Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - March 5, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) First Move: China Legislature Meets • Pesticide, Chemical Gatherings • Lawyer Represents Chemical Makers, NRDC
Mar 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chuck McCutcheon
China’s national legislature starts meeting this week, with air pollution and other environmental issues on the agenda. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Coalition Kicks off Push for NAFTA Replacement
Mar 4, 2019 | Associations Now
By Ernie Smith
With the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement expected to come up for a vote in Congress soon, the USMCA coalition—made up of more than 200 companies, associations, and regional chambers of commerce—is making the case for quick passage. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Proposes Phase out of Single-Use Plastics by 2030
Mar 4, 2019 | Tarentum Valley News Dispatch
By Mary Ann Thomas
California, the state where most environmental trends begin, wants to phase out single-use plastic containers that are not recyclable or compostable such as plastic bags, water bottles, straws and most food packaging. -
Chemical Data Reporting Rule: 2019 is the Principal Reporting Year
Mar 4, 2019 | Lexology
By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
Every four years, domestic manufacturers and importers of chemicals must report to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Chemical Data Reporting rule (CDR). -
(ACC Mentioned) Let Taxpayers See Formaldehyde Analysis, Democrats Tell EPA
Mar 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Taxpayers deserve to see the EPA’s long-delayed evaluation of formaldehyde, three Democratic senators and the head of the House science panel told the agency March 4. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Put Spotlight on PFAS
Mar 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
Lawmakers on both sides of Capitol Hill -- and in both parties -- are stepping up their efforts to get EPA to quickly address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), weeks after the agency unveiled an action plan that many have criticized for not going far enough or fast enough. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Wehrum and the 'Holy Grail'
Mar 4, 2019 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Kelsey Tamborrino
...The American Chemistry Council's FluoroCouncil released a statement Friday calling it "inappropriate" to regulate "the universe" of PFAS as a single class of chemistry. -
EPA Leadership Slowed Chemical Assessments, Watchdog Says
Mar 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
EPA leadership’s push to define the agency’s priorities delayed its efforts to release chemical risk assessments, an independent audit said. -
Democrats Seek Inquiries After GAO Finds EPA Dropped IRIS Assessments
Mar 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Democratic lawmakers are questioning EPA's decision to shrink its influential risk assessment program and seeking an ethics investigation into the top Trump research appointee's role, after Congress' watchdog raised questions about EPA's priority-setting process, which provided no explanation for a series of dropped assessments, including that of formaldehyde. -
Agency Stymied Chemical Risk Program — GAO
Mar 4, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
EPA leaders stymied research from the agency's toxic chemical risk assessments program, said a Government Accountability Office report released today. -
Sterigenics Head Met Repeatedly With EPA Over Toxic Carcinogen
Mar 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid and Abby Smith
The head of Illinois medical sterilizer Sterigenics U.S. LLC has had at least half a dozen conversations with the EPA’s top air official, as the agency considers tougher standards for ethylene oxide, a carcinogenic chemical. -
Workers Are Dying as a Result of Toxic Exposure in the Workplace at a Rate of One Every 15 Seconds
Mar 5, 2019 | Quartz
By Zoë Schlanger
In the last 30 days, the US Occupational Safety and Health Authority cited a pet food company in Florida for failing to provide protective gear for workers handling corrosive chemicals, a Pennsylvania hair salon for exposing workers to hazardous materials, an Ohio musical instrument factory for exposing workers to toxic copper dust, and a Texas indoor gun range for exposing workers to unsafe levels of lead. -
Why Should You Care About BPA? The Chemical May Carry These Health Risks
Mar 4, 2019 | Bustle
By Brandi Neal
If you pay attention to what's in the products you use in your home, then you've probably heard that it's best to use BPA-free plastic and food packaging. -
European Industry Maps Chemicals Added to Plastics
Mar 5, 2019 | Treehugger
By Christine Lepisto
A list of chemicals and their uses will support risk assessments and circular economy plans. -
Big Oil Moves to Tighten Its Grip on Fracking
Mar 5, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson
Chevron Corp. CVX 0.07% plans to significantly ramp up production in the oil field at the heart of the American fracking boom, the latest sign that the next era of shale drilling is likely to be led by the major oil companies. -
Fracking the World: Despite Climate Risks, Fracking Is Going Global
Mar 5, 2019 | DeSmog (Blog)
By Justin Mikulka
The U.S. exported a record 3.6 million barrels per day of oil in February. This oil is the result of the American fracking boom — and as a report from Oil Change International recently noted — its continued growth is undermining global efforts to limit climate change. -
Minnesota Governor Announces Goal of 100 Percent Clean Energy by 2050
Mar 4, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) on Monday introduced a proposal that would require the state's electricity providers to shift to 100 percent clean energy by 2050. -
Total, Novealis Expand Baystar's Pasadena Petrochemical Complex
Mar 4, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
A subsidiary of French oil major Total S.A. is pushing further into petrochemicals on the Gulf Coast as one its joint ventures with Novealis Holdings starts construction on a major new polyethylene plant in Pasadena. -
Cheniere Deal With China Signals Country’s Key Role in LNG Exports
Mar 4, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Christopher M. Matthews
Cheniere Energy Inc.’s LNG 1.56% expected $18 billion deal to supply natural gas to China signals the company’s growing bet on the country, and China’s emergence as a top market for U.S. gas exporters. -
Apache Developing Permian Well Beyond Alpine High
Mar 4, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
With the Alpine High natural gas program basically on autopilot, Apache Corp. is bearing down on developing more liquids and oily resources across the Permian Basin, CEO John Christmann said Thursday. -
$680 Million Pipeline Gets Green Light to Move Natural Gas From Oklahoma to Gulf Coast
Mar 4, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
A pipeline to move natural gas from Oklahoma to destinations along the Gulf Coast and southeastern United States got the green light from federal regulators and $680 million in financing for construction. -
Colorado Oil, Gas Groups Warn of Extreme Limits in Drilling Bill
Mar 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A sweeping state measure changing how Colorado regulates drilling for oil and gas would have grave impacts on the state’s economy, two industry groups said. -
Inside the D.C. Circuit's Pipeline Docket
Mar 5, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
With its recent decision to uphold federal approval for the Mountain Valley pipeline, an appellate court checked off one key climate-related challenge on its docket this year. -
Pipelines Vulnerable Under TSA's Watch
Mar 5, 2019 | Roll Call
By Gopal Ratnam
Nearly 3 million miles of pipelines that crisscross the United States carrying oil, natural gas and other hazardous liquids may be vulnerable to cyberattacks as the federal agency responsible for overseeing their security is overburdened with other responsibilities, lawmakers, government auditors and regulators say. -
Major Oil Train Safety Requirement Passes Wash. State Senate
Mar 5, 2019 | SeattlePI
By Joel Connelly
Oil trains passing through Seattle, Spokane and other cities would have to limit potentially explosive vapors to less than 9 pounds per square inch, under legislation passed Monday on a largely party line vote by the Washington State Senate. -
ACWA Backs EPA’s ‘Cooperative Federalism’ But Seeks Greater State Role
Mar 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Julia Anastasio, executive director and general counsel of the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), is welcoming the Trump administration’s “cooperative federalism” push to give states more environmental policymaking authority but urging greater state input on issues like emerging contaminants and the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) scope. -
Republicans Who Couldn't Beat Climate Debate Now Seek to Join It
Mar 5, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Ari Natter
Representative John Shimkus once issued a forceful rejection of climate science at a congressional hearing, invoking the Bible and declaring that “Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over.” -
Have Fellow Dems Stolen Inslee's Climate Thunder?
Mar 5, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Timothy Cama
In the months leading up to Jay Inslee's March 1 announcement that he'll run for president, the Washington governor made it clear his priority was to make sure climate change plays a starring role in the 2020 presidential election. -
Both Parties Want $1B for Climate but Disagree on Source
Mar 5, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Ines Kagubare
The Republican governor of Massachusetts and the state's top Democratic lawmaker agree that they need to spend a fortune to avert damage from climate change. -
California Politicians Push Declaration of Climate Emergency
Mar 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
State Sens. Henry Stern (D) and Nancy Skinner (D), and several California assembly members are pushing for a statewide declaration of a climate emergency in what’s considered the fifth largest economy in the world. -
2 Groups Threaten Legal Action Over Late Ozone Decisions
Mar 4, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Two environmental groups formally warned EPA today that a lawsuit could be coming over a batch of tardy compliance decisions for the agency's 2008 ozone standard.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Mar 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chuck McCutcheon
China’s national legislature starts meeting this week, with air pollution and other environmental issues on the agenda.
The National People’s Congress—the world’s biggest parliamentary body, with nearly 3,000 members—gathers in Beijing for around 10 days. Though the Communist Party has the ultimate power, the gathering can feature lively debates.
Given that China entered an economic downturn in the second half of 2018, it will be interesting to see how much attention is devoted to pollution and climate. China is the world’s leading carbon emitter, accounting for around 27 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide.
Recent analysis of data from an annual statistical report found that despite the slowdown, China’s carbon emissions rose by at least 3 percent in 2018 over the previous year.
PESTICIDE, CHEMICAL GATHERINGS: State pesticide officials and chemical manufacturers will get the latest on EPA’s plans to oversee products used in those areas and throughout the economy at two separate meetings this week.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials meets through Wednesday. Among the EPA officials scheduled to speak today are Rick Keigwin, head of the agency’s pesticide office, and Alex Dunn, the new head of EPA’s chemical safety and pollution prevention office.
Dunn also is scheduled to be among the speakers at the American Chemistry Council’s annual Global Chemical Regulations conference, which runs Wednesday through Friday. Another scheduled speaker is Jennifer Abril, president and CEO of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates.
Other Stories We’re CoveringThe Senate could vote this week on whether to confirm Neomi Rao, currently head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to take Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s old seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The Navy wants to renew its authority to send loud sonar blasts into the Pacific and Indian Oceans where endangered whales are found.Governors in states that cradle the Colorado River basin have about two weeks to tell the U.S. Department of the Interior how to manage their water after missing a deadline to reach a seven-state drought agreement.The Senate energy committee on Tuesday holds its first hearing in years on climate change, looking specifically at the electricity sector.Quote of the Day“We’re the first generation to feel the sting of climate change, and we’re the last that can do something about it.”
—Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, announcing his 2020 presidential bid
Legal Spotlight: Ex-Justice Lawyer Represents Chemical Makers, NRDCThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear another challenge this week to Obama administration limits on potent greenhouse gas refrigerants known as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
A pair of chemical companies that support the Obama-era HFC controls—Honeywell Inc. and The Chemours Company—are hoping the case is their second bite at the apple. The D.C. Circuit in 2017, in an opinion written by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, largely struck down a similar regulation setting limits on certain HFCs.
The EPA in 2017 defended the Obama-era rule before the D.C. Circuit in oral arguments just a month after President Donald Trump took office. But this time around, the EPA is arguing the court’s 2017 decision means it should also strike down this rule—leaving the two chemical companies, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, as the sole defenders of the regulation.
They’re bringing in a seasoned attorney to help make their case. Thomas Lorenzen, a partner with Crowell & Moring LLP, will defend the HFC limits before the D.C. Circuit judges.
Lorenzen worked for the Justice Department’s environment division from 1997-2013, overseeing several pivotal climate cases including Massachusetts v. EPA during the Bush administration. The Supreme Court’s ruling in that case opened the door for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Benjamin Carlisle, a trial attorney for the Justice Department since 2015, will argue the case for the EPA. Dan Himmelfarb, a partner with Mayer Brown, will represent the two chemical companies challenging the rule—Mexichem Fluor Inc. and Arkema Inc.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/china-legislature-meets-pesticide-chemical-gatherings-lawyer-represents-chemical-makers-nrdc-43
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Coalition Kicks off Push for NAFTA Replacement
Mar 4, 2019 | Associations Now
By Ernie Smith
With the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement expected to come up for a vote in Congress soon, the USMCA coalition—made up of more than 200 companies, associations, and regional chambers of commerce—is making the case for quick passage.
The basic framework of a replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is in place, and now a new coalition aims to ensure the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) actually takes effect.
Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced the USMCA Coalition, a group of more than 200 associations, state and local chambers, and corporations that want Congress to ratify the new agreement, which was negotiated last year but requires ratification by each of the three countries.
In the U.S., the issue took a back seat in recent months, when a government shutdown was leading headlines. Congress could vote in the coming weeks, and it’s thought that Democrats, who control the House, will want changes.
Although the USMCA Coalition includes major trade groupssuch as the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Telecommunications Industry Association, the Chamber is putting corporate voices out front—with top officials from the manufacturing giant Cummins, Inc., agricultural conglomerate Cargill, glass container manufacturer Owens-Illinois, financial services firm Citi, automaker Fiat Chrysler, package delivery giant UPS, and apparel-maker VF Corporation among the coalition’s cochairs.
Cummins Head of Government Relations Cathy Van Way noted that trade agreements have broad ripple effects throughout the supply chain.
“When Cummins is successful globally, we add high-quality jobs in communities across the country. And Cummins is not in this alone,” Van Way said in a news release. “When we are successful, so are our 2,500 direct U.S.-based suppliers that we spend approximately $2.5 billion with annually. USMCA will help rural and urban communities across the U.S. thrive, and we encourage Congress to approve this important agreement.”
Candi Wolff, Citi’s executive vice president for global government affairs, said the agreement has benefits for major service-oriented firms as well as manufacturers.
“It’s critical that new trade agreements account for the fact that 75 percent of jobs in the private sector in the U.S. are now in services, and USMCA does that,” she said.
The new coalition is not the only one of its kind. Last month, the Pass USMCA Coalition launched with more than a dozen members, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), and the multinational chemical giant Dow. The two groups share many members, including these three, though the Chamber’s coalition is much larger.
https://associationsnow.com/2019/03/new-coalition-for-naftas-replacement-kicks-off-advocacy-efforts/
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Proposes Phase out of Single-Use Plastics by 2030
Mar 4, 2019 | Tarentum Valley News Dispatch
By Mary Ann Thomas
California, the state where most environmental trends begin, wants to phase out single-use plastic containers that are not recyclable or compostable such as plastic bags, water bottles, straws and most food packaging.
According to supporters, if the legislation passes, it could reduce the type of plastic polluting beaches and the oceans, according to MSNBC.
The makers of plastics apparently are interested in the move: “At the Plastics Industry Association, we believe uncollected plastics do not belong in our oceans or waterways,” Scott DeFife, vice president of governmental affairs for PIA, a D.C.-based trade association, said in an interview with MSNBC.
According to the news site, the American Chemistry Council, which represents leading makers of plastic resins, set a goal of recycling, reusing or recovering 100 percent of plastics by 2040. ACC also advocates 100 percent of plastic packaging be recyclable or recoverable by 2030.
“The proposed measure also would apply to polystyrene foam containers used for takeout meals as well as plastic detergent bottles. Assembly Bill 1080 would phase out the single-use plastics by 2030 and follows concerns about plastic debris going in oceans and on beaches,” according to MSNBC.
If the legislation becomes law, experts interviewed by MSNBC believe other states might follow. California became the first state with a single-use plastic bag ban in 2014, which the experts said caused at least four other states to pass similar measures.
https://triblive.com/news/world/california-proposes-phase-out-of-single-use-plastics-by-2030/
-
Chemical Data Reporting Rule: 2019 is the Principal Reporting Year
Mar 4, 2019 | Lexology
By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
Every four years, domestic manufacturers and importers of chemicals must report to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Chemical Data Reporting rule (CDR). The next reports are due in 2020, with 2019 as the principal reporting year. CDR reporting can be time-consuming and complex, involving different parties within a manufacturer’s supply chain. Manufacturers who have not yet begun gathering information for their 2020 reports may wish to begin now.
Background on CDR
CDR reporting requires domestic manufacturers and importers (manufacturers) to report information regarding the production and use of the chemical substances they manufactured or imported above specified thresholds. The CDR rule is authorized under section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA uses the information submitted to evaluate chemicals under other provisions of TSCA. EPA regulations on how to comply with CDR appear in 40 C.F.R. Part 711.
Announced Changes to CDR Regulations
The scope and thresholds of 2020 reporting requirements are not yet known. In its most recent Regulatory Agenda, EPA indicated that it expects to amend its CDR regulations:
Before the next reporting period of 2020, the EPA intends to revise the reporting requirements to better align with new statutory requirements resulting from TSCA as amended by the Frank. R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, address submitters' feedback following the 2016 submission period, and may consider reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts (RIN 2070-AK31).
In the Regulatory Agenda, EPA stated that it aimed to publish a proposed rule to amend its current CDR regulations in December 2018, with a final rule to be adopted by October 2019. EPA has not yet published a proposed rule – probably in part due to the recent government shutdown. The Office of Management and Budget website states that it is reviewing a proposed CDR rule it received from EPA on January 29, 2019. Before the next reporting period begins on June 1, 2020, EPA must finalize the revised Form U and update its CDR instructions and other guidance documents.
Changes to CDR requirements relative to 2016 may include:Altering the general 25,000 lb. reporting threshold. Prior to a 2003 amendment, the Inventory Update Rule (as CDR was then known) had a reporting threshold of 10,000 lbs.Assigning a lower reporting threshold for chemicals designated as, or candidates for designation as, high priority substances under section 6 of TSCA. EPA relies on the CDR to provide its most helpful information on use and exposure for substances under consideration for regulation under section 6.Adding additional processing and use reporting elements for substances in the consumer sector.Making processors subject to certain reporting requirements. In the last CDR rulemaking, in 2011, EPA considered making processors subject to CDR requirements, but ultimately chose not to do so.Limiting reporting requirements for manufacturers of inorganic byproducts when such byproducts are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed. Under section 8(a)(6), EPA is required to enter into a negotiated rulemaking on this topic and publish a proposed rule on the topic by June 22, 2019, and adopt a final rule by December 22, 2019. In 2017, a Federal Advisory Committee did meet on this topic, but was unable to make a consensus recommendation.
Potential CDR Complications
There are various complexities associated with CDR that can lead to problems for reporting companies. Submitters should plan ahead, review EPA’s current reporting guidance, and seek legal help as needed during this process to ensure accurate and thorough reporting.
TSCA Inventory Compliance
Inventory issues can arise where a manufacturer identifies a particular chemical as subject to CDR reporting but realizes it is not listed on the TSCA Inventory. Where this issue arises, companies may want to consider reporting the Inventory issue under EPA’s Audit Policy.
Access to Information
Manufacturers must report information that is “known to or reasonably ascertainable by means all information in a person’s possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know.” 40 C.F.R. § 704.3. Most manufacturers have issues about access to information about use and processing by downstream customers. An importer may have additional challenges accessing reportable information, such as chemical identity, where that information is held by its foreign suppliers. In those cases, importers must ask their foreign suppliers to provide them with the information, which is typically confidential, or else ask them to submit the information directly to EPA. As this process can be time-consuming, it helps to start early.
Byproducts
A byproduct is a chemical substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance or mixture. 40 C.F.R. § 704.3. Sometimes byproducts are recycled. EPA has identified a number of complicated scenarios as to whether those recycled byproducts are subject to CDR reporting. Those that are subject to CDR reporting may also raise the question of whether or not they are on the TSCA Inventory.
Past is Prologue: 2016 Reporting Requirements
In preparing for 2020 reporting, with 2019 as the principal reporting year that will require gathering significant data, it is worth reviewing 2016 reporting requirements as a benchmark.
Who Was Required to Report
Generally, manufacturers who manufactured domestically or imported a threshold quantity of a chemical on the TSCA Inventory at a particular site for non-exempt commercial purposes were required to submit information regarding that chemical to EPA. 40 C.F.R. § 711.8. Small manufacturers (with total annual revenue not exceeding $40 million, and who did not manufacture more than 100,000 pounds of any given chemical substance) were exempt from complying with the CDR rule in 2016. Id. § 704.3.
Reporting Thresholds
For most chemicals, the 2016 threshold for reporting was 25,000 pounds of a chemical at a particular site during the calendar year for which reporting was being made. For some chemicals, however, a lower threshold of 2,500 pounds applied. Id. § 711.8. These were chemicals for which EPA had taken action under sections 5, 6, or 7 of TSCA.
Substance of Reporting Requirements
In 2016, manufacturers were required to report the total annual production volume for each chemical for each year at a given site since the previous principal reporting year (2011). For years 2012-2014, only the name and volume of each chemical that met the threshold was required to be reported to EPA. In contrast, a manufacturer was required to report more detailed information for chemical substances that were manufactured domestically or imported during the principal reporting year of 2015. Required information for 2015 included company and site information at each site; industrial processing and use; chemical identification; information relating to the manufacturing; as well as consumer and commercial uses for each chemical substance that met its given threshold at each site. Id. § 711.20. This is likely similar to, or the same as, the scope of information that will be required to be reported for the principal reporting year of 2019.
In 2016, EPA excluded certain substances from CDR reporting. These included polymers, microorganisms, and naturally occurring substances. Id. § 711.6. Other chemicals were excluded if they qualified as research and development substances, impurities, non-isolated intermediates, or byproducts used for non-commercial purposes. Id. § 704.5. In addition, byproducts were exempt if their only commercial purpose was for use by public or private organizations that (1) burned it as a fuel, (2) disposed of it as waste, including in a landfill or for enriching soil, or (3) extracted components chemical substances from it for commercial purposes. Id. § 720.30(g). Chemicals in imported articles were also exempt from 2016 CDR reporting.
Confidentiality
Manufacturers were permitted to request protection from public disclosure for some information if it qualified as confidential business information (CBI). However, a manufacturer that wished to claim CBI was required to meet all of the requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 2.208, as well as submit claims of substantiation, which meant that the manufacturers had to demonstrate a likelihood of competitive harm if that information was disclosed. Id. § 711.3.
Chemical data reporting is a complicated process that may involve complex legal questions and significant logistical hurdles. Companies would be wise to begin thinking about their 2020 reporting obligations now.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=384e2818-c6e6-4351-8010-032bc5fa0edb
-
(ACC Mentioned) Let Taxpayers See Formaldehyde Analysis, Democrats Tell EPA
Mar 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Taxpayers deserve to see the EPA’s long-delayed evaluation of formaldehyde, three Democratic senators and the head of the House science panel told the agency March 4.
“We urge you to immediately proceed to review, finalize, and publish the formaldehyde health assessment without further delay, new studies, and taxpayer expense,” the lawmakers wrote a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
The letter was signed by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), chairwoman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, as well as Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Edward Markey (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
More than $10 million of taxpayer money has been spent since 1997, when the EPA first began to update a previous analysis of the chemical, the legislators said.
The legislators also asked Wheeler and EPA Scientific Integrity Officer Francesco T. Grifo, in a separate letter, to examine whether David Dunlap or other political appointees violated ethics by interfering with and delaying the formaldehyde assessment.
Dunlap, who now serves as deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Research & Development, formerly was the director for policy and regulatory affairs at Koch Industries Inc., a major formaldehyde producer. Dunlop isn’t supposed to be involved with the formaldehyde assessment, from which he recused himself, the legislators said.
The EPA will respond through the proper channels, an agency spokeswoman told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Widely Produced ChemicalFormaldehyde is a known human carcinogen, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Small concentrations in the air also irritates people’s eyes and noses, affects the nervous system, and increases the risk of asthma and/or allergy, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Since 1997, the EPA’s health assessment of formaldehyde has been stymied by politically motivated delays, the legislators said. They referred to the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System’s (IRIS) analysis of formaldehyde’s hazards and the doses at which those hazards could manifest.
The Government Accountability Office reached similar conclusions in a report it also issued March 4.
Formaldehyde—one of the most widely produced chemicals in the world—is used in many products, including disinfectants, pressed wood, clothing, and other textiles, the GAO said.
Between 1 million and 5 million pounds of the chemical were produced in or imported into the U.S. in 2015, the most recent year for which the EPA has production volume data.
Manufacturers that year included the Celanese Corp., DuPont, and Koch Industries.
Prioritizing Formaldehyde?The agency has removed formaldehyde from the list of chemicals its IRIS program plans to evaluate.
Formaldehyde producers, however, were invited by the American Chemistry Council to discuss on Feb. 20 the possibility that the EPA’s chemicals office may select that chemical for a quick review this year.
The council referred to a list of 40 chemicals the EPA is expected to release this month.
The 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act requires the agency to sort through those 40 chemicals by December and decide which 20 are a high priority to have their risks to people and the environment evaluated.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/let-taxpayers-see-formaldehyde-analysis-democrats-tell-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Put Spotlight on PFAS
Mar 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
Lawmakers on both sides of Capitol Hill -- and in both parties -- are stepping up their efforts to get EPA to quickly address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), weeks after the agency unveiled an action plan that many have criticized for not going far enough or fast enough.
A group of 14 senators -- including eight Democrats and six Republicans -- March 1 introduced legislation setting a one-year deadline on EPA's promise to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), the two most common substances in the class, as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund law, while also requiring EPA to list all PFAS as hazardous substances.
The latter action would go beyond EPA's plan of designating just PFOA and PFOS -- two of thousands of PFAS -- as hazardous substances.
EPA's PFAS action plan, released by Administrator Andrew Wheeler Feb. 14, indicates EPA has already begun the regulatory process for listing PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. But Wheeler did not commit to any time line for listing these two. The plan also “did not identify the available statutory mechanism it would use,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, in a March 1 press release on the bill.
The bill would require EPA within one year of the legislation's enactment to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances under section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act.
Such a designation would trigger Superfund liability for releases of the two chemicals, allowing EPA to compel remedial and removal actions of PFAS.
“In the recently released PFAS Action Plan, EPA restated its promise to declare PFAS as hazardous substances, but did not indicate how long it would take to fulfill that promise,” Carper added.
“Our bill will help provide resources for PFAS pollution cleanup and will make it possible to hold those responsible for it accountable,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), one of the bill's lead sponsors, added in the release.
But the American Chemistry Council's FluoroCouncil reacted strongly against the legislation because it would group all PFAS as hazardous substances. The group says such a classification would be “inappropriate” because these substances vary significantly and say data show “many PFAS chemistries present no significant risk to human health or the environment.”
The bill is a companion to H.R. 535, a bipartisan House measure introduced earlier this year, which signaled lawmakers taking a more aggressive stance on the issue than they had in the previous Congress.
Other senators backing the legislation include Gary Peters (D-MI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), along with Thom Tillis (R-NC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Richard Burr (R-NC).
Meanwhile, the House Oversight and Reform environment subcommittee March 6 will hold a hearing probing PFAS issues. The hearing is titled “Examining PFAS Chemicals and their Risks.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/lawmakers-put-spotlight-pfas
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Wehrum and the 'Holy Grail'
Mar 4, 2019 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Kelsey Tamborrino
Since joining EPA 16 months ago, air chief Bill Wehrum restarted an effort he took up when he worked for the Bush EPA: paring back the New Source Review program.
— New 2020 contender and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee laid out his path for winning voters on a climate change-centric message.
— In anticipation for the Trump administration's offshore drilling plan, the entire Florida House delegation sent a letter opposing offshore oil and gas drilling off its coastlines.
** A message from Chevron: Chevron is celebrating the importance of role models in inspiring young women to pursue STEM education and careers. Watch our film to see how. **
GOOD MONDAY MORNING! I'm your host, Kelsey Tamborrino. Nancy Kruger of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies was the first to name Valdas Adamkus — the former regional administrator of EPA who went on to become president of Lithuania twice. For today: Which former president signed off on the creation of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com. Follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.DRIVING THE DAY
OLD HABITS DIE HARD: EPA air chief Bill Wehrum once tried under the George W. Bush administration to ease the New Source Review, an air pollution regulation that's drawn the ire of coal-burning utilities for decades, but most of those efforts fell short, Pro's Alex Guillén and Zack Colman report this morning. Now, after a decade working in the private sector, Wehrum is trying again.
"Here we go again. It's the holy grail," said Bruce Buckheit, a former career air enforcement official who opposed Wehrum's efforts to weaken the regulation.
Wehrum's effort involves a new method for how power plants calculate emissions from upgrades by using hourly rates rather than the total annual emissions, which focus on efficiency rather than the overall pollution released. The changes would benefit several of his former clients, including the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a collection of utilities and trade groups that fought against many Obama-era air rulemakings.
Wehrum's strategy is a shift away from major NSR rulemakings in favor of more piecemeal relief. Under President Donald Trump, Wehrum's work on NSR began in the weeks after he joined EPA in late 2017. Emails released by the agency show he weighed in on a memo issued by then-Administrator Scott Pruitt that said EPA would no longer second-guess utilities on key New Source Review calculations. Read more.
Join POLITICO for a high-level conversation to discuss what policies and practices are gaining ground to make agriculture more energy efficient and less harmful to the environment, while remaining economically viable. RSVP here.BEYOND THE BELTWAY
INSLEE HITS GROUND RUNNING ON CLIMATE MESSAGE: Only a few days after Jay Inslee formally announced his 2020 presidential bid with a specific focus on climate change, the Washington governor preached that the United States will face "enormous cost" if it doesn't act on climate change.
"We know we can invent and create and build a clean energy economy," Inslee said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "We know we can do that because we're doing it in my state where we’ve built a wind turbine industry from $0 to $6 billion in 12 years, we're electrifying our transportation fleet. … But what we need is a president to do what presidents do, which is to blow the bugle and really call the country to a higher mission."
Asked how he would convince voters that acting on climate change is an "overriding issue," Inslee listed personal experience and changing polling. "Look, I really believe that the way to win this is to talk about the basic American character of who we are. We think big," he said. "... And we don't fear the world, you know, we lead it."
In case you missed it Saturday, Trump gave a freewheeling and lengthy speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he criticized Democrats' Green New Deal.
"The new green deal or whatever the hell they call it. The Green New Deal, right?" Trump said. "I encourage it, I think it's really something that they should promote. They should work hard on it. ... No planes, no energy. When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric — 'Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television, darling.'"
The 2020 Election. The new Congress. The Mueller investigation. … Keep up with POLITICO Playbook. Be in the know. Sign up today here.ON THE HILL
SUNSHINE STATE OPPOSES DRILLING EN MASSE: In a letter last week to acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, the full slate of Florida lawmakers — including House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis Chair Kathy Castor and GOP Rep. Francis Rooney — called on Interior to take formal steps to exempt the state from the Trump administration's five-year drilling plan, citing environmental and natural security concerns.
"As you know, former Interior Secretary Zinke announced that Florida would be exempt from any offshore drilling plans," they write. "However, we remain concerned that no formal action has been taken to prohibit drilling off Florida's coasts." In December, the Trump administration was putting the finishing touches on its upcoming plan that's expected to open new areas for exploration and production.
ON TAP THIS WEEK: PFAS will get a high-profile hearing when the House Oversight Committee's environment subcommittee examines the risks from the chemical on Wednesday, less than a month after EPA unveiled its "action plan" for the chemicals.
The hearing signals that lawmakers plan to keep up the pressure on EPA and other agencies on the toxic chemicals that have plagued Americans' drinking water. On Friday, Democratic and Republican senators introduced a bill to require EPA to list all PFAS chemicals as hazardous under the Superfund law within one year.
— The American Chemistry Council's FluoroCouncil released a statement Friday calling it "inappropriate" to regulate "the universe" of PFAS as a single class of chemistry. "A robust body of science clearly shows vast differences among the individual PFAS chemistries, and independent peer-reviewed data demonstrate that many PFAS chemistries present no significant risk to human health or the environment," it said.AROUND THE AGENCIES
TODAY IS YOUR BIRTHDAY: ME wishes Energy Secretary Rick Perry a happy birthday! The secretary's birthday comes one day after the Interior Department marked its 170th birthday on Sunday.
This weekend also marked Perry's two-year anniversary leading the Energy Department. The secretary touted the Trump administration's energy accomplishments in a series of tweeted videos on Saturday. "The most important role in the supply of both oil and gas into the world market is now the United States," he said in one video, before adding that "FERC being able to move permits through their process in a more expeditious manner is important."
ABOUT THAT: GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Bill Cassidy and Cory Gardnerreintroduced legislation — "the Timely Review of Infrastructure Act" S. 607 (116)— to hasten FERC's review time for energy infrastructure projects, including LNG plants. Bipartisan Reps. Pete Olson of Texas and Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania are co-sponsoring similar legislation in the House. The bill would give FERC the power to hire more people with necessary technical expertise to streamline the process. Read the bill.
ZINKE ON THE MOVE: POLITICO Playbook reports a yellow Penske moving truck was spotted this week outside former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's residence in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of D.C. near Capitol Hill.
Two tipsters saw Zinke and his son moving "furniture (dining chairs, tables, dressers, boxes) stacked on the sidewalk at the rear of the truck and the house front door wide open," in the words of one of the sources. After the truck was on the block for around a week, it finally left overnight, according to another of the people. Zinke had moved into the early 20th century Victorian row-house, which he rented, when he first became a congressman in 2015. See the pic.
Zinke hung up when Playbook called for comment, and did not respond to text messages.THE GRID
— "Dingell invites AOC to Detroit to work on climate change," Michigan Advance.
— "Interior approved $250M to keep parks open during shutdown," The Hill.
— "Colorado Dems unveil plan for big change in oil-gas drilling," Associated Press.
— "Perry says he was as transparent as possible about plutonium shipment, 'regrets' Sisolak not attending White House events," The Nevada Independent.
— "Energy Transfer natural gas pipeline ruptures in Missouri," Bloomberg.
— "Ruined crops, salty soil: How rising seas are poisoning North Carolina's farmland," The Washington Post.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2019/03/04/bill-wehrum-and-the-holy-grail-403109
-
EPA Leadership Slowed Chemical Assessments, Watchdog Says
Mar 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
EPA leadership’s push to define the agency’s priorities delayed its efforts to release chemical risk assessments, an independent audit said.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical risk assessments are the basis for many of its decisions regarding standards and regulations on air and water pollution, chemicals, and contaminated sites.
Assessment-related documents were delayed for nearly six months in 2018 because EPA leadership wanted to set the program’s priorities first, according to the reportthe Government Accountability Office released March 4.
While the Integrated Risk Information System has addressed concerns about transparency, the “EPA has not made progress toward producing chemical assessments,” the report said.
The delays came from different levels of leadership—from assistant administrators up to the administrator’s office, according to the report. The report didn’t recommend any changes for the agency.
The IRIS program, run by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, examines the health hazards chemicals pose and the doses at which those hazards manifest.
Two EPA assistant administrators, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn and Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, said in response to the report that the agency’s priority-setting efforts “provided greater clarity for the IRIS program” and, in the long term, assures each office is “fully engaged” in the assessment development process.
‘Politically Motivated Delays’The EPA’s chemical risk assessment program came under fire last year as House Republicans and the chemical industry said it lacked transparency. The National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office have made recommendations to improve the program, which EPA staff are working to implement.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the EPA program.
The report “confirms that EPA’s chemical safety efforts are wrought with self-inflicted wounds,” including “politically motivated delays of chemical safety assessments,” Carper said in a press release.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-leadership-slowed-chemical-assessments-watchdog-says
-
Democrats Seek Inquiries After GAO Finds EPA Dropped IRIS Assessments
Mar 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Democratic lawmakers are questioning EPA's decision to shrink its influential risk assessment program and seeking an ethics investigation into the top Trump research appointee's role, after Congress' watchdog raised questions about EPA's priority-setting process, which provided no explanation for a series of dropped assessments, including that of formaldehyde.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and other Democratic members of the environment committee, along with House science committee Chair Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), sent March 4 letters to Administrator Andrew Wheeler and EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer Francesca Grifo, asking them to “investigate whether the Agency’s efforts to prevent the completion of the formaldehyde health assessment constituted a violation of the agency’s scientific integrity policy, and determine whether [David Dunlap, the top political appointee in EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)], violated the terms of his recusal agreement by participating in efforts related to the IRIS formaldehyde health assessment.”
The lawmakers' letters accompany the release of a March 4 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which reviewed both EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the efforts of EPA's toxics office to stand up a new program on industrial chemical risk assessment and management as directed by Congress' 2016 reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The report does not contain any new recommendations but found that the Trump EPA eliminated as many as nine of 22 pending assessments from the IRIS research agenda, including its high-profile assessment of formaldehyde, which has been pending for more than 15 years.
GAO found that EPA initially narrowed the IRIS agenda by limiting its work to assessments that had been requested by program offices. Wheeler alluded to this review in remarks last August, when he said that he was reviewing IRIS assessments to determine importance to program offices.
But GAO found that after the IRIS program had surveyed program offices, ORD required a second round of prioritization that limited program offices' requests to “no more than three or four chemicals.”
“ORD’s second request was made verbally at a meeting and included direction to the program offices to limit their requests to no more than three to four chemicals,” GAO said.
GAO added that “since neither the program and regional offices nor the IRIS Program had information from the Administrator’s office about what the prioritization was meant to achieve, the IRIS Program was unable to provide guidance about what chemicals might be considered a priority, or how many they might be able to continue work on.”
The end result, released publicly last December, contained an agenda of 11 chemicals, plus two that had already been issued in draft form for peer review. While several high-profile assessments remain on the list -- including re-assessments of arsenic and hexavalent chromium -- formaldehyde is noticeably absent. The public document provides no explanation for why chemicals were dropped from IRIS' agenda.
Formaldehyde Assessment
Wheeler told senators in written responses to questions before his confirmation that the formaldehyde assessment was no longer a priority for IRIS. And the chemical industry has been preparing for the possibility that EPA may shift the assessment to its TSCA program.
But the lawmakers charge that Wheeler's previous responses “failed to fully describe the reason why formaldehyde was not identified as a top priority for the program offices,” they write.
They add that they obtained documents dating from May to December 2018 indicating that ORD leadership expected to release a draft of the formaldehyde assessment for public comment in the fourth quarter of FY2019, and that it would be ready for other federal agencies' review in the fourth quarter of 2018.
An August 2018 memo requesting IRIS priorities from program offices from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, principal deputy assistant administrator in ORD, indicated that “in the past,” EPA's offices of toxics, air, water and children's health as well as Regions 2 and 5 “all had expressed an interest in the completion of the formaldehyde health assessment.”
The lawmakers said that in response, memos from the children's health, Superfund, and water offices, as well as Region 4 indicated “that they had a need for the formaldehyde health assessment” while the toxics office “noted different priorities,” and the air office “did not indicate a need for any IRIS assessments to be completed at all.”
The lawmakers added that after the second, verbal request for program offices to prioritize fewer chemical assessments for IRIS to perform, documents indicated “formaldehyde was not included on any office’s priority list.”
Further, they cite “GAO’s records of interviews with EPA staff,” in which “'they said that the Administrator has his own political agenda, and that will determine their priorities. The Administrator said that he needed to make a decision on formaldehyde one way or another -- it couldn’t just stay in limbo forever.' Furthermore, 'IRIS officials said that the “priority” survey in late October was actually a request made in person at a senior political meeting, and came from David Dunlap.'”
Dunlap, formerly of Koch Industries, was appointed to serve as the deputy head of ORD last fall. In December, he recused himself from “participating in any particular matter involving specific parties in which my former employer, Koch Industries, is a party or represents a party.”
He also voluntarily recused himself from “participation in any matters related to the formaldehyde IRIS assessment” to avoid the appearance of an ethical conflict. Dunlap's Dec. 19 recusal statement is dated the same day that EPA released the new IRIS agenda.
But the lawmakers ask EPA's designated agency ethics official to “determine whether Mr. Dunlap has violated his recusal agreement,” which they say stemmed from his former employer's criticism of EPA's formaldehyde efforts.
Their requests underscore long-running concerns that EPA efforts to stand up its TSCA program could result in pending assessments being moved to the toxics program while shuttering -- or sidelining IRIS.
A top priority could be the formaldehyde IRIS assessment. The last public draft, released in 2010, created a firestorm of criticism from industry because it linked formaldehyde exposure to development of certain types of leukemia, and upgraded formaldehyde's status to human carcinogen.
Senate Democrats in earlier letters calling for the release of the latest draft have stated that they are told the latest draft reaches the same conclusions about formaldehyde exposure and leukemia that the 2010 draft did.
While GAO does not say whether the formaldehyde assessment has been moved to the toxics office, it notes while IRIS was unable to release any documents because it was awaiting results of the Wheeler-ordered review, “several IRIS staff have been working increasingly for [the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)] to support its work preparing risk evaluations under TSCA.”
ORD told GAO that last September -- three months after IRIS assessments were stopped from being released because of ongoing EPA leadership deliberations -- five of approximately 30 IRIS staff were supporting OPPT with 25 to 50 percent of their time. That increased last October, when 28 of approximately 30 IRIS staff were supporting OPPT with 25 to 50 percent of their time.”
“According to IRIS officials, this was occurring primarily because OPPT has a significant amount of work to do to meet its statutory deadlines, and OPPT needed IRIS staff expertise to help meet those deadlines.”
GAO added that “TSCA establishes a regulatory standard that generally differs from those under other environmental laws, so the TSCA assessments will not necessarily be relevant to other EPA programs that have relied on IRIS endpoint values in making their regulatory decisions.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-seek-inquiries-after-gao-finds-epa-dropped-iris-assessments
-
Agency Stymied Chemical Risk Program — GAO
Mar 4, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
EPA leaders stymied research from the agency's toxic chemical risk assessments program, said a Government Accountability Office report released today.
The GAO probe found that between June and December 2018, agency leaders told employees on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to stop assessing chemicals while discussions about the program's priorities were ongoing.
Starting in June, the administrator's office told IRIS officials they could not release any documents without a formal request from the program's leaders, said the report.
Agency officials asked IRIS leaders in August to confirm whether ongoing risk assessments were necessary. However, two months later, in October, officials asked them to further limit these requests.
Several chemical assessments were dropped, including one on formaldehyde, said the watchdog's report, noting that the absence of assessments could create confusion.
The probe added that EPA did not provide information on their status or whether they will continue or discontinue work on the assessments.
The report concluded that "it remains to be seen when these assessments can be expected to move to the next step in the IRIS process or be completed."
During this time, 28 of the roughly 30 IRIS staffers were told to direct between 25 and 50 percent of their work to implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act, officials said.
The Wall Street Journal last month reported on a draft of the report (Greenwire, Feb. 15). EPA argued that the draft did not include its comments and was therefore not complete.
EPA, in its written comments on the draft, acknowledged the challenges described but asked GAO to include EPA's "accomplishments under the new law" in the final report.
GAO included EPA actions on TSCA in the final paper but noted three of the agency's four finalized rules on the prioritization and evaluation of chemicals face challenges in court, and "whether EPA's response is legally sufficient is in litigation."
Officials in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics also told GAO they were concerned about office staff capacity.
Workers in both the chemical control division and the risk assessment division told GAO that they "do not have sufficient resources to do their work."
The program has long been a contentious subject, but GAO noted that before leadership stepped in, IRIS was making progress.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) requested the GAO report. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member said in a statement today that the document shows improvements to the IRIS program have been hampered by the agency's redirection of resources.
"Worse yet, the IRIS program seems to be beset by political interference, often at the expense of career staff's input, sound science and transparency," Carper said. "This GAO report confirms EPA political staff may even be working to limit and conceal chemical safety assessments from the public."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/04/stories/1060123077
-
Sterigenics Head Met Repeatedly With EPA Over Toxic Carcinogen
Mar 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid and Abby Smith
The head of Illinois medical sterilizer Sterigenics U.S. LLC has had at least half a dozen conversations with the EPA’s top air official, as the agency considers tougher standards for ethylene oxide, a carcinogenic chemical.
Sterigenics has been in the crosshairs of the public and Illinois lawmakers, who have been urging the Environmental Protection Agency to crack down on its facility near Chicago for allegedly releasing too much ethylene oxide.
Sterigenics President Phil Macnabb has had seven phone conversations and at least two in-person meetings with Bill Wehrum, the EPA’s assistant administrator for airand radiation, since November.
This is according to Wehrum’s publicly available calendar and a more detailed version that Bloomberg Environment obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The White House has also gotten involved in this issue. Wehrum’s calendar shows that he fielded questions about the chemical from the Office of Management and Budget on Jan. 18, while the government was partially shut down.
Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum has maintained open lines of communication with Sterigenics “to understand what they’re doing, better characterize their emissions, and identify new opportunities for emission controls,” an EPA spokeswoman told Bloomberg Environment March 4.
Earlier this month, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ordered the company to stop using the chemical after the U.S. EPA’s data showed ethylene oxide emissions more than doubled on some days in December compared with earlier monitoring results.
Sixty Times More CarcinogenicThe calendar shows that Macnabb spoke to Wehrum on Oct. 29, then met him on Nov. 13, Nov. 26, and Nov. 29.
Sterigenics was also present at a Nov. 29 public hearing the EPA hosted in Williowbrook, Ill., the site of the Sterigenics facility.
Following the public hearing, Macnabb spoke to Wehrum on Dec. 3, after which the EPA air chief held meetings on Dec. 4 and Dec. 6 with his staff about the Willowbrook samples, which Sterigenics has disputed as inconsistent and erroneous. Macnabb then had a follow up call with Wehrum on Dec. 17.
Sterigenics lobbyists represented by Van Ness Feldman LLP also met with EPA officials in the third and fourth quarters of 2018 to discuss the fate of the chemical, according to lobbying data disclosed by the Senate Office of Public Records.
Three days after Macnabb’s Dec. 17 call with Wehrum, the EPA on Dec. 20 decided to seek public comment on a proposal to update the carcinogenic risk posed by ethylene oxide. The agency’s national air toxics assessment found that the substance is at least 50 to 60 times more carcinogenic than previously thought.
The call for comment was included in a separate proposal to keep toxic air pollution standards for facilities producing hydrochloric acid, which also emit ethylene oxide.
EPA Accused of Hiding FindingsSens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) have accused the EPA of hiding the ethylene oxide findings in a tangentially related rule.
Wehrum told Bloomberg Environment in December 2018 that the agency could propose the first update to its toxic pollution standards for medical sterilization facilities such as Sterigenics sometime in mid-2019, although he didn’t specify a date.
The update would come after the EPA revises its risk assessment for ethylene oxide, which was last updated in 2006.
Macnabb and Michael Petras Jr., chief executive officer of Ohio-based Sotera Health LLC—the parent company of Sterigenics—on Jan. 28 again spoke to Wehrum about ethylene oxide regulation.
This took place two days before Wehrum’s meeting with his senior air office staff on ethylene oxide monitoring data.
That meeting included Peter Tsirigotis, director of EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mike Koerber, an EPA associate director for policy who works under Tsirigotis, and Hillary Ward, an environmental protection specialist.
Sterigenics’ president “has talked with Mr. Wehrum multiple times given the public concerns EPA has expressed about ethylene oxide and their review of our facility in Willowbrook, IL.,” Sterigenics spokeswoman Kristin Gibbs said.
Sterigenics was unaware of EPA’s request for comment on ethylene oxide in its proposal for facilities that produce hydrochloric acid, Gibbs said.
“We first learned of this request by reading press statements from Members of Congress,” she told Bloomberg Environment on March 4.
The nonprofit Moms Clean Air Force is “terribly concerned” with the number of meetings Wehrum has held with Macnabb.
“These are all delaying tactics to delay taking action. It has been known for decades how dangerous it is. Even new science in the last year showing how bad it is,” Dominique Browning, co-founder and director of Moms Clean Air Force, told Bloomberg Environment about EPA’s plan to update its risk assessment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/sterigenics-head-met-repeatedly-with-epa-over-toxic-carcinogen
-
Workers Are Dying as a Result of Toxic Exposure in the Workplace at a Rate of One Every 15 Seconds
Mar 5, 2019 | Quartz
By Zoë Schlanger
In the last 30 days, the US Occupational Safety and Health Authority cited a pet food company in Florida for failing to provide protective gear for workers handling corrosive chemicals, a Pennsylvania hair salon for exposing workers to hazardous materials, an Ohio musical instrument factory for exposing workers to toxic copper dust, and a Texas indoor gun range for exposing workers to unsafe levels of lead. Citations like that happen regularly, year-round, highlighting that even in a country with extensive worker safety rules, going to work is still a hazard for many.
In fact, it is often deadly: Around the world, a worker dies from exposure to toxins in their workplace every 15 seconds, according to a 2018 UN report published in September by Baskut Tuncak, the United Nations special rapporteur on toxics.
In the last 30 days, the US Occupational Safety and Health Authority cited a pet food company in Florida for failing to provide protective gear for workers handling corrosive chemicals, a Pennsylvania hair salon for exposing workers to hazardous materials, an Ohio musical instrument factory for exposing workers to toxic copper dust, and a Texas indoor gun range for exposing workers to unsafe levels of lead. Citations like that happen regularly, year-round, highlighting that even in a country with extensive worker safety rules, going to work is still a hazard for many.
In fact, it is often deadly: Around the world, a worker dies from exposure to toxins in their workplace every 15 seconds, according to a 2018 UN report published in September by Baskut Tuncak, the United Nations special rapporteur on toxics.
Tuncak highlighted Samsung factory workers in Korea exposed to toxic chemicals on the job: Hwang Yumi, a 23-year-old Samsung employee, died of leukemia in 2007 after working for the company for five years, Tuncak said, “where she was likely exposed to toxic substances every day without meaningful consent.” In the report, he writes:
The Special Rapporteur heard testimony from former Samsung workers (all women) and their family members about tasks performed in the manufacture of semiconductor chips, such as dipping semiconductors into a chemical solution by hand to remove unnecessary parts and manually sorting and testing chips under high temperatures or voltages, releasing fumes. Former workers explained that they would still smell fumes from the workplace long after returning home. Neither the former workers nor the family members of the deceased could name the substances they had used in the workplace.
Samsung recently agreed to arbitration for Yumi’s case and more than 100 other workers who suffered from diseases, disabilities, and premature death linked to their Korean operations, the Tuncak reports. (Days before the UN report was released, in September 2018, a worker died of CO2 poisoning at the same Samsung plant.)
Samsung is only one company; the UN has collected reports from hundreds of other former electronics industry workers from different companies who alleged having developed cancer, anaemia, “reproductive abnormalities,” and other health impacts related to working with industrial chemicals. Many of the workers were women of childbearing age.
The diseases and disabilities that result from exposure to toxic substances are cruel,” Tuncak said. “The particularly heinous nature of this exploitation is that there are almost always alternatives to prevent or minimize exposure. Solutions to this abuse of workers’ rights are available, should States choose to compel businesses to adopt them.”
https://qz.com/1564995/toxic-exposure-at-work-kills-one-worker-every-15-seconds/
-
Why Should You Care About BPA? The Chemical May Carry These Health Risks
Mar 4, 2019 | Bustle
By Brandi Neal
If you pay attention to what's in the products you use in your home, then you've probably heard that it's best to use BPA-free plastic and food packaging. If you're not in the know and you're wondering what is BPA, the Mayo Clinic defined it as bisphenol A, "an industrial chemical that has been used to make certain plastics and resins since the 1960s." BPA is used to harden plastic, so products made with BPA, like plastic containers, baby bottles, and the lining inside of food and beverage cans, are reportedly stronger than other products. But why does this matter?
Whether or not BPA is harmful to humans has been the subject of controversy for decades. "Some research has shown that BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers that are made with BPA. Exposure to BPA is a concern because of possible health effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants, and children. Additional research suggests a possible link between BPA and increased blood pressure," Dr. Brent A. Bauer wrote for the Mayo Clinic.
While some studies claim it's not dangerous if you're exposed minimally, others conclude that BPA free is the only way to be. Not so fast. If you're already using BPA-free plastic, additional studies have found that BPA-free plastic and food packaging isn't necessarily safer, because it can contain other synthetic materials that could be harmful to humans. Some BPA-free products use substitutes called BPS and diphenyl sulfone, which, according to a September 2018 study published in the journal Current Biology, had adverse effects on pregnant mice and their offspring that could potentially last for generations.
But how do these potentially hazardous chemicals get out of your water bottle and into your water? The National Capital Poison Center explained that BPA can seep out of products and leech into food and drinks if containers made with BPA are heated. Even if you never heat plastic, if you drink out of plastic bottles and you leave them sitting in the sun, BPA is more likely to leak into your beverage than if it's never exposed to heat. That being said, the center said repeated exposure over a number of years is necessary for BPA to be potentially harmful.
There is still some debate over whether humans should be concerned about these health effects. A government-funded non-peer reviewed study draft report, released in February 2018 by the National Toxicology Program, concluded that the small amount of BPA released from food packaging and plastic is not harmful to your health, according to findings posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's website. What's known as a CLARITY Core study, which is peer-reviewed, was released regarding the findings in late 2018. The study came to the same conclusion, and is expected to be published in a scientific journal in early 2019.
Overall, more research is necessary to confirm whether or not BPA and BPA-free alternatives are safe, according to researcher Patricia Hunt of Washington State University, who worked on the Current Biology study. While the government and the CLARITY Core study claim BPA is safe, it's really up to you to decide what's best for your health until further studies are conducted.
If you're worried your water bottle is trying to kill you, switch to glass or stainless steel until there's a definitive answer on the safety of BPA and other materials used in plastics and food packaging. In addition, don't put plastic in the microwave, and avoid pre-packaged foods as much as possible.
https://www.bustle.com/p/why-should-you-care-about-bpa-the-chemical-may-carry-these-health-risks-16428559
-
European Industry Maps Chemicals Added to Plastics
Mar 5, 2019 | Treehugger
By Christine Lepisto
A list of chemicals and their uses will support risk assessments and circular economy plans.
It has been a decade since Europe started a huge "no data, no market" program requiring the chemical industry to prove the safety of chemicals placed on the market in European Union countries.
The project has produced a treasure trove of information helping regulators to more effectively identify and control chemicals that cause concerns for human health or the environment as well as helping industry to build consumer confidence in the chemicals. But the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) didn't stop there. The most recent project to make use of this wealth of new data targets the chemicals added to plastics.
Chemicals that were once dismissed as eternally trapped in a plastic matrix have raised concerns in recent years about whether they can migrate into our food or bodies, where they end up when plastic products reach the end of their often-too-short lives, as well as how they impact hopes for a circular economy. So the ECHAmined their new database to identify all of the chemicals which had been registered by industry as plastic additives.
The ECHA handed this list over to industry associations, which worked to ensure correct information on the uses of chemicals in plastics is available. Maggie Saykali of the European Chemical Industry Council reflects on how much was learned during this exercise: “It was clear from the start of the project that we needed all project partners to use the same terminology for uses of plastic additives." But in the end it proved worthwhile, again in the words of Ms. Saykali:
") left top no-repeat rgb(249, 247, 245); text-shadow: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.8) 2px 2px 0px; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;">"This project clearly demonstrates the value of a collaborative approach. ECHA provided an overview of substances registered under REACH, industry provided the knowledge of their uses and behavior, and academic experts helped develop a model to estimate release potential."
The reinforcement of the communication channels between suppliers and users of plastic additives will also help as plans for a circular economy for plastics proceed. The additives pose one of the major obstacles to the up-cycling of plastics. An agile and responsive supply chain is a key asset for evaluating changes that can favor better recyclability of plastics back into high-value products.
An overview of the results of the mapping exercise for plastics additives has been made public by ECHA, offering consumers interesting insights to what chemicals are in which plastics. Even more data remains in the hands of the regulators of the EU Member States, who take the lead in identifying the chemicals of concern. The model for predicting potential release will also inform decisions about how to prioritize risk assessments for these chemicals.
This plastic additive mapping exercise offers another great example of the value of putting the burden on industry to share information about the chemicals they use in the interest of better protection of public health and the environment. And it is a further step in helping the industry to build trust for the chemicals that provide benefits while eliminating the use of chemicals that don't merit that trust.
A document providing supplementary information on the scope and methods of the Plastic additives initiative offers more details for interested parties.
https://www.treehugger.com/plastic/european-industry-maps-chemicals-added-plastics.html
-
Big Oil Moves to Tighten Its Grip on Fracking
Mar 5, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson
Chevron Corp. CVX 0.07% plans to significantly ramp up production in the oil field at the heart of the American fracking boom, the latest sign that the next era of shale drilling is likely to be led by the major oil companies.
In the next five years, Chevron expects to more than double its production in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico to 900,000 barrels of oil and gas a day, the company announced at an investor event Tuesday. That’s a nearly 40% increase from its previous forecast.
“The shale game has become a scale game,” Chevron Chief Executive Mike Wirth said in an interview. “The race doesn’t go to the one who gets out of the starting blocks the fastest. The race goes to the one who steadily builds the strongest machine.”
Exxon Mobil Corp. is expected to disclose similar growth plans in the region at an investor meeting Wednesday. The company recently added 1.2 billion barrels of oil and gas to its total reserves, based in part on bullish Permian drilling plans. BP PLC, Royal Dutch ShellPLC and Occidental Petroleum Corp. are also focusing on the region.
Big oil’s growing ambitions for the Permian follow a long-established pattern in the oil patch: Wildcatters and small exploration companies find ways to tap new reservoirs, then the big companies move in.
Five years ago, Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell and Occidental collectively made up about 9% of crude production from modern fracking techniques in the Permian. In October, the latest period for which relevant figures are available, they made up about 16%, according to data on ShaleProfile, an industry analytics platform.
Those numbers are likely to grow significantly in the coming years, and it wouldn’t be a surprise for the big five to produce far more of the booming area’s crude within a decade, said Ed Hirs, who teaches energy economics at the University of Houston.
“It’s going to be extremely difficult for smaller companies to compete with the oil giants,” Mr. Hirs said.
As the oil giants continue their shale expansion, many have gained favor with investors. Their shares have risen slightly in the past year even as crude prices fell, outperforming the S&P 500.
Chevron said it would hold annual spending this year and next year between $18 billion and $20 billion, and allow it to grow slightly from 2021 to 2023 to $19 billion to $22 billion.
Many of the smaller companies that pioneered new technology to help make the U.S. the world’s top crude producer have begun to struggle as they attempt to rein in spending and move closer to a goal that has so far largely eluded them: profitability.
Dozens of companies including Continental Resources Inc. and Pioneer Natural ResourcesCo. have reduced spending plans in response to investor pressure. Collectively, spending among the smaller companies is set to fall by 11% this year, according to Citigroup.
Many smaller oil firms face the challenge of having to drill more to keep production rising, since shale wells produce a lot in the beginning but then taper off quickly.
The spending cuts, coupled with the fact that some companies have tapped a large proportion of their best wells, mean that returns from shale drilling may have already peaked as wells increasingly are less productive, according to Evercore ISI.
Meanwhile, the big companies are just getting started. Exxon is now the largest operator in the Permian, with 40 rigs. While many companies reduced fracking activity in the fourth quarter of last year, Exxon increased it significantly to over 80 wells, more than double the total in the fourth quarter of 2017, according to Rystad Energy.
Chevron is raising its production guidance to 900,000 barrels of oil and gas a day by 2023. Last year, it predicted 650,000 barrels a day by 2023. The company is boosting production without adding to its rig count, a testament to how size can lead to greater efficiencies.
Chevron employed what could be described as a tortoise-and-hare strategy in the Permian. While smaller companies at times paid more than $40,000 an acre to gain rights to prime drilling opportunities, Chevron held on to land it already owned in the region, which decades ago was one of the world’s biggest traditional oil fields, without having to join in the buying frenzy.
The company’s land is now recognized as having unrivaled value. Its shale portfolio, which includes its Permian holdings, is worth more than $70 billion, the largest of any operator, according to Rystad Energy. Chevron says the value has doubled in the past two years.
Chevron built a database of more than 25,000 wells to study the best techniques for drilling. That helped it avoid “downspacing,” a practice in which companies drill wells in close proximity that has been linked to reductions in productivity per well, Mr. Wirth said.
Because of its size, Chevron has the ability to obtain commitments for pipeline space, drill longer horizontal wells across its huge swaths of land in the Permian, and keep a lid on labor and other materials costs. The company can also apply new technology and use techniques mastered in the Permian on land in Canada, Argentina and Pennsylvania, he said.
“At times, we were criticized for not going faster,” Mr. Wirth said. “We were steadily building up the knowledge to do this well, not to do it fast.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-oil-moves-to-tighten-its-grip-on-fracking-11551789120
-
Fracking the World: Despite Climate Risks, Fracking Is Going Global
Mar 5, 2019 | DeSmog (Blog)
By Justin Mikulka
The U.S. exported a record 3.6 million barrels per day of oil in February. This oil is the result of the American fracking boom — and as a report from Oil Change International recently noted — its continued growth is undermining global efforts to limit climate change. The Energy Information Administration predicts U.S. oil production will increase again in 2019 to record levels, largely driven by fracking in the Permian shale in Texas and New Mexico.
And the U.S. is not alone in trying to maximize oil and gas production. Despite the financial failures of the U.S. fracking industry, international efforts to duplicate the American fracking story are ramping up across the globe.
The CEO of Saudi Arabian state oil company Aramco recently dismissed the idea that global demand for oil will decrease anytime soon and urged the oil industry to “push back on exaggerated theories like peak oil demand.”
But Saudi Aramco also is gearing up for a shopping spree of natural gas assets, including big investments in the U.S., and increasing gas production via fracking in its own shale fields. Aramco is deeply invested in keeping the world hungry for more oil and gas.
Khalid al Falih, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, told the Financial Times, “Going forward the world is going to be Saudi Aramco’s playground.” But not if other countries frack there first.
China Expanding Fracking Efforts, Testing New Technology
As a major importer of oil and natural gas, it is no surprise that China is trying to exploit its own shale formations, which are rich with oil and gas. China is estimated to have the largest shale gas reserves of any country. However, China’s shale formations present different challenges than those in the U.S., including gas deposits at significantly greater depths.
China's national oil and gas companies are making gains in fracking and lowering costs to produce gas but are still only producing a small fraction of the gas of U.S. frackers.
In addition to technical challenges, China also faces local opposition in regions where fracking is occurring. One county in China's Sichuan province recently suspended fracking efforts after an earthquake killed two people. The event resulted in massive public protests against fracking, which protesters blame for the earthquakes.
Fracking — and specifically the re-injection of fracking wastewater into deep rock formations — is known to increase seismic activity in America. Fracking has also been blamed for earthquakes in the United Kingdom and Canada.
The Chinese government insists that the earthquakes are unrelated to fracking activity, and points out the Sichuan region is known for earthquakes, including a devastating 2008 quake that killed an estimated nearly 90,000 people.
To complicate matters, China has plans to test a brand-new fracking technology to access gas deposits at extreme depths, where the pressures required are too great for current hydraulic fracturing techniques. This approach, never before tried outside a lab, involves detonating a device deep underground to fracture the impermeable shale rock and release gas deposits.
The first tests are expected by March or April of this year. While this technology comes with clear safety and environmental risks, especially within the earthquake-prone Sichuan province, the industry is mostly focused on the upside for gas production.
Chen Jun, a professor at Southwest Petroleum University in Chengdu, noted, “A technological breakthrough could trigger another shale gas revolution.”
Considering the existing shale oil and gas revolution's impacts on the climate, the last thing the world needs is another one, but many big industry players are working toward just that.
Major Oil Companies Get in the Fracking Game
Besides Saudi Aramco, several other oil majors are now moving into fracking in a big way, with the constant goal of boosting oil and gas production.
BP abandoned its early attempts to produce oil and gas in the U.S. via fracking when it was forced to sell U.S. assets to pay for legal bills resulting from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. However, in 2018 BP spent $10.5 billion to buy theshale assets of BHP Billiton.
The oil giant also has a $12 billion investment in Oman, where fracking techniques and expertise learned in Texas — along with a favorable deal with the government of Oman — appear to be helping BP succeed.
BP announced profits of $12.7 billion for 2018. While it and other oil companies have so far failed to consistently profit off fracking for oil and gas in the U.S. and elsewhere, these large investments by BP and companies like ExxonMobil show that the biggest oil companies in the world are now betting big on fracking.
ExxonMobil, the biggest leaseholder in the Permian Basin, is pouring its hopes on fracking there to turn around recent financial woes. This move is part of Exxon’s plan to increase its oil and gas production by 25 percent by 2025.
The major players in oil and gas production are moving ahead with plans to increase production, with fracking playing a vital part.
Fracking the World and the Climate
Despite recent help from the Trump administration, efforts to frack the extensive Vaca Muerta shale basin in Argentina have been slow to take off since the oil and gas field's discovery a decade ago, but Vista Oil & Gas just announced plans to begin fracking there.
While fracking has not yet proven to be a money maker in Argentina, Miguel Galuccio, CEO of Vista, explained why he thought the Vaca Muerta had a future in global oil and gas production.
“The Permian is finite,” Galuccio told Bloomberg. “When drillers face deteriorating acreage, where will they turn for growth? I know they’re looking at Vaca Muerta.”
And around the world.
Last year a moratorium on fracking was lifted for Australia’s Northern Territory and in January plans were announced to begin fracking for gas.
After the 2018 election in Mexico, the new president Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced his apparent intention to ban fracking there. However, more recent reports indicate this would not be a true ban. Government officials have voiced support for fracking in Mexico, saying that it will have “restrictions.” After all, the country has large estimates of shale oil and gas, and production is booming just across the U.S. border in Texas and New Mexico.
Fracking efforts in the UK have resulted in breached environmental permits, suspected earthquakes, and widespread opposition.
Continuing to expand oil and gas production, which fracking plays a huge part in, for energy, petrochemical, and plastic production is incompatible with international goals to keep global warming well under 3.6°F (2°C) above pre-industrial levels.
Yet governments around the world, the same ones which ratified the Paris Agreement, are supporting oil and gas companies as they seek to greatly widen fracking's global footprint.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/04/global-fracking-expansion-oil-gas-climate-risks
-
Minnesota Governor Announces Goal of 100 Percent Clean Energy by 2050
Mar 4, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) on Monday introduced a proposal that would require the state's electricity providers to shift to 100 percent clean energy by 2050.
“The new policies will ensure reliable, affordable and sustainable electricity in Minnesota," Walz said, according to the Star Tribune. “They’ll also give the state a cleaner, healthier environment and a strong clean energy economy.”ADVERTISEMENT
State lawmakers in Minnesota recently introduced a similar measure that would mandate companies to reach a series of benchmarks before relying solely on clean energy. But Walz's proposal is different in that it would require companies to reach clean energy by 2050 but not certain benchmarks beforehand.
Walz is optimistic that electrical providers can achieve the goal, the Star Tribune noted.
The newspaper added that Minnesota's largest energy provider, Xcel Energy, has already committed to relying solely on clean energy by the date. The company did, however, raise concerns about state lawmakers' proposal in a hearing last month.
Under the legislators' bill, Xcel would be required to go carbon-free by 2045. Walz's proposal does not include that stipulation.
State Rep. Chris Swedzinski (R) voiced concern about what he called an "extreme" proposal from the governor.
“Governor Walz’s extreme energy proposals would cause Minnesotans’ energy bills to skyrocket, force the closure of reliable and cost-effective power plants, and puts Minnesota all-in on technology that simply cannot provide the reliable power you need to keep the lights on and heat your home in the winter,” said Swedzinski, the Republican leader on the House Energy and Climate Finance and Policy Division Committee, according to the Star Tribune.
The proposal from Walz comes as Democrats around the nation call for more urgent action to combat climate change.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the Green New Deal resolution last month calling for sweeping reforms in order to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding legislation has been hailed by progressives. But conservatives have decried it, citing its high costs.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/432546-minnesota-governor-introduces-goal-for-100-percent-clean-energy-by
-
Total, Novealis Expand Baystar's Pasadena Petrochemical Complex
Mar 4, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
A subsidiary of French oil major Total S.A. is pushing further into petrochemicals on the Gulf Coast as one its joint ventures with Novealis Holdings starts construction on a major new polyethylene plant in Pasadena.
Crews broke ground last week on 625,000 metric ton per a year polyethylene unit from Bayport Polymers LLC (also called Baystar). Baystar is a 50/50 joint venture with Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA and Novealis Holdings LLC; Novealis is co-owned by Borealis AG of Vienna and NOVA Chemicals of Calgary.
The project will create about 1,750 jobs at peak construction. The unit is expected to start up in 2021. using Baystar's new "Borstar" technology.
"This new Borstar unit will more than double the site's capacity and allow Baystar to provide our North American customers with a greater range of high-value-added and resource-efficient products," said Baystar President Diane Chamberlain in a statement. "The Port Arthur cracker and the new Borstar unit are tangible evidence of the power of partnership between Total, Borealis and NOVA Chemicals."
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Total-Novealis-expand-Baystar-s-Pasadena-13661021.php
-
Cheniere Deal With China Signals Country’s Key Role in LNG Exports
Mar 4, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Christopher M. Matthews
Cheniere Energy Inc.’s LNG 1.56% expected $18 billion deal to supply natural gas to China signals the company’s growing bet on the country, and China’s emergence as a top market for U.S. gas exporters.
In a move that would be announced as part of a broader U.S.-China trade deal, China’s state-owned China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. SNP 0.20% , known as Sinopec, will agree to a long-term contract to buy about $18 billion of liquefied natural gas from Cheniere, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
The deal would be the third long-term supply agreement Cheniere has signed in the country, and a sign that China figures prominently in its future plans.
Cheniere signed the first-ever long-term supply contracts to China in February of last year, agreeing to send 1.2 million tons of LNG a year to China National Petroleum Corp. through 2043. Eyeing further expansion in the country, Cheniere opened an office in Beijing in 2017.
“China is an important growth market for Cheniere, and we continue to build and solidify relationships with key Chinese counterparties as we expect to sell meaningful amounts of LNG into China over the long term,” Cheniere Chief Executive Jack Fusco said on a call with investors in August.
China is the fastest-growing importer of LNG, as it seeks to move to cleaner fuels and heat homes in the northern part of the country with natural gas. After importing less than 10 million tons of LNG in 2010, China’s imports are expected to grow to 88 million tons a year by 2025, according to a report by Macquarie Group Ltd.
But Cheniere’s bet on China hasn’t been without risk. China hit U.S. LNG with 10% tariffs as part of a trade fight, and it has been buying the product mainly from U.S. competitors—Qatar, Australia and Malaysia.
Cheniere’s contract with CNPC is still in place, but the state-owned company has had to swap much of the U.S. volumes for supplies from other countries such as Australian LNG to be shipped to China, helping avoid the Chinese tariff on LNG originating in the U.S.
The tariffs also have held up Cheniere’s negotiations with other potential customers in China, and the company believes its deal with Sinopec would have been signed months ago if not for the trade spat, say people familiar with the negotiations.
Those risks haven’t deterred Cheniere. As part of the expected deal with Sinopec, Cheniere could take financing from Chinese state banks, say people familiar with the matter, a sign the company is willing to deepen ties there.
The deal with Sinopec is expected to help greenlight Cheniere’s sixth LNG train, a compressor that converts natural gas into a liquid, at its plant at Sabine Pass, La. Trains typically cost about $3 billion to construct, according to analysts, and Cheniere could use Chinese financing to fund some of that project. The company has previously financed a train with an equal portion of debt and equity.
Despite the risk, China’s rapid demand growth makes it too big of a market for U.S. LNG exporters to ignore.
“All LNG contracts are signed with an eye towards China,” said Katie Bays, an analyst at Height Capital Markets. “China is a unique and very important player in the LNG market.”
There are currently just three operational terminals in the U.S. to export LNG: Dominion Energy Inc.’s Cove Point in Maryland and Cheniere Energy LNG Inc.’s two plants in Louisiana and Texas. There are about 25 proposed U.S. LNG export projects, and many will need Chinese demand to justify moving forward with projects, say analysts.
Sempra Energy , whose Louisiana LNG facility will start up this year, has said it sees China as an important market for the U.S. despite the tariffs.
“[W]hat I’m a little bit confident about is LNG is an important part of China’s future,” Chief Executive Jeffrey Martin said on a call with investors in August. “And frankly, the United States will always be one of the lowest-cost suppliers. And we think this bodes well for the future.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cheniere-deal-with-china-signals-countrys-key-role-in-lng-exports-11551735153
-
Apache Developing Permian Well Beyond Alpine High
Mar 4, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
With the Alpine High natural gas program basically on autopilot, Apache Corp. is bearing down on developing more liquids and oily resources across the Permian Basin, CEO John Christmann said Thursday.
Developing the Alpine High in the Delaware sub-basin, the No. 1 prospect for the past couple of years, has allowed the Houston super independent to reset its options in other parts of the Delaware and its Midland twin going forward, Christmann explained to investors during a quarterly conference call Thursday.
“We did a lot of strategic testing both in the Midland and the Delaware. We focused on pad
development, what is the spatial relationship between wells both vertically and horizontally. We focused on completions...the use of technology, the learnings and the implementation of that. You're now seeing that pay off in spades,” he said.
“You have to keep integrating those learnings. And you also have to recognize that the geology
of each play is a little different,” with the geology and reservoir the key components to optimizing development.
“That’s why this year we're going to be running...two focus programs...There's going to be a rich gas program at Alpine High, and you're going to see an oil-focused program predominantly in the Midland and some Delaware.”
During the final three months of 2018, Alpine High gas volumes were impacted by a field-wide shutdown for several days, back pressure on gas sales lines from Permian constraints and completions timing. Production averaged 58,000 boe/d net between October and December, and the play’s output exited the fourth quarter producing 70,000 boe/d net. Twenty-six wells were turned to sale, bringing the total for the year to 94.
Oil-focused activities for now have been deferred in the gassy Alpine and other Delaware targets, Christmann noted.
“However, substantial future opportunity remains,” said the CEO. “Apache's Permian Basin program has improved tremendously over the last three years. We're now producing at record levels both in terms of total production and oil volumes. We have accomplished this with far fewer rigs and significantly less capital deployed than our prior production peak in late-2014.”
The focus in Alpine High this year is on multi-well pad development, primarily in the north flank of the field and primarily to produce natural gas liquids (NGL).
“With 600 MMcf/d of nameplate cryogenic processing capacity scheduled to come online in the second half of the year, we should realize a significant uplift in cash margins and cash flow generation,” the CEO said.
Activity in the play has been decreased to five rigs and one fracture (frack) crew. Dry gas drilling has been deemphasized, which is no longer needed for blending purposes to meet pipeline specifications once cryogenic processing is installed, he said.
“Prior to having the cryos coming on, we were...having to drill some of the dryer gas zones to blend to meet pipeline specs. We will no longer have to do that in 2019, 2020 and 2021.”
Reducing dry gas drilling “will naturally result in lower volume growth than previously projected, but it will increase our percentage of NGLs.”
The 2019 Alpine High production volume outlook is 85,000-90,000 boe/d with a targeted year-end exit rate of more than 100,000 boe/d.
“The projected year-end NGL mix will approach 40% of net Alpine High volumes, up significantly from the previous guidance of 30%, which we provided a year ago,” Christmann said.
Apache also achieved an “important strategic goal” last year with the formation of Altus Midstream Co., which will fund the growing infrastructure needs of Alpine High, he noted. Altus was created to hold most of Apache’s gathering, processing and transportation assets in the No. 1 prospect.
During the fourth quarter, Apache operated an average of 31 rigs and drilled and completed 98 gross-operated wells worldwide. More than half of the rigs (18) worked in the United States, where 70 wells were completed and where reported production was 283,000 boe/d, a 28% year/year increase.
Permian production averaged 236,000 boe/d in the final three months of 2018, including oil production of 99,000 b/d. Apache operated an average of 16 rigs and drilled and completed 66 wells.
At Alpine High in the Delaware sub-basin, Apache averaged seven rigs and placed 26 wells online. Production exited the year at 70,000 boe/d and averaged 58,000 boe/d in 4Q2018. Production volumes were impacted in late 2018 by several items, including an unplanned field-wide shut in, deferrals in the well completions schedule and the timing of new facility commissioning, which resulted in a “slight delay in the production volume ramp, but production was back on track by the end of the quarter.”
Within the Midland sub-basin, Apache ran five rigs and placed 26 wells on production in the quarter. Beyond the Alpine High development, Apache averaged four rigs in the Delaware and placed nine wells on production.
Apache also averaged 13 rigs across its international operations during 4Q2018 and completed 28 wells, with production of 199,000 boe/d.
Longer term to 2021, Apache envisions an annual upstream capital budget of $2.4-2.8 billion, a plan it outlined earlier in February. That level is about 23% under 2017 spending, with most of it directed to the United States.
The budget assumes $50-55 West Texas Intermediate (WTI), with cash flow neutrality at an assumed Henry Hub gas price of $2.80/Mcf and a WTI of $53/bbl. Plans are to return at least half of the generated free cash flow this year to shareholders.
“Permian Basin oil and Alpine High rich gas will be the primary drivers of U.S. production growth over this timeframe, with NGLs comprising the fastest-growing product stream,” Christmann said.
Through June, production is expected to be relatively flat with 4Q2018 volumes as the rig count declines and Apache implements a “three-month frack holiday, with one of our two frack crews in the Midland Basin,” said Executive Vice President Tim Sullivan of operations support. “We then see a fairly significant second half volume ramp resulting from the cryo commissioning at Alpine High, accelerated completions with the return of the second frack crew in the Midland Basin, and the start-up development in the North Sea.”
Net losses totaled $381 million (minus $1.00/share) in 4Q2018, the result of one-time asset impairments in the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Anadarko Basin and Egypt. Minus the writedowns, quarterly income totaled $119 million (31 cents/share). Net cash provided by operating activities was $1 billion. For the full-year 2018, net profits totaled $40 billion (11 cents/share), with operating cash of $3.8 billion.
In the U.S. operations, a one-time impairment of $253 million was recorded for oil and gas properties primarily in the Anadarko Basin. In the offshore, a $90 million charge related to a legacy investment in a Gulf of Mexico-specific industry consortium related to oil spill emergencies.
Worldwide estimated proved reserves totaled 1.23 billion boe at year-end 2018, up from 1.17 billion in 2017. The company replaced 135% of 2018 production through extensions and discoveries, net of commodity price and engineering revisions. Proved undeveloped reserves represented 12%of total proved reserves at year-end, compared with 13% a year earlier.
Changes for 2018 primarily were driven by 303 million boe of proved reserves added through net extensions, partially offset by production of 170 million boe and downward revisions of previous estimates of 73 million boe.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117606-apache-developing-permian-well-beyond-alpine-high
-
$680 Million Pipeline Gets Green Light to Move Natural Gas From Oklahoma to Gulf Coast
Mar 4, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
A pipeline to move natural gas from Oklahoma to destinations along the Gulf Coast and southeastern United States got the green light from federal regulators and $680 million in financing for construction.
Working in a joint venture, Houston liquefied natural gas company Cheniere Energy and Washington D.C. private equity firm EIG Global Energy Partners are moving forward with plans to build the 200-mile Midship Pipeline in Oklahoma.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials approved the 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline on Wednesday. Cheniere and EIG issued a statement on Friday saying the two companies secured $680 million in financing for the project and issued a notice for contractors Strike LLC, M.G. Dyess, TRC Pipeline Services and Cenergy LLC to proceed with construction.
Expected to be placed in service by the end of the year, the Midship Pipeline is designed to move 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from Oklahoma's SCOOP and STACK shale plays to delivery point just north of the Red River near Bennington, Oklahoma.
The Midship Pipeline will connect to Kinder Morgan's Midcontinent Express Pipeline and the Boardwalk Pipeline Partners-owned Gulf Crossing Pipeline, allowing natural gas from Oklahoma to move to the TexOk Hub near Atlanta, Texas and the Perryville Hub near Tallulah, Louisiana.
Subsidiaries and affiliates of Cheniere, Devon Energy Corporation, Marathon Oil Corporation, and Gulfport Energy Corporation have secured commitments on the Midship Pipeline, Cheniere and EIG reported.
Founded in 1983, Cheniere Energy has nearly 1,400 employees in Texas and Louisiana. With 273 export cargoes in 2018, the company has become the largest buyer of natural gas and the largest exporter of LNG in the United States.
Cheniere closed 2018 with a $471 million profit on $8 billion of revenue.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/680-million-pipeline-gets-green-light-to-move-13661263.php
-
Colorado Oil, Gas Groups Warn of Extreme Limits in Drilling Bill
Mar 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A sweeping state measure changing how Colorado regulates drilling for oil and gas would have grave impacts on the state’s economy, two industry groups said.
The bill (S.B. 181), which proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s mission, would affect the livelihoods of people across the state, including many who live in rural areas, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and the Colorado Petroleum Council—a division of a national petroleum trade group—said in a joint statement.
The bill, which was introduced March 1, is scheduled to be heard for the first time March 5 by the state Senate Committee on Transportation & Energy. It would clarify that the commission’s focus is to regulate oil and gas, not foster energy development, as the state’s oil and gas law currently reads.
It would also require that a member of the commission have public health expertise.
The industry groups are alarmed by the bill and said no good can come from a measure being rushed through the legislative process.
They are urging leaders in the Colorado General Assembly to hold a public process involving local governments, environmental advocates, regulators, and industry in lieu of quick action on the bill.
No Conversation, Dialogue“There’s a reason they dumped this bill late on a Friday with no stakeholder process, no conversation, no dialogue,” Dan Haley, the association’s president and CEO, said in a statement calling the bill extreme. “It looks like a backdoor attempt to override the will of the voters.”
Voters in November 2018 defeated a bill that would have increased the state setback—the minimum distance required between drilling operations and buildings with people in them—to 2,500 feet. The current statewide setback is 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from larger occupied buildings such as schools and hospitals.
Colorado Rising, the group that pushed the setback measure, said March 4 it’s taking a neutral position on the bill, but said it’s a step in the right direction.
“While it would be immoral and unconscionable not to pass this bill, it does not go far enough to protect communities from dangerous oil and gas,” the group said.
State Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg (D), co-sponsor of the bill with state House Speaker KC Becker (D), said Colorado’s communities can’t afford to wait any longer to ensure the industry operates in an accountable and cooperative manner.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/colorado-oil-gas-groups-warn-of-extreme-limits-in-drilling-bill
-
Inside the D.C. Circuit's Pipeline Docket
Mar 5, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
With its recent decision to uphold federal approval for the Mountain Valley pipeline, an appellate court checked off one key climate-related challenge on its docket this year.
At least five other pipeline certificate lawsuits remain before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any one of the cases could be pivotal for the legal debate over pipelines and climate change.
Each dispute was born from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's issuance of a permit for a natural gas project in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. Each lawsuit involves specific questions around FERC's assessment of climate impacts from projects under its purview.
After hearing arguments in January, a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit on Feb. 19 tossed all complaints against FERC's authorization for the 300-mile Mountain Valley pipeline through West Virginia and Virginia.
The lawsuit included an argument that FERC violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not adequately considering greenhouse gases generated by burning fuel transported by the project (Energywire, Feb. 20).
"We need not consider that argument, however, because even if petitioners are correct, FERC provided an estimate of the upper bound of emissions resulting from end-use combustion, and it gave several reasons why it believed petitioners' preferred metric, the Social Cost of Carbon tool, is not an appropriate measure of project-level climate change impacts and their significance under NEPA or the Natural Gas Act," the judges wrote.
"That is all that is required for NEPA purposes."
The lawsuit covered a wide range of issues beyond climate. Appalachian Voices, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Sierra Club and other groups also fought FERC's determination of market need, exercise of eminent domain and consideration of cultural impacts, among other issues.
But the court's finding on FERC's emissions analysis sets the stage for climate questions in a long list of certificate challenges before the D.C. Circuit this year. One case — concerning the Constitution pipeline in New York — is currently in front of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Further complicating the debate, FERC last year used its certification process to announce a drastic change in its consideration and disclosure of upstream and downstream climate impacts from the projects it authorizes.
That shift has raised concerns — even within the commission itself — about whether the change comports with a watershed 2017 D.C. Circuit climate ruling.
Here's a look at the climate questions in front of the D.C. Circuit this year.Atlantic Sunrise
Case argued: Dec. 7, 2018.
During oral argument last year, opponents of the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline through Pennsylvania asked the court to require more robust analysis of climate impacts.
They pointed to a 2017 ruling in Sierra Club v. FERC, in which the D.C. Circuit found FERC should have taken a closer look at emissions from power plants that would wind up burning natural gas carried by the Sabal Trail pipeline. If the commission cannot provide that analysis, the court found, it must offer an adequate explanation as to why.
FERC counsel noted during argument that the agency's climate analysis for Atlantic Sunrise tracked with requirements laid out in the Sabal Trail case.
Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a Clinton appointee, questioned what it would take for pipeline challengers to be satisfied with a FERC climate analysis that ultimately supports a project approval.
"We think that the [greenhouse gas] component of this appeal may fail and a decision could be issued by the court in the first half of 2019," ClearView Energy Partners LLC Managing Director Christi Tezak wrote in a Feb. 15 research note.New Market
Argument date scheduled: April 11.
FERC and its courtroom opponents have spent the past two months mapping out a landmark climate challenge.
Argument is currently scheduled for April 11.
This lawsuit stems from FERC's refusal to reconsider the commission's authorization of a set of infrastructure upgrades in upstate New York. FERC used the procedural document to announce a controversial change in its approach to climate reviews.
FERC argued that its previous efforts to measure the climate impact of fuel production and consumption triggered by its projects were "generic" and "inherently" speculative and announced a narrower approach going forward.
Democratic Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick dissented on the climate issue. They argued that FERC's approach was not consistent with the D.C. Circuit's finding in the Sabal Trail case.Broad Run
Argument date scheduled: April 5.
The D.C. Circuit will also hear argument this spring on a separate FERC order in which LaFleur calculated her own estimate of upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions to highlight her disagreement with FERC's climate policy shift.
The lawsuit centers on the Broad Run infrastructure expansion project through Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia.Atlantic Coast
Argument date: TBD.
In its Feb. 19 ruling, the D.C. Circuit dismissed arguments against FERC's climate approach on the basis that the arguments weren't fully addressed in challengers' opening brief.
A lawsuit over FERC's authorization of the neighboring Atlantic Coast project may provide an opening for the court to revisit some of those concerns.
But climate issues may be the least of the hurdles currently facing development of the 600-mile pipeline that runs from West Virginia to North Carolina.
Dominion Energy Inc. and other Atlantic Coast partners halted construction in December after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scrapped a key Fish and Wildlife Service review for the pipeline. The Richmond, Va., court has since sent back several federal approvals, including permission for an Appalachian Trail crossing that could soon prompt a Supreme Court appeal.
The 4th Circuit last year dismissed as premature a challenge of FERC's Atlantic Coast approval.
A consolidated lawsuit now sits before the D.C. Circuit.PennEast
Argument date: TBD.
A forthcoming challenge of the PennEast pipeline through Pennsylvania and New Jersey may open the door for the D.C. Circuit to weigh the merits of the social cost of carbon.
In the Mountain Valley judgment, the court accepted FERC's rejection of the social cost of carbon — a frequently used tool to assess the economic impact of emissions — because petitioners failed to detail their arguments in the opening brief and to suggest an alternative approach.
"FERC's reasons for rejecting the Social Cost of Carbon are inconsistent with its own description of the tool's purpose and use, with the consensus of experts, with the practice of other federal agencies, and with FERC's choices to monetize other effects," the Institute for Policy Integrity wrote in a brief supporting the D.C. Circuit's consideration of the PennEast challenge.
FERC's disclosure of emissions from projects is meaningless if those estimates are not put in context, the institute argued. The commission has meanwhile analyzed the economic impact of expected project benefits, they say.
The case has not yet been scheduled for argument.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/05/stories/1060123105
-
Pipelines Vulnerable Under TSA's Watch
Mar 5, 2019 | Roll Call
By Gopal Ratnam
Nearly 3 million miles of pipelines that crisscross the United States carrying oil, natural gas and other hazardous liquids may be vulnerable to cyberattacks as the federal agency responsible for overseeing their security is overburdened with other responsibilities, lawmakers, government auditors and regulators say.
The Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, better known for pat-downs of passengers heading to their flights, is also in charge of securing about 2.7 million miles of pipelines. Most are buried underground in remote and open terrain, but others run through densely populated areas, the Government Accountability Office said in a recent report.
At times in the past few years, the TSA managed that responsibility with just one person, according to the GAO.
The TSA was short on cybersecurity expertise, made only recommendations for voluntary compliance that pipeline operators could ignore and hadn’t reviewed the security practices of pipeline operators for more than five years to assess if they followed the agency’s recommendations, the GAO found in a little noticed report published a week before Christmas.
Terrorists have threatened pipelines before. The GAO report highlighted instances when terror groups targeted pipelines for physical destruction in Colombia, Nigeria and Canada. The report noted that U.S. law enforcement had identified in 2006 what appeared to be an al-Qaida plan to blow up the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and arrested individuals for planning to blow up natural gas pipelines in Oklahoma and Texas.
Since the report came out, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have held hearings to address pipeline security.
The GAO found that operators of at least 34 of the nation’s top 100 pipeline systems deemed highest risk had not identified their most vulnerable and important facilities. The agency said the disparity may be because TSA’s guidelines didn’t spell out exactly what constituted a critical facility.
Staffing at TSA’s Pipeline Security Branch has seesawed over the years, going from 14 full-time staff in fiscal year 2012 to just one individual in fiscal 2014, the GAO said, noting that the agency had no long-term plan to identify the kind of cybersecurity experts it would need to get the job done.
‘Weird calmness’
The dire assessment of cybersecurity efforts in the pipeline sector stands in contrast to warnings by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security that the U.S. energy grid at large is a prime target of hackers tied to foreign governments.
In March 2018, the FBI and DHS said Russian-government-backed hackers had targeted energy companies “where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks.”
Once the hackers gained access, they conducted reconnaissance, moved into other adjacent networks and collected information on computers that control industrial systems, the warning said.
At a recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, several lawmakers were alarmed at what appeared to be a lackadaisical approach to cybersecurity in the energy sector and the agency responsible for pipeline security.
“There’s a weird calmness about this hearing,” Sen. Angus King of Maine said. “This is not calm. The Russians are already in the grid, are they not?” he said raising his voice.
Sen. Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat who’s also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wondered why TSA was in charge of pipelines.
“Is TSA the right place … and I appreciate they’re putting more focus on this, and they seem to have a pretty big job at the airports I have noticed, so is it the right place for that to live?” Heinrich asked.
Across Capitol Hill, in the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Lou Correa, chairman of the committee’s panel on transportation and maritime security, raised a similar question last week.
“Some have questioned whether DHS has paid enough attention to pipeline security and have raised the idea of moving responsibility of securing pipelines to another department,” the California Democrat said.
Neil Chatterjee, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told Heinrich that he too wondered if TSA was the best agency to oversee pipelines. FERC regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil.Natural gas
“Is the entity responsible for aviation, for railroad, for highways, also responsible for this, particularly when reports indicated that they had four or six people?” Chatterjee told the Senate panel, referring to the staffing problems at the TSA that the GAO had highlighted.
Chatterjee said FERC was helping by sending its experts to work with TSA. He also urged lawmakers to tell TSA to use its authority to impose mandatory security requirements on pipeline operators, as opposed to issuing voluntary guidelines.
Sonya Proctor, director of the division at TSA that oversees pipeline security, told House Homeland Security lawmakers last week that voluntary guidelines are better because cyberthreats are constantly changing and therefore fixed regulations may become obsolete.
Of the 2.7 million miles of pipelines, 2.2 million miles of pipes carry natural gas from transmission sites to consumers, the GAO said. About 319,000 miles of pipes carry natural gas from sources to communities. And about 216,000 miles of pipes carry hazardous liquid, including crude oil, diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, anhydrous ammonia and carbon dioxide.
Operators of natural gas pipelines see cybersecurity as a “top operational risk and take the management of this risk very seriously,” Rebecca Gagliostro, director of security, reliability and resilience at the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, told the House panel last week.
The 28 companies that are members of the trade group operate about 200,000 miles of interstate gas pipelines and follow the National Institute of Standards and Technology standards on cybersecurity as well as guidelines provided by the TSA, Gagliostro told the committee.
The companies conduct table-top exercises to test security programs, share information with other companies, and plan for how to work with other sectors in case of an attack, she said.
But the pipeline industry needs a “cooperative relationship with our government partners to facilitate rapid information sharing,” she said.TSA steps
TSA is taking steps to address gaps identified by the GAO, Proctor told Roll Call.
The agency committed to the GAO that it would conduct 10 cybersecurity reviews in fiscal 2019 and already has completed one and is in the process of scheduling three more, according to Proctor.
The reviews are conducted along with the newly formed Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, within the Homeland Security Department because the agency has the cybersecurity expertise that TSA lacks, she said.
The reviews compare “what was agreed upon and published and what they’re actually doing in the companies,” Proctor said, referring to the agency’s cybersecurity guidelines and pipeline companies’ practices.
At a minimum, pipeline operators abide by the cybersecurity standards published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. But TSA’s assessment of companies’ cybersecurity measures goes well beyond the basics and is “much more comprehensive and much more in-depth,” Proctor said.
Once TSA completes the 10 cybersecurity assessments, TSA and CISA will work with pipeline operators to come up with ways to lower cybersecurity risks, Bob Kolasky, head of the National Risk Management Center at CISA, told the House Homeland Security panel last week.
How TSA ended up overseeing pipeline security is an artifact of the bureaucratic shuffle following the 9/11 attacks, said Chris Currie, one of the authors of the GAO report.
When the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, it was made responsible for security of the country’s critical infrastructure, and pipelines were considered both critical and a form of transportation, landing them in TSA’s basket of responsibilities, Currie said.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/pipelines-vulnerable-under-tsas-watch
-
Major Oil Train Safety Requirement Passes Wash. State Senate
Mar 5, 2019 | SeattlePI
By Joel Connelly
Oil trains passing through Seattle, Spokane and other cities would have to limit potentially explosive vapors to less than 9 pounds per square inch, under legislation passed Monday on a largely party line vote by the Washington State Senate.
The Senate vote comes as a reaction to federal inaction. The federal government has for years failed to adopt a nationwide vapor standard for crude oil shipped by rail, particularly Bakken crude oil from North Dakota.
Shipments by rail bound for northern Puget Sound refineries have skyrocketed since the first refinery-bound oil train passed through Seattle in September of 2012.
The trains pass where people live. They go through downtown Spokane, through a tunnel and along the Seattle waterfront, and pass Edmonds, Marysville the Swinomish Indian Reservation and other Puget Sound communities.
"These large shipments of extremely flammable fuel run through the heart of our state, starting with my community of Spokane," said Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig, D-Spokane, lead sponsor of the legislation.
"If the federal government won't act to protect public safety and adopt a safer national standard, we will adopt our own. There is just too much to lose, for people and for our environment."
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., was among the first to flag the issue of unregulated vapors in oil trains.
A runaway oil train, carrying Bakken crude, exploded in the town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in 2013, killing 47 people. North Dakota saw a spectacular train explosion, but outside of a populated area.
Seattle has experienced one minor derailment of three tank cars on an oil train. Fifteen cars of a Union Pacific train, passing through the Columbia Gorge, left the tracks with four catching fire. No oil went into the Columbia River.
Critics, notably the Seattle-based Sightline Institute, have argued that Bakken crude is more prone to explosion than other types of crude oil.
A 2014 post in the Bakken Shale blog reported that the "flash point" -- the lowest ignition point -- is lower for Bakken crude than other crude oil.
The post warned that when flammable gases are dissolved in oil, the oil should be "degassified" before being transported.
The Legislature's oil train safety action initiative goes in a direction opposition from that taken by the Trump Administration. The administration announced in October that it will no longer require trains carrying flammable liquids to install electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems.
The Senate-passed bill required producers to condition the oil on trains to meet safer standards prior to shipment from North Dakota to the coast.
Under the bill, a refinery may not store or offload crude oil unless the oil has a vapor pressure of less than 9 pounds per square inch. The penalty for violation is $2,500 per day per rail tank car.
State Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, Olympia's chief ally of refiners and railroads, proposed a "poison pill" amendment. It would have kept the vapor limit from taking effect unless the infrastructure and equipment is available to allow for the 9-pound limit. The amendment lost.
The bill passed on a 27-20 vote. Twenty-seven Senate Democrats voted for it: 19 Republicans and a lone Democrat, State Sen. Steve Hobbs, voted against it.
The legislation goes to the House.
https://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-major-oil-train-safety-requirement-passes-State-13662585.php
-
ACWA Backs EPA’s ‘Cooperative Federalism’ But Seeks Greater State Role
Mar 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Julia Anastasio, executive director and general counsel of the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), is welcoming the Trump administration’s “cooperative federalism” push to give states more environmental policymaking authority but urging greater state input on issues like emerging contaminants and the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) scope.
“One really good thing that this administration has done is they are working to institutionalize these concepts that other administrations have been talking about,” said Anastasio on a Feb. 28 Environmental Law Institute (ELI) webinar on “Rethinking the Federal State Relationship.”
But while noting the agency has taken “concrete” steps toward institutionalizing cooperative federalism, she said that room for further collaboration on environmental policies remains with ACWA and other state officials. ACWA represents many state and interstate water programs.
“We need to keep reminding our federal partners that there is a wealth of expertise at the state level” and that greater cooperation “can help us create better programs and avoid unintended consequences,” she said.
Anastasio commended EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s Oct. 30 memo urging agency regional offices to generally defer to state decisionmaking and enforcement chief Susan Bodine’s Jan. 22, 2018 interim guidancecalling for states to take the lead in enforcement cases.
While calling for deference, both memos note that EPA may intervene in certain circumstances.
Anastasio outlined a range of environmental topics where EPA has recently collaborated with state water regulators, describing some -- such as EPA’s approval of novel Missouri criteria for reducing nutrient pollution -- as a good examples of the Trump administration’s stated goal of advancing cooperative federalism.
But she reiterated states’ criticism that EPA is moving too slowly in setting an enforceable standard, known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination.
“We need a strong federal EPA to establish national minimum standards so that there is a level playing field across the states,” Anastasio said, backing criticism from several states that EPA’s recently announced action plan fails to set a time frame for setting a limit for some PFAS.
“It’s a complicated issue but [PFAS] is one place that EPA can really take the lead and help states out, instead of having states developing their own standards and leading to an uneven playing field,” she said.
And she warned that the agency is failing to adequately consider state input in efforts to roll back an Obama-era rule for determining the scope of the CWA.
Anastasio said EPA should do a better job listening to state input on ongoing efforts to craft a narrower CWA jurisdiction rule. “This is one area where we would like a little more engagement and collaboration with the agency given how monumental an issue it is for us.”
‘Elevating the Conversation’
ACWA’s support for EPA’s improved collaboration with states comes roughly two years after the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) issued its white paper, “Cooperative Federalism 2.0: A Deeper Look into a Rebooted EPA-State Relationship,” that called for EPA limiting its scrutiny of state programs.
The ECOS document promised that any recasting of roles will result in “equal or greater environmental and public health protection and outcomes through smart deployment of resources on critical priorities.”
The Trump administration has strongly embraced cooperative federalism, including backing greater state implementation of federal environmental laws in EPA’s strategic plan.
But the Trump administration’s commitment has been tested -- such as in an ongoing fight with California over the states’ bid to retain its waiver for setting stricter standards for vehicle emissions.
During the webinar officials with EPA, ECOS, and ELI said states with delegated authority to implement federal law have long taken the lead in environmental oversight, noting that is contemplated in the CWA and other laws.
But they added such cooperation is especially important in a time of declining federal resources.
“The notion that states are going to step in and take over and EPA is going to step back and not do anything is not realistic,” Sylvia Quast, general counsel for EPA’s Region 9 told the webinar. “We all have to work together. We don’t have unlimited resources here at EPA, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.”
While cooperative federalism is not new, Anastasio credited the Trump administration for “elevating the conversation” and memorializing its principles in memos.
But she called it “too soon” to determine whether the Trump administration steps to address PFAS contamination will prove an example of cooperative federalism working, saying that “EPA has been a little slow” in crafting an enforceable standard for certain PFAS, despite calls from many states.
Her remarks back recent disappointment from officials in New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina and Pennsylvania that EPA’s recently announced action plan for addressing PFAS chemicals does not move more quickly to craft an enforceable drinking water standard, known as a known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), and does not set a specific time frame for developing the standard.
States’ Input
She also outlined several other areas of recent state and federal collaboration where states are waiting to see the results of their input and where they would have liked to have greater input.
For example, she said that states have been working with EPA on developing numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs and provided input that states hope will lead to a more robust testing model.
And while she did not detail states’ positions on the CWA jurisdiction rule, ACWA and the Association of State Wetland Managers recently raised concerns that the Trump administration’s proposed rollback of the Obama-EPA’s CWA jurisdiction rule could undermine states’ long-standing push to assume authority to issue dredge-and-fill permits under section 404 of the water law.
And in a joint Feb. 14 letter, ECOS and ACWA requested that EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers extend for another 60 days an April 15 deadline for input on the Trump administration’s pared-back version of the CWA jurisdiction rule.
Anastasio also said the Trump administration should expand its push for cooperative federalism to agencies other than EPA. She noted states’ recent opposition to a Corps’ plan to tighten state deadlines for conducting reviews of federally permitted pipelines and other projects under section 401 of the CWA.
States “would like to see other federal agencies wrapping their arms around the concept of cooperative federalism,” Anastasio said, noting disagreement with the Corp and FERC states’ 401 reviews.
“I would say we have not seen as much evidence of their commitment to working with state partners as we have at EPA.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/acwa-backs-epa%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98cooperative-federalism%E2%80%99-seeks-greater-state-role
-
Republicans Who Couldn't Beat Climate Debate Now Seek to Join It
Mar 5, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Ari Natter
Representative John Shimkus once issued a forceful rejection of climate science at a congressional hearing, invoking the Bible and declaring that “Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over.”
Last month, in a turnabout, the Illinois Republican signed onto a letter with the top Republican of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that said “prudent steps should be taken to address current and future climate risks.”
“It’s just not worth the fight anymore,” Shimkus said in an interview when asked about his changing stance on climate change. “Let’s just see what we can do to address it and not hurt the economy.”
Shimkus is among a number of Republicans who -- after years of sowing doubt about climate change or ignoring it altogether -- are scrambling to confront the science they once rejected. They are planning hearings on the issue, pledging to invest in technologies to mitigate its impact and openly talking about the need for taking action.
The shift in posture follows the public’s growing anxiety after catastrophic hurricanes, flooding and wildfires linked to global warming. Fully 74 percent of registered voters think global warming is happening and 67 percent said they are worried it, according to polling conducted by Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Among conservative Republicans, just 42 percent think global warming is happening but that is up five percentage points since a poll taken in 2017.
Moreover, Democrats have seized the issue with populist fever -- even proposing a sweeping plan to phase out climate-warming gas emissions through a “Green New Deal.”
“Members are openly using the term climate change,” Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, from oil-rich Alaska, said of her GOP colleagues. “You are not seeing this kind of dismissive attitude but more open conversations about some of the challenges, some of the technologies we can look to, some of the solutions.”
To be sure, the party hasn’t gone completely green. It hasn’t passed any major proposals to combat climate change and generally supports Trump administration policies to roll back environmental regulation.
“It’s a baby step forward,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a senior vice president with the League of Conservation Voters. “It remains to be seen whether they are sincere or whether they are just starting to engage in deceitful rhetoric.”
Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and has long acknowledged climate change, has scheduled the panel’s first hearing on the topic in years, focused on electricity generation. Additional GOP controlled-committees plan to follow with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, Murkowski said. “It is very much a multicommittee effort,” she said.
In addition to Murkowski, other Republicans have been meeting in small groups to come up with a strategy on the issue: Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and former 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, now a senator representing Utah.
“There is a growing consensus on our side that man-made emissions are contributing to global warming, that the ‘green deal’ is absurd, and we should be able to find a more appropriate solution to the problem,” Graham said in an interview, adding he had recently been discussing the issue with Romney, who has called climate change a critical issue.
Cassidy said he’s in talks with Republican senators about climate legislation centered around increasing the use of use of natural gas abundant in his state of Louisiana. The fuel source has about 50 percent less carbon dioxide emissions than coal, but is opposed by some environmentalists because of the fracking process used to develop it and associated leaks of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Other policies under discussion among Republicans include expanding the use of nuclear energy and research on technology to capture carbon emissions from smokestacks and the development of renewable energy.
Critics say those ideas don’t go far enough to address the problem.
“The window for moderate action has completely closed,” said Lukas Ross, a senior policy analyst with Friends of the Earth. “A small minority of Republicans don’t deserve a pat on the back for acknowledging 40 years of scientific consensus."‘Right Thinkers’
Some Republicans, too, aren’t happy with the shift.
“Eventually, the right thinkers in the caucus will reassert themselves,” GOP energy strategist Mike McKenna said in an email. “Or lots of members will find themselves on the business end of a primary.”
President Donald Trump has rejected a landmark report by experts from 13 of his own agencies and studded the administration with skeptics. The White House is currently considering establishing a panel of scientists to re-evaluate the scientific consensus around climate change -- to be led by a man who has hypothesized that more carbon in the air is good.
Tillis, who noted the North Carolina state legislature passed renewable portfolio standards and credits for renewable energy while he was a member, said his discussions have focused on “things that are still more or less driven by free-markets but stimulating innovation.”Change of Heart
In 2015, Cornyn, the senior Republican from the oil state of Texas, joined with most of his Republican colleagues to vote against an amendment that stated climate change was real and caused by human activities. Nowadays the senator, who is seen as an eventual candidate to become Senate majority leader, is talking behind the scenes with his Republican colleagues about the phenomenon.
“We are having conversations about how to address the problem, which is emissions,” Cornyn said in an interview, adding his goal is to “to do it in a way that continues to let the economy flourish and and come up with solutions.”
Some in the GOP may still be trying to find ways to address climate change that fall within their party’s ideology.
“I think the Republicans are being very genuine about recognizing this is a problem, but they are at the beginning of trying to identify policy responses that are consistent with their values,” Alex Flint, the executive director of Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative carbon tax group, said in an interview. “They are struggling to identify what policy responses to support and the politics on engaging on climate change.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-05/republicans-who-couldn-t-beat-climate-debate-now-seek-to-join-it
-
Have Fellow Dems Stolen Inslee's Climate Thunder?
Mar 5, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Timothy Cama
In the months leading up to Jay Inslee's March 1 announcement that he'll run for president, the Washington governor made it clear his priority was to make sure climate change plays a starring role in the 2020 presidential election.
"I think 2020 should be a referendum on climate change, and we have to have a president who embraces science rather than ignorance," he told The Seattle Times in November.
In jumping into the race, the Democrat declared he is the climate candidate, and he is the one putting it on his rivals' radars, making it a top concern for primary voters.
"If climate change isn't priority one, it's not going to get done," he said during a launch event at a solar panel installation company in Seattle.
"So I am saying this: I am pledging today that if I am given this high honor, I will make fighting climate change the No. 1 priority of the United States of America."
But by the time Inslee announced his candidacy, the climate picture had changed.
Most of the candidates have pledged support for the Green New Deal to rapidly decarbonize the economy and end the United States' reliance on fossil fuels.
Egged on by youth activists, a series of dire reports about the consequences of climate change and President Trump's aggressive environmental rollbacks, climate is playing an unprecedented part in the contest.
Inslee suddenly stands amid a sea of climate candidates. His challenge is now to stand apart from the crowd.
"The thunder has been taken away by the Green New Deal, and how everybody has rushed to endorse it," said Aseem Prakash, director of the Center for Environmental Politics at the University of Washington.
"The real climate person is now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not Inslee, not even Al Gore, for that matter," Prakash said.
Inslee, 68, hasn't specifically endorsed the Green New Deal resolution introduced by Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic freshman House member from New York, and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), although he did back transitioning the country to 100 percent renewable energy, one of the deal's proposals.Standing out
The way he could rise to the top is to beat the drum on climate issues and drown out his opponents.
"I think he's going to talk more about climate than any of the other candidates," said Travis Ridout, a politics professor at Washington State University, noting that Inslee's campaign advertisements on social media all focus on climate.
His rivals, though, are talking about climate change in dire terms.
Democratic presidential hopeful and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg told "Pod Save America" that climate change is "a major national emergency ... whose destructive powers is comparable to a Great Depression or a world war."
In launching his campaign this weekend in Brooklyn, N.Y., Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), another candidate for the Democratic nomination, said the United States needs a president "who understands that climate change is real, is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet, and that we can generate massive job creation by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy."
On ABC's "The View" yesterday, co-host Joy Behar asked Inslee directly what sets him apart from other candidates who want to fight climate change.
"The reason, fundamentally, why I'm running, is we need a president who will say this: America is going to defeat climate change," he said.
"But to do this, we have to have a leader who will say, fundamentally and unequivocally, that this is the No. 1 priority in the United States. It has to be, because of the nature of this challenge. This is the greatest peril we have, but it's also the greatest promise."
Addressing the president's repeated comments on wind energy, Inslee called them "simply moronic."
A political action committee formed to help Inslee’s campaign, Act on Climate Now, is launching a television advertising campaign to support him.
The ad aligns with Inslee’s focus, calling him “a governor who transformed his state into a clean energy leader, with a bold vision for our future,” and using footage of the governor speaking about climate.
The difficulty of standing out is just one of the potential pitfalls in Inslee's long-shot campaign. He also faces an electorate that doesn't prioritize fighting climate change.
"It's a really difficult issue. I'm not sure it's a winning issue," said Ridout.
Polls show that concerns about climate are growing and voters want to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but they almost always put other priorities above it when asked about issues such as immigration, health care and guns.
For example, in NBC News exit polling in the 2018 midterm election, climate and the environment didn't make it into the top four priorities for voters.
Prakash said Inslee nonetheless has a good chance of having a real impact on the Democratic primary. He's the first single-issue presidential candidate in a major party to run on climate change, which Prakash said will force the issue to get more attention than it otherwise might have.
"It's nice to have a single-issue candidate focused on climate change in the primary," Prakash said. "If nothing else, climate change gets talked about."
The eventual impact of that could be turning the strong attention on climate into practical policy proposals, moving beyond the goals stated in the Green New Deal.
"I think what Jay Inslee would do is force people to think of a realistic Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is a set of ideas, and the ideas are vast," Prakash said. "Jay Inslee can help bring the Green New Deal from an idea to a policy."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/05/stories/1060123113
-
Both Parties Want $1B for Climate but Disagree on Source
Mar 5, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Ines Kagubare
The Republican governor of Massachusetts and the state's top Democratic lawmaker agree that they need to spend a fortune to avert damage from climate change.
But they disagree where the money should come from.
Gov. Charlie Baker (R) and House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D) are promoting similar bills to help cities and towns combat the impacts of rising temperatures through grant programs. Both would provide $1 billion over the next 10 years for climate-resilient infrastructure.
DeLeo's bill, known as the "GreenWorks Resilient Communities Investment Plan," would be funded by borrowing money through bonds. The details are sketchy because the bill hasn't been filed. The speaker unveiled his proposal last week in Somerville during a visit to Greentown Labs, the largest clean tech business incubator in the U.S.
"Not only will cities and towns have the ability to cut greenhouse gases and lower long-term energy and operating costs, but they will adopt Massachusetts-made innovative technologies and put people to work on clean tech infrastructure projects," DeLeo said in a statement.
Under his proposal, local communities would apply for grants to invest in energy-efficient buildings, solar panels, energy storage and electric vehicle charging stations.
On the other hand, the governor's bill, which was introduced in January, would raise the real estate transfer tax by 50 percent to generate $1 billion for climate-related projects over the next 10 years. The money would help communities invest in stormwater projects, drainage and culvert improvements, and drought mitigation.
The bills have similar objectives but very different funding sources.
David Levy, professor of management at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and co-director of the Sustainable Solutions Lab, said both measures lack ambition.
"It's a start, but it's inadequate in terms of the scale of the funding," Levy said.
He suggested that a carbon tax or a gas tax increase would generate more money than the governor's plan. Massachusetts has one of the lowest gas taxes in the Northeast at 26.5 cents a gallon, Levy said, so raising it 5 cents per gallon shouldn't garner much opposition. That could raise $156 million a year.
A carbon tax would raise a lot more. According to a report he co-authored last year, revenue from a carbon fee in Massachusetts could amount to $1.5 billion over 10 years.
"If we're going to raise the funds that we need for climate adaptation, we should do it in a way that helps the market," Levy said.
He also thought that the governor's idea to tax property transactions was an "odd choice."
A downside to the proposal, Levy said, is that all property owners who sell their homes would pay the higher transfer tax regardless of whether their properties are inland or along the coast. Inland owners might wonder why they're getting taxed even though their properties are not directly affected by sea-level rise, Levy said.
The real estate industry in Massachusetts expressed concerns that the tax outlined in Baker's bill could hinder economic development.
"Our feeling is that with an issue like climate change that would affect every resident of Massachusetts, the responsibility of taking on this challenge should be behind every resident of Massachusetts, not just those selling properties," said Tamara Small, CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts, a commercial real estate association.
Some disagree with Small's assessment. Jack Clarke, director of public policy and government relations at Mass Audubon, said the risks of climate change threaten the entire state.
"The governor has done a very good job in terms of his action on climate change," Clarke said. "His program has a fee on real estate where the money would go back to cities and towns to protect real estate from the impacts of climate change."
Clarke, who was appointed by Baker to the state's coastal erosion commission, noted that 85 percent of the state's 6.7 million residents live within 50 miles of the coast.
Richard Sweeney, an environmental and energy economics professor at Boston College, said that both bills would benefit local communities. But it's unclear what kind of bonds would be used under DeLeo's measure, he said.
"I think the real estate tax isn't the worst way to raise money to protect real estate," Sweeney said.
As for DeLeo's bill, Sweeney speculated that spending cuts and a tax hike on some sectors would be needed in order to repay the money borrowed to fund the climate program.
Massachusetts, which has been leading the fight against climate change, has taken steps to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector through its participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. But Sweeney said a carbon tax would raise a lot more money.
"The first best thing from an economic perspective would be a [carbon] tax, but politically I totally recognize, like Washington has shown us, that that can be really hard," Sweeney said.
Washington state lawmakers failed to pass a carbon fee last year.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/05/stories/1060123111
-
California Politicians Push Declaration of Climate Emergency
Mar 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
State Sens. Henry Stern (D) and Nancy Skinner (D), and several California assembly members are pushing for a statewide declaration of a climate emergency in what’s considered the fifth largest economy in the world.
Stern—who represents Ventura and Los Angeles counties—plans to file a nonbinding resolution this week that calls for the state to adopt its own Green New Deal and to mobilize over the next 12 years to fight climate change.
That would include investing $100 billion in green innovation efforts, infrastructure projects, and workforce development to speed up California’s efforts to have 100 percent clean energy, a zero-emission transportation system, and a carbon neutral economy by 2030.
Climate ‘Emergency’“Climate change is an emergency,” Stern said. “It’s burning down our hometowns, undermining our state’s public safety, driving alarming rates of childhood asthma, and other new disease vectors.”
Stern and others spoke on the steps of the state Capitol March 4 and were joined by about 100 students from the California Public Interest Research Group.
“Climate consequences are happening now and our poorest communities are being hit the hardest,” Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D) said in a news release. “This is a public health crisis impacting the quality of air we breathe and the water we drink.”
Skinner said they had identified about $8.5 billion in annual existing funds that could be dedicated to further the climate goals.
“It’s really about a strategic alignment of capital over the next decade,” Stern said.
‘Doable, Achievable’Greenhouse gas emission reduction money, clean air funds, and other accounts would be utilized without adding additional taxes, the senators said.
“This is doable, achievable, economically wise, and absolutely essential,” Skinner said. “The climate crisis is real, is undeniable, and we have a 12-year window to act in a responsible way.”
The office of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) didn’t respond to a request for comment.
California already has some climate goals. A bill passed last year calls for the electric grid to draw 100 percent clean energy by 2045. The state has also committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent less than 1990 levels by 2030.
The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and officials said focusing on electric vehicles and charging infrastructure is one way to help meet that goal.
California has about 25 million cars on the road and in 2018, 10 percent of sales were for hybrid or electric vehicles, said Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center at the University of California, Davis.
“I think it’s a great goal but it’s a very, very tall order because transportation systems change slowly,” he told Bloomberg Environment. “Even if tomorrow we start selling only zero-emission vehicles we will still have a lot of old vehicles on the road by 2030.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-politicians-push-declaration-of-climate-emergency-1
-
2 Groups Threaten Legal Action Over Late Ozone Decisions
Mar 4, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Two environmental groups formally warned EPA today that a lawsuit could be coming over a batch of tardy compliance decisions for the agency's 2008 ozone standard.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA was supposed to make attainment determinations by late January for Baltimore, Dallas-Fort Worth and nine other areas currently classified as in "moderate" nonattainment for the standard of 75 parts per billion, lawyers for the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
The two groups intend to file suit if the agency doesn't wrap up those determinations within the next 60 days, the letter indicates.
Under a proposal published in November, EPA wants to declare two of those areas in attainment; give two others another year to meet the standard; and downgrade the attainment status of seven others to "serious" nonattainment. According to its latest regulatory agenda, the agency had initially planned to make final decisions by January but has not named a new target date. A public hearing was held on Feb. 15 (Greenwire, Feb. 15). An extended deadline for written comments passed on Feb. 22.
WildEarth Guardians has already threatened litigation to prod the agency to make a final decision on the proposed one-year extension for the Denver Metro/North Front Range area in Colorado (E&E News PM, Jan. 23.)
In an email today, Earthjustice attorney Seth Johnson, who is helping to represent the Sierra Club and CBD, said "we're eager for EPA to finish its overdue work" to identify the areas that failed to meet the 2008 standard. "This is an important step to improving public health protection in those areas," he said.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children. In 2015, EPA further tightened the air quality threshold to 70 ppb; enforcement of that standard is in its early stages.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/04/stories/1060123079
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested