Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - March 1, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) PVC Prices Up, PP down in February
Mar 1, 2019 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American selling prices for PVC and polypropylene resins went in different directions in February, with PVC moving up an average of 2 cents per pound and PP decreasing an average of 1.5 cents. The 2-cent PVC hike was the... -
EPA Plan to Check Secrecy Claims for Chemicals Under Review
Mar 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA’s strategy to review thousands of chemical manufacturers’ claims that the identities of compounds they produce be kept out of the public’s eye has moved a step closer to being released. The White House Office of... -
(ACC Mentioned) Foam Poses Recycling Challenges
Mar 1, 2019 | Spartan News Room
By Kalea Hall
It’s a windy Saturday morning in East Lansing. The city’s recycling drop-off center is busy despite a chill. Dean Miller pulls his Jeep up to the container designated for polystyrene, commonly referred to as Styrofoam or foam, to unload. -
House Oversight Panel to Hold Hearing on PFAs
Mar 1, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
A House Oversight and Reform Committee subpanel will hold a hearing on a class of toxic chemicals next week, less than a month after EPA unveiled its "action plan" for the chemicals. The hearing, entitled "Examining PFAS Chemicals... -
Trump Endorses ANWR Drilling in Stop at Military Base
Mar 1, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
President Trump touted the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling when Air Force One made a refueling stop yesterday in Alaska as the president returned from Asia. Trump was traveling back to Washington after... -
S.C. Asks Court to Block Trump Admin's Atlantic Plan
Mar 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
South Carolina today asked a federal court to immediately block the Trump administration's plan to spur oil and gas exploration off the Eastern Seaboard. The state filed a motion seeking an immediate injunction in its case challenging... -
Trump Administration Set to Roll out Massive Offshore Oil Plan, but Many in GOP Don't Want It
Mar 1, 2019 | USA Today
By Ledyard King
Republicans have eagerly lined up behind President Donald Trump's energy agenda: bringing back coal, expanding mineral extraction on public lands, reviving nuclear energy. But when it comes to the president's proposal to massively... -
Oil Industry Told to Loosen Up on Green Investments to Survive
Mar 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Carr
Oil and gas companies under pressure by investors to curtail investment in fossil fuels should loosen their purse strings for green energy, according to Accenture. Managers of traditional energy businesses need to spend in areas... -
U.S. Energy Companies Produce More Oil Even as They Cut Spending
Mar 1, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
U.S. shale energy companies are cutting their spending levels in 2019, but they're still planning on increased oil and gas output as the nation continues to hit new production records. Shale energy companies plan to cut their capital... -
Energy and Commodities Highlights: Oil Diplomacy, Global LNG Flows, Trade Wars
Mar 1, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Emma Slawinski
In a week dominated by geopolitical headlines, oil diplomacy was also high on the agenda. Despite a schedule that included a high-profile summit in Hanoi, US President Donald Trump found time to tweet his view of crude prices to... -
America's 'Green Energy' Future is Germany's Recent Past
Feb 28, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Brian Isom & Christopher Koopman
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez recently released the Green New Deal, a resolution aimed at “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” in the next decade. -
GAO Assesses Efforts to Enhance Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program
Mar 1, 2019 | Homeland Prepared News
By Douglas Clark
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently assessed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to enhance the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, offering input on progress and challenges. -
Rail supplier news from Herzog, CAI, HNTB, Stahl Recruiting, HEPACO and LRW (March 1)
Mar 1, 2019 | Progressive Railroading
Herzog completed Nebraska Central Railroad Co. (NCRC) interoperability lab and field testing for positive train control (PTC) in November 2018. As a result, NCRC can now run PTC-active trains on Class I territory. Herzog will provide PTC... -
Senate Confirms Former Coal Lobbyist to Lead EPA
Feb 28, 2019 | Roll Call
By Benjamin J. Hulac
The Senate on Thursday voted 52-47 to confirm Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who has worked to weaken and delay national and global environmental protections, as the head of the EPA. Wheeler has served as acting EPA... -
Senate Democrats Introduce 'Green New Deal' Alternative
Feb 28, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Senate Democrats introduced a joint resolution Thursday meant to unify the party around a common climate change plan as Republicans seek to rip the party over the "Green New Deal." The concise nine-line resolution introduced by... -
Perry Scoffs at 'Green New Deal' Boosters
Mar 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
Energy Secretary Rick Perry this morning dismissed the "Green New Deal" as a "fantasy" perpetuated by activists outside the political mainstream. Perry's comments add to the growing skepticism of Republicans on the effort to... -
Inside the Breakdown of Auto Emission Talks between California and the Trump White House
Mar 1, 2019 | LA Times
By Michael Hiltzik
There was a fair amount of perplexity at the California Air Resources Board on Feb. 21, when the Trump administration abruptly announced that it had decided to “discontinue discussions” with the state’s air quality regulator over the... -
Jay Inslee, Washington Governor and Climate Advocate, Enters 2020 Race
Mar 1, 2019 | New York Times
By Kirk Johnson
Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington and former member of Congress who has made climate change and the environment his signature issues, jumped into the crowded field of 2020 Democratic contenders for president on Friday. -
‘Climate Warrior’ Jolts 2020 Presidential Field
Mar 1, 2019 | Politico
By David Siders and Daniel Strauss
No one has ever won a major statewide race, let alone a presidential nomination, with a single-issue, climate-focused candidacy. But Jay Inslee is about to try. The Washington state governor launched a White House bid Friday that...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) PVC Prices Up, PP down in February
Mar 1, 2019 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American selling prices for PVC and polypropylene resins went in different directions in February, with PVC moving up an average of 2 cents per pound and PP decreasing an average of 1.5 cents.
The 2-cent PVC hike was the result of higher prices in the export market, one market source told Plastics News. Higher demand from the construction market and low resin inventories also played a role in the increase.
The February hike ended a streak of nine consecutive months of flat pricing for North American PVC. Market prices have not moved since April, with supply and demand being closely balanced. Regional PVC prices were up a net of 3 cents in 2018.
U.S. and Canadian PVC sales were solid in 2018, climbing 3 percent vs. the previous year, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic PVC sales were flat, but the overall growth rate was bolstered by a jump of 10 percent in export sales.
Among PVC end markets, sales into pipe — which generated 46 percent of domestic demand — were flat, but sales of PVC into extruded windows and doors showed strong growth of almost 27 percent.
The PP decline came as resin prices once again followed those of polymer-grade propylene monomer feedstock. Regional PP prices now have tumbled 21.5 cents per pound since November, including a 2-cent decline in January.
Market analyst Scott Newell said further price decreases for both propylene and for PP resin could be on the way for March. "The question is 'Where is the bottom?' " he added in an email. "There's so much inventory of monomer, and polymer [resin] that prices are dropping in search of demand."
"In the process, the market will likely find price points that will curb supply as well," said Newell, who is with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas. "Only then will the market begin to balance."
Full-year 2018 North American PP sales were down 0.5 percent, according to ACC, with a plunge of more than 30 percent in export sales canceling out an increase of less than 0.5 percent in domestic sales. Among major end markets, sales of PP into sheet were up more than 5 percent in 2019.
But market watchers said regional PP production issues caused a large amount of the resin to be imported into North America during 2018. As a result, true North American PP consumption likely grew 3-4 percent for the year.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190301/NEWS/190309994/pvc-prices-up-pp-down-in-february
-
EPA Plan to Check Secrecy Claims for Chemicals Under Review
Mar 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA’s strategy to review thousands of chemical manufacturers’ claims that the identities of compounds they produce be kept out of the public’s eye has moved a step closer to being released.
The White House Office of Management and Budget has started to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule, its updated website showed on March 1. The OMB must clear the agency’s regulatory proposal before it can be published.
The EPA expects to publish the proposed rule in early March, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, EPA’s assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said last week during a webinar.
The rule would apply to confidential business information claims companies have asserted for 7,757 of the 40,655 chemicals active in commerce, according to information the EPA released Feb. 19, as the agency announced its first update in nearly 40 years of the Toxic Substances Control Act inventory, the nation’s official list of chemicals that are or have been in commerce.
Of the 86,228 chemicals on that inventory, 47 percent, or 40,655, have been actively in commerce since 2006, the EPA said. Most of those 40,655 chemicals—32,898, or 81 percent—have identities known to the public, according to the EPA. That means the precise identity of 7,757 chemicals, 19 percent, has been claimed as proprietary information.
The precise number of chemicals that will be subject to the rule could vary because the TSCA inventory is constantly updated.
The 2016 TSCA amendments required the EPA to examine the need for industry to keep those chemical identities secret.
Manufacturers or processors that want EPA to keep the precise identity of chemicals they make or use secret must demonstrate their need for that protection.
The law requires companies to show there is a reasonable basis to conclude that disclosure of the information would be “likely to cause substantial harm” to their competitive position. A chemical’s specific identity can be a blueprint guiding other companies to understand how it is made.
The review of these confidential chemical identities was part of the law’s efforts to balance a company’s legitimate need to protect its investments with people’s right to know about the chemicals to which they may be exposed.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-plan-to-check-secrecy-claims-for-chemicals-under-review
-
(ACC Mentioned) Foam Poses Recycling Challenges
Mar 1, 2019 | Spartan News Room
By Kalea Hall
It’s a windy Saturday morning in East Lansing.
The city’s recycling drop-off center is busy despite a chill.
Dean Miller pulls his Jeep up to the container designated for polystyrene, commonly referred to as Styrofoam or foam, to unload.
Recycling polystyrene is a task Miller only took on when East Lansing added a collection container last March.
“We were just landfilling it,” he said while tossing packaging foam into the container. “This is the first time we had anything close by. I feel a lot better. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t be reusing things that can be reused.”
Polystyrene is a versatile plastic resin that’s used in two forms: solid and foam, according to the American Chemistry Council. Solid polystyrene is used for auto parts, toys and kitchen appliances. Foam polystyrene is used for common products from surfboards to egg cartons.
Recycling foam is inconvenient. It’s often not included in curbside recycling because it easily breaks apart and can contaminate other recyclables, and because it’s costly to transport.
Polystyrene products used in food service are especially considered contaminants because they must be cleaned, and even then might still hold food residue.
Since polystyrene is 90 percent air and 10 percent plastic, it’s light, which complicates the transportation process. A lot of the product is needed to cover transportation costs.
To recycle foam, many consumers must find special drop-off centers that take foam.
“People think ‘Well, it’s just a little bit, they will figure out what to do with it.’ But it is a huge contaminant, and that’s actually one of the primary reasons we opened up our recycling site,” East Lansing environmental services administrator Cathy DeShambo said.
“We wanted to give our residents some place to take it and to discourage them from putting it in their [recycling] carts,” she said.
East Lansing started taking foam after the city received a Department of Environmental Quality grant to purchase the container and established a partnership with Dart Container Corp. The company, which built a foam recycling facility at its Mason headquarters, takes and sells the foam.
Some East Lansing residents took their foam there until East Lansing held its annual community recycling event that accepts not-so-easy-to-recycle items like polystyrene.
“We know that some folks were putting it in their curbside recycling cart either because they were doing what we refer to as ‘wishful recycling’ or really not paying attention to the fact that foam is listed as an unacceptable material in our recycling guide,” DeShambo said.
“And of course some of it was going to the landfill,” she said.
On average, the city collects close to 600 pounds of foam a week. Foam recycling has gotten so popular that a second foam collection container was added to the drop-off site in October.
Dart doesn’t release figures for how much foam recycling it processes at its Mason location or its 21 other foam recycling drop-off centers in the U.S.
“We have been steadily increasing,” Dart recycling and community outreach specialist Ashley Elzinga said. “A lot of people are really eco-conscious nowadays.”
The Foodservice Packaging Institute, a trade association for the industry, represents companies like Dart. In 2014, institute members created the Foam Recycling Coalition to increase recycling of foam foodservice packaging.
While the coalition tracks how much foam gets recycled every year, it doesn’t share that data publicly. It does, however, talk about the impact on foam recycling from grants it provides.
“We as an industry recognize that too many of our products are getting landfilled and not recycled or composted, and so we ended up setting up some special projects to work on how do we get our products recycled or composted,” Foodservice Packaging Institute President Lynn Dyer said.
Expanded polystyrene foam, which is used for packaging, also has its own trade organization called the EPS Industry Alliance. The organization of more than 60 companies was formed in 2012 to develop recycling programs and awareness.
A 2016 study by the EPS Industry Alliance found 63 million pounds of packaged foam was recycled by consumers that year, up from 36.7 million in 2012 and 24.9 million in 2000.
A larger goal that could help increase foam recycling is for the product to be considered recyclable by the Federal Trade Commission.
Foam must meet qualifications before it’s considered recyclable, including recycling access to at least 60 percent of the U.S. population, making sure recycling facilities are willing to process it and having end markets for the material, Dyer said.
“We’re working on getting all that to happen,” she said.
When Dart started its Mason foam recycling center in 1990, engineers took a unique approach for the foam to be turned into another product.
The company’s Elzinga said, “I call it a Frankenstein. There are all these different machines they made work together.”
One piece of equipment is an orange juicer that squeezes water from the foam after it’s washed.
Foam is very light, which makes it difficult to condense and transport, so Dart started to manufacture its own densifiers to compact it for shipment.
Large quantity foam users like hospitals and universities lease densifiers from Dart.
Recycled foam is turned into tiny plastic pellets at Dart. Pellets are sold to companies that turn them into items like picture frames, rulers, combs and cores that hold register receipt tape.
“We just want to want make sure our products, from the front end of life to the end of use, are recovered and they are handled in a sustainable manner,” Elzinga said.
http://news.jrn.msu.edu/2019/03/foam-poses-recycling-challenges/
-
House Oversight Panel to Hold Hearing on PFAs
Mar 1, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
A House Oversight and Reform Committee subpanel will hold a hearing on a class of toxic chemicals next week, less than a month after EPA unveiled its "action plan" for the chemicals.
The hearing, entitled "Examining PFAS Chemicals and Their Risks," is scheduled for March 6, and will probe the substances that are found in nearly every Americans' blood and are linked with kidney and testicular cancer, immune problems and other ailments.
EPA has faced criticism from states, lawmakers and affected communities for not acting more urgently to address contamination from the chemicals.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has said he "intends" to set an enforceable drinking water limit for the two best-understood chemicals in the class, although the plan commits only to making a formal decision on whether or not to set a regulatory limit. If the agency decides it will, experts say it will take at least several years to finalize an enforceable limit.
Witnesses for the hearing have not been announced.
WHAT'S NEXT: The hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Environment Subcommittee will be held on March 6 at 10 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2019/03/house-oversight-panel-to-hold-hearing-on-pfas-2786357
-
Trump Endorses ANWR Drilling in Stop at Military Base
Mar 1, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
President Trump touted the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling when Air Force One made a refueling stop yesterday in Alaska as the president returned from Asia.
Trump was traveling back to Washington after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un collapsed in Vietnam. He didn't discuss those talks during a 20-minute address.
Standing in front of an F-22 Raptor fighter jet at an Anchorage base, Trump said he's always had a special place in his heart for Alaska, which likely stems from a grandfather who ventured north to look for gold.
The president said his grandfather didn't find gold but opened hotels for others who also traveled north to seek their fortunes.
Trump touted legislation to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, an effort finalized after decades of fierce disputes between Republicans and Democrats.
The Trump administration and congressional Republicans said the drilling plan would help pay for tax cuts approved by Congress and signed by Trump in December 2017.
GOP lawmakers project at least $1 billion in revenue from drilling leases over 10 years. But environmental groups and other critics call those projections wildly optimistic, saying low global oil prices and high exploration costs are likely to limit drilling revenue.
Protests have marked recent public hearings on the plan in Fairbanks and Anchorage.
The administration plan calls for at least two major lease sales, each on a minimum of 625 square miles in the refuge's coastal plain. Surface development would be limited to 3 square miles.
Trump praised Alaska's new governor, Republican Mike Dunleavy, who flew in for the ceremony at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. "He said, 'We really appreciate you got that done,'" Trump said of the conversation he had with Dunleavy about ANWR.
"He's not only one of the best governors in the United States, he's definitely the largest," Trump said of Dunleavy, who stands 6 feet, 7 inches tall.
Dunleavy, who met with Trump on Air Force One, said Alaska has a "remarkable friend and advocate" in the president.
"From issues like ANWR to his immediate help with the Nov. 30 earthquake, the president has made it clear that Alaskans and Alaska's success is a top priority," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/01/stories/1060122789
-
S.C. Asks Court to Block Trump Admin's Atlantic Plan
Mar 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
South Carolina today asked a federal court to immediately block the Trump administration's plan to spur oil and gas exploration off the Eastern Seaboard.
The state filed a motion seeking an immediate injunction in its case challenging the administration's offshore plan, arguing that permits for seismic airgun testing could be issued as soon as today.
Such testing, the state said, "would be contrary to applicable law and would have a disastrous impact on marine life and therefore, the economy of South Carolina and the recreational and commercial interests of its citizens."
The consolidated case in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina was filed by South Carolina, nine other coastal states, numerous cities and environmental groups (E&E News PM, Dec. 20, 2018).
It challenges President Trump's 2017 executive order to open up the East Coast to offshore oil and gas development and subsequent moves by the Interior Department to implement the plan.
The orders, South Carolina said today, are "nothing short of unprecedented." The state noted that since 1982, the South Atlantic region and entire area of the continental shelf off the South Carolina's coast have been deemed "off limits" to oil and gas activity.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is expected to release its five-year offshore plan soon, and the agency has indicated that permits to begin seismic testing could be handed out as early as today.
"The economic damage from seismic surveying for offshore oil starts on the first air gun blast," Frank Knapp Jr., president of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.
"The destruction from that first blast and all the subsequent blasts can never be undone. That's why it is imperative that seismic surveys not start while the legal process is ongoing."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/01/stories/1060122809
-
Trump Administration Set to Roll out Massive Offshore Oil Plan, but Many in GOP Don't Want It
Mar 1, 2019 | USA Today
By Ledyard King
Republicans have eagerly lined up behind President Donald Trump's energy agenda: bringing back coal, expanding mineral extraction on public lands, reviving nuclear energy.
But when it comes to the president's proposal to massively expand offshore oil and gas drilling, many GOP leaders in coastal states want no part of exploration near their beaches or maritime communities.
“The administration is well aware of the state’s position, which is why we oppose the drilling," South Carolina GOP Gov. Henry McMaster, one of Trump's earliest and most ardent supporters, said in December.
"I support offshore drilling," Georgia Republican Gov. Kemp told the Savannah Morning News a few weeks ago. "I just don't think we need to be doing it off the coast of Georgia."
Kemp and McMaster are among a broad bipartisan, bicoastal anti-drilling set of voices whose opposition could punch a hole in Trump's America-First Offshore Energy Strategy – and muddy an issue that figures to be front-and-center during the 2020 elections.
The Trump administration has consistently argued for expanded offshore drilling as a pillar of an economic strategy not only to make U.S. energy secure but also to help reinvigorate the manufacturing sector and boost the growth of high-paying jobs.
The initial plan unveiled in January 2018 included 47 potential lease sales in 25 of the nation's 26 planning areas – 19 sales off the coast of Alaska, seven in the Pacific region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico, and nine in the Atlantic region.
The plan would apply to federal waters, which begin beyond state waters, generally about three miles from shore.
While declining to address the concerns of individual states, Interior officials said areas included in the initial plan could be reduced in size or removed entirely when the final proposal is issued in the coming weeks.
Republicans have been largely united both on the country's need for energy independence and in condemning the Green New Deal that progressive Democrats rolled out in early February. But with the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon spill that polluted the Gulf of Mexico still a raw memory, they're fragmented on offshore drilling.
Republicans have joined Democrats in introducing bills, writing letters and making both public and private appeals to the administration, all asking for an exemption for their states like the one then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke granted to Florida's then-Gov. Rick Scott a year ago.
Florida Republicans are doing their best to make sure that promise is kept, especially as petroleum companies ravenously eye the oil-rich eastern Gulf.
Scott, now a U.S. senator representing the Sunshine State, talks regularly with the president "and will continue to work with the administration to protect the state’s coasts and beaches from offshore oil drilling," spokesman Chris Hartline said.
But there's little to suggest those efforts will pay off in the coming weeks when the Interior Department releases its update of the five-year plan to open up 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas exploration.
A plan for 'energy dominance'
“This is a start (of) American energy dominance,” Zinke said 13 months ago when he unveiled the first draft of what would be the largest single expansion of offshore drilling activity ever proposed.
It's not just governors and senators concerned about the plan. Others include: Groups representing thousands of coastal businesses have come out strongly against the plan, warning the prospect of oil platforms, even though too far out to see, would hurt their communities, jeopardize tourism, and shrink their bottom lines. Fishing interests say more drilling would disrupt habitats and threaten marine stocks tied to their livelihoods.
At least three federal agencies have weighed in with concerns: The Department of Defense opposes drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico because it would disrupt training exercises; NASA is concerned oil and gas exploration off the Atlantic Coast and Alaska could interfere with launches; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has raised red flags about drilling's impact on fragile marine stocks such as the endangered Right Whale in the North Atlantic. Environmental groups oppose any expansion of fossil fuels, arguing that increased carbon emissions would exacerbate climate change.
In addition, Diane Hoskins with the conservation organization Oceana, said the Trump administration's efforts to roll back offshore oil rig safety rules enacted in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster would worsen the risk.
'Recipe for disaster'
Deepwater Horizon's spill was “one of the worst man-made disasters in our history. And that’s what potentially the Atlantic is facing if we go down this path," Hoskins said. "More drilling. Less safety. A recipe for disaster.”
Oceana is one of several groups that on Wednesday sued to stop seismic testing off the mid-Atlantic coast, a precursor to drilling.
Oil and gas industry groups support the president's call for more drilling because of the economic and national security they say it would provide.
Energy exploration sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs, generates billions in economic activity and funnels millions into state government coffers – without compromising safety – every year, according to the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's primary trade group.
"For this to continue, U.S. energy policy must include a lasting commitment to expanding offshore oil and natural gas development to new areas," API's Erik Milito wrote in a letter last year to the Trump administration, one of more than 2 million comments about the proposal posted on the federal website, regulations.gov.
Green New Deal
The administration's eagerness to expand drilling comes as climate change is rapidly emerging as a campaign issue in the 2020 presidential election.
Democrats are promoting their Green New Deal, a broadly worded treatise – ridiculed by GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as a "socialist fantasy" – that calls for the end of fossil fuels along with vast social justice reforms that include jobs, health care and higher education for all.
Several Democratic presidential candidates have gotten behind the concept of the proposal, emphasizing the environmental thrust over some of its other aspects.
The five-year plan, covering 2019 to 2024, was initiated by the America First Offshore Energy Strategy directive Trump signed in April that could eventually open up Arctic waters and millions of coastal acres off U.S. shores to oil and gas drilling.
Florida hoping to remain exempt
Shortly after the plan became public, representatives of most coastal states lobbied the administration to be exempted. Zinke granted only one exemption – Florida – after a 20-minute conversation with Scott, a fellow Republican.
With both Zinke and Scott no longer in the roles they held when the deal was cut (In January, Zinke left Interior and Scott joined the Senate), concerns have grown that Florida might once again be a candidate for off-shore drilling.
GOP Rep. Francis Rooney, unconvinced that the Eastern Gulf will remain exempt after a current moratorium expires in 2022, last month introduced a bill to permanently ban oil and gas leasing and related activities in the region.
"Offshore drilling will negatively affect our environment, tourism and military readiness," Rooney said. "I am fighting to protect our Florida coast for future generations to enjoy (because) Florida’s economy is dependent on clean water and a healthy environment.”
The updated version of the administration's offshore drilling plan is scheduled to be released "in the coming weeks," said Tracey Blythe Moriarty, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, part of the Interior Department.
Once released, the public will have 90 days to comment and meetings will be held in coastal cities near areas under consideration for oil and gas leasing. After the comment period, acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt will determine the schedule of lease sales and geographic areas for inclusion in the final proposal.
The plan will be finalized next year.
"Inclusion of an area in the Proposed Program is not necessarily an indication it will be included in the Proposed Final Program or offered in a lease sale," Moriarty wrote in an email. "Future decisions could be made to reduce or remove areas or sales."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/01/trump-offshore-oil-drilling-plan-faces-resistance-even-before-release/2814275002/
-
Oil Industry Told to Loosen Up on Green Investments to Survive
Mar 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Carr
Oil and gas companies under pressure by investors to curtail investment in fossil fuels should loosen their purse strings for green energy, according to Accenture.
Managers of traditional energy businesses need to spend in areas that attract new customers, such as batteries, auto charging and renewable electricity, said Andrew Smart, the managing director of global energy industry at the consulting group. Otherwise, they risk the “dirty” part of their companies strangling growth opportunities, he said.
“The old has a habit of killing the new,” Smart said in an interview at the IP Week energy conference in London.
The pressure on conventional fossil-fuel providers is increasing. Shareholders have formed groups such as Climate Action 100+ to prod companies to reduce emissions. Companies that have yielded to investor pressure include Glencore Plc, which announced a cap on coal mining this month, as well as oil giants BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
BP cut its annual growth outlook for oil product demand in 2020-2025 by more than a quarter from its estimate a year ago. Meantime, electric vehicles are boosting their share of the transport sector, while utility-scale batteries are expected to account for well over half of the world’s energy storage installations in the next six years.
“There’s a lot of potential disruption,” Smart said. “As demand for the core product comes down, so does the price.”
Smart declined to name companies doing a good job in the transition. Shell’s Mark Gainsborough, executive vice president for New Energies, estimates that the company will be able to generate returns from non-regulated electricity of between 8 percent and 12 percent at some point, though he wouldn’t specify when.
The industry faces a “crisis of perception” and there’s a growing risk the financial community will turn against fossil fuels, the chief executive officer of Saudi Aramco said Feb. 26 at the conference, as the world’s largest oil producer prepares for its first foray into capital markets.
The trick to navigating the environment will be to adopt a more generous approach when building businesses with direct access to customers, Smart said. For example, revamping roadside filling stations is one strategy to beat the new competition and thwart the capital squeeze from investors deterred by fossil-fuel companies, he said. Nearly 90 percent of fuel-retail executives surveyed by Accenture expect electric-vehicle usage will impact their businesses within five years.
The world’s biggest oil companies probably have a better chance to build a charging network for electric cars because of their sheer size and the number of sites they control through existing gas stations. That view, set out in a report by S&P Global Ratings, would be a blow to Europe’s largest utilities, which are banking on new revenue from powering electric cars.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oil-industry-told-to-loosen-up-on-green-investments-to-survive
-
U.S. Energy Companies Produce More Oil Even as They Cut Spending
Mar 1, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
U.S. shale energy companies are cutting their spending levels in 2019, but they're still planning on increased oil and gas output as the nation continues to hit new production records.
Shale energy companies plan to cut their capital spending by 5 percent on average after crude prices plunged late last year, even though Big Oil majors like Exxon Mobil and Chevron continue to spend more. However, oil and gas production levels are expected to still surge 15 percent from last year, or 5 percent from the end of last year, according to a new report from the Norwegian research firm Rystad Energy.
"Earnings and guidance confirm that most U.S. shale operators aim to moderate drilling and completion activity this year, prioritizing cost discipline over aggressive growth," said Rystad Energy partner Artem Abramov.
While shale companies are burdened by debt loads and dividend payout to investors, they're still managing to churn out more oil and gas even as they cut their budgets.
U.S. oil production surged from about 10 million barrels a day at the beginning of 2018 to a projected new record now of just more than 12 million barrels daily. Rystad estimates that 2019 growth projections should carry the output above 13 million barrels a day by the end of this year. That's a lot of growth, but at a reduced pace from last year.
The combination of the groundwork previously completed by energy companies coupled with improved technological efficiencies helps them grow production even as they reduce spending. Outputs will be further boosted by the amount of drilled but uncompleted wells in West Texas' booming Permian Basin that are just waiting for new pipelines to come online later this year.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/U-S-energy-companies-produce-more-oil-even-as-13655091.php
-
Energy and Commodities Highlights: Oil Diplomacy, Global LNG Flows, Trade Wars
Mar 1, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Emma Slawinski
In a week dominated by geopolitical headlines, oil diplomacy was also high on the agenda.
Despite a schedule that included a high-profile summit in Hanoi, US President Donald Trump found time to tweet his view of crude prices to OPEC, ahead of a meeting between US and Saudi officials.
OPEC’s next regular biannual meeting will take place June 25-26 in Vienna.
Meanwhile the so-called NOPEC bill is starting its path through the US legislative process, even as the country’s energy secretary Rick Perry warned it threatened an oil price spike.
IMO 2020
A shift to low sulfur marine fuel is imminent under new rules starting on January 1, 2020. S&P Global Platts editors discuss the implications across the shipping sector.
GRAPHIC OF THE WEEK
LNG trade flows in 2018 shifted from demand pull into Asia to supply push into Europe. In 2019 surging US supply is likely to accentuate that shift into Europe, due to a weaker JKM outlook, according to S&P Global Platts Analytics.LNG trade flows 2018 – click to enlargeLNG trade flow forecast 2019 – click to enlarge
These visualizations were presented by S&P Global Platts during an LNG panel at the London Oil and Energy Forum 2019
TRADE WARS
US extends China trade tariff deadline
The US is pushing back its deadline to raise tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports, a move likely to boost crude oil and LNG trade flows, especially if trade tensions ease in the longer term.
US wants to drop metals tariffs on Canada, Mexico but resolution unclear: Lighthizer
The US “very much” wants to come to an agreement with Canada and Mexico regarding alternate arrangements to the US Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, however, whether such an agreement will be reached remains unclear, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said.
METALS
Chile’s SQM to hold back lithium production as global supply grows
As EV growth propels demand for battery metals, Chilean SQM, the self-described largest lithium producer in the world, shed light on its view of the lithium market in 2019.
OIL PRODUCTS
Analysis: New PDH plants to drive China’s LPG demand, trade war a concern
New propane dehydrogenation, or PDH plants, will drive China’s appetite for LPG in 2019, but the rate of demand growth will be slower than previous years because of the US-China trade war and the rising use of natural gas by the residential sector.
THE LAST WORD
“There is a need today for us to supply the energy the world needs. There are different needs for different people and that’s what we need to explain as an industry,” said Amin Nasser, Saudi Aramco CEO, at the IP Week conference in London.
Nasser said the industry faced a “crisis of perception” and urged his audience to “push back on exaggerated theories like peak oil demand,” referring to the view that oil consumption could peak as soon as the next decade.
https://blogs.platts.com/2019/03/01/oil-lng-trade-wars-highlights/
-
America's 'Green Energy' Future is Germany's Recent Past
Feb 28, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Brian Isom & Christopher Koopman
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez recently released the Green New Deal, a resolution aimed at “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” in the next decade.
This type of thinking — albeit lofty — is admirable, and we should continually look for moonshot ideas to solve important problems. There’s only one issue: however bold the plan may be, by treating nuclear as part of the problem rather than the solution, the Green New Deal will likely do little to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
Ocasio-Cortez’s plan is not particularly new, so we have several examples from recent history to draw from. In fact, a number of European countries have already attempted similar policies with discouraging results. Germany, for example, has been in the midst of an ambitious energy transition since 2000. As a part of this program, the country has been phasing out its nuclear power plants. Emission reductions during these efforts have actually slowed compared the the prior decade.
Beginning in 2000, Germany’s Energiewende (German for energy transition) prioritized movement away from coal, natural gas, and nuclear in favor of renewable energy. Prior to the Energiewende, Germany saw a 16% reduction in emissions from 1990 to 2000. From 2000 to 2016, the country only saw an 11.9% reduction.
In addition to slowing emission reductions, Germany has also seen increases in the cost of electricity. Since the Energiewende began, the cost of electricity in Germany has more than doubled. Moreover, by our calculation, carbon-neutral energy sources only make up 4.5 percent more of Germany’s energy portfolio than they did in 2000.
Germany’s neighbor to the west, Belgium, has also set a goal to phase out all nuclear reactors by 2025. Nuclear currently supplies around half of Belgium’s power. What would removing this source mean for Belgium’s energy markets? When six of Belgium’s seven reactors were temporarily taken offline for maintenance and repairs last year, the cost of electricity skyrocketed to record highs.
A more effective route to reducing carbon emissions would not select the means of reduction but instead seek out any technology that provides steady, affordable, carbon-free energy. The Green New Deal, like current European efforts, hopes to mitigate climate change “by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.” Yet nuclear is the most technologically feasible means of achieving that goal.
The architects of the Green New Deal limit their carbon-free solutions to specific technologies such as wind, solar, and others deemed more preferable. Instead of injecting particular preferences into what is an unpredictable future, policymakers should focus on the overarching goal — reducing carbon emissions — and leave it to others to tackle the details.
Technological breakthroughs have already played a major role in reducing carbon emissions. Fracking has been the unlikely climate hero of the last decade for the United States. Natural gas has been a driver in reducing our reliance on coal-burning power plants and subsequently carbon emissions.
We are continuing to find safer, more effective ways to harness nuclear energy. There are a number of companies working towards smaller, modularized reactors that are less costly than traditional mega-reactors. They are also meltdown-proof. A recent partnership in the UK with the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency will bring these new reactors to English shores.
Fusion reactors, which are different than traditional fission reactors, are being developed across the world. These reactors produce four times the energy of traditional reactors and create zero long-term radioactive waste.
We should take some inspiration from Ocasio-Cortez. Moonshots can lay a foundation for the kinds of thinking that will dramatically change the world for the better. But we don’t have to guess now what that future will look like. Countries like Germany provide a great example of the challenges of short-sighted, technology-specific mandates.
As Americans, we should be remain ambitious in our goals but embrace practical, rather than political, solutions achieve them.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/02/28/americas_green_energy_future_is_germanys_recent_past.html
-
GAO Assesses Efforts to Enhance Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program
Mar 1, 2019 | Homeland Prepared News
By Douglas Clark
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently assessed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to enhance the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, offering input on progress and challenges.
The GAO recommended the department identify high-risk chemical facilities and noted DHS implemented the recommendation by revising its methodology so it now calculates the risk of toxic release, rather than relying on facilities to do so.
The GAO suggested DHS assess risk and prioritize facilities, adding the department implemented both recommendations by revising the CFATS risk assessment methodology to include threat, vulnerability and consequence to better cover the range of security issues – conducting peer reviews and technical reviews.
With regard to reviewing and approving facility site security plans, the GAO said DHS had made substantial progress in addressing review backlogs, which were estimated to take between nine and 12 months. The GAO said the DHS has since taken additional action to expedite the activities and has eliminated the backlog.
Inspecting facilities and ensuring compliance served as another GAO recommendation. In July 2015, GAO determined nearly half of the facilities DHS inspected were not fully compliant with their approved security plans and did not have documented procedures for managing facilities’ compliance. DHS revised CFATS procedures that, as of February 2019, GAO is reviewing to determine if they sufficiently address the recommendation.
https://homelandprepnews.com/stories/32731-gao-assesses-efforts-to-enhance-chemical-facility-anti-terrorism-standards-program/
-
Rail supplier news from Herzog, CAI, HNTB, Stahl Recruiting, HEPACO and LRW (March 1)
Mar 1, 2019 | Progressive Railroading
Herzog completed Nebraska Central Railroad Co. (NCRC) interoperability lab and field testing for positive train control (PTC) in November 2018. As a result, NCRC can now run PTC-active trains on Class I territory. Herzog will provide PTC operations support and will be NCRC’s service provider, company officials said in a press release.
CAI International Inc., a transportation finance and logistics company, has entered into an agreement to sell 30 percent of its rail-car fleet (2,146 cars) for $200 million. The sale of 1,946 rail cars was completed Feb. 26 for approximately $7 million. The remaining 200 cars are being manufactured and the sale of those units is expected to be completed in second-quarter 2019.
HNTB has hired Shant Paklaian as construction manager. Paklaian has 12 years of transit and rail experience managing and providing technical and engineering support for construction projects. He has worked with the Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago Department of Aviation, Chicago Department of Transportation and Illinois Tollway, all of which HNTB has served.
Stahl Recruiting has updated its website to highlight its rail-focused services, as the firm continues to grow in the rail recruitment market. Stahl Recruiting is a caters to employers seeking employees serving in mid-management to C-level roles.
HEPACO, a provider of environmental and emergency response services, has named former Clean Harbors executive Scott Metzger to fill the newly created role of president and chief operating officer. Metzger has nearly 30 years of operational management experience in environmental services. He is a former president and current board member at the Spill Control Association of America.
The League of Railway Women (LRW) will hold a panel discussion with top women executives at the Association of American Railroads in Washington, D.C., on March 20. The discussion will revolve around current issues in the rail industry as well as reflections on the panelists’ career paths. To register, visit railwaywomen.org.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/supplier_spotlight/news/Rail-supplier-news-from-Herzog-CAI-HNTB-Stahl-Recruiting-HEPACO-and-LRW-March-1--56900
-
Senate Confirms Former Coal Lobbyist to Lead EPA
Feb 28, 2019 | Roll Call
By Benjamin J. Hulac
The Senate on Thursday voted 52-47 to confirm Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who has worked to weaken and delay national and global environmental protections, as the head of the EPA.
Wheeler has served as acting EPA administrator since July, when the previous head, Scott Pruitt, resigned under a cloud of more than a dozen federal ethics investigations.
Like Pruitt, Wheeler has proposed regulatory changes at the EPA that favor industry and chisel away at former President Barack Obama’s climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan designed to slash domestic greenhouse gas emissions.
Every Senate Republican except one voted to confirm Wheeler. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, opposed the nomination over his climate change positions. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., did not vote.
“The policies he has supported as acting administrator are not in the best interest of our environment and public health, particularly given the threat of climate change to our nation,” Collins said.
“There’s no one more qualified in America,” Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., said of Wheeler, who previously worked on Inhofe's staff. “He’s always been concerned about nature. He was an Eagle Scout. He’ll be a good steward of the environment without punishing our states.”
The vote elevates Wheeler to head the primary federal agency responsible for regulating or overseeing air and water pollution, toxic waste sites, vehicle emission standards, ozone standards and greenhouse gases, including the highly potent methane gas.
It also marks the increasing political polarization over the EPA, which, since it was established in 1970, has seen its administrators confirmed with broad bipartisan support.
Carol Browner, who led the EPA in the Clinton administration, was confirmed by voice vote. Christine Todd Whitman under President George W. Bush and William K. Reilly under President George H.W. Bush were confirmed without opposition — 99-0 and 100-0, respectively. And Obama’s first EPA administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, was confirmed by unanimous consent.
Manchin: Not Impressed
Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., the ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee and a strong backer of the coal industry, voted against Wheeler on Thursday. He previously voted to confirm Pruitt as administrator in 2017 and to confirm Wheeler as deputy administrator last year.
But Manchin said he was not impressed with what Wheeler had done on air and water degradation.
Senate Democrats had clashed with Wheeler over several proposals made during his time leading the EPA, including over his understanding of climate change.
In response to written questions from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Wheeler said he had read the Fourth National Climate Assessment — a report the government released in November, documenting the sharp dangers of a warming world — but said the news media does not understand the topic.
He said he would wait for more information from EPA officials on how to respond to climate change.
“I still have additional briefings from my career staff planned which have not yet taken place, so I am reserving judgment on actionable findings,” Wheeler wrote. “One of the key takeaways in my opinion is that the press did not fully understand the various scenarios and I believe more work needs to be done communicating the findings in assessments such as these in the future.”
Asked by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., how climate change and wildfires relate, Wheeler said he was expecting more “briefings on the causes of wildfires.”
Climate researchers established the connection between climate change and wildfires decades ago. And communities and companies, including the California utility firm PG&E, which filed for bankruptcy in January due to wildfire liabilities, feel the damages.
Since July, the EPA has moved to scrap the Clean Power Plan, the Obama-era regulation to limit domestic power emissions, and set less stringent fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles.
Wheeler defended those decisions in writing to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. “In order to help mitigate the causes of climate change we are moving forward with both the ACE proposal and the SAFE Vehicles proposal and we intend to finalize them both this calendar year,” Wheeler wrote, using the shorthand for his utility-emissions and fuel-economy proposals.
The Trump administration’s clean energy and fuel efficiency rules would slash less greenhouse gas from the atmosphere than the Obama-era regulations they replaced.
Manchin surprised at least one of his colleagues with his vote.
“I’m assuming you’re an ‘aye,’” Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said to Manchin on the floor toward the end of the vote.
“You’re assuming wrong,” Manchin replied.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/senate-confirms-former-coal-lobbyist-wheeler-lead-epa
-
Senate Democrats Introduce 'Green New Deal' Alternative
Feb 28, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Senate Democrats introduced a joint resolution Thursday meant to unify the party around a common climate change plan as Republicans seek to rip the party over the "Green New Deal."
The concise nine-line resolution introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Energy and Public Works Committee, commits Democrats to acknowledging climate change is happening, that it’s human caused and that something must be done.
“Climate change is real, human activity during the last century is the dominant cause of the climate crisis; and the United States and Congress should take immediate action to address the challenge of climate change,” the resolution reads in its entirety.
All 47 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus signed on to co-sponsor the legislation.
“We have an obligation in the body of the House to do something about it,” said Carper on the Senate floor Thursday.
The resolution is meant as an alternative to the Green New Deal resolution introduced in early February by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fast-tracked the vote on the resolution two weeks ago in an effort to highlight a Democratic divide over the plan.
While McConnell recently hinted at a pushed back timeline as far off as August, Democrats had planned to vote “present” on the plan to avoid appearing misaligned on their climate stance.
The latest proposal would circumvent that need.
While the new resolution doesn’t offer any specific plans to decrease emissions and combat climate change, Democratic leaders championed it as a push in the right direction as Republicans failed to back or introduce any climate bills of their own.
“Until they in the majority put a plan on the floor as to what they would do with climate change, they don’t have much standing,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Politico Tuesday. He called McConnell’s planned vote on the Green New Deal a “sham.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) earlier in the week suggested that she too will be introducing her own alternative resolution on climate change. Calling the Green New Deal “too political” and including “too much,” she told The Hill her resolution would be focused more on science.
A draft of her resolution was released mistakenly last week, according to Feinstein. She said the resolution would be introduced in upcoming weeks.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/432086-senate-democrats-introduce-green-new-deal-alternative-unity-climate
-
Perry Scoffs at 'Green New Deal' Boosters
Mar 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
Energy Secretary Rick Perry this morning dismissed the "Green New Deal" as a "fantasy" perpetuated by activists outside the political mainstream.
Perry's comments add to the growing skepticism of Republicans on the effort to transition the country away from greenhouse gas emissions within a decade, a move that would require power generation to move to 100 percent clean energy by 2030.
Perry belittled the activist groups behind the "Green New Deal" as "a bunch of kids who've never been on the playground before, they've never even been on the field of play before, they're sitting on the sidelines," during comments he made to a Fox News radio program.
Progressive groups like the Sunrise Movement, a youth-driven activist organization focused on climate change action, have steered the "Green New Deal" narrative through a series of protests and Capitol Hill office sit-ins.
While freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has led the push for the "Green New Deal" in the House, one of the Democrats' leading climate change activists for the past three decades, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), has been behind the Senate charge.
The Senate resolution, S. Res. 59, also has buy-in from leading Democratic presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Perry deemed the price tag of the "Green New Deal" one of the leading reasons he believes the proposal is unrealistic.
"They're saying, 'Here's what I can do; let's do zero emissions in 10 years,'" Perry said. "All right, let's all go do that, not having any idea the cost of that. The 'Green New Deal,' $93 trillion. This on its face makes it a fantasy."
Perry is not the first DOE official to dismiss the "Green New Deal." Assistant Secretary for the Office of Electricity Bruce Walker told the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners at its winter conference last month that "you can't legislate physics" (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
In its place, Perry argued, the United States should be celebrating the progress it has already made to reduce emissions in the power sector. That trend has largely come through the transition from coal to cheaper natural gas power production.
"We ought to be getting celebrated instead of these cockamamie ideas that are coming out of left field," Perry said. "This seems like a couple of kids who are going to one-up you with an even crazier idea."
The former Texas governor also said nuclear energy should be at the forefront of some of this climate push, despite decades of regulations that he said have made the U.S. industry not as competitive compared with some of its international competition.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the United States rose about 3.4 percent in 2018, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group in January. That spike, however, was preceded by the three years of decrease.
While electric-sector emissions have seen a decline since their 1990s highs, the transportation sector has become the nation's leading greenhouse gas emitter, surpassing the electric sector last year, according to the government's Energy Information Administration.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/01/stories/1060122815
-
Inside the Breakdown of Auto Emission Talks between California and the Trump White House
Mar 1, 2019 | LA Times
By Michael Hiltzik
There was a fair amount of perplexity at the California Air Resources Board on Feb. 21, when the Trump administration abruptly announced that it had decided to “discontinue discussions” with the state’s air quality regulator over the administration’s proposal to gut federal auto emissions standards.
The general reaction at CARB’s Sacramento office was: “What discussions?”
That’s not to say that CARB officials had never met with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which were the frontline agencies in the proposed rollback. Only that it was plain from the first that the government was not going to budge.
At no time, in any meetings, did the EPA or NHTSA or the White House suggest there was anything in the proposals they would bend on at all.
That’s the view of CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols, who participated in the meetings.
“At no time, in any meetings, did the EPA or NHTSA or the White House suggest there was anything in the proposals they would bend on at all,” Nichols told me.
It didn’t help matters that the Trump administration had stated forthrightly that it aimed to revoke the long-standing federal waiver allowing California to set its own auto emissions rules, which was written into the federal Clean Air Act in the 1970s.
Federal officials, of course, have a different view of the process. “We came to the table to figure out a workable path forward,” says Amanda Gunasekara, who was a clean air official at the EPA until a few weeks ago, when she left to form a nonprofit devoted to “informing the public about the environmental and economic gains made under the Trump Administration.”
“Time and again,” Gunasekara told me, “the California team was dismissive and never prepared to engage in the type of conversation you would need to get to that point.” (We sought official comment from EPA and NHTSA, but neither provided a response.)
On the surface, this looks like what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, though it’s not clear which side is which. Deeper down, however, there’s much more at stake.
Trump’s proposed rollback of auto emissions standards is part of an ideology-driven resistance to climate change science; the state’s resistance reflects the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are a mortal threat to the environment, and that in California some 40% of those emissions come from auto and truck tailpipes.
For decades, the state has been in the forefront of the battle to reduce those emissions.
What’s at issue are auto mileage and emissions goals established by NHTSA and EPA in 2012, covering model years 2017 and beyond, in effect for 2017 through 2025. At that point, average vehicular efficiency must be 54.5 miles per gallon.
The rules were scheduled for a “midterm evaluation” in 2018. The automakers hoped for at least a modest loosening of the standards, based on their claim that American consumers were so hooked on SUVs and resistant to hybrid- and full-electric cars that they couldn’t conceivably meet the 2025 goals.
But then Trump got elected. The Obama-era EPA rushed the midterm review to completion, issuing a final judgment the week before Trump’s inauguration stating that there was no reason to reduce the standards. CARB came to the same conclusion.
The 2012 rule was based on the expectation that U.S. vehicle ownership would be composed of two-thirds SUVs and other light trucks and one-third cars, says Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “It’s the opposite now,” she says.
Soon after taking office, Trump revoked the midterm review. Then, on Aug. 24, 2018, the administration proposed to freeze the auto mileage standard at the 2020 level, which is 36.9 mpg. The proposal challenged California to compromise on an alternative.
Yet what has never been clear is why California should engage with this process at all. Its waiver authority has been in place for nearly half a century, and already has passed muster with federal courts. Its emissions standards are effectively written into state law, are followed by 11 other states making up 40% of the U.S. auto market, are based on solid science, and are crucial elements in a program to cut greenhouse gases.
California offered to compromise on the “slope of the curve,” Nichols says, say by giving automakers a bit more time to meet the most stringent goals, in exchange for a commitment to meet them by the ultimate deadline. But the feds wanted more.
Possibly aware that a case couldn’t be made for rolling back the standards on the basis of climate science or clean air rules, the administration cast its proposal almost entirely as an auto safety initiative, even dubbing it the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule, or SAFE.
It’s not exactly news that the administration’s published backup for its proposed rule change is a mess — indeed, some of its assertions are so wacky they’ve made the entire package into a nationwide laughingstock.
Fundamentally, the proposal claims that the rule change would reduce auto fatalities because (a) the more stringent mileage rules would prompt manufacturers to make lighter cars, which are more dangerous; (b) the better mileage would prompt car owners to drive more, which is more dangerous; and (c) higher-mileage cars would be more expensive, so people would stick with their older cars, which are more dangerous.
The most comprehensive debunking came from 11 experts at leading universities, including UC, USC, Yale and MIT, published in Science in December. They reported that the analysis supporting the rollback had “fundamental flaws and inconsistencies, is at odds with basic economic theory…[and] is misleading.”
Among other things, they observed that the proposal vastly overstated the “rebound effect” — how much more driving motorists do when the price per mile falls, thanks to higher mileage efficiency — and inexplicably argued that U.S. auto ownership would shrink by 6 million vehicles even though the rollback would make cars more affordable.
Their conclusion evoked physicist Wolfgang Pauli’s classic put-down that a colleague’s paper was so incompetent it was “not even wrong.”
But they weren’t alone. American Honda issued a blistering comment in October. Honda said that the proposal “invites litigation and regulatory uncertainty, stalls long-term strategic industry planning, puts at risk American global competitiveness, exacerbates climate-related environmental impacts, and slows industry readiness for a widely acknowledged … transition to vehicle electrification.”
Like other critics, the company took issue with the administration’s claim on automotive safety. If the government used the proper math, Honda said, it would be clear that the original plan was safer than the new proposal.
Gunasekara defended the filing: “What the agencies put out was a well-thought out, well-substantiated document,” she says. “Some folks have brought to the table some criticisms, but we want people to take a look at the document — that’s part of the regulatory process.” Some of the data may be adjusted in response to the critiques, she indicated, but that won’t be known until the administration issues a final rule, expected later this spring or summer.
The message oozing from between the lines of Honda’s analysis was that the auto industry opposed the administration’s obstinate approach. The automakers had been hoping for some sort of compromise between California and the feds, easing the path toward the “One National Program” that would allow them to build cars complying with a single standard nationwide.
Even more important, the industry hankered after a standard that would be “durable” — that is, not so extreme a rollback that it would provoke challenges in the courts and prompt a future administration to overturn the Trump rule. That would be a nightmare for companies trying to make design and manufacturing decisions that would hold for the next decade or more. A ham-handed effort to preempt California would “have precisely the opposite effect,” Honda observed.
“It’s clear that the administration is on one path and California is on another,” Bergquist says.
Nichols says that was the state’s impression from the start. She says federal officials, including former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, always made clear that his intention was to revoke California’s waiver. She met with Pruitt only once, at an official event in San Francisco, before he was ousted in July 2018 over ethics issues.
Pruitt seemed ever eager to issue joint news releases stating that the state and federal government were making progress, but Nichols refused. “We weren’t willing to have it appear that we were agreeing to things we didn’t agree with,” she told me. At one point in May, when Pruitt and NHTSA issued a joint statement calling a meeting with CARB “productive,” Nichols responded with a tweet:
“Sounds like a great meeting based on the WH press release. Too bad it’s not the one we attended.”
Pruitt’s successor, Andrew Wheeler, has a more accommodating demeanor, Nichols says, but hasn’t backed off from any of the administration’s goals. In any case, the rollback appears to be driven mostly by NHTSA, an arm of the Department of Transportation that is led by Heidi King, who has been criticized for placing a commitment to deregulation ahead of safety and environmental issues that should be the agency’s top priorities.
The auto industry’s fears that the Trump White House’s ideological fixation on rolling back the standards will result in fragmenting national standards and more uncertainty are well taken. If the Trump White House really tries to revoke California’s waiver it will have a legal fight on its hands, and California is confident that it will win.
“There’s no question that there will be litigation,” Nichols says. “There’s some question of who sues who, but we’ll be in court.”
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-california-trump-emissions-20190301-story.html
-
Jay Inslee, Washington Governor and Climate Advocate, Enters 2020 Race
Mar 1, 2019 | New York Times
By Kirk Johnson
Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington and former member of Congress who has made climate change and the environment his signature issues, jumped into the crowded field of 2020 Democratic contenders for president on Friday.
Mr. Inslee, 68, has led the state during a powerful economic expansion since taking office as governor in 2013, especially in the Seattle area. Amazon and other tech companies have hired tens of thousands of workers, and export-driven manufacturers like Boeing have boomed.
But he has had mixed success in getting some of his ideas put into practice, especially those on renewable, low-carbon energy. He failed twice with voters, and once in the Legislature, to enact the nation’s first carbon tax, aimed at reducing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Many residents, elected officials and business leaders balked, concerned that energy costs would rise.
In a video released by his campaign titled “Our Moment,” Mr. Inslee spares no time getting to his core environmental message, with the word “climate,” mentioned at least 10 times in just over 80 seconds.
Shown chatting up farmers and factory workers and surveying fire disasters, Mr. Inslee says he is the only candidate for president who would make the issue the nation’s No. 1 priority, but he combines that thought with an economic development message — that a moonshot like focus on climate and a push toward “100 percent clean energy,” would also create millions of jobs. But he says the clock is ticking.
“We’re the first generation to feel the sting of climate change, and we’re the last that can do something about it,” Mr. Inslee says.
In speeches around the nation leading up to his announcement, Mr. Inslee has framed his candidacy around themes that are deeply familiar to residents of his home state. Biting attacks on President Trump and Republicans in Congress — popular in the strongly Democratic counties in and around Seattle — are combined with sometimes lofty, sometimes dire, rhetoric that the nation and the world are at a pivot point, where delay on energy and climate will be disastrous for future generations.
[Who’s in, who’s out and who’s still thinking about it. Check out our presidential candidate tracker.]Yes, It Is Really Early for So Many Democrats to Have Joined the 2020 Race
The Democratic presidential field is more crowded than usual. Here’s how it compares with past cycles.Feb. 14, 2019
“This is the 11th hour, but it is Washington’s hour to shine. It’s a time of great peril, but also of great promise,” Governor Inslee said in his State of the State speech earlier this year. “I don’t know of any other issue that touches the heart of things so many of us care about: our jobs, our health, our safety and our children’s future,” he added, referring to climate change.
Mr. Inslee has said in recent speeches that he would push the nation to global leadership in research and development of lower-carbon energy policies, likening the effort to the mass mobilizations and deployment of resources during World War II. But his base of support in his home state is also narrow.
In his election to the governor’s office in 2012, he carried only eight of the state’s 39 counties, all of them along the heavily populated liberal western slope of the Cascade Range. He trailed his Republican challenger in more rural and conservative agricultural communities. In his second campaign four years later, he carried nine counties.
Many Washington residents, even those who admire Mr. Inslee and have voted for him, are prone to sometimes mock him for his sunny, boyish enthusiasm in talking about passions like ocean acidification and carbon.
“He’s a true believer,” said Travis N. Ridout, a professor of government and public policy at Washington State University and longtime observer of Mr. Inslee. “He’s identified with climate change. Other than that, it’s hard to — at least in my mind — come up with signature policy focuses. The positive of that is that it’s hard to think of the big scandals he’s been involved in either. He’s fairly low drama. He’s not a firebrand.”
Mr. Inslee, a lawyer and former prosecutor, is a fifth-generation Washingtonian who grew up in the Seattle area and has credited part of his appreciation for the natural world to his father, Frank Inslee, a high school science teacher who often led the family on volunteer expeditions to replant alpine meadows on the slopes of Mount Rainier, the glacier-clad volcano south of Seattle.
One Democratic political consultant, Rebecca Katz, said that climate has risen in importance in the 2020 race with the introduction of the Green New Deal, a congressional resolution calling for an aggressive mobilization to move the United States to renewable energy and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Inslee has praised the Green New Deal, as have a number of senators who are also running for president — Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
“The benefit of Inslee is that he actually has a record here,” Ms. Katz said. “There’s a lot of candidates who have kind of seen the light and are now for a Green New Deal, but Inslee has been talking about this issue for a long time.”
“That said,” she added, “a lot of folks don’t know much about Inslee.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/us/jay-inslee-2020.html
-
‘Climate Warrior’ Jolts 2020 Presidential Field
Mar 1, 2019 | Politico
By David Siders and Daniel Strauss
No one has ever won a major statewide race, let alone a presidential nomination, with a single-issue, climate-focused candidacy. But Jay Inslee is about to try.
The Washington state governor launched a White House bid Friday that stands to have a significant effect on the electoral politics surrounding climate change.
For years, despite scientists’ warnings of the calamitous consequences of a warming world, climate change was relegated to a backwater in America’s political campaigns. Presidential candidates rarely mentioned the issue in debates or put money behind it in campaign ads. Even politicians supportive of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions largely skirted the issue, convinced it resonated less with voters than health care, education or other concerns.
But while Inslee barely registers in presidential polls, the issue that the Washington governor is attempting to corner is showing new signs of traction with likely primary voters. The subtle shift — expressed in public opinion polls and in renewed focus on climate change in the Democratic-controlled House — is providing Inslee a small opening. And it is forcing other, higher-profile Democratic presidential contenders to address climate change more explicitly than in any previous presidential campaign.
Politically, climate change is “in a completely different place,” said Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist and Democratic activist who announced in January that he would not run for president. “There was one question asked about climate in the Democratic primary debates and zero in the general election debates in 2016. Are we in a better place than that? … A million times.”
In recent weeks, the introduction of a “Green New Deal” in Congress — a 10-year plan to decarbonize the American economy — refocused public attention on climate change. While Republicans lambasted the nonbinding resolution and welcomed debate on what they framed as a far-left overreach, several Democratic presidential contenders quickly signed on, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York mayor, has made climate change and gun control the pillars of his platform as he considers a run.
Recent polling suggests Democrats have good reason to campaign on climate — especially in a contested primary. While climate change continues to rank low among concerns of registered voters overall, liberal Democrats listed environmental protection third and global warming fourth among issues of importance in the midterm elections last year, according to a survey by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.
“It’s a very different environment now than we’ve seen in well over a decade,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. For liberal Democrats, he said, climate change “is a top-tier issue, and that is the base of the Democratic Party.”
For climate change activists, the timing of the 2020 campaign appears fortuitous. Trump infuriated Democrats when he announced plans to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. But the formal withdrawal will not occur until immediately after the 2020 general election, likely forcing the issue back into the presidential debate.
Because of the timing, said R.L. Miller, founder of the super PAC Climate Hawks Vote, “This will literally be a referendum on the place of the United States on climate change in the world.”
If he qualifies for the first Democratic primary debates — likely, given the Democratic National Committee’s relatively low threshold for appearing on stage — Inslee will press the issue. He has laced climate change into every aspect of his campaign — from staffing to finance to policy.
Two of his political advisers — Sky Gallegos and Ben Unger — spent time working for Steyer’s NextGen America group. Some of the major early donors to Inslee’s federal political action committee, Vision PAC, come from the green energy or environmental industry. And where other candidates have written autobiographies, the book Inslee wrote while in political office, “Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy,” is about the environment.
And it is not just Inslee raring for a climate debate. A super PAC supporting Inslee, Act Now on Climate, is set to back the Washington governor and emphasize the environment and climate change. But if Inslee drops out of the race, the PAC plans to shift to pressuring other candidates to focus on the issue.
Steyer, a major Democratic donor, said “there’s no way we’d support somebody who wasn’t absolutely crystal clear and credible on climate. If they’re not a climate warrior, we’re not for them. Period. Period, the end.”
Inslee met recently with former California Gov. Jerry Brown, a longtime champion of efforts to address climate change who has run for president three times himself. Ahead of the 2020 election, Brown said he plans to “do some things, do writings and maybe appearances to wake people up and get the topic on the presidential campaign … I do want to get this topic injected into the debate.”
Brown said the timing for climate change as an electoral issue is “getting better because the science keeps getting clearer and more ominous, and more people are responding.” Still, Brown said, climate change is “not the main story yet … No one other than Bloomberg and the governor of Washington have highlighted it.”
“Will the presidential candidates just concentrate on other stuff?” he asked. “Trump and race and gender and single-payer and inequality — those are all issues that are worthy of discussing. But climate change is going to make all of them worse. So, I will do what I can to get it on the agenda. It kind of boggles my mind that it’s getting the rather minimal treatment that it’s getting.”
Inslee is likely to bring a singular focus to the issue. As part of his campaign roll out, Inslee is laying out principles on the environment and climate change that he plans to support. He’s supportive of the principles of a Green New Deal, and Inslee aides are eager to mix his positions on climate change with his tenure as the only sitting governor running in the Democratic primary.
Inslee’s team points out that under his leadership, Washington significantly increased wind and solar energy in the state and quadrupled the number of electric vehicles on the road while overseeing a $100 million investment fund in clean energy development and deployment.
“His credentials on the issue are better than anybody else’s,” said Ron Dotzauer, a Democratic strategist who is based in the Pacific Northwest and is not affiliated with Inslee. “On the environment — not just climate change but on the environmental issues, the green economy, Jay’s been there. He was there before it was politically fashionable.”
Dotzauer added that Inslee is “going to get some environmental money, absolutely, but there’s so many other quote-unquote candidates that also have some quasi environmental credentials, maybe not quite as deep and as broad as his, but at this point they might be considered more viable.”
Inslee’s fortunes may depend on whether he can harness that energy, said Kelly Steele, a Seattle-based veteran of multiple Democratic statewide campaigns.
“He needs to articulate climate and link it back to a broader set of issues in a way that makes it that other candidates can’t simply just check the box,” Steele said.
Less than a year ago, few candidates of either party were focused heavily on climate change, and even Inslee acknowledged, in an interview in September, that the issue was not “predominate” in the midterm elections compared with other campaign themes.
But even in the midterms, there were signs of changing public attitudes about climate. In Southern California’s Orange County, a former Republican stronghold that Democrats seized in 2018, internal focus groups and polling suggested Democrats campaigning on climate change could make inroads with Republican women, according to a source familiar with the public opinion research.
Now-Rep. Harley Rouda, who ran on climate change as an issue in Orange County as early as the primary, said, “I just believe it’s the right thing to do. I truly believe it is the No. 1 issue facing humankind. And while it is difficult to measure on any given day the impact of climate change, the cumulative effect of it is ever increasing, and if we don’t get in front of it, we’re going to be the victim of it.”
As to its salience in 2020, Rouda said, “It’s just simple leadership, having those who are running for or elected to the highest offices in America making this a front-and-center issue.”
For Inslee, the focus on climate is more than just an exercise in messaging in a crowded field, said Tina Podlodowski, chairwoman of the Washington Democratic Party. “I think Inslee is really serious about making a shift and thinking about this issue as a lens through which we view other issues moving forward.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/01/jay-inslee-2020-climate-change-1196891
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested