Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/13
-
(ACC Mentioned) Soapbox: Op-Ed Against Plastic Bag Ban Had Misleading, Inaccurate Information
Mar 12, 2019 | The Herald Journal
By Emily E. Skill
I’m writing in response to Holly Stevenson’s op-ed published on March 6. She presented three issues about why a plastic bag ban is not a good option for Logan: 1) a life-cycle assessment shows single-use plastic bags (SUPBs) are better for the environment than paper and reusable... -
EDF Statement in Advance of House Hearing on Failure by the Trump EPA to Protect Workers from Toxic Chemicals
Mar 12, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Tomorrow, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change will hold an oversight hearing on “Mismanaging Chemical Risks: EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers.” -
OMB Clears First-Time TSCA Rule Limiting Existing Chemical
Mar 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
The White House has completed its review of EPA’s final rule limiting use of methylene chloride in paint strippers, clearing the way for the agency to issue a first-time targeting an existing chemical under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)... -
(ACC Mentioned) With Approval from Both Legislative Chambers, Maryland Moves to Become First State to Ban Foam Food Containers
Mar 12, 2019 | The Baltimore Sun
By Luke Broadwater
With approval from both chambers, the state legislature moved Tuesday toward making Maryland the first state in the country to ban polystyrene foam food containers and cups. -
Some Chemicals to Replace Toxic Paint Stripper Also Have Risks
Mar 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The market for paint and coating strippers made without a toxic solvent called methylene chloride is about to grow bigger as the EPA stands poised to restrict the solvent in at least some consumer products. -
Pompeo Calls on Oil Industry to Support U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda
Mar 13, 2019 | Reuters
By Collin Eaton and Lesley Wroughton
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged the oil industry on Tuesday to work with the Trump administration to promote U.S. foreign policy interests, especially in Asia and in Europe, and to punish what he called “bad actors” on the world stage. -
Interior Chief Pick Must Disclose Lobbying Ties, Watchdog Says
Mar 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Daniel Seiden
The U.S. Department of the Interior must produce records of communications between David Bernhardt, President Trump’s nominee to lead the department, and his former clients in the energy and agricultural industries, a March 12 complaint says. -
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Want Changes to Anti-Terrorism Program
Mar 13, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
A chemical security program needs reforms and long-term reauthorization, experts told lawmakers yesterday. -
States Renew Call For RMP-Style CWA Spill Regulation, Citing EPA Data
Mar 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State and local emergency response officials are renewing their call for EPA to promulgate an accident prevention rule to address chemical spills under the Clean Water Act (CWA), criticizing the agency's decision to drop plans for such a rule as a dereliction of duty and arguing recently released EPA data does nothing to support the agency's decision. -
GOP, Industry Reject Call For CFATS Data Sharing After EPA's RMP Rollback
Mar 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Ariana Figueroa
Republicans and the chemical industry are rejecting Democrats' calls to require industry to share data with first responders under the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, a step intended to fill the gap left by EPA's rollback of an Obama-era risk management plan (RMP) rule. -
Chemical Safety Board Won’t Fight Order for Reporting Rule
Mar 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environmnet Report
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board will build a database for chemical incident reports and issue a regulation requiring companies to submit information to it, board officials said. -
BNSF, Amtrak Detail PTC Progress at House Hearing
Mar 13, 2019 | Transport Topics
By Eugene Mulero
Executives from BNSF Railway Co. and Amtrak assured federal lawmakers of their firms’ adherence to congressionally mandated requirements regarding automatic braking technology. -
As Oil Trains Roll into Portland, City Residents Keep Watch
Mar 13, 2019 | High Country News
By Carl Segerstrom
Oct. 3, 2018: No train cars. Reuters reports that oil shipments to China have “totally stopped” as a casualty of escalating trade tension. -
Environmentalists Detail Issues in Ozone Implementation Suit
Mar 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are outlining issues they intend to raise in litigation over EPA’s long-delayed final rule implementing toughened 2015 federal ozone standards, including previously raised concerns with provisions allowing “trading” of ozone precursors and flexibility for states to choose “baseline years” from which to measure progress. -
Talk to 'Green New Deal' Backers, BP CEO Tells Oil Industry
Mar 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ron Bousso
The oil industry should engage with proponents of the "Green New Deal," a Democratic initiative seeking to radically reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, BP Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley said on Tuesday. -
AFL-CIO Criticizes Green New Deal, Calling It ‘Not Achievable or Realistic’
Mar 12, 2019 | Washington Post
By Colby Itkowitz, Dino Grandoni and Jeff Stein
The AFL-CIO, the national arm for U.S. labor unions, offered a critical assessment of the Green New Deal, warning that the ambitious plan to combat climate change could adversely affect U.S. workers. -
Green Buildings Saved Renters $72m Since 2012 — Fannie Mae
Mar 13, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Climatewire)
By Emily Chasan
Using energy-efficient lightbulbs, low-flow toilets and environmentally friendly heating and cooling systems cut the utility bills of some 550,000 renters over the last six years, adding as much as $72 million in annual savings, according to a new report from Fannie Mae.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Soapbox: Op-Ed Against Plastic Bag Ban Had Misleading, Inaccurate Information
Mar 12, 2019 | The Herald Journal
By Emily E. Skill
I’m writing in response to Holly Stevenson’s op-ed published on March 6. She presented three issues about why a plastic bag ban is not a good option for Logan: 1) a life-cycle assessment shows single-use plastic bags (SUPBs) are better for the environment than paper and reusable; 2) reusable bags cause health issues; 3) SUPBs are recyclable. These claims are misleading and, as I explain below, not sufficiently supported by current science.
Claim 1: The life cycle assessment
A life cycle assessment includes more than just the manufacturing component of an item. It also includes the length of its use and how its materials are returned to the Earth. Thus, it’s critical to understand the wasteful consumption of SUPBs. Americans use 100 billion SUPBs each year, requiring 12 million barrels of oil to manufacture, all for an average use of 12 minutes before the bag ends up in the trash or polluting our landscapes and waters (Center for Biological Diversity, n.d.). Because reusable bags are more durable, yes, they can require more up-front energy. Yet, when all components of the life cycle are considered, they top out as the more environmentally sustainable option.
To offset the carbon emissions of plastic bag manufacturing it is estimated that paper bags should be reused three times and cotton bags should be reused 131 times (Great Britain & Environment Agency, 2011). Using the same bag 131 times sounds like quite a lot, but it really isn’t from a broader viewpoint. Many of us have had our reusable bags for six years or more. Assuming we go to the grocery store once every week for six years and use our reusable bag each time, we have already used our bag 312 times (52 x 6 = 312).
Furthermore, unlike paper and cotton, plastics don’t readily decompose. Rather, SUPBs breakdown and become microplastics, which have been detected in a variety of foods, drinking water, beer, honey, sugar, and table salt (UNEP, 2016). And they take centuries to thoroughly decompose!
Claim 2: Reusable bags and health concerns
Yes, reusable bags can carry bacteria, but claiming they cause extreme health outbreaks is jumping to conclusions. This is a common misconception that began after a report was released from the University of Arizona (2010), which was supported by the American Chemistry Council, an advocate for SUPB manufacturing (NPR 6/25/10). Ms. Stevenson referenced a research paper from the University of Pennsylvania in 2012 that shows a significant rise in E. coli in San Francisco after a plastic bag ban was enacted. The authors compared data of E. coli-related emergency room visits within the ban area and surrounding communities outside of the ban area. They found a jump in ER visits in San Francisco following the bag ban. The study was not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and the findings were refuted by a San Francisco health officer, who wrote a letter to the authors stating that the study did not allow for such causal links (Scott, 2018). To establish a link between the bag ban and illnesses, the authors would have to show that the same people who are using reusable bags are also the ones getting sick. A similar debunking was published in the Washington Post (2/16/13). A Cache Valley doctor confirmed no instances reported at Logan Regional Hospital of visits for illnesses related to reusable bag bacteria, though their use is quite common.
Additionally, it’s important to note that we cannot live in a bacteria-free world. People, and their stuff, are crawling with E. coli, strep, staph, and other “bad” bacteria. According to a Time Magazine article (8/23/17), our cell phones are 10 times dirtier than a toilet seat. Knowing that our phones carry bacteria doesn’t stop us from using them, and it shouldn’t. It should encourage us to wash our hands, produce from the grocery store, reusable bags, cell phones, and other common use items.
Claim 3: SUPBs are recyclable
Yes, SUPBs can be recycled. However, recycling SUPBs is not a reasonable approach to manage our plastic issues here in Cache County. I’ve looked into this and here’s why.
Plastic bag recycling is not cost effective or feasible. Only 1-3% of SUPBs are actually “recycled” today. The Logan City Environmental Department addresses single use plastics often. They run various campaigns and educate thousands of people each year about the difficulty with single use plastics in regard to waste and recycling. While education is certainly an important component to changing behavior of residents, it is never 100% effective. We can suggest an aggressive education campaign, but education isn’t free. A comprehensive education campaign would involve several months of weekly radio, newspaper, and Facebook ads at a cost of $1,200-$2,200 per week. A regional recycling company called Trex could take our SUPBs, but we’d have to find a facility to store them and bale them until we can reach 20 tons, the amount Trex requires to come and collect the bags.
Consider this:
• 133,333 SUPBs weigh 1 ton
• Each person in Cache County uses 500 SUPBs per year and our population is 125,000 = 62,500,000 SUPBs
• 2% are actually recycled = 1,250,000 SUPBs
• We would receive 9.3 tons of SUPBs per year. Thus, needing to store bags for 2+ years to have enough SUPBs for one shipment.
The bag ban is being considered because the community wants to preserve Logan’s natural beauty. A public hearing was overwhelmingly in support of this ban. None of us want to see SUPBs blowing when we’re on a walk, hike, or out fishing. We all know how beautiful Logan is. Let’s keep it that way, for the current generations and the many to come. Council votes March 19.
Emily E Skill Graduate student at Utah State University pursuing a MS in Environment and Society Resident of Logan.
https://www.hjnews.com/opinion/columns/soapbox-op-ed-against-plastic-bag-ban-had-misleading-inaccurate/article_dd795192-1b70-5eaf-87f7-2d9a6b3c6e5a.html
-
Mar 12, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Tomorrow, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change will hold an oversight hearing on “Mismanaging Chemical Risks: EPA’s Failure to Protect Workers.” In advance of the hearing, Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist, Dr. Richard Denison, made the following statement:
“Under the Trump Administration, every aspect of EPA’s implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — our recently reformed chemical safety law — has gone off the rails. The Trump EPA has abdicated its authority and responsibility under the law to address risks to workers. Among the ways EPA has shirked these duties are the following:Clearing new chemicals despite risks to workers. EPA has approved new chemicals for unfettered market access even where the agency has identified significant risks to workers or has indicated it has insufficient information to determine risks to workers. EPA has done so for many dozens of chemicals.Abandoning worker protections from methylene chloride. EPA is poised to finalize a ban of methylene chloride-based paint strippers far narrower than the one it proposed over two years ago. While consumer uses will be banned, EPA will not limit commercial uses, leaving workers, who are most at risk from these products, unprotected.Ignoring worker safety in chemical risk evaluations under TSCA. In the only draft risk evaluation of a chemical issued to date, EPA relied exclusively on a single undocumented workplace air concentration value, provided through a private personal communication by a conflicted industry source, as the basis to conclude that workers across the supply chain for this chemical face no significant exposure to the chemical.
“Oversight of this EPA’s reckless approach to worker protection under existing law is long overdue. We applaud the subcommittee for holding this hearing. This EPA is putting the public’s health – especially worker’s health — at risk by systematically weakening and undermining chemical safety: the agency must be held accountable.”
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/03/12/edf-statement-in-advance-of-house-hearing-on-failure-by-the-trump-epa-to-protect-workers-from-toxic-chemicals/
-
OMB Clears First-Time TSCA Rule Limiting Existing Chemical
Mar 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
The White House has completed its review of EPA’s final rule limiting use of methylene chloride in paint strippers, clearing the way for the agency to issue a first-time targeting an existing chemical under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) though critics say the measure falls far short of broader Obama-era proposal.
On March 11, the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) finished its mandatory pre-publication review of two policies: the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6(a) ban on methylene chloride that OMB had previously predicted for release last December, along with a prerule -- “Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program” -- to establish a training program for limiting commercial exposures.
Completion of OMB review clears the way for the agency to issue a scaled-back version of the Obama EPA’s January 2017 proposed rule banning use of methylene chloride in paint strippers after a 2013 risk assessment found that the substance poses unreasonable risks to workers and consumers.
The rule marks the first time since Congress revised the law in 2016 that the agency has exercised its authority under section 6 to address an existing chemical that was on the market when the law was first enacted in 1976. The agency had halted its regulation of existing chemicals after a federal appellate ruling raised the bar for the agency to show a substance posed a risk that could be regulated.
But the Trump administration's plan is falling short of critics' calls for a broad ban. For example, the inclusion of the training program to address commercial exposures suggests that the Trump administration has narrowed the ban to exclude worker exposures, a move that has drawn lawsuits from environmental and labor groups, and is one reason critics say the Trump EPA’s TSCA implementation fails to protect workers.
Environmental and labor groups have sued EPA in federal courts in Vermont and the Southern District of New Yorkfearing the Trump administration is retreating from the broad ban the Obama EPA had proposed and arguing that excluding workers would violate TSCA and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In a March 11 op-ed in knox news, Wendy Hartley of Hermitage, TN, whose son Kevin died from exposure to methylene chloride while refinishing a bath tub, faults Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) for voting to confirm EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler despite his refusing to commit to a ban that includes worker exposures.
“Instead of banning uses in the workplace, the EPA seems to be proposing a completely separate, drawn-out process to address commercial uses that could lead to an expensive training and certification program,” she says.
“This despite the fact that EPA said a ban was needed more than two years ago and that most of the reported deaths from methylene chloride in paint strippers have been of workers. EPA is failing my son.”
Narrowing of the proposed ban to exclude commercial uses would set a precedent for future rules governing existing chemicals and would be a win for paint stripper manufacturers who said in comments on the Obama-era proposed ban that EPA should pursue alternative measures, including risk management options aimed at reducing worker exposures.
And an official with the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy recently told a chemical sector conference that the Obama EPA failed to adequately consider companies’ concerns raised in a Small Business Advisory Review of the proposed methylene chloride ban and other rules.
But EPA's apparent plan to limit worker exposures through a future training program may find some support in the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) supplemental guidance calling for product labels to warn of acute inhalation hazards of paint strippers containing methylene chloride.
CPSC updated its 1987 guidance in response to the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance's (HSIA) July 2016 petition to account for methylene chloride's acute inhalation hazard in warning labels. HSIA has opposed the Obama EPA's proposed ban on methylene chloride paint strippers as unnecessary, in part because of other agencies' protections.
But CPSC also noted that EPA is weighing the January 2017 proposed ban on most uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers, and said that “By updating the 1987 Statement, we do not suggest that labeling will address all hazards EPA identified in its proposed rulemaking."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/omb-clears-first-time-tsca-rule-limiting-existing-chemical
-
Mar 12, 2019 | The Baltimore Sun
By Luke Broadwater
With approval from both chambers, the state legislature moved Tuesday toward making Maryland the first state in the country to ban polystyrene foam food containers and cups.
The House of Delegates voted 97-38 to approve the legislation sponsored by Del. Brooke Lierman, a Baltimore Democrat.
It was Lierman’s third attempt to pass the bill.
“I’m thrilled to be a part of the effort to stand up for our waterways, stand up for our neighborhoods, stand up for the world our kids will inherit,” Lierman said on the House floor.
The House vote came a week after Maryland’s senators approved their own, slightly different, version of the legislation.
Lierman said the differences between the two versions of the legislation would be worked out in a conference committee.
Republican Gov. Larry Hoganhas not taken a position yet on whether he would sign the bill, according to a spokeswoman.
“Under Governor Hogan’s leadership, Maryland has one of the strongest environmental records in the country,” the spokeswoman, Shareese DeLeaver-Churchill, said. “The governor is always willing to consider any piece of legislation that reaches his desk.”
The Senate vote of 34-13 came after days of off-and-on debate, with many Republicans raising concerns that the ban would cause difficulty or increased expenses for farmers, small businesses and nonprofit organizations.
Josh Young, a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, the industry’s trade group, testified against the bill at a recent hearing. He said alternatives to foam are more costly for businesses and won’t break down in landfills.
He called the ban a “harsh action” and said Maryland would be the “only state to ban an entire class of safe and effective products.”
“You are forcing establishments to switch to a more expensive product that will do nothing to clean up the environment and in fact increase litter and greenhouse gases,” Young argued.
Proponents of the ban, including sponsor Sen. Cheryl Kagan, a Montgomery County Democrat, say foam products are not recyclable and don’t break down in the environment, making them a particularly difficult form of litter to deal with.
To emphasize that point, the Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore celebrated the House’s passage of the ban by announcing that Mr. Trash Wheel, the garbage and flotsam collector at the mouth of the Jones Falls in the Inner Harbor, has scooped more than 1 million bits of polystyrene since it was launched in 2014.
“Healthy Harbor views these milestones less as a celebration and more of a catalyst for change,” Adam Lindquist, director of the partnership’s Healthy Harbor Initiative, said in a statement. “By collecting and sharing the trash wheel data, we are bringing Baltimore’s trash issue to the forefront, helping to shift behaviors and push for policy change.”
The legislation contains some exceptions. For example, foam products packaged outside Maryland — such as cups containing ramen noodles — could still be sold. Also exempted are foam products used to package raw or butchered meat and foam products not used for food service.
The ban would take effect July 1, 2020. County officials would be in charge of enforcing the ban, and could issue $250 fines.
The measure is among the priorities of Democratic leaders of the General Assembly.
Several local governments in Maryland, including Prince George’s and Montgomery counties and most recently Anne Arundel County, have already banned foam products.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-foam-ban-passes-20190312-story.html
-
Some Chemicals to Replace Toxic Paint Stripper Also Have Risks
Mar 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The market for paint and coating strippers made without a toxic solvent called methylene chloride is about to grow bigger as the EPA stands poised to restrict the solvent in at least some consumer products.
A final rule restricting some consumer uses of the toxic methylene chloride in paint strippers will soon be released, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency told Bloomberg Environment on March 12.
The agency’s action follows announcements by at least 13 retailers including Lowe’s Companies, Inc., the Home Depot Inc., and Walmart Inc., that they would stop selling paint and coating strippers containing methylene chloride, which has proved fatal for dozens of people using it.
The EPA’s and retailers’ restrictions are good news for companies such as 3M, Rust-Oleum, the Savogran Co., and W.M. Barr & Company, Inc., that already sell paint and coating strippers without methylene chloride.
But consumers and retailers face a conundrum.
Some of the chemicals manufacturers have substituted for methylene chloride are safer while others are highly toxic, Gregory Morose, a research manager at the Toxics Use Reduction Institute, told Bloomberg Environment March 12.
The institute—housed at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell—works with businesses, community organizations, and government agencies to reduce toxic chemical use and protect public health and the environment.
‘Extremely Effective’The substitutes also differ in their effectiveness, Morose said.
“Methylene chloride is an extremely effective solvent to strip paint,” he said.” It works quickly, efficiently, it has low flammability, and it’s cheap. But it also kills people.”
Morose was referring to bathtub refinishing and other construction workers’ deaths, which often took place in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces like bathrooms.
What’s been lacking is a rigorous analysis of alternatives that look not only at effectiveness but how they may affect public health, wildlife, water and air quality, and the climate.
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is working to understand which of many potential methylene chloride substitutes may be safer and also effective, said Karl Palmer, the department’s acting deputy director of the safer products and workplaces.
To comply with California’s requirements, the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance—which represents solvent manufacturers and users—is sponsoring an independently conducted comparison of the safety and environmental characteristics including efficacy, of 11 paint and varnish strippers made without methylene chloride, said Faye Graul, the alliance’s executive director.
SubstitutesMorose listed eight chemicals that can be substituted for methylene chloride: acetone, benzyl alcohol, dibasic esters, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, toluene, methanol, and xylene.
Acetone, benzyl alcohol, and dibasic esters are safer than methylene chloride, Morose said.
Naphthalene, however, is a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Report on Carcinogens, and ethylbenzene is “possibly carcinogenic,” according to a World Health Organization agency that classifies carcinogens.
Methanol, toluene, and xylene may harm development, according to Morose and California’s Candidate Chemicals List, which identifies chemicals classified as posing various concerns by governments and authoritative international bodies.
Mike Schade, director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign, which has pushed retailers to phase out sales of strippers containing methylene chloride, shared Morose’s concerns about chemicals that may substitute for that particular solvent.
The campaign will soon publish a list of paint and varnish strippers with safer substitutes, he said.
CaliforniaMeanwhile, on Jan. 1 as part of its Safer Consumer Products Program, California’s DTSC listed paint or varnish strippers containing methylene chloride as a “priority product,” Palmer said.
Companies selling paint or varnish strippers containing methylene chloride had to tell the DTSC by March 4 that they were doing so, he said.
The nine companies that have notified the state are: Benco Sales, Inc., Green Products Co., Permatex, Prosoco Inc., Recochem Corp., Sansher Corp., Sunnyside Corp., W.M. Barr Co., Inc., and Zep. Inc.
By July 1 those companies will need to present DTSC with a plan describing what alternatives they may use for methylene chloride and how they will investigate substitutes’ health and environmental risks, he said.
These documents will be available to the public on the Safer Consumer Products’ website, although proprietary details can be kept confidential, Palmer said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/some-chemicals-to-replace-toxic-paint-stripper-also-have-risks
-
Pompeo Calls on Oil Industry to Support U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda
Mar 13, 2019 | Reuters
By Collin Eaton and Lesley Wroughton
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged the oil industry on Tuesday to work with the Trump administration to promote U.S. foreign policy interests, especially in Asia and in Europe, and to punish what he called “bad actors” on the world stage.
Addressing top executives of the world’s largest energy companies and oil ministers in Houston, Pompeo said in prepared remarks that America’s newfound shale oil and natural gas abundance would “strengthen our hand in foreign policy.”
The United States has imposed harsh sanctions in the past several months on two major world oil producers, Venezuela and Iran.
Pompeo said Washington would use all its economic tools to help deal with the situation in Venezuela, which is mired in a years-long economic crisis and where socialist President Nicolas Maduro is maintaining power despite being disavowed by the United States and about 50 other countries.
Washington reimposed oil sanctions on Iran last year, sharply reducing its volume of crude exports in the past several months in an effort to curb Tehran’s nuclear, missile and regional activities. “We’re committed to bringing Iranian crude oil exports to zero as quickly as market conditions will permit,” he said.
“We need to roll up our sleeves and compete – by facilitating investment, encouraging partners to buy from us, and by punishing bad actors,” Pompeo said in his prepared remarks.
Pompeo said the U.S. oil-and-gas export boom had given the United States the ability to meet energy demand once satisfied by its geopolitical rivals.
“We don’t want our European allies hooked on Russian gas through the NordStream II project, any more than we ourselves want to be dependent on Venezuelan oil supplies,” Pompeo said, referring to a natural gas pipeline expansion from Russia to Central Europe.
‘ENERGY DOMINANCE’
Pompeo’s speech punctuated the second day of IHS Markit’s CERAWeek conference in Houston, where U.S. oil and gas executives, energy luminaries and officials of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries gather annually to discuss global energy development.
The speech came the same day Pompeo met with top oil executives for about an hour to try to persuade energy companies to help the administration’s efforts to boost crude exports to Asia and to support its policy of isolating Iran.
The outreach marked a stepped-up effort to sway oil executives to support the Trump administration’s “energy dominance” agenda by advancing diplomatic and policy objectives through rapidly expanding U.S. oil and gas exports.
The United States is looking to make significant progress on a Middle East security alliance over the next few months, Pompeo said. The alliance is an attempt to form a U.S.-backed bloc of Sunni Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait as a bulwark against Shi’ite Iranian influence in the Middle East.
Pompeo criticized China for “blocking energy development in the South China Sea through coercive means,” which he said prevents Southeast Asian countries from accessing more than $2.5 trillion in recoverable energy reserves.
Pompeo called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine an attempt to gain access to the country’s oil and gas reserves.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ceraweek-energy-pompeo-speech/pompeo-calls-on-oil-industry-to-support-u-s-foreign-policy-agenda-idUSKBN1QT32U
-
Interior Chief Pick Must Disclose Lobbying Ties, Watchdog Says
Mar 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Daniel Seiden
The U.S. Department of the Interior must produce records of communications between David Bernhardt, President Trump’s nominee to lead the department, and his former clients in the energy and agricultural industries, a March 12 complaint says.
Plaintiff American Oversight, which describes itself as an ethics watchdog group, told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the department’s failure to provide such records violates the Freedom of Information Act.
The department hasn’t properly responded to five FOIA requests seeking records related to communications with former clients and members of Congress, compliance with ethics requirements, and costs associated with travel and security, American Oversight in Washington says.
The group says it requested email communications between Bernhardt and 23 former clients, including Cobalt International Energy, Halliburton Energy Services LLC, and NRG Energy Inc.
Bernhardt represented clients in the energy and agricultural industries as a partner at Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck LLP before joining the department as deputy secretary in 2017, American Oversight says.
Bernhardt assumed the role of acting secretary on Jan. 2. President Trump announced his nomination as permanent secretary March 8.
“Before we give the fox a permanent key to the henhouse, the public needs confidence that David Bernhardt has been using his position to benefit the public and not himself or his extensive roster of former clients,” said Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight, on a website posting.
Cause of Action: Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.
Relief: Order department to conduct research responsive to requests and produce records
Response: “The department cannot comment on matters in litigation,” said an Interior spokesperson.
Attorney: Hart W. Wood of American Oversight
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/interior-chief-pick-must-disclose-lobbying-ties-watchdog-says
-
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Want Changes to Anti-Terrorism Program
Mar 13, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
A chemical security program needs reforms and long-term reauthorization, experts told lawmakers yesterday.
The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, or CFATS, is operating under a 15-month extension. The program works with more than 3,300 facilities that are at a high risk for terrorist attacks.
While lawmakers and stakeholders seem to agree that the program needs long-term reauthorization, they also say it needs some changes.
Last month House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said he will not allow negotiations for reauthorization to "water down" the program (E&E Daily, Feb. 28).
Yesterday, a Homeland Security subcommittee sought information on what should change moving forward.
CFATS could be revised to provide for meaningful worker participation in security planning and decisionmaking, Mike Wilson of the BlueGreen Alliance told the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Innovation.
John Morawetz of the International Chemical Workers Union Council agreed. "Chemical workers have direct, current knowledge and experience of plant operations that is invaluable in solving site-specific problems," Morawetz said.
Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.) said that some workers don't have the security clearance to be involved in these matters.
Morawetz also recommended that whistleblower management be left to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration instead of the Department of Homeland Security.
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) questioned whether CFATS facilities had enough cybersecurity training.
Kirsten Meskill, director of corporate security at BASF who testified on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, said DHS could do more.
The agency could do a "better job in sharing cyberthreat information with CFATS facilities," Meskill said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/13/stories/1060127151
-
States Renew Call For RMP-Style CWA Spill Regulation, Citing EPA Data
Mar 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State and local emergency response officials are renewing their call for EPA to promulgate an accident prevention rule to address chemical spills under the Clean Water Act (CWA), criticizing the agency's decision to drop plans for such a rule as a dereliction of duty and arguing recently released EPA data does nothing to support the agency's decision.
“We commented on this voluntary data collection effort at the time it was proposed suggesting that it was pointless. A review of the data demonstrates that was the case,” the National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO) says in Feb. 19 comments.
“Even though you received responses from 14 States very few of those actually contain meaningful or useful data and the bulk of that data deals with fish kills regardless of cause. None of that informs an effort to prevent accidents and it most certainly does not support EPA’s position that such a regulatory effort is unnecessary,” the states add.
The state officials' call marks the latest sign of pressure on EPA to require industrial facilities to share data with first responders after the Trump EPA moved to roll back an Obama-era rule strengthening the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements.
The prior administration had required facilities to share data and imposed a series of process safety requirements but the Trump EPA eliminated the process safety provisions and narrowed the data sharing requirements.
In the wake of the rollback, lawmakers, the Government Accountability Office and others have urged policymakers to address the data safety provisions in another regulation or policy, including in a pending legislative rewrite of the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), though GOP lawmakers and chemical industry officials are opposing those efforts.
EPA's consideration of a CWA spill rule stems from a settlement between environmentalists and the Obama administration in Environmental Justice Health Alliance (EJHA), et al. v. EPA, in which the agency committed to a rulemaking. But the Trump EPA last year opted against such a rule, saying current policies already cover all the requirements that a comprehensive spill policy would include.
Environmentalists have threatened to sue over the decision but have not yet filed a complaint.
As part of its decisionmaking process, EPA made a voluntary information collection request seeking information about Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Tier II facilities. But NASTTPO said at the time EPA appeared to be focused on accident response rather than accident prevention, contrary to the language of the CWA and the settlement.
Now the group is reiterating its calls for the agency to craft a CWA rule similar to the approach used in the RMP.
“There is no reason that EPA could not tier the Clean Water Act accident prevention rule just as it did for RMP. There is also no reason that the same accident prevention requirements could not apply under the Clean Water Act. EPA need not invent something new when it can adapt an existing program,” the comment say.
The group says it is not surprised that EPA received no useful Tier II data because states lack the authority to provide the entire Tier II database to EPA or any other federal agency. “EPA knows this and we commented on this problem, so EPA cannot be shocked that the States followed the law,” NASTTPO says.
Industry 'Needs' Rule
But EPA's decision to “punt” on its obligation to regulate in the accidental release prevention space does a grave disservice to the public, emergency responders and to the regulated industries, the group says.
“The regulated community needs such a regulation,” NASTTPO says, noting that officers of Arkema North America in Crosby, TX, have been indicted for crimes associated with the release of chemicals from that facility during Hurricane Harvey. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board found a variety of shortcomings in the emergency preparedness efforts of Arkema that the board believes could have prevented the release, the group says.
This raises the question of when negligence becomes criminal. Arkema had a serious and dangerous chemical release that could have been prevented when looking at the situation in 20/20 hindsight, the comments say.
“What sorts of standards and expectations should be applied to the conduct of a facility that handles hazardous chemicals when it comes to preventing releases?
“What we have now is a 'no-fault' 20/20 hindsight sort of standard. If you have a release you are at least negligent and may perhaps be criminal. That’s not very useful to anyone,” NASTTPO says.
Only with specific standards can the expectations be known and the line between negligent and criminal behavior be determined, the comments say. “That is, in our view, the job of EPA under the Clean Water Act and the agency is derelict in its duties if it fails to act.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-renew-call-rmp-style-cwa-spill-regulation-citing-epa-data
-
GOP, Industry Reject Call For CFATS Data Sharing After EPA's RMP Rollback
Mar 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Ariana Figueroa
Republicans and the chemical industry are rejecting Democrats' calls to require industry to share data with first responders under the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, a step intended to fill the gap left by EPA's rollback of an Obama-era risk management plan (RMP) rule.
At a House Homeland Security Committee panel hearing March 12, the GOP lawmakers and industry officials said that any bill renewing the CFATS program, which is slated to expire in 2020, should be focused on limiting adverse effects from any terrorist attack though they stopped short of saying which other agency, if any, should require data sharing.
“I’m concerned with the CFATS bill that we don’t bleed into other jurisdictions of other areas,” Rep. John Kato (R-NY), ranking Republican on the cybersecurity, infrastructure protection, and innovation subcommittee, told the hearing. “CFATS should be laser focused on the anti-terrorism component."
The GOP message, backed by industry, runs counter to calls from Democrats and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which last year urged DHS to strengthen its access to the chemical information reported from CFATS, coordination that would have been required under the Obama administration's rule strengthening EPA's RMP program.
“DHS shares some CFATS information, but first responders and emergency planners may not have all of the information they need to minimize the risk of injury or death when responding to incidents at high-risk facilities,” according to the report. “Facilities are currently required to report some chemical inventory information, but GAO found that over 200 CFATS chemicals may not be covered by these requirements.”
CFATS generally mandates that facilities craft plans to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks and the adverse consequences of such attacks and requires companies to report their plans and chemicals in their facilities to DHS.
By contrast, EPA's RMP program seeks to limit off-site consequences from industrial incidents.
Under its rule strengthening the RMP program, the Obama administration had required facilities to share data with first responders and imposed a series of process safety requirements in the wake of an incident at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, in which 10 first responders were killed.
But the Trump EPA eliminated the process safety provisions and narrowed the data sharing requirements.
Now Democrats are renewing their efforts to mandate data sharing requirements under CFATS.
The hearing, the second in a series that Democrats have held since taking control of the House, was intended to help lawmakers craft a bill reauthorizing the CFATS program, which Congress reauthorized until May 2020.
At the first hearing last month, lawmakers and the Trump administration agreed on the need for a long-term reauthorization but split on whether to provide additional regulatory flexibility to industrial facilities.
CFATS Falls Short
That dynamic continued at the March 12 hearing where lawmakers continued to agree on the need for a long-term reauthorization of CFAT’s program but divided on how broad a measure to advance.
For example, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said in his opening remarks that CFATS reauthorization is a bipartisan measure and that “as I made clear at the CFATS hearing last month, reauthorization will not become an excuse to water down the program.”
And Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), chair of the subcommittee, said that CFATS falls short in “making sure that first responders and emergency planners have enough information,” citing the incident in West, TX.
He raised concerns that fence-line communities do not have adequate data from the facilities and information about safety and health risks.
“If CFATS is going to be successful, we need to be sure that the program is taking all relevant factors into account to assess risk,” he says, adding that “research shows that facilities with dangerous chemicals tend to be heavily concentrated in minority and low income areas, meaning that we may be exposing our most vulnerable populations to a disproportionate share of chemical safety risks."
Some labor witnesses backed Richmond's call. For example, Michael Wilson, national director for occupational and environmental health for the BlueGreen Alliance says CFATS could be improved by strengthening its emergency response provisions.
Wilson says that it’s important for first responders to have access inside the chemical facilities “to see how chemicals are stored and proceeded in order to imagine what could go wrong.”
But Republican lawmakers and industry witnesses rejected their calls.
Kirsten Meskill, director of corporate security for BASF, echoed Kato’s call that any CFATS reauthorization should not expand the program's jurisdiction.
“CFATS should not stray into areas outside of its primary function of addressing security risks and into areas already addressed by well-established environmental and safety regulatory programs administered by other federal and state agencies,” Meskill said in her testimony. “Layering on additional responsibilities could impair its focus and will impede its progress toward the goal of protecting important critical infrastructure from security threats.”
Meskill says that it’s important for industry to be focused on the security of their sites without having to add on more CFATS security measures.
“If I’m spreading that focus across many different regulations, then it can get distracting,” she says. “If I’m more focused on complying with regulation rather than managing the threat to my site, then I am potentially going to lose focus.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/gop-industry-reject-call-cfats-data-sharing-after-epas-rmp-rollback
-
Chemical Safety Board Won’t Fight Order for Reporting Rule
Mar 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environmnet Report
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board will build a database for chemical incident reports and issue a regulation requiring companies to submit information to it, board officials said.
A federal trial court Feb. 4 ordered the safety board to issue accidental release-reporting regulations within 12 months. If issued, the rule would create new legal obligations for companies to notify the board of accidental releases if they meet its criteria.
The board will comply with the ruling by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking this summer, Kristen Kulinowski, a board member serving as interim executive authority, said at a public business meeting in Washington March 12.
That will be followed by a public comment period and issuance of a final reporting rule by February 2020, Kulinowski said.
Developing the reporting requirement will cost at least $350,000 to pay staff and consultants, and about $50,000 per year to maintain the resulting database, the board said in its budget request March 11.
The board was directed to issue the rule under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which created the agency. Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled the board violated the Administrative Procedure Act in failing to issue the regulation.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-safety-board-wont-fight-order-for-reporting-rule
-
BNSF, Amtrak Detail PTC Progress at House Hearing
Mar 13, 2019 | Transport Topics
By Eugene Mulero
Executives from BNSF Railway Co. and Amtrak assured federal lawmakers of their firms’ adherence to congressionally mandated requirements regarding automatic braking technology.
Addressing members of a House funding panel March 12, BNSF senior executive DJ Mitchell said the railway had demonstrated leadership in deploying positive train control technology.
The firm “fully deployed PTC facilities and equipment on its network,” Mitchell said, adding the PTC system is interoperable with Amtrak, and it is operating on Amtrak and commuter lines it hosts, as required by federal regulators.
Stephen Gardner, senior executive vice president for commercial, marketing and strategy at Amtrak, told the same panel the passenger railroad had made “great strides” on the implementation. He explained Amtrak’s PTC system is operating over the “vast majority of Amtrak-owned or controlled track,” as well as across 84% of the host railroad network.
The Amtrak executive added, however, “In places where the hosts have not completed PTC, those railroads have all complied with the law regarding alternative schedules, and Amtrak has adopted an array of risk-mitigation measures to provide additional protections in the meantime.”
Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), chairman of the transportation funding subpanel, described the rail ecosystem as “complex” and stressed the need for collaboration between industry and government entities.
For fiscal 2020, the Trump White House is requesting that Congress approves $13 million for PTC implementation. It also requests $9.5 million to improve technology to evaluate track conditions.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s summary of the budget request indicated the Federal Railroad Administration had conducted research, engaged stakeholders, provided financial assistance and assessed civil penalties with regard to PTC.
“FRA will continue to target resources toward the most pressing safety challenges, such as implementation of positive train control,” according to DOT’s budget document.
In the past two years, PTC implementation increased from 16% to 83% for freight railroads, and 24% to 30% for passenger railroads, the department noted this month.
“There were several extensions given, and, again nothing happened on this until we came into office. And I would like some credit for that,” Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao told reporters March 11.
Association of American Railroads emphasized that Class I railroads met 2018 requirements, adding that those railroads are expected to finalize their PTC implementation by the Dec. 31, 2020, deadline.
“Each day, the freight railroads expand PTC operations, further reducing the risk of accidents on the nation’s rail network,” Ian Jefferies, CEO of AAR, said in January.
The implementation of PTC systems is required by law.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/bnsf-amtrak-detail-ptc-progress-house-hearing
-
As Oil Trains Roll into Portland, City Residents Keep Watch
Mar 13, 2019 | High Country News
By Carl Segerstrom
Oct. 3, 2018: No train cars. Reuters reports that oil shipments to China have “totally stopped” as a casualty of escalating trade tension.
October 30: Twelve train cars behind the wall; 15 waiting just outside to the south. Placard number 1267: Crude oil.
November 26: No trains.
Jan. 16, 2019: Yes. More than 20 cars. Placard on side of train cars reads: “Toxic Inhalation Hazard.”
At Zenith Petroleum’s Portland Terminal in Oregon, multi-story oil drums rise along the banks of the Willamette River. Backhoes scratch dirt into a dump truck as sparks fly from welders building a metal structure behind walls topped with razor wire. Trucks rumble through on the last day of February, while black cylindrical oil-train cars line the rails. To the activists who fear they will remote detonate the global carbon budget — or even explode in their community — they look like rows of bombs.
After reports of Canadian tar sands moving through Portland surfaced last March, a small group formed to try to track local oil train shipments by visiting the terminal and writing down what they saw. Since then, the group has watched the terminal expand in front of their eyes, as Zenith adds new rail spurs and retools the facility to increase export capacity. The watchers know about the risks of oil-train spills and explosions across the Northwest. By bearing witness to the trains and their dangerous cargo, they aim to fill the gaps in public knowledge left by limited official information — and hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the threats it poses to their communities, and to the climate.
Natural light filters through a long window as Dan Serres, a train watcher and the conservation director for Columbia Riverkeeper, describes the project. “You would think that we would know how much oil is moving and when,” said Serres, who grew up just outside of Portland. “This is definitely a soft spot in how states are able to address oil-train traffic.”
The public is largely in the dark when it comes to what’s moving through their towns. In Washington, the Department of Ecology issues quarterly reports on oil trains; between October and December of last year, it said, 24,693 oil train cars and more than 16.8 million barrels of crude oil travelled the state’s rails. But that undercounts the total: Trains that merely pass through the state aren’t included. And Oregon has significantly less transparency. While the Oregon Fire Marshall publishes some information on Bakken crude oil train traffic, the state does not share comprehensive quarterly crude oil by train reports with the public. That’s because they are “security sensitive,” according to Jennifer Flynt, an Oregon Department of Environmental Quality public affairs officer.
Since 2016, when an oil train exploded in Mosier, Oregon, along the Columbia River, some state legislators have tried to institute stronger monitoring standards and safeguards, most recently this year. But so far, their efforts have fallen short. State Rep. Barbara Smith Warner, D, who represents communities in northeast Portland, sponsored oil-train safety bills in 2017 and 2018. She said part of the reason Oregon hasn’t regulated the shipments is because, unlike other states, Oregon doesn’t have in-state refineries from which to collect fees or information.Without comprehensive reporting, Northwest communities look to email lists, Twitter hashtags and smartphone ship-tracking apps to monitor trains. Loosely affiliated groups from Idaho, Washington and Oregon operate on a “see-something-share-something” basis, but are left putting together a puzzle with missing pieces as they try to understand what dangerous materials are rolling past their houses, schools and rivers.
LOOKING OUT AT THE DOZENS OF TRAINS parked outside Zenith’s terminal in Portland, Mia Reback describes how different the train watching is from her usual climate justice organizing, which she typically fuels by tapping into the energy of community gatherings and street protests. Coming to this industrial zone to bear witness to local fossil fuel infrastructure is lonelier, and isolating.
But for Reback, the chance to have an impact is worth that discomfort. As she takes pictures to document the new construction, she recalls visiting the terminal in the summer of 2015. She had joined a crowd gathered to remember the 47 lives lost a year earlier when an oil train exploded in the town of Lac-Mégantic in Quebec, Canada. Black-and-white placards commemorated the name and age of each person who died in the disaster: “To see the visual of children holding a sign of another child their age next to an oil-train car was incredibly, incredibly powerful.”
Portland politics tend to favor organizers like Reback and Serres. But even in a city that has passed ordinances to prevent new oil infrastructure development, fossil fuel companies seem to have figured out a way to peek through the green curtain the city hopes to close on their industry. Reback said she hopes the watchers’ work will “re-center power in our communities, when fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries have taken power from us.”
https://www.hcn.org/articles/activism-as-oil-trains-roll-into-portland-oregon-city-residents-keep-watch
-
Environmentalists Detail Issues in Ozone Implementation Suit
Mar 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are outlining issues they intend to raise in litigation over EPA’s long-delayed final rule implementing toughened 2015 federal ozone standards, including previously raised concerns with provisions allowing “trading” of ozone precursors and flexibility for states to choose “baseline years” from which to measure progress.
Downwinders At Risk, Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association filed their joint statement of issues March 11 in their suit, Downwinders At Risk, et al. v. EPA, et al., which is now entering the briefing phase in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Nov. 7 final rule sets measures for states to include in their state implementation plans, or blueprints to attain the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Obama EPA set the NAAQS at 70 parts per billion (ppb), tougher than the prior standard of 75 ppb set in 2008 by the George W. Bush EPA.
The groups in their statement say they intend to explore whether “EPA unlawfully or arbitrarily” authorized “inter-pollutant trading or offsetting to satisfy permit requirements for construction of new or modified major sources in ozone nonattainment areas.”
Areas in nonattainment of NAAQS face tough pollution control requirements, including the need for industry sources seeking permits for new or modified facilities to find pollution “offsets” as part of their applications for new sources review (NSR) permits. Environmentalists say the offset requirement applies to each ozone precursor individually, and trading is not permissible under the Clean Air Act.
Environmentalists will also examine whether EPA unlawfully allowed “ozone nonattainment areas to claim they have met their milestones” for “reasonable further progress” in ozone reduction “by showing only that they have implemented controls that were previously predicted to accomplish the required reductions, without regard to whether actual emissions in the area went down by the required amount.”
Further, environmentalists question EPA’s claimed “discretion to allow states to choose the baseline year, thus allowing states to minimize or even avoid having to make the required reductions.”
The groups also question EPA’s enforcement of air law “contingency measures” that should apply if an area fails to meet reasonable further progress milestones or fails to attain the NAAQS by its attainment deadline. “Did EPA unlawfully or arbitrarily allow nonattainment areas to meet the contingency measure requirement by identifying measures that will already have been implemented at the time of a failure to meet a milestone or attain?” the groups ask. The Trump EPA rule eased implementation of the ozone standard for states by loosening conditions allowing them to exclude air monitoring readings showing NAAQS violations from compliance demonstrations, if they can show the violations stem from foreign emissions.
The Obama proposal limited the exclusions to border areas experiencing pollution from Mexico or Canada, but the final rule lifts this restriction, among a raft of other measures designed to help states craft plans to implement the new NAAQS.
The rule omits, however, proposed provisions on how the agency should revoke the weaker 2008 ozone NAAQS. When the agency revokes an old standard, it must impose “anti-backsliding” measures to prevent any deterioration in air quality, even where the new NAAQS is tougher.
EPA intends in a separate future rulemaking to tailor the anti-backsliding requirements to meet the terms of a prior ruling of the D.C. Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., v. EPA, in which the court in 2018 partially vacated and remanded EPA’s implementation rule for the 2008 standard.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-detail-issues-ozone-implementation-suit
-
Talk to 'Green New Deal' Backers, BP CEO Tells Oil Industry
Mar 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ron Bousso
The oil industry should engage with proponents of the "Green New Deal," a Democratic initiative seeking to radically reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, BP Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley said on Tuesday.
Dudley made the rare foray into U.S. politics in a keynote speech at the largest U.S. annual gathering of the oil and natural gas sector in Houston, urging peers to engage with young people or lose the trust of society.
"We need to demonstrate that we share the common goal of a low-carbon future and that we are in action toward it," Dudley said in the speech at the CERAWeek conference by IHS Markit.
Burning of oil and gas accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change, rising sea levels and severe storms.
Energy companies including BP have increased their investments in renewable energies such as solar and wind in recent years as they look for a new business model in a world seeking to reduce carbon emissions.
But U.S. rivals Exxon Mobil and Chevron have made fewer investments in clean energy in recent years, drawing growing pressure from investors and climate activists.
"Our focus has to be on developing an energy system that is cleaner, better and kinder to the planet," Dudley, a U.S. citizen, said.
"But we can only fully play our part if we have the trust of society and the confidence of our shareholders. That means engaging more with the young people who will take to the streets on Friday," he said, referring to scheduled protests in more than 70 countries where kids plan to skip school to demand more action on climate change.
"It means improving the dialogue we have with policymakers around the world, including those behind the Green New Deal," Dudley said.
The "Green New Deal" resolution was introduced earlier this year, seeking to create large, government-led investments in clean energy, infrastructure and social programs.
Republican lawmakers oppose the proposal, saying it is too expensive and would raise taxes and energy costs. Republican President Donald Trump's administration opposes action on climate change and favors boosting U.S. production of oil, gas and coal.
Dudley said demand for oil and gas will remain strong for decades as the world's population grows and economies such as China and India expand.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/03/13/business/13reuters-ceraweek-energy-bp.html
-
AFL-CIO Criticizes Green New Deal, Calling It ‘Not Achievable or Realistic’
Mar 12, 2019 | Washington Post
By Colby Itkowitz, Dino Grandoni and Jeff Stein
The AFL-CIO, the national arm for U.S. labor unions, offered a critical assessment of the Green New Deal, warning that the ambitious plan to combat climate change could adversely affect U.S. workers.
In a letter last week to Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the lawmakers who introduced a resolution last month detailing the key components of their plan, members of the AFL-CIO’s Energy Committee said it could not support a proposal that did not address their concerns.
“We will not stand by and allow threats to our members’ jobs and their families’ standard of living go unanswered,” wrote Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, and Lonnie Stephenson, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
The Green New Deal resolution, as proposed by Markey and Ocasio-Cortez, calls for the federal government to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions with a “fair and just transition” for all communities and workers, including by creating millions of high-wage jobs, health care and housing for all, a sustainable environment and enormous infrastructure investments.
The proposal would make sweeping changes and expand the government’s reach into the economy, and it almost certainly would require tax increases or large-scale deficit spending.
It entered the national conversation when Ocasio-Cortez adopted it as her calling card. The proposal marries climate change and income inequality as one all-encompassing issue.
Support for the Green New Deal has become a benchmark for Democrats running for president.
But the AFL-CIO throwing water on the plan complicates matters for Democrats who rely on labor support. Without the backing from unions or the business community, it will be a hard sell for Democrats to get it beyond grass-roots support.
In their letter to Markey and Ocasio-Cortez, Roberts and Stephenson called the Green New Deal “not achievable or realistic.” They urged the lawmakers to include labor in conversations related to climate change, but they said such work shouldn’t impinge on other priorities such as infrastructure.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) tweeted the letter and added, “I agree with the AFL-CIO.”
Markey fired back on Twitter: “We will continue to work and partner w/ @AFLCIO, who is right to say that ‘doing nothing is not an option.’ But until Republicans say that climate change is real, caused by humans, and demands action now, the only people they are in agreement with are Big Oil and the Koch brothers.”
In the fall, the top scientific body studying climate change found that the world had to take “unprecedented” steps to reduce carbon levels, with the globe on pace to warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels.
The Trump administration has not proposed a comprehensive agenda for addressing climate change. It has dismantled some initiatives supported by the past administration to check the growth of greenhouse gases.
President Trump has repeatedly questioned the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring. Just Tuesday morning, Trump tweeted a quote from “Fox and Friends,” where a guest said: “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” Trump added: “Wow!”
The Green New Deal has become a favorite foil for Trump and congressional Republicans. Trump mocked the plan in a speech to conservatives last week, pretending to ask his wife to check the wind to determine whether they could watch television.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he wants to bring the proposal to a vote to force Democrats to take a stand on it.
Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said Tuesday the Green New Deal risks alienating labor groups, giving Republicans an opportunity with voters who side with conservatives on issues such as gun control and abortion. Exit polling from the 2016 presidential election showed a sharp decline for Democrats in support among union households.
“If Republicans play it smart and stop antagonizing labor, there’s a real opening for us,” King said.
Co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), acknowledged during a news conference Tuesday that labor groups have some concerns with the Green New Deal.
“Anything we move forward on, we have to be recognizing that people could lose jobs,” Pocan said.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters on Capitol Hill last week that labor was not consulted on the Green New Deal before it was released.
“Look, we need to address the environment. We need to do it quickly,” he said. “But we need to do it in a way that doesn’t put these communities behind, and leave segments of the economy behind. So we’ll be working to make sure that we do two things: that by fixing one thing we don’t create a problem somewhere else.”
There has long been tension between the environmental and labor movements, two major parts of the broader Democratic coalition, over worries that rules meant to curb pollution can lead to job losses in regulated industries with high-quality, good-paying positions.
The crafters of the Green New Deal sought to smooth over those concerns by incorporating into their proposal a “fair and just transition for all communities and workers” as the United States seeks to drive down climate-warming emissions from the electricity, transportation and agriculture sectors.
The resolution called for any economic transition to create “high-quality union jobs” and guarantee “wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition.”
Robert Hockett, a law professor at Cornell University who advised Ocasio-Cortez on the Green New Deal, argued the apprehension is misplaced because new environmental protections can lead to job growth elsewhere.
“They are probably objecting prematurely,” Hockett said. “It has become customary to think of these as separate problems.”
Yet even before Markey and Ocasio-Cortez released their Green New Deal resolution, some heavy-industry unions were already posturing against it.
Seven unions representing ironworkers, plumbers, electrical workers, boilermakers, sheet metal workers, transportation communication workers and coal miners began late last year sending a white paper to congressional offices expressing “grave concerns about unrealistic solutions such as those advocated in the ‘Green New Deal.’ ”
Instead, the unions said a cap-and-trade proposal such as the one Democrats under President Barack Obama tried and failed to pass in 2009 was a better “starting point” for new legislation.
Markey, then a member of the House, was a lead sponsor of that bill.
John Risch, who worked as a locomotive engineer for 30 years before becoming the national legislative director at the transportation division of one of the unions, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, worried that any promise of a “just transition” for his members hauling coal and oil by train would end up being empty.
“We are not knuckle-draggers,” Risch said. “We’re concerned about climate change. We want to do something positive. But there are a lot of jobs on the lines.”
At least one of the main Green New Deal sponsors is recognizing — and trying to heal — the rift between environmental and labor groups over it.
Last week, staffers working for Markey met with Phil Smith, the head of communications and government affairs for the United Mine Workers of America, after the senator’s office reached out to the nation’s most prominent coal-mining union.
Smith called his meeting “a good first step.”
Still, he called the Green New Deal’s ambitions to meet all of the nation’s electric power needs with “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” within a decade a nonstarter, with coal still accounting for more than a quarter of the country’s electricity generation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/afl-cio-criticizes-green-new-deal-calling-it-not-achievable-or-realistic/2019/03/12/842784fe-44dd-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.f2e55c4573aa
-
Green Buildings Saved Renters $72m Since 2012 — Fannie Mae
Mar 13, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Climatewire)
By Emily Chasan
Using energy-efficient lightbulbs, low-flow toilets and environmentally friendly heating and cooling systems cut the utility bills of some 550,000 renters over the last six years, adding as much as $72 million in annual savings, according to a new report from Fannie Mae.
The government-controlled mortgage giant recently published the first results from an eight-year-old program that encourages landlords to make energy improvements, for the sake of both the planet and renters' finances. On average, renters saved about $145 per year. Across 200,000 buildings, landlords saved $33 million on utility costs.
"Ultimately this is better quality housing — homes that are warm when they should be warm and cool when they should be cool," said Chrissa Pagitsas, vice president at Fannie Mae.
In the voluntary program, landlords could agree to a free energy audit and to make significant energy improvements to their properties. In return, they were offered a slight reduction in their mortgage rates and an increase in their loans to cover the cost of the improvements.
Fannie Mae rolled the new mortgages into more than $51 billion of green bonds, which has made it the largest green bond issuer worldwide.
Buildings are one of the top sources of carbon emissions in the U.S., and improvements like these feature in the policies of Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. The properties in the program reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 287,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of taking 61,000 cars off the road for a year. They also save some 6 billion gallons of water a year.
Landlords usually recovered their full investments in the green projects in six years, Fannie Mae said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/13/stories/1060127089
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested