have been supporting NRDC and LCV all these years," said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif). "The limousine liberals — we need all that. But we also need these edgy young people that are showing up at demonstrations and doing the work they’re doing."
Mainstream groups consciously cultivated grassroots excitement after the failure of cap-and-trade legislation 2010 that was designed to build support among fossil fuel companies and businesses. The League of Conservation Voters launched its Chispa program, which organizes Latino voters. The 3-million-member Sierra Club deepened ties with environmental justice groups like the Hip Hop Caucus. Organizations like the Peoples Climate Movement emerged to build bridges between the metastasizing network.
“One shift that I’ve seen in my time working for a number of national groups is NRDC and other groups are prioritizing engagement with environmental groups to make sure we’re putting equity at the center,” said Aliya Haq, federal policy director for climate and energy with NRDC. “We’re more focused on it now.”
The large green groups also say their statements about a Green New Deal reflect their desire to get those wider perspectives involved in developing policies, a process that will take time.
“A Green New Deal will succeed if the specifics are crafted in an inclusive, nationwide conversation — not a beltway discussion. We're pretty clear on that,” said Ben Beachy, director of the Sierra Club’s living economy program. “For a Green New Deal to truly tackle climate change and inequality, communities and workers on the front lines of these defining crises must have a central role in that conversation.”
Meanwhile, LCV, which mobilizes green-minded voters in districts across the country, was not yet ready to use the Green New Deal as a litmus test for candidates it backs.
“These members just got sworn in a month ago, so let’s focus on all of the excitement and climate progress that we’re making today,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the group’s senior vice president of government affairs, told POLITICO.
But backing the Green New Deal tenets like switching to 100 percent clean energy or launching major jobs programs could hurt some of the large groups’ efforts to bridge partisan divides and attract business partners, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, which is working to convince natural gas producers to address leaks of methane. Or it could alienate members of the National Wildlife Federation who conservationists and sportsmen and are drawn from both political parties.
“There’s no question that the Green New Deal supporters have changed the conversation in a really interesting and dramatic way. It would be great if we were in a position to finalize some of the policy proposals,” said Elizabeth Gore, senior vice president of political affairs with the Environmental Defense Fund. “That’s not where we are right now.”
The new wave of activists say that while they’re glad to have the general support from green stalwarts, they want them to go bolder than proposals that have been floated in the past.
“For so long the focus has been on things like carbon pricing, which are important solutions but are wonky and focused on punitive measures like a sin tax and not focused on a vision for where we can go as a country,” Sunrise communications director Stephen O’Hanlon said.
“We’ve seen organizations and politicians talking about stopping climate change and not actually discussing solutions on the scale and level [that’s needed],” O’Hanlon said. “They also haven’t oftentimes been doing the work of getting out there and organizing.”
The track record of previous movements indicates that the young activist groups are likely to tug those institutional green groups further to the left. That “radical flank politics” phenomenon is driven by the frustrated grassroots groups, said Douglas McAdam, a sociologist at Stanford University who has studied climate movement politics.
“Virtually all movement groups start grassroots, but some of them wind up becoming pillars of the organized establishment — and that’s certainly true of the mainstream environmental groups,” McAdam said. “They’re sort of culturally removed from movement politics, from grassroots movement politics. So they are typically caught off guard."
That tension to adopt a more aggressive stance and broaden the goals beyond climate change appears to be driven by the more diverse makeup of the activists than the traditional environmental movement, which Julian NoiseCat, policy director with 350.org and a Native American, said was historically is “rooted in suburban white America.”
“The likelihood of this playing out in a linear, non-messy way is low. There’s going to be a lot of differing constituencies fighting for different things under the context of a Green New Deal,” NoiseCat said. “It’s going to be messy.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/02/big-enviro-groups-tread-lightly-in-green-new-deal-tent-1109485
-
GOP Looks to Turn Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal on Democrats
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
President Donald Trump calls it “brilliant.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promises to bring it up for a vote. And House Republicans want Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send it to the floor.
Republicans are embracing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s sweeping plan known as the Green New Deal to avert climate change, but not because they like it. They think they can use it to cast Democrats as extreme, take back seats in Congress, and possibly keep the White House in 2020.
Fueling the effort is a fact sheet that Ocasio-Cortez’s office circulated—then retracted—that included references that aren’t in the text of the actual resolution. Provisions of the fact sheet call for providing “economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work,” as well eliminating emissions from cows and air travel.
“If nothing else, Democrats gave Republicans a great talking point on climate change,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist and former communications director for Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential bid. “Whereas before Republicans avoided the topic all together, now every Republican will start the conversation be denouncing the Green New Deal.”
Backers of the plan, which include several of the declared Democratic presidential candidates, counter that Republicans who have have ignored the issue of climate change are the ones out of touch.
“Republicans don’t want to debate climate change, they only want to deny it,” said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, the plan’s lead champion in the Senate. “They have offered no plan to address this economic and national security threat and want to sabotage any effort that makes Big Oil and corporate polluters pay.”
And Ocasio-Cortez’ office has pointed to polling conducted late last year that showed 92 percent of Democratic and 64 percent of Republican voters support a Green New Deal.
Yet those surveys were completed before details of the Green New Deal in Washington were announced, and before the public learned of a fact sheet that was distributed to coincide with the announcement.
Supporters of the resolution who hadn’t seen the fact sheet were caught off guard and Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, said on Twitter that it was released by mistake. By that time, the fact sheet had been retracted, but conservatives were already seizing on it to denounce the entire Green Deal agenda.
Democrats Vulnerable?
“The flubbed rollout has made Democrats vulnerable,” Paul Bledsoe, who worked on climate change issues in the Clinton White House, said in an interview. “The far-left has gotten attention and done it poorly and Republicans are pouncing.”
The fumble left supporters open to criticism and bumper-sticker-ready slogans that the plan represented a lurch toward socialism that would end travel by plane and the consumption meat, and even ice cream, while the government gave away taxpayers’ money.
“It’s a GOP dream,” columnist Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal. The plan “encapsulates everything Americans fear from government, all in one bonkers resolution.”
Trump invoked the plan while speaking at a rally in El Paso, Texas, Feb. 11. “I really don’t like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane rights, of let’s hop a train to California, of you’re not allowed to own cows any more,” he said.
And Democratic candidates are already getting questions about their support for the measure, such as New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who was asked during a campaign stop in Iowa about reports the measure would stop farmers from raising cows or using gasoline.
“I’ve endorsed the framework and the resolution, but I don’t endorse doing things that are going to hurt the independent family farmer,” Booker said, according to the Washington Post. “If anything, I want to let people know that we can have a green future that no way is contrary to a strong economy but actually creates a stronger economy.”
The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super-PAC endorsed by House Republican leadership, also has used the Green New Deal in advertising campaigns against two freshmen Democrats, Reps. Antonio Delgado of New York and Colin Allred of Texas.
‘Cynical Ploy’
Now, McConnell has promised to bring the plan to the floor for a vote, a move that could split Democrats, including ones running for president, between the left-leaning members vying for the passions of their party’s base and more moderate senators who view the proposal as radical and disruptive. The plan has 12 Senate backers, and several others said they are still studying the proposal.
“We’ll give everybody a chance to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal,” McConnell said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, countered: “What they are doing is irresponsible, plain and simple. Tell them to read the actual resolution and then we are ready to debate. This is just a side show they are seeking.”
Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, called it a political stunt, and said Democrats could simply say “present” when the legislation came before the chamber. Senate Democrats used a similar tactic when Republicans introduced a single-payer health care amendment to their 2017 health care bill.
“McConnell’s playing political games with our future,” said Varshini Prakash, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, the grassroots group that has partnered with Ocasio-Cortez to push for the Green New Deal. “It’s not a game to the children who’s parents burned alive in the California wildfires, to the families who’s homes were destroyed by devastating hurricanes, or the workers who’ve had to labor in life-threatening heat to put food on the table for their families.”
Republicans have mounted efforts to pressure Pelosi, who hasn’t endorsed the proposal, to call for a vote on the other side of the Capitol.
“This specific piece of legislation has gotten a lot of attention recently and our constituents deserve to know where their representatives stand on it,” Rep. Ted Budd, a North Carolina Republican, wrote in a draft letter to Pelosi.
While Republicans’ stance on climate change, or lack thereof, has hurt then with voters in swing states, the Green New Deal has given the GOP an opening to take a new position on the issue, said Conant, the Republican strategist.
The Green New Deal resolution isn’t representative of where Democrats are on climate change, said Bledsoe, the former Clinton aide, pointing out that only about 70 of the House’s 235 Democrats have signed onto the plan. More moderate committee chairmen are expected to put together their own plan.
“At this moment it may look vulnerable for Democrats,” said Bledsoe. “But in the long run it’s Republicans who are most vulnerable on climate change and I think that is particularly true of Trump.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/gop-looks-to-turn-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-on-democrats
-
Carbon Markets Roundup 2018 Year in Review
Feb 15, 2019 | National Law Review
By Brook J. Detterman, David C. Weber, Shengzhi Wang and Jacob P. Duginski
Last year saw significant efforts to either impose a price on carbon or reform existing programs, and in some cases roll those programs back. The Paris Agreement advanced a critical step, but without settling on rules for offsets and a new market mechanism, much remains in flux. Carbon pricing proposals proliferated, but not without political headwinds in some jurisdictions, including the rollback of Ontario’s cap-and-trade program and riots in Paris over an increased gas tax. Will we look back on 2018 as a watershed year? It’s hard to tell – but it certainly kept us busy.
United States
California Extends and Reforms Cap-and-Trade Program, Updates Low Carbon Fuel Standard
In 2017, California rebooted its cap-and-trade program by enacting Assembly Bill 398 (AB 398) to reauthorize and extend the program through 2030, signaling the program’s essential role in achieving California’s GHG reduction target for 2030 of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels set by Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). In December 2018, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted implementing regulations, setting a new allowance price ceiling that will start at $65 in 2021 and increase each year by five percent plus the rate of inflation. At the most recent auction, all allowances sold for $15.31 each, 78 cents higher than the $14.53 auction floor price.
CARB also changed the rules for its offset program. Currently, an entity may to use offsets for up to eight percent of its compliance obligation, but the new rules reduce offset usage limits to four percent for 2021 to 2025, rising to six percent for 2026 to 2030. The rules further provide that no more than half the offsets used by an entity can be sourced from “projects that do not provide direct environmental benefits in the state.” These changes are aimed at increasing environmental co-benefits in California from offset projects.
Consistent with SB 32, CARB also adopted updates to its Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation (LCFS), which became effective on January 4, 2019. With this set of amendments, CARB is targeting to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels in California by 20 percent from a 2010 baseline by 2030. CARB also adopted amendments to its Regulation on Commercialization of Alternative Diesel Fuels based on a new environmental analysis mandated by court decision. These amendments include (1) requirements for third-party verification of fuel pathways and reporting, (2) incorporation of a stringent Carbon Capture and Sequestration protocol for credit-generation, and (3) provisions to allow crediting of zero-emission vehicle fueling infrastructure.
RGGI Set to Expand Membership to Virginia and New Jersey
In September 2018, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality released a revised proposed regulation aimed at establishing a GHG trading program, creating a pathway towards full RGGI membership. The revised rule contains a reduced CO2 allowance budget, a change in line with earlier comments from RGGI and other RGGI member states. The proposal includes a base budget of 28 million tons, beginning in 2021, with a 3% annual reduction for annual budgets and allocations through 2030. Virginia made the change to help allay concerns that its proposed rule was not ambitious enough, and could potentially result in a surplus of allowances. Virginia’s Air Pollution Control Board decided to move forward with the revised rule and the revised, re-proposed rule is open for public comment from February 4 through March 6, 2019.
New Jersey (which withdrew from RGGI in 2011) plans to rejoin RGGI and released its proposed regulations to do so in December 2018. Both Virginia and New Jersey are on track to begin participating in RGGI in 2020. While RGGI allowance prices rose last year, selling for $5.35 at the December auction (auction prices hadn’t broken $5 since early 2016), they are still well below prices in California and the EU.
Northeast States Agree to Begin development of a Transportation Climate Initiative
On December 18, 2018, nine states and Washington, D.C., agreed to begin development of a regional cap and trade program covering transportation emissions. If implemented, the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI) would establish a regional program to impose a declining cap in emissions from transportation sources. Details are thin at this stage, but with transportation becoming an increasingly large portion of northeast GHG emissions, TCI could ultimately result in a significant regulatory and carbon pricing regime. The current state lineup largely mirrors RGGI and consists of: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
Oregon Adopts Updates to the Clean Fuels Program; Challenger Seek Supreme Court Review
On November 15, 2018, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission adopted amendments to the Oregon Clean Fuels Program. These amendments included updates to the models used to determine the carbon intensities of fuels and the resulting changes to the lookup table values, clean fuel standards, energy economy ratios, and temporary fuel pathway codes. The amendments also provide new categories of fuel applications that can be used to generate credits, including forklifts and transport refrigeration units, and added new fuels that could generate credits such as alternative jet fuel and renewable propane.
The program has not been without controversy. On September 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the Oregon Clean Fuels Program. Am. Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. O'Keeffe, 903 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2018). On January 9, 2019, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Consumer Energy Alliance filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion upholding the Oregon Clean Fuel Program. In particular, they sought review on the questions of whether the Program’s regulation of fuels based on a “life-cycle” analysis constituted impermissible extraterritorial regulation. Notably, a similar attack on California’s LCFS has recently (and in the past) proven unsuccessful. See Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 913 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2019) (“However, our panel need not linger on whether the Constitution could support such a claim, because we are bound by recent circuit precedent that has settled whether a program very similar to the LCFS is inconsistent with the structure of the Constitution.” citing O’Keeffe, 903 F.3d at 916-917).
Washington Voters Reject Carbon “Fee”
Last November, voters in Washington State rejected Ballot Initiative 1631, a potentially ground-breaking ballot initiative that would have established an economy-wide carbon fee. Had it passed, Washington would have become the first U.S. state to enact a carbon fee or tax, and also the first jurisdiction worldwide to place a price on carbon through a ballot initiative. Ballot Initiative 1631 would have imposed a $15 per-ton “fee” on CO2 emissions, increasing by $2 annually until 2035, when the fee would top out at $55 per ton. At that point, state lawmakers could either freeze the fee or vote to continue annual increases. Proponents have labeled the carbon price as a “fee” since fees, under Washington State law, can be targeted towards certain uses, while taxes can be spent on any government expenses.
Interestingly, carbon tax proposals are on the legislative agenda in numerous other states and in 2018 a bipartisan group from the U.S. Congress proposed “The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act,” which would impose a tax of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide beginning in 2019, increasing by $10 each year. Prospects for this bill are dim in the short term, but may indicate a renewed interest in carbon pricing at the federal level.
Canada
Canada Imposes Carbon Tax on Four Provinces
Under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, S.C. 2018, c. 12, s. 186, Canada will implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax starting in 2019. While several provinces already have their own carbon-pricing schemes, the federal program will serve as a backstop and impose a carbon price in provinces without an equivalent scheme. GHG emissions will be taxed at $20 per ton in 2019, rising at $10 per ton per year until reaching $50 per ton in 2022 (where it will remain unless the legislation is updated). Three provinces already have carbon pricing schemes, and four more are under development. Ontario is one of the provinces that will become subject to the new national tax, which it has vowed to fight in court, arguing that Ottawa’s carbon pricing plan is unconstitutional. Earlier in 2018, Ontario ended its cap-and-trade program and withdrew from the Western Climate Initiative, which had linked it to California and Quebec.
International
EU ETS Has Banner Year
The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) had a banner year in 2018, with allowance process tripling. On February 27, 2018, the Council of the European Union approved revisions to the EU ETS. For several years, the EU ETS was plagued by an over-allocation of allowances. The reform package introduces three new elements: (1) an annual 2.2 percent reduction of the GHG emissions cap; (2) doubling of the number of allowances placed in the market stability reserve (MSR) until the end of 2023; and (3) limiting the validity of MSR allowances beginning in 2023. These changes are aimed at enabling the EU to reduce overall GHG emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and meet corresponding commitments under the Paris Agreement. The practical effect was swift: EU ETS allowance prices started 2018 below €8 and ended the year just over €24.
Paris Agreement Advances but Still Lacks Rules for Market Mechanisms and Offsets
Paris Agreement parties are working towards development of a “Paris Rulebook” that would establish ground rules to facilitate achieving the “nationally determined contributions” that form the basis of the Paris Agreement. Progress on the Paris Rulebook has been slow but advanced significantly during the 24th Conference of Parties (COP 24) in Katowice, Poland. During COP 24, the Parties reached agreement on numerous aspects of the Paris Rulebook, including key carbon accounting methodology and reporting provisions. While these developments were a key step towards implementing the Paris Agreement, the parties could not reach agreement on the Article 6 market mechanisms.
The market mechanisms created by Article 6 of the Paris Agreement are fundamental and would establish a new carbon market and new offset provisions. The Kyoto protocol’s offset programs (the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation mechanism) experienced a lack of transparency and significant market failures, resulting in a flood of offset credits that threatened to undermined the integrity of the Kyoto protocol. Parties to the Paris Agreement are trying to avoid these past mistakes while addressing concerns regarding the transition of CDM offset credits into a new market mechanism.
At COP 24, Brazil and a few other parties opposed provisions related to the treatment of Clean Development Mechanism offset credits, highlighting one of many differences between developed and developing countries in how the Paris Agreement should be implemented. That disagreement forced the parties to shelve discussion of market mechanisms until COP 25, which will be held in Chile in November 2019.The Kigali Amendment Enters Into Force, Without the U.S.
The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which aims to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), entered into force on January 1, 2019. During 2018, a number of countries ratified or approved the Kigali Amendment, bringing the total to 69 parties, including the EU, the United Kingdom, and many other European and African nations.
The U.S. was instrumental in developing the Kigali Amendment under the Obama Administration, but has yet to ratify it. On June 4, 2018, a number of Republican senators sent a letter to President Trump asking him to submit the Kigali Amendment to the Senate for ratification, and it appears the Senate is close to having the 67 votes it would need. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has indicated that ratification of the Kigali Amendment would benefit U.S. industry and “boost output in the U.S. manufacturing sector by an additional $12.5 billion by 2027.” But despite bipartisan and broad industry support, the Trump Administration has not taken a position on whether to ratify the Kigali Amendment. In fact, during 2018 the Trump Administration took multiple actions to roll back HFC regulations.
U.S. states have begun to fill the gap left by federal inaction on HFCs. In March 2018, CARB adopted rules replacing certain federal regulations. And on September 13, 2018, California’s then-governor Jerry Brown signed the California Cooling Act (SB 1013), codifying into California law the Obama Administration targets for reducing HFCs after a federal court struck down related federal provisions earlier in 2018. The law also supplements CARB’s authority to adopt rules limiting the use of HFCs, and creates an economic incentive program to accelerate the transition from HFCs to alternative substances. New York, Maryland, and Connecticut announced plans to take similar action.
Airlines Set to Begin Offsetting Emissions Increases
The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) was agreed to in October 2016 by 191 countries in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), with the central goal of stabilizing aircraft emissions at 2020 levels by offsetting future GHG emissions increases. In 2018, ICAO finalized a set of standards and recommenced practices that became applicable January 1, 2019. ICAO, First Edition of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Vol. IV (First Ed. Oct. 2018). While CORSIA has largely flown under the radar, it is a significant program that will create a large market for carbon offsets starting in 2021.
China
China’s Environmental Authority Seizes Leading Role on Climate Change Policy
China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE), the country’s top environmental agency, officially assumed the primary role in China’s climate change policymaking on September 11, 2018. This shift occurred following a number of measures from China’s leadership in 2018 to shift power on climate issues from the country’s macroeconomic planning authority to its environmental authority.
According to a new ministerial organizational plan released on September 11, MEE is now “responsible for the work on addressing climate change.” Its powers include “organizing the design and drafting of major strategies, plans, and policies relating to addressing climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; jointly leading the arrangement of, and the participation in, the international negotiations on climate change with relevant ministries; and responsible for China’s implementation of the UNFCCC.” The Ministry is authorized to establish a division dedicated to climate change issues.
Historically, China’s domestic climate policymaking authority was heavily vested in the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which primarily controls China’s economic planning. As an example, China’s State Council, the country’s cabinet, operates a consultative group called the National Leading Group for Climate Change, Energy Conservation, and Emission Reduction (the Climate Change Leading Group). Since 2013, NDRC has been responsible for the routine work of this Group despite wide participation by various ministries.
In March 2018, China’s national legislature approved a major reorganization of the State Council, which required that NDRC transfer its climate policy authority to the reshaped, power-enhanced MEE. On July 19, 2018, the State Council reformed the Climate Change Leading Group, noting that both MEE and NDRC are now responsible for the Group’s routine work. The organizational plan for MEE is the latest signal that China’s environmental authority is gaining increasing control over the country’s climate policy decisions.
China Advances Plans for National Carbon Emission Trading in the Power Sector
China launched regional pilot trading platforms in 2013, aimed at multiple sectors. China had hoped to transition the regional pilots to a nationwide emissions trading scheme by 2017, but was unsuccessful. Some observers fear that the transition of power to the MEE has the potential to either disrupt this process (MEE has less political clout than the NDRC).
China’s MEE organized a conference on September 5, 2018, to plan for national carbon trading in the power sector. Power sector representatives, the civil aviation authority, officials from NDRC, local environmental regulators, and a number of trade groups and research institutes attended the conference. Following a policy plan released in December 2017 and subsequent work in early 2018, the power sector is likely among the first participants in China’s anticipated national carbon market. According to the trade press covering the conference, MEE is preparing a number of framework rules on regulating the national market, as well as on incorporating verified voluntary reduction credits into the trading scheme. MEE also plans to organize training activities for carbon trading professionals among local regulators, carbon emitting entities, and third-party certifiers.
China Solicits Second Round of Comments on Proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard
During 2018, China’s NDRC solicited comments on the Power Generation Allowances and Assessment Measures for Renewable Energy rule, a proposal for a renewable energy quota and allowance trading policy, according to a draft leaked in September 2018. This was the second round of comment solicitation, following a similar process in March 2018.
Under the leaked September Draft: The national government would assign a renewable energy percentage target to each province every year. Six categories of entities (“quota obligation entities”) must fulfill an annual renewable energy quota, calculated based on the total amount of sold or consumed electricity and the provincial renewable energy percentage target. Quota obligation entities would include the state or provincial power grid companies, power distribution and sale companies, independent electricity sellers, certain electricity users, and certain enterprises with their own power plants. “Green certificates” issued for renewable energy allowances would be traded on a market, and can be used to meet the quota requirement. Ordinarily green certificates are traded along with the electricity sales. NDRC expects to promulgate more detailed rules on green certificates. Failure to fulfill the quota requirement would result in a payable “compensation”. The collected compensation would be transferred into a national renewable energy subsidy fund. Other penalization measures, including restrictions on future projects, might attach to entities that refuse to comply.Provisions to address recent deficits in the subsidy fund.Sets a target of 35% renewable energy by 2030.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/carbon-markets-roundup-2018-year-review
Industry and Association News
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