Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 27/03/19

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Nova Chemicals is Exclusive
Mar 27, 2019 | Plastics Technology
By Lilli Manolis Sherman

Within the last couple of years, I have reported on Nova Chemicals Corp.’s active membership in two global initiatives that are aimed at developing a plastics circular economy and keeping plastics out of our oceans, beaches and natural lands.
(ACC Mentioned) Here’s What Those Plastic Recycling Numbers Really Mean
Mar 27, 2019 | Reader's Digest
By Emily DiNuzzo

Recycling can be confusing because of the various rules, symbols, and potential or looming tickets.
(ACC Mentioned) White House Announces Acting Regulatory Chief
Mar 27, 2019 | Government Executive
By Charles S. Clark

The White House budget office on Tuesday tweeted a confirmation of recent news reports that Paul Ray, the deputy administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is temporarily leading the agency in charge of the Trump administration’s ambitious deregulation effort.
(ACC Mentioned) INTERACTIVE: AFPM '19: US March Chemical Activity Rebounds Slightly - ACC
Mar 26, 2019 | ICIS

US chemical activity ticked up in March on a three-month-moving-average (3MMA) basis, following four months of declines, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Tuesday.
(ACC Mentioned) AFPM '19: Mobility Landscape Will be Affected by Advancement of Materials
Mar 27, 2019 | ICIS

The advancement of polymers and composites will play a major role in the changing mobility landscape, a materials science professor told delegates at this year’s International Petrochemical Conference (IPC).
(ACC Mentioned) INTERACTIVE: AFPM '19: US Housing Starts Fall in February
Mar 26, 2019 | ICIS

US privately owned housing starts in February fell month on month and year on year, the US Census Bureau said on Tuesday.
(ACC) Chemical Activity Barometer Rose 0.1% In March, ACC Says
Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Engineering Online
By Scott Jenkins

The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com), rose 0.1 percent in March on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis, the first gain in five months.
Shell Sees New Role for Former Steel Region: Plastics
Mar 26, 2019 | The New York Times
By Keith Schneider

The expansive Royal Dutch Shell chemicalprocessing plant under construction on a big bend of the Ohio River in western Pennsylvania is one of the largest and most expensive projects ever to be built along the tributary.

TSCA News

(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Draw Battle Lines Over TSCA, IRIS Programs On Hearing's Eve
Mar 26, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

The House science committee is holding a March 27 hearing that is expected to highlight major stakeholder divisions on whether EPA's embattled Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program or the agency's emerging toxics program should play the lead role assessing chemical risks.
Activists Build False Narrative to Fight Trump Reforms at EPA
Mar 27, 2019 | Competitive Enterprise Institute
By Angela Logomasini

Expect accusations to fly tomorrow as Democrats attempt to build a narrative that the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to skirt science to allow industry to poison the public with supposedly toxic chemicals.

Chemical Management News

Michigan Governor Seeks ‘Forever Chemical’ Drinking Water Rules
Mar 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) is ordering state officials to draft drinking water standards for five “PFAS” chemicals, with the goal of adopting final rules by October.
DOD Chief Addresses PFAS Criticism, Skirts Climate Question
Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus

Lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee yesterday grilled acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan on the impacts of climate change on the military.
Oil Spill, Hydropower, PFAS Bills Introduced
Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus

New bills in the House and Senate aim to tackle issues including oil spill cleanup, hydropower and occupational exposure to harmful chemicals used in firefighting foam.
Lack of Chemicals Information has Caused Public 'Crisis in Confidence'
Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer

More information must be provided to the general public to reverse its poor perception of chemicals, say regulatory leaders in Europe and the US.
For Consumers, Being Clean Is as Important as Coming Clean
Mar 27, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber

More than ever, Americans want to know everything about our food, cosmetics, cleaners and other everyday products we bring into our homes.
2019 Global Outlook: Key GHS Developments
Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Nhat Nguyen

The UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classifying and labelling chemicals has been instrumental in shaping regulatory policy on chemical management across the globe.
Chemical that EPA Allows to Help Clean up Oil Spills Sickens People and Fish, Lawsuit Claims
Mar 26, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Darryl Fears

Kindra Arnesen’s fishing boats are still parked near Venice, La., but she left years ago.

Energy News

From Texas to the World: A Flood of U.S. Oil Exports Is Coming
Mar 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas

Oil trader Paul Vega is at the vanguard of shale’s next revolution.
Global Emissions Hit Record as Energy Demand Boosts Fuel Use
Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr

Carbon emissions from fossil fuel use hit a record last year after energy demand grew at its fastest pace in a decade, reflecting higher oil consumption in the U.S. and more coal burning in China and India.
Environmentalists Threaten Suit to Force Oil Spill Rule Update
Mar 26, 2019 | Inside EPA

Environmental groups are threatening to sue EPA for failing to update its oil spill response regulations to address dispersants, with groups arguing an update is urgently needed as the rules have not been revised over the last 25 years and the federal government anticipates opening up vast coastal areas for oil and gas drilling, increasing spill risks.
2 Years After Trump's Energy Order: What Remains
Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King

President Trump spent the first half of his term in aggressive pursuit of "energy dominance."
State Close to Finalizing Cap-and-Trade Bill
Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Sarah Zimmerman

Oregon lawmakers on Monday unveiled a compromise proposal to a cap-and-trade bill regulating greenhouse gas emissions, responding to overwhelming opposition from businesses and agricultural groups that worry the plan could put them out of work.

Chemical Security News

Houston Chemical Distribution Tank Farm Burns, Cause Unknown
Mar 26, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson

The cause of a massive fire at a petrochemical storage and distribution facility near Houston remains unknown, more than a week after the blaze and resulting smoke and chemical releases resulted in shelter-in-place orders for residents and shut down the Houston ship channel.
Harris County Sues ITC Over Deer Park Chemical Fire
Mar 27, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Zach Despart

Harris County sued Interncontinental Terminals Co. Tuesday for failing to prevent a massive petrochemical tank fire that burned for more than 60 hours last week, spewing an unknown volume of hazardous chemicals into the air and nearby waterways.
Trump Signs Executive Order on Protecting US from Potential EMP Attacks
Mar 27, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jacqueline Thomsen

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order directing federal agencies to identify the threats posed by potential electromagnetic pulses (EMP), which are believed to be potentially dangerous to critical infrastructure like the electric grid, and find ways to guard against them.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Pipeline Safety Update - Issue No. 147
Mar 26, 2019 | National Law Review

On March 26, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced that it will exercise enforcement discretion with respect to farm taps which PHMSA describes as “individual service lines that are directly connected to transmission, gathering, and production pipelines lines.”

Environment News

Senate Blocks Green New Deal
Mar 26, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney and Miranda Green

The Senate on Tuesday blocked the Green New Deal, a progressive climate change resolution that Republicans view as prime fodder heading into the 2020 presidential election.
Senate Blocks Green New Deal but Expends Plenty of Carbon Talking About It
Mar 26, 2019 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman

The Senate blocked consideration of the Green New Deal on Tuesday, ending a Republican effort to hitch Democratic presidential candidates to the climate plan and paint Democrats as out-of-touch socialists and fantasists.
Lawmakers See Legislative Opening after Green New Deal Vote
Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss

From the ashes of yesterday's Green New Deal vote may come legislative compromise.
CASAC Research Scientist Attacks Panel Chairman’s NAAQS Review Shift
Mar 27, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

Mark Frampton, the sole research scientist on EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory committee (CASAC), is lambasting panel Chairman Tony Cox’s controversial new approach to assessing air pollution science for reviewing the agency’s particulate matter (PM) air standards, saying it undermines and misstates the latest data on PM.
Court Sets May 1 Argument for EPA Air Permit Policy Shift
Mar 26, 2019 | Inside EPA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has set May 1 as the date to hear oral arguments in Sierra Club’s case challenging EPA’s revised policy governing challenges to Clean Air Act operating permits, a change the appellants say stifles judicial review of allegedly flawed state permits.
Global Carbon Emissions Hit Record High in 2018-IEA
Mar 26, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

Global energy-related carbon emissions rose to a record high last year as energy demand and coal use increased, mainly in Asia, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Tuesday.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Nova Chemicals is Exclusive

Mar 27, 2019 | Plastics Technology

By Lilli Manolis Sherman

Within the last couple of years, I have reported on Nova Chemicals Corp.’s active membership in two global initiatives that are aimed at developing a plastics circular economy and keeping plastics out of our oceans, beaches and natural lands. The first is ProjectStop, which partners with cities to build sustainable waste systems, ending ocean plastic leakage. The second, recently formed The Alliance to End Plastic Waste, works across the plastics value chain on infrastructure, education and engagement, innovation and clean up efforts to keep plastic waste out of the natural environment.
For the 2019 Canada Winter Games (“The Games”), taking place in Red Deer and other locations throughout Central Alberta, Nova Chemicals was the exclusive Platinum Sustainability Sponsor. This sponsorship—which is targeted to help fund sustainable practices at The Games, as well as enduring community resources—is the latest example of this company’s commitment to sustainability and the communities in which it operates. Nova supported the 2019 Canada Winter Games Host Society in its commitment to organize an environmentally friendly, socially responsible and economically feasible event. Sustainability initiatives for The Games are based on six themes: mitigating climate change; integrating social and community planning; managing water use; minimizing waste; sourcing local food and building or adapting facilities to green standards.Related StoriesInjection Molding: The Causes of WarpageHow to Fix Outgassing Problems in Injection MoldingFive New Developments in Plastics Drying
Back in 2016, the company committed $2 million CAD to the 2019 Games and Red Deer College. The contribution was divided equally between two major initiatives. The first is a Pillar Sponsorship for The Games to support sustainable practices and assets while leaving a positive legacy for future generations. The second is as a sponsor for the construction of the Gary W. Harris Canada Games Centre (the “Centre”), a legacy asset for the Red Deer community.
The Centre is one of the core operating venues of The Games, functioning as a training and competition venue for sports, such as short-track speed skating, figure skating, badminton and wheelchair basketball. Located on the campus of Red Deer College, the Centre was built as a permanent campus building and features labs, classrooms and a state-of-the-art fitness center, and achieved LEED certification at the Silver level from the U.S. Green Building Council. The Nova Chemicals Waskasoo Creek Nature Walk, unveiled last October and located adjacent to the Centre, is integral to the Centre’s sustainable social and community planning.
In addition to the marquee initiatives, Nova Chemicals supported The Games in several other areas by:Supplying thermal reusable lunch bags made from recycled plastic for the 3,500 athletes;Engaging three employee participants in the Torch Relay, a signature element of The Games—including Nova’s director of government relations Ken Faulkner; andEngaging with The Games’ attendees through the volunteer support of more than 70 company employees.
The company also exhibited at The Games. Employee volunteers staffed a booth, which featured the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) “Plastics Make it Possible” campaign’s Tiny House, a 170-square-foot residence that tours cities and events throughout North America. The home demonstrates more than a dozen ways in which innovative plastic building products can help homeowners create a more energy-efficient home and reduce the environmental impact associated with heating, cooling and powering their home. Included are windows with PVC frames with multiple chambers to improve insulating properties but also have tight seals to minimize leaks; a PC skylight, weatherable PVC siding and trim, plastic composite countertops, plastic bead board wall coverings, and solar power shingles—integrated photovoltaics made of monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon solar cell.
Said John Thayer, Nova’s senior v.p., polyethylene business, “Plastics are far too valuable to be thrown away or to only have a single use. That’s why we are actively engaged with customers, industry colleagues and the public on a sustainability journey that considers all aspects of reuse, recycling and recovery. Our Platinum sponsorship of the 2019 Canada Winter Games offers us a great opportunity to share our commitment to the development of a circular economy with our friends and neighbors who are attending The Games.”
https://www.ptonline.com/blog/post/nova-chemicals-is-exclusive-platinum-sustainability-sponsor-of-2019-canada-winter-games

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Here’s What Those Plastic Recycling Numbers Really Mean

Mar 27, 2019 | Reader's Digest

By Emily DiNuzzo

Recycling can be confusing because of the various rules, symbols, and potential or looming tickets. Not only do towns and cities have different recycling programs, but they could also change. And anyone who always Googles “is this recyclable” is probably also wondering what those little numbers mean in the center of recycling symbols.
It turns out that those numbers aren’t random. Recyclable plastics have the numbers one to seven as a code for the type of plastic resin. This information won’t change how or what you recycle—you should follow your local rules—but it is helpful for those who collect, sort, and process recycling, per greenmatters.com. Although the code is often mistaken as a universal sign of recyclability, collectors don’t accept every plastic type or number—including these 15 things you should never throw in the recycling bin.Here’s what those numbers mean in the center of recycling symbols:One, the most common plastic type and number, is PETE plastic which is usually recyclable and picked up curbside. You might find this number on peanut butter jars, water bottles, and salad dressing bottles, according to the American Chemistry Council.Two is code for HDPE plastic, which is less common than PETE. This code is on things like milk jugs, detergent bottles, and some shopping bags, too.Plastic-type number three, made of PVC, is in pipes, shampoo bottles, and spray bottles.Ketchup bottles, toys, and plastic wrap use plastic type number four, LDPE.Medicine bottles and containers for yogurt, margarine, or syrup are from plastic type five, PP.Cups, packing peanuts, and foam trays are some examples of PS plastic or plastic with the six symbol.The last type of plastic is a catch-all for other types. This might be on some citrus juice bottles or custom packaging.
Now that you know all about recycling symbols, make sure to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Plus, make sure you’re not throwing out these 11 items you didn’t know you could recycle or upcycle.
https://www.rd.com/home/what-the-numbers-on-plastic-mean/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) White House Announces Acting Regulatory Chief

Mar 27, 2019 | Government Executive

By Charles S. Clark

The White House budget office on Tuesday tweeted a confirmation of recent news reports that Paul Ray, the deputy administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is temporarily leading the agency in charge of the Trump administration’s ambitious deregulation effort.
Ray, previously a counselor to Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, takes over for Neomi Rao, who on March 13 was confirmed by the Senate as a judge on the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.
The Office of Management and Budget’s tweet said Ray’s new duties began on March 18. An OMB spokesman declined to comment on whom President Trump might nominate to succeed Rao permanently.
For months, the leading candidate was thought to be Paul Noe, an OIRA veteran now vice president of public policy at the American Forest and Paper Association. But two weeks ago he withdrew himself from consideration, telling Bloomberg Government, “While I admire the great work that OIRA does, this is not the right time for me and my family.”
Ray, who came over to OIRA from the Labor Department last July, is a corporate attorney with limited experience in regulatory affairs. In the 11 years since he graduated from Hillsdale College, he earned his law degree in 2011 at Harvard University, clerked for the Second Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, and was hired as an associate at the Washington office of the Sidley Austin law firm.
In four years there, his clients included the American Chemistry Council, American Forest and Paper Association, National Association of Manufacturers, Portland Cement Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as noted in a Monday blog post by University of California at Berkeley law professor Dan Farber.
“Regardless of how talented Ray may be, you don’t pick someone that junior and inexperienced for a government job that you consider really important,” Farber wrote. “Rather, the appointment seems to be a sign that OIRA just isn’t taken very seriously by this administration.”
https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/03/white-house-announces-acting-regulatory-chief/155834/?oref=river

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) INTERACTIVE: AFPM '19: US March Chemical Activity Rebounds Slightly - ACC

Mar 26, 2019 | ICIS

US chemical activity ticked up in March on a three-month-moving-average (3MMA) basis, following four months of declines, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Tuesday.
The ACC’s March Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB) on a 3MMA basis fell year on year.
“The CAB continues to indicate gains in US commercial and industrial activity through mid-2019, but at a markedly slower rate of growth, as measured by year-earlier comparisons,” said Kevin Swift, chief economist at the ACC.
Major components of the barometer were mixed in March.
“Trends in construction-related resins, pigments and related performance chemistry were mixed and suggest further slowing in housing activity,” the report said.
“Plastic resins used in packaging and in consumer and institutional applications were slightly positive.”
The CAB is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. It has four primary components including production, equity prices, product prices, as well as inventories and other indicators.
Hosted by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the IPC takes place on 24-26 March in San Antonio, Texas.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/03/26/10339968/interactive-afpm-19-us-march-chemical-activity-rebounds-slightly-acc/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) AFPM '19: Mobility Landscape Will be Affected by Advancement of Materials

Mar 27, 2019 | ICIS

The advancement of polymers and composites will play a major role in the changing mobility landscape, a materials science professor told delegates at this year’s International Petrochemical Conference (IPC).
The future of mobility will be linked to advances in the properties of polymers and advances in sustainable polymers, said Michael Hickner of the Materials Research Institute at The Pennsylvania State University.
“I don’t think there’s a single element on a car that can’t be replaced,” he said.
“Metals are very expensive, so there’s going to be some displacement there. In the future, we’re going to have carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and that’s it.”
Hickner said there will also be opportunities for the replacement of building materials, such as concrete, which has a huge environmental footprint and does not recycle well.
“There’s a real bright future in material, and there are some untapped markets. There’s tremendous opportunities out there for advanced materials and advanced petrochemicals,” he said.
“But we also need to address some of things we’ve talked about already – safety, what are the policies, what are the business models, how do we work with our friends at the ACC [American Chemistry Council] to send our message.”
Panelists at the petrochemical forum also discussed other factors that would affect the changing mobility landscape including increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fuel efficiency, electric and autonomous vehicles, generational changes, social trends and ride sharing.
Hosted by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the IPC takes place on 24-26 March in San Antonio, Texas.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/03/26/10339954/afpm-19-mobility-landscape-will-be-affected-by-advancement-of-materials/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) INTERACTIVE: AFPM '19: US Housing Starts Fall in February

Mar 26, 2019 | ICIS

US privately owned housing starts in February fell month on month and year on year, the US Census Bureau said on Tuesday.
The decreases were driven by declines in single-family housing.Seasonally adjusted
in '000 unitsFebruary 2019January 2019 (revised)February 2018Housing starts1,1621,2731,290Single-family805970900Five units or more352285372
Meanwhile, privately owned housing units authorised by building permits in February were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.296m, down 1.6% from the revised January rate and 2.0% from February 2018.
The housing market is a key consumer of chemicals, driving demand for a wide variety of chemicals, resins and derivative products such as plastic pipe, insulation, paints and coatings, adhesives and synthetic fibres, among many others.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) estimates each new home built represents some $15,000 worth of chemicals and derivatives used in the structure or in the production of component materials.
Hosted by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the IPC takes place on 24-26 March in San Antonio, Texas.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/03/26/10339951/interactive-afpm-19-us-housing-starts-fall-in-february/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC) Chemical Activity Barometer Rose 0.1% In March, ACC Says

Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Engineering Online

By Scott Jenkins

The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com), rose 0.1 percent in March on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis, the first gain in five months. On a year-over-year (Y/Y) basis, the barometer is down 0.3 percent (3MMA).
The unadjusted measure of the CAB rose 0.3 percent in March following six months of shrinking activity. It declined 0.1 percent in February and had a flat reading in January. The diffusion index rebounded to 65 percent in March, up from 57 percent in February, ACC says. A year earlier, it was 71 percent. The diffusion index marks the number of positive contributors relative to the total number of indicators monitored.
“The CAB continues to indicate gains in U.S. commercial and industrial activity through mid-2019, but at a markedly slower rate of growth, as measured by year-earlier comparisons,” said Kevin Swift, chief economist at ACC.
The CAB has four main components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators.
Production-related indicators in March were mixed. Trends in construction-related resins, pigments and related performance chemistry were mixed and suggest further slowing in housing activity. Plastic resins used in packaging and in consumer and institutional applications were slightly positive. Performance chemistry and U.S. exports were mixed. Equity prices slumped, while product and input prices rose. Inventory and other indicators were positive.
The CAB is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy’s business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile, so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
https://www.chemengonline.com/chemical-activity-barometer-rose-0-1-in-march-acc-says/

Return to headline | Return to top
Shell Sees New Role for Former Steel Region: Plastics

Mar 26, 2019 | The New York Times

By Keith Schneider

The expansive Royal Dutch Shell chemicalprocessing plant under construction on a big bend of the Ohio River in western Pennsylvania is one of the largest and most expensive projects ever to be built along the tributary.
It’s not only the plant’s mammoth scale that has attracted attention. Just as significant is the project’s location: 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, on a river that for four decades has been a corridor of Rust Belt industrial ruin.
That era is over, Shell executives say. The sentiment is shared by the region’s tradespeople, business executives and political leaders, who are eager to strengthen the economies of towns along the river.
For the first time in two generations, steel girders and worn tubing are not being dismantled along the banks of the upper Ohio and shipped away. Instead, new parts are being assembled by Bechtel, Shell’s primary contractor, into a world-scale, state-of-the-art chemical processor to convert liquid natural gas into polyethylene, a common plastic.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 386-acre plant replaces a long-shuttered zinc smelter. It is among the most expensive industrial production projects ever built along the 981-mile Ohio River and the first sizable new factory on the Ohio since North American Stainless opened its metal manufacturing operation in 1992, downriver in Ghent, Ky.The site where a long-shuttered zinc smelter will be replaced by a chemical processing plant designed to convert liquid natural gas into polyethylene, a common plastic.CreditJared Wickerham for The New York Times
ImageThe site where a long-shuttered zinc smelter will be replaced by a chemical processing plant designed to convert liquid natural gas into polyethylene, a common plastic. CreditJared Wickerham for The New York Times
“We repurposed a previous industrial area, and we created a place with new jobs to take the place of jobs at that old plant,” said Hilary Mercer, Shell’s vice president for Pennsylvania Chemicals, who is supervising the construction. “This was a huge steel area, and steel has largely disappeared. We are bringing a new industry to take its place.”
Shell never discloses the cost of its projects, said Ms. Mercer, who has worked for Shell for 31 years and overseen projects to build liquid natural gas processing plants in 12 other countries. But an economic analysis prepared several years ago for Shell by Robert Morris University and submitted to the state projected that the cost would be $6 billion.
Trey Hamblet, vice president for global research of Industrial Info Resources, a consulting firm in Texas that tracks plant construction around the world, said that price was inaccurate. Based on his firm’s research and interviews, the Shell plant will cost at least $10 billion, he said.Editors’ PicksA Handyman Asks: After Servicing a Home, Can I Get Paid to Service My Clients’ Other Needs?And You Thought Your Family Was ModernFelicity Huffman: Desperate Housewife, Devoted Parent and Now a Defendant
ADVERTISEMENT
Shell ended its polyethylene production in 2005 in the face of increasing costs and growing competition, but it began evaluating a return in 2012. At the time, the colossal dimensions of the natural gas reserves bound up in shale formations deep beneath the rural upper Ohio River counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia were becoming clearer, and technology was making it easier to tap those reserves.
In 2005, the first wells were drilled in the region. Since then, some 17,000 more gas wells have been drilled and hydraulically fractured under high pressure to release a torrent of “dry” methane for electrical generation and heating and “wet” gas liquids like ethane, pentane and propane.
During the same period, billions of dollars were spent on gas separation plants, pipelines, pumping stations, gas-fired electrical generating stations and shipping terminals. The investments turned the upper Ohio River Valley into the largest natural gas field in the United States. The region produced nine trillion cubic feet of fuel last year, a third of the national production.Subscribe to With Interest
Catch up and prep for the week ahead with this newsletter of the most important business insights, delivered Sundays.SIGN UPMore than 6,000 tradespeople and laborers will be on the site during the peak summer construction period.CreditJared Wickerham for The New York Times
ImageMore than 6,000 tradespeople and laborers will be on the site during the peak summer construction period.CreditJared Wickerham for The New York Times
The gas supply in the three-state region is enough to last at least half a century at current rates of consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistics unit of the Department of Energy. The national market demand for polyethylene is projected to increase to 60 million metric tons over the next two decades, up from 40 million metric tons last year.
The company’s decision in June 2016 to build the plant opened the third stage of gas development: the production of ethane and polyethylene.
“One of Shell’s growth aspirations is in chemicals,” Ms. Mercer said. “If you look at chemical companies in the world, one of the largest growing sectors in chemicals is polyethylene. If you want to grow in chemicals, then logically you want to grow in polyethylene.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Almost every polyethylene factory in the United States is on the Gulf Coast. But more than 70 percent of the American plastics manufacturing sector is within 700 miles of Shell’s plant, according to the findings of a 2017 IHS Markit study.
Proximity to markets, lower transportation costs and lower prices for ethane are competitive advantages that strengthened Shell’s decision to proceed, Ms. Mercer said. Shell was also encouraged by a $1.65 billion, 25-year tax reduction package offered by state lawmakers.
The Ohio River plant will subject ethane to high heat and pressure to “crack” the chain of carbon molecules to produce ethylene. When completed and operational in the early 2020s, the Shell plant will turn 1.6 billion gallons of ethane into 3.3 billion pounds of little white polyethylene beads annually.
More than 6,000 tradespeople and laborers will be on the site during the peak summer construction period. Some 600 full-time workers will manage automated technology to operate the completed plant. A 97-mile pipeline from gas separation installations in Ohio and West Virginia will supply ethane; a 250-megawatt gas-fired electrical generating station will power the plant.
The Shell plant is already drawing attention from competitors. In December, Ohio issued air-emissions and water-discharge permits to PTT Global Chemical of Thailand and its partner, South Korea’s Daelim Industrial, for a proposed polyethylene plant in Shadyside, about 80 miles downriver. That plant would be about the same size as Shell’s. Ohio lawmakers are discussing tax incentives valued at more than $1 billion. PTT Global’s decision is expected this year.
China Energy Investment Corporation, the country’s largest energy company, signed a memorandum of understanding with West Virginia in 2017 to invest $83.7 billion in gas-related power, chemical and storage projects in the upper Ohio River Valley. The agreement was the largest among a number of deals that were announced during a summit meeting in Beijing between President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China.
All the activity has generated resistance from environmental and public health groups, which have expressed concern about the effects of the chemical corridor on air and water quality. Emissions of volatile organic chemicals into the air and discharges into the river will increase in an area that already has some of the nation’s worst pollution.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Industry calls it a game changer,” said Dustin White, project coordinator for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition in Huntington, W.Va. “We see it as game over.”
Real estate developers, though, are enjoying a rebound in construction.Charles J. Betters, a Pennsylvania real estate investor, said he welcomed the Shell plant.CreditJared Wickerham for The New York Times
ImageCharles J. Betters, a Pennsylvania real estate investor, said he welcomed the Shell plant.CreditJared Wickerham for The New York Times
Charles J. Betters, chairman of C.J. Betters Enterprises, a real estate company in neighboring Aliquippa, said his company had built retail, office and residential projects across the East but none for years near his home. He said he was now building 200 residential units and undertaking a major hotel renovation in Beaver County.
“This is the best thing to happen in our region in 40-plus years,” he said.
The leaders of the Community College of Beaver County, two miles from the plant, also anticipate sharp growth in the market for skilled labor. The college is training students to complete a two-year associate degree in chemical-processing technology that will earn many of them $60,000 a year in starting salaries at the plant.
Such job opportunities and wages are starting to break through the deep economic and psychic torpor that gripped the region, said Roger W. Davis, the college president.
“People were still mourning the steel mills that closed in 1985,” Dr. Davis said. “We are moving into a new energy and manufacturing model.”Correction: March 26, 2019
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of two picture captions with this article misstated when the pictures were taken. It was February 2019, not February 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/business/shell-polyethylene-factory-pennsylvania.html

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Draw Battle Lines Over TSCA, IRIS Programs On Hearing's Eve

Mar 26, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

The House science committee is holding a March 27 hearing that is expected to highlight major stakeholder divisions on whether EPA's embattled Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program or the agency's emerging toxics program should play the lead role assessing chemical risks.
The hearing, EPA’s IRIS Program: Reviewing Its Progress And Roadblocks Ahead, is expected to provide Democrats and environmentalists an opportunity to defend the IRIS program in the face of continuing attacks from industry groups and the Trump administration, whose officials are seeking to scale back its agenda and limit its regulatory application.
The March 27 hearing will likely stand in contrast to similar hearings in previous Congresses held under the gavel of former Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), which focused on industry concerns with IRIS' strict risk estimates.
But industry groups and their supporters are likely to continue criticizing the program for being overly conservative and are likely to champion EPA's toxics office, which is implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as an alternate chemical assessor, though environmentalists say it has been “captured” by industry interests.
Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argues in a March 26 blog post that the IRIS program has greater credibility than the TSCA program.
“In contrast to the industry-captured TSCA program, EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) continues to receive favorable reviews for its implementation of chemical assessments through the [IRIS] program,” she writes.
In contrast, the chemical industry is calling for further strengthening and accountability for the program, though it is stopping short of calling for abolishing the program as some conservatives have.
“We hope that the IRIS program will one day be able to produce high-quality, scientifically sound toxicity values, but there is still a great deal of work to be done to get to that point,” the American Chemistry Council (ACC) says in a March 25 blog. Still, ACC argues that the “IRIS program has been plagued by serious issues for years as noted on many occasions by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), congressional committees … and other stakeholders. The program’s failure to address those issues means that IRIS hazard assessments cause unnecessary alarm and misstate the potential impact of a given substance on public health.”
Such critiques serve as a backdrop to Trump administration efforts to sideline the program in favor of the toxics office's efforts to implement a revised TSCA program. EPA's toxics office is led by former ACC lobbyist and IRIS critic Nancy Beck, who is now the political deputy.
Formaldehyde Assessment
For example, the agency formally announced last week that it was shelving IRIS' long-running assessment of formaldehyde and would instead hand it off as an anticipated high-priority assessment under the TSCA program, which is likely to take a narrower look at potential risks.
The IRIS assessment has long drawn industry criticism, especially after a critical review of an earlier draft by NAS called for wholesale changes to the IRIS program, including more transparency and stronger causal evidence in the assessments.
In a release announcing the formaldehyde decision, toxics chief Alexandra Dunn promised that the draft IRIS assessment would be utilized by the toxics office in completing its evaluation. Dunn also sought to explain the decision, arguing that the IRIS program could not take “regulatory steps” while the toxics office can.
While a draft version of IRIS' formaldehyde assessment had reportedly been completed, the assessment was dropped from the program's agenda late last year along with a host of other pending assessments that had been in the works for years.
But a GAO report released earlier this month raised questions about EPA's priority-setting process that led it to drop formaldehyde from IRIS' agenda. In response, Democrats are seeking an ethics investigation into the top Trump research appointee's role in the IRIS prioritization process.
And a subsequent GAO report rejected arguments from EPA and continued to list both IRIS and the TSCA program as a “high risk” issue in need of senior management oversight and urged Congress and the administration to ensure the agency has “sufficient” funds to ensure their successful implementation.
In addition to shelving the IRIS assessment of formaldehyde, the administration is considering limiting the regulatory application of IRIS assessments. EPA is holding a March 27 hearing on its proposed air toxics rules for hydrochloric acid facilities, where the agency is reconsidering whether to continue using a strict Obama-era IRIS value for ethylene oxide (EtO) for regulatory purposes.
While EtO is a major risk driver for the sector, EPA is asking for comment on whether it should continue to use the EtO IRIS assessment -- challenging IRIS' longstanding role as the producer of premiere risk analyses for regulatory decision-making.
The Trump EPA has also proposed significantly reducing IRIS' budget in each of the last three budgets, though Congress did not act on the 2018 or 2019 proposals, and is not expected to act on the 2020 request. Meanwhile, the administration has proposed to increase the toxics program budget since coming into office.
Administration efforts to scale back the IRIS program are drawing strong push back from environmentalists. Even before the toxics office's announcement, the Environmental Defense Fund's Richard Denison branded EPA's dropping formaldehyde from the IRIS program as “corrupt.” Denison pointed out that the top Trump nominee in the research office, David Dunlap, is a former Koch Industries environmental engineer whose recusal statement includes not working on formaldehyde. “Miraculously, [Dunlap's] recusal statement was dated the same day as the IRIS program outlook document,” Denison wrote in a Feb. 14 blog post.
“Given the differences in credibility and scientific accountability between the TSCA and IRIS chemical assessments, it is alarming that the recent GAO investigation reported that the EPA Administrator’s office is blocking IRIS assessments, while program office leadership is pulling staff from the IRIS program into the TSCA program,” Sass writes, pointing to GAO's latest report on IRIS, released March 4. It found that 28 of 30 IRIS staff were working on TSCA assessments last fall, before the new IRIS agenda was published.
“Instead of addressing the industrial sources of its air pollution, the chemical industry and its allies at the TSCA program are attacking the IRIS assessments, scavenging off IRIS resources to staff up the industry-captured TSCA program, shifting the balance of [EPA's Science Advisory Board] from non-industry to industry members,” Sass concludes. “Under these conditions it is inevitable that chemical assessments will be weakened, regulatory safeguards will be gutted, and preventable human suffering will rise.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/stakeholders-draw-battle-lines-over-tsca-iris-programs-hearings-eve

Return to headline | Return to top
Activists Build False Narrative to Fight Trump Reforms at EPA

Mar 27, 2019 | Competitive Enterprise Institute

By Angela Logomasini

Expect accusations to fly tomorrow as Democrats attempt to build a narrative that the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to skirt science to allow industry to poison the public with supposedly toxic chemicals. The setting will be the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment.
Environmental activists have already begun to prime the pump. For example, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) blog post, titled, “EPA Announces 20 Toxic Chemicals It Won’t Protect Us From,” asserts that the agency is engaged in a ploy “to ensure that they [20 chemicals] are not properly evaluated or regulated.” [Emphasis in original]
According to NRDC, the EPA’s plan to move some chemical assessments from its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program into the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program is part of a plan to “dismantle” IRIS. Frankly, I hope they are right! As I have documented elsewhere, IRIS is an administratively created program that operates without any congressionally mandated scientific guidelines, and it has a long history of producing junk science.
The TSCA program, on the other hand, has some solid, statutorily mandated requirements designed to promote a rigorous scientific process. TSCA reform passed in 2016 as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act and its implementation is only controversial now because of anti-Trump politics. The reform bill was sponsored by eight Republicans and eight Democrats and passed with overwhelming majorities from both political parties.
I admit that I was skeptical of TSCA reform, but the final law still contains some good language to promote the “best available science” and transparency—two cornerstones of the scientific process.
The Trump EPA is simply trying to replace junk science with sound science, but environmental activists don’t want the EPA to deploy scientific principles because it may diminish the agency’s power to regulate. Yet anyone who cares about good public policy should be happy with a law that might prevent needless and counterproductive regulations that result from agency junk science.
For example, formaldehyde is on the EPA’s list of 20 priority chemicals to study under the new TSCA reform law, which means the agency will apply the best science to determine its risk. This is a victory for science because EPA consideration of the chemical under IRIS has proven highly flawed. The Trump EPA has rightly held off on releasing the faulty IRIS assessment, preventing needless media hype, scare campaigns, and faulty regulation.
In 2011, a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) panel report on IRIS’ formaldehyde risk assessment criticized the program for “recurring methodologic problems,” including repeated failures to provide “clarity and transparency of the methods,” along with inconsistencies, poor research documentation, failure to follow EPA research guidelines, and other issues. At the end of its report, the NAS panel included a special section to provide suggestions for IRIS to improve its science for formaldehyde and all other assessments.
The EPA’s IRIS office has allegedly been trying to fix the IRIS program and apply NAS recommendations ever since to no avail. In 2018, the staff held a workshop at which it detailed reform efforts, but it does not appear they have applied these yet to any risk assessments. The report offers a few sentences of praise for some procedural reforms, but the NAS points out that IRIS has not even finalized a handbook outlining its process for staff to apply reforms—which NAS asked for in 2014!
In any case, the debate about IRIS’ formaldehyde assessment has never simply been about its procedural failings. Rather, it strikes at the heart of IRIS’ unhelpful bias toward excessive caution.
To start with, formaldehyde is created by all living organisms—from plants to animals to the human body. Exposure is unavoidable, and the key is finding at what level it poses a risk. It’s reasonable to assume that dangerous levels would greatly exceed that which occurs naturally in the human body and in the foods we consume.
Yet, the draft formaldehyde assessment proposed a reference concentration that is multitudes lower than the amount that humans naturally exhale with each breath. The World Health Organization estimates that humans exhale 8.0 parts per billion (ppb) per breath, while IRIS proposed setting a standard below 0.008 ppb. So if you want to avoid allegedly “dangerous” levels of this chemical, stop breathing. And forget about cooking or eating Brussels sprouts, cabbage, or shiitake mushrooms. The mushrooms alone can contain more than 300 parts per million (ppm) of formaldehyde. Note that’s parts per million is much higher than the parts per billion noted in the IRIS standard. But even then, these exposures pose no significant health concerns.
As a result, the EPA’s suggested reference dose is likely to be too low, as it was in the draft risk assessment. Accordingly, it makes sense that the Trump administration should halt IRIS’ poor work on formaldehyde and address the chemical as part of the new TSCA program. After all, getting the science right is critical for developing sound policies.
An assessment that overstates formaldehyde risks may lead to bans and regulations that would do more harm than good. Formaldehyde has valuable applications for medical purposes that misguided regulation could jeopardize, such as in the manufacture of vaccines. In some cases, it is used to deactivate viruses that cause the flu and to detoxify bacterial toxins necessary to produce safe vaccines for diphtheria and other diseases. The levels of formaldehyde left in these vaccines are low and not dangerous. The FDA explains:
The body continuously processes formaldehyde, both from what it makes on its own and from what it has been exposed to in the environment. When the body breaks down formaldehyde, it does not distinguish between formaldehyde from vaccines and that which is naturally produced or environmental. The amount of formaldehyde in a person’s body depends on their weight; babies have lower amounts than adults. Studies have shown that for a newborn of average weight of 6-8 pounds, the amount of formaldehyde in their body is 50-70 times higher than the upper amount that they could receive from a single dose of a vaccine or from vaccines administered over time.
Formaldehyde is also used as a preservative in personal care products to prevent the development of bacteria, mold, and other dangerous pathogens. It provides these benefits, but exposure remains very low. For example, the tiny trace of formaldehyde released when shampooing your hair is about the same amount as that contained in one medium-sized apple or pear.
Unfortunately, the upcoming congressional hearing is unlikely to provide a balanced overview of the issue because it’s not designed for that purpose. It’s purely political—designed to build on a narrative that the administration is willing to undermine science to help industry peddle toxic chemicals. It’s the left that does not want the best available science to prevail, because it threatens their power.
https://cei.org/blog/activists-build-false-narrative-fight-trump-reforms-epa

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Michigan Governor Seeks ‘Forever Chemical’ Drinking Water Rules

Mar 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Alex Ebert

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) is ordering state officials to draft drinking water standards for five “PFAS” chemicals, with the goal of adopting final rules by October.
Michigan has waited long enough for federal regulatory action on the “forever chemicals,” which come from nonstick products, clothing tanners and firefighting foams, and can build up in humans, Whitmer said in a March 26 statement. She ordered an advisory group to research and propose maximum containment levels for the chemicals by July 1.
Environmentalists praised the step toward a state standard, which they’ve sought for more than a year.
But Whitmer’s proposal comes with a host of unanswered questions, such as what the standard would be, and whether the science is strong enough to clear a new state law blocking most regulations that are “more strict than federal law.”
Chemical Names
The rules will focus on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), Michigan Department of Environmental Quality spokesperson Scott Dean told Bloomberg Environment in a March 26 email.
These chemicals are all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS. The EPA says exposure to some PFAS can cause cancer and can have reproductive, developmental, liver, and immune system effects at sufficient doses.
“People across this state have been calling for action on toxic contamination in our drinking water, and today the governor responded with important steps to protect our water and public health,” Bob Allison, deputy director of Michigan League of Conservation Voters, said in a March 26 statement.
A trade group representing Michigan chemical manufacturers sounded a cautious note and said the state should “heed science” as it progresses toward a state standard that could impact industry.
“We encourage a careful review process that accounts for the numerous determinations and their potential ramifications,” John Dulmes, Michigan Chemistry Council executive director, said in a March 26 statement.
New Legal Hurdle
A recent statewide survey found 10 percent of Michigan public drinking water sources had detectable PFAS. The survey found 3 percent of those sources had levels between 10 parts per trillion and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s advisory level of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA’s level applies to two specific types of PFAS chemicals.
The regulatory process will be difficult to accomplish by Whitmer’s deadlines, Jason Hayes, director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy said March 26.
“When I talked to scientists and experts in the chemical industries, the one concern that they continually brought up is that legislation does not get ahead of the science,” he said. “I get the public concerns, but you can actually do more damage [by] regulating on an area you aren’t sure of.”
Whitmer’s proposal must also clear a new legal requirement, enacted in the 2018 lame duck session, barring new regulations that are more strict than federal law. To clear that hurdle, the agency director must show there’s a clear and convincing need to exceed the applicable federal standard.
Because U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler has committed to creating a national drinking water standard for PFAS, it may be difficult for Whitmer to prove Michigan needs to act at this time, Hayes said.
Michigan Democratic politicians have sought to repeal the “no stricter than federal law” rule but have had no success in the GOP-controlled Michigan House and Senate.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/michigan-governor-seeks-forever-chemical-drinking-water-rules

Return to headline | Return to top
DOD Chief Addresses PFAS Criticism, Skirts Climate Question

Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Courtney Columbus

Lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee yesterday grilled acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan on the impacts of climate change on the military.
They also pressed him on contamination caused by toxic nonstick chemicals found in military firefighting foam.
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), who leads the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities, said the Department of Defense had responded to his criticism of a congressionally mandated climate report.
Langevin called the response, a letter dated March 22, a "half-baked rejoinder."
The report assessed the vulnerability of 79 installations to climate effects including drought and recurrent flooding now and 20 years in the future (Greenwire, Jan. 18).
Langevin said the Pentagon did not address some of his concerns in the response, including its lack of discussion of overseas bases, Camp Lejeune and other large installations, and for not assessing how much funding Congress should appropriate.
During the hearing, Langevin asked Shanahan if he agreed "that climate change poses a threat to our readiness, to our ability to achieve military objectives."
The acting secretary offered a one-sentence response that did not include the words "climate" or "climate change."
"I believe we need to address resilience in our operations and our design and how we build out our facilities," he said.
Numerous other Defense officials have publicly commented on the links between climate change and national security, according to a running list kept by the Center for Climate and Security.PFAS
Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) asked Shanahan about PFAS contamination at current and former military bases.
Some of the roughly 5,000 chemicals in the PFAS family have been linked to health problems such as liver disease and certain cancers. Military firefighting foam and a wide variety of other industrial and consumer products contain PFAS. The chemicals are not federally regulated.
The issue needs to be addressed "writ large, in all of our communities. This is a significant health and environmental risk," Shanahan said, later adding that DOD's focus has been on eliminating the use of fire retardants that contain those chemicals.
"We truly need to get a harmonization of the environmental mitigation plans," he said in response to a follow-up question from Bergman about what Congress could do to support DOD in working with other agencies to address PFAS contamination.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) also pressed Shanahan on PFAS. "I sincerely hope that the Department [of Defense] hears the concerns of my colleagues and stops hiding behind bureaucratic and regulatory red tape to avoid helping communities clean up PFAS contaminants," she said.
In response to further questions from Slotkin, Shanahan pushed back against a New York Timesarticle published earlier this month. The Times reported that the Pentagon wanted weaker PFAS standards.
"The article is not accurate, and the Department of Defense is not asking for the standard to be lowered," Shanahan said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/27/stories/1060130107

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil Spill, Hydropower, PFAS Bills Introduced

Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Courtney Columbus

New bills in the House and Senate aim to tackle issues including oil spill cleanup, hydropower and occupational exposure to harmful chemicals used in firefighting foam.
A bill introduced by Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan would permanently reauthorize the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which provides for oil spill cleanup and damages in certain cases.
A 9-cent-per-barrel tax on crude oil at the refinery, which finances the fund, expired Jan. 1. There is currently $6.5 million in the fund (Energywire, March 22).
"The Exxon Valdez oil spill taught us that speed and well-placed infrastructure can mean the difference between a small, containable incident and a full-scale environmental disaster," Sullivan said in a statement.
"It is fitting that on the thirty-year anniversary of that devastating spill in Prince William Sound, we introduce legislation to permanently replenish and silo the federal fund that enables government agencies to quickly and capably deploy vessels and response measures to contain the release of oil in an American waterway, and make whole those communities and individuals impacted by a spill," he also said of the bill.
Some provisions in the legislation are similar to ones in a bill introduced earlier this year by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) (E&E News PM, Feb. 28).
Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner introduced a bill, S. 859, that would offer incentives for improvements in hydroelectric efficiency and extend incentives for hydroelectric production.
The measure would amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Separately, companion bills in the House and Senate aim to address toxic nonstick chemicals known as PFAS.
The legislation from Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) would mandate blood testing of Department of Defense firefighters during routine annual physical examinations to determine exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The House bill is H.R. 1863.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/27/stories/1060129847

Return to headline | Return to top
Lack of Chemicals Information has Caused Public 'Crisis in Confidence'

Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Leigh Stringer

More information must be provided to the general public to reverse its poor perception of chemicals, say regulatory leaders in Europe and the US.
Speaking at Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit this week, head of Echa Bjorn Hansen and Nancy Beck, principal deputy assistant administrator for the US EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, agreed that improving the public’s view of chemicals was an important task in which all stakeholders must be involved.
Mr Hansen said the lack of awareness is largely due to a lack of information.
"Authorities, NGOs and industry lack information. However, we are on the right road to getting this information, which will enable us to make the right decisions and, once we achieve this, we can start regaining the confidence of the public," he said.
Echa’s database, which will require companies to provide information on candidate list substances in articles, is a "good start" to achieving this, Mr Hansen said.
The database, which came out of the revised waste framework Directive (WFD) that entered into force in July, "underpins" REACH Article 33, he said. This stipulates that suppliers will provide recipients of articles containing substances of very high concern (SVHCs) with information to allow their safe use.Mistrust
Mr Hansen added that a broader issue was a lack of confidence in institutions, which is also influencing how citizens view chemicals. This is not helped by unjust criticism, he said.
"Some people criticise scientific judgements, such as, for example, those made by Echa on glyphosate or titanium dioxide or other chemicals. And sometimes statements are made that seem to undermine the institution or the experts."
"It's very important that we communicate that we’re expressing a difference in scientific opinion but not intending to undermine the institution or experts," he added.
Ms Beck agreed, saying there is a "crisis of confidence in chemicals".
"Environmental groups are unhappy in some cases, industry groups can be unhappy and it does erode away at the credibility of the organisation," she said.
"When it comes to chemicals, in the US there is a lack of awareness and understanding, particularly around hazard versus risk."
"These are impossible messages to get across," Ms Beck added.
A 2017 European Commission survey on public awareness of the safety of chemical products found that 84% of EU citizens are concerned about how chemicals affect human health and the environment.
Referring to the survey, Rafael Cayuela, chief economist at Dow, said this figure should be a metric for industry. "We need to address this as we are a part of the solution. I would like to see this figure reduced to 10% in ten years," he said.
Speaking alongside them, Achim Halpaap, senior adviser at UN Environment’s chemicals and health branch, said the issue of chemicals is not easy to communicate.
"It’s challenging because we don’t have the 1.5 degrees [climate] goal. Instead we have thousands of chemicals, each with its own story and exposure scenario."
https://chemicalwatch.com/75408/lack-of-chemicals-information-has-caused-public-crisis-in-confidence

Return to headline | Return to top
For Consumers, Being Clean Is as Important as Coming Clean

Mar 27, 2019 | Environmental Working Group

By Scott Faber

More than ever, Americans want to know everything about our food, cosmetics, cleaners and other everyday products we bring into our homes.
We want to know what’s in it, why it’s in there, where it’s been and who made it. Mostly we want to be trusted to do our own homework and make our own decisions.
It’s not just consumers who are demanding more transparency. Legislators and regulators are requiring more disclosures and cracking down on misleading claims.
Transparency is sometimes called the must-have ingredient. Study after study shows that consumers will reward brands that play it straight with us and punish those who don’t.
But transparency is not an end in itself. Consumers want to know more because we want to make choices that reflect our values.
We want products that are sustainable and products that are safe. Increasingly, safe means safe from dangerous synthetic chemicals, not just from dangerous organic pathogens. And we are increasingly aware that many of the chemicals used in everyday products are either lightly regulated or not regulated at all.More than 40 nations have restricted or banned more than 1,400 chemicals in cosmetics and other personal care products. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has only restricted or banned nine, for safety.More than 2,000 chemicals are directly added to food, but many have been deemed safe by food and chemical companies themselves – not by the FDA.Only two of 16 chemicals in sunscreens have been found safe and effective by the FDA.Roughly two-thirds of pesticides have been approved through “conditional” registrations – that is, without complete health and safety studies.Few of the chemicals in cleaners have been reviewed and regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Efforts by Congress to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act have been undermined by the Trump Administration.
Since the government isn’t looking out for us, no wonder we like to do our own homework and make our own decisions.
Here’s what else consumers have figured out. Many of these chemicals are simply unnecessary.
Conventional packaged food can include thousands of chemicals. But fewer than 40 synthetic substances are allowed in organic packaged foods. Organic packaged foods last just as long, taste just as good and look just as appetizing.
EWG scientists have compiled a list of the “Toxic Twenty” chemicals that should be banned from cosmetics, including formaldehyde, mercury, asbestos and lead. Thankfully, many cosmetics brands already don’t use any of these chemicals. The same is true for cleaning products.
The digital revolution has made it easier than ever for consumers to find the products that reflect their values. In an average week, almost 100,000 people use Skin Deep®, EWG’s free online guide to 70,000 cosmetics and other personal care products.
Twenty-six million people visit EWG’s website annually, consulting not only Skin Deep, but also our Guide to Sunscreens, or our guides to packaged foods and cleaners. Millions more connect with EWG through social media, email or our Healthy Living App, which puts our ratings for more than 120,000 products in the palm of your hand.
Digital tools have not only changed the way we shop. They have also changed our expectations about access to information. We want more information about our everyday products, not less. We may not always use that information to make choices, but we expect it to be available.
Many companies are reformulating products away from chemicals of concern. More than 100 companies are working with EWG right now to do so. And many are making sweeping disclosure commitments that will raise the bar for the rest of their industry.
Our health, and the health of our families, will always be our top priority.
But increasingly, consumers want to know what steps companies are taking to address urgent environmental challenges like drinking water pollution and the climate crisis. A recent study found that 86 percent of consumers expect companies to act on social and environmental issues, and climate change was high on their list.
Companies are not just being measured by their commitment to coming clean but also by their commitment to being clean. As one expert put it, “Consumers are no longer just asking ‘What do you stand for?’ but also ‘What do you stand up for?’ ”
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/03/consumers-being-clean-important-coming-clean

Return to headline | Return to top
2019 Global Outlook: Key GHS Developments

Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Nhat Nguyen

Key Points
US OSHA to update the Hazard Communication Standard 2012Asia Pacific countries lead the charge toward adopting GHS editions EU considers changing the CLP RegulationChile to implement GHS sixth revised edition
The UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classifying and labelling chemicals has been instrumental in shaping regulatory policy on chemical management across the globe. GHS addresses classification of chemicals by types of hazard and proposes harmonised hazard communication elements, including labels and safety data sheets (SDSs).
First adopted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in 2002 and published in 2003, GHS has been accepted and implemented worldwide amid criticism that, despite its name, it is not actually harmonised. Countries can choose which sections of the GHS they wish to integrate into their regulations.

The first major wave of implementation and compliance came in 2015 when many regions – including the EU, Asia and the US – completed their implementation timelines. More countries are expected to adopt the system in 2019 aligning with either the sixth or seventh edition of GHS.Event: UN publication of the eighth revised edition of GHS
Since its inception, the UNECE intended GHS to be revised every two years to account for changes, new memorandums of understanding and/or agreements. If the UNECE keeps to its previous schedules, the eighth revised edition should be released by mid 2019.
In December, the UNECE technical committee met to decide some of the potential changes to the eighth revised edition including:introduction of a category-based scheme for classification of explosives, similar to that used for other hazard classes;new criteria for classification of aerosols and chemicals under pressure;review of the viscosity criterion for classification of mixtures with the aspiration hazard;new examples on the labelling of small packagings; andnew precautionary statements for medical response and a possible precautionary pictogram to give the message: "Keep out of reach of children."Key datesFirst half of 2019 – Publication of the eighth revised edition of GHSEvent: Asia Pacific countries consider sixth or seventh edition of GHS
While many countries have met their first set of compliance dates for GHS, Asia Pacific countries are leading the charge toward adopting newer editions of GHS.
Despite having only completed its GHS implementation on 1 January 2017, Australia intends to change from the third revised edition to the sixth edition.

Allan Freeth, New Zealand’s chief executive for the Environmental Protection Authority, told Chemical Watch’s Regulatory Summit Asia 2018 that New Zealand will take further steps to harmonise with GHS, potentially moving to either the sixth or seventh edition. New Zealand has adopted new legislative instruments (EPA Notices) for labelling and SDSs based on the fifth revised edition of the GHS. The final decision may depend on Australia since New Zealand has a keen interest in harmonising with its closest trade partner.
The Singapore Chemical Industry Council (SCIC) is also reviewing whether to adopt the sixth or seventh edition of GHS. SCIC is spearheading chemical management and hazard communication in Singapore through the Chemical Management and GHS Hazard Communication Taskforce, which is comprised of government, industry and educational organisations. The taskforce’s recommendation, once finalised, will be implemented throughout Singapore.
Japan is possibly the furthest ahead with implementation changes. Efforts are underway to revise the country’s GHS standards – JIS Z 7252 for classification and JIS Z 7253 for SDSs. The standards are expected to be published in late March and will bring the country’s requirements closer to the sixth revised edition of GHS. Industry will have a transition period of about three years to change labels and safety data sheets, if applicable.Who will this impact the most?
Manufacturers, importers and traders of chemicals used in the workplace (for example, industrial chemicals). Key datesLate March 2019 – Issuance of new GHS standards in JapanEvent: Alignment of Canada, the US and the EU on the seventh edition
Changes might also occur in North America and the EU. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) plans to update the Hazard Communication Standard 2012 (known as HazCom 2012) in 2019.
Maureen Ruskin, deputy directorate of standards and guidance at OSHA, has told Chemical Watch that the agency’s activities will centre around the seventh revised edition of GHS. The proposed rules are expected to be published for consultation in March 2019.
Under the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Action Plan, Canada is committed to aligning its implementation with the US. Health Canada has published its Forward Regulatory Plan 2018-2020 setting out the agenda for the changes. The agency expects to publish regulatory changes to the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), aligning with the seventh in 2019.
The EU is also considering changing the CLP Regulation (which stands for classification, labelling and packaging), which aligns the EU system to the GHS, known as the CLP. The change, if implemented, would align the system with the sixth and seventh edition of GHS. A proposal to implement changes to the SDSs in EC Regulation No 1907/2006 (REACH) is also under development. Industry are expected to be given an 18-month transition period once the changes are finalised.Who will this impact the most?
In Canada and the US, these changes will have an impact on manufacturers, importers and traders of industrial chemical. In Europe, the changes will affect manufacturers, importers and traders of all chemical products.Key datesFirst half of 2019 – Changes to the CLP March 2019 – Publication of the proposed changes to the US requirement Event: Latin American countries look to harmonise and align with the sixth edition
GHS activities in Latin America were bubbling in 2018 with more expected in 2019.
In Argentina, all chemicals must be classified under GHS as required under Resolution SRT 801/2015. Brazil has adopted the third revised edition of the GHS, making it mandatory in the workplace through the Regulatory Norm No 26 (NR-26) and Norm ABNT NRB 14725. However, authorities are drafting legislation to align with the sixth edition. As Brazil and Argentina have signed a memorandum of understanding on joint chemical management strategies, it is possible that Argentina may also adopt the sixth edition.

In Chile, there is a National Policy on Chemical Safety which integrates a 2017-2022 action plan including the adoption of the GHS. Chile updated its SDS standard in 2015 with Norm No 2245: 2015 Hoja de datos de seguridad para productos químicos, which permits companies to use GHS as the basis for classification. In November 2018, Chile released a draft Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Notification of Chemical Substances and Mixtures, which would formally implement GHS. When Chile publishes the final regulation, it will join Colombia and Costa Rica as one of the few Latin American countries to have adopted the sixth revised edition of the GHS.
Meanwhile, companies in Mexico must comply with the fifth revised edition of GHS as specified by NOM-018-STPS-2015, which became enforceable in October 2018.Who will be impacted the most?
Manufacturers, importers and traders of chemicals used in the workplace such as industrial chemicals. Chile’s implementation is similar to the EU and, as with all companies who trade chemical products including consumer products, will be affected. Key dates30 December 2022 – Relabelling of products that existed in the Costa Rican market prior to 30 December 2017 Mid-2019 – Publication of Chile’s Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Notification of Chemical Substances and Mixtures One-year transition period from the regulation’s publication date – Chile’s labels and SDSs for single substances for industrial useTwo-year transition – Chile’s labels and SDSs for single substances in non-industrial use Five-year transition – Chile’s labels and SDSs for mixtures in industrial use Seven-year transition – Chile’s labels and SDSs for mixtures in non-industrial use Other potential changes in 2019 and beyond
In the summer of 2018, Israel issued a draft standard SI 2302 Part 1 on classification, labelling, and packaging of chemicals, which is based on the EU's CLP (European Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008). The draft, once finalised, will replace the previous draft standard issued in 2009. The industry will be permitted a three-year transition period to bring all chemical products into compliance. Israel, a member of OECD, has an incentive to implement GHS as the OECD announced in May 2018 that it will require all members to implement GHS.
The New Technical Regulation of Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on Safety of Chemical Products was adopted on 3 March 2017 by the Eurasian Economic Commission Council. It is expected to enter into force on 2 June 2021, making GHS classification criteria and related hazard communication elements (labels and SDSs) mandatory in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. Russia implements GHS through its various national standards.
South Africa is expected to update the Occupational and Health Safety (OHS) Act and the Hazardous Chemical Substances Regulations to take account of GHS. While South Africa is not a member of the OECD, it has partnered with the organisation on major programmes and initiatives. South Africa’s efforts could spur other countries in the Southern African Development Community, all 16 of which have indicated that they are likely to implement GHS by 2020.
Kenyan authorities have published a draft of the country’s Environmental Management and Coordination (Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Materials Management) Regulations 2018. If Kenya publishes the final regulation, which applies only to industrial chemicals, it will align the country with the seventh revised edition of GHS.
In Malaysia, authorities are examining the regulations on classification, labeling and packaging and are looking to revise the list of pre-classified chemicals in the industry code of practice for hazard communication. Key dates
It is unclear when changes will be finalised
https://chemicalwatch.com/74327/2019-global-outlook-key-ghs-developments

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemical that EPA Allows to Help Clean up Oil Spills Sickens People and Fish, Lawsuit Claims

Mar 26, 2019 | The Washington Post

By Darryl Fears

Kindra Arnesen’s fishing boats are still parked near Venice, La., but she left years ago. Her family was driven out by the toxic odor from a chemical dispersant sprayed in the Gulf of Mexico to break up oil from the massive 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon spill.
Before they fled, her husband experienced respiratory problems. Her daughter broke out in rashes. Arnesen, 41, had headaches and other skin problems. “We live in the middle of an oil field,” she said, referring to the thousands of oil platforms in the gulf. Oil continues to seep a few miles off Venice from a Taylor Energy operation destroyed during a hurricane nearly 15 years ago. “People don’t realize how many spills we have here.”
Fearing the next spill, Arnesen joined a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, claiming that the agency has allowed 25 years to go by without updating the National Contingency Plan to respond to oil spills. On Monday, the University of California at Berkeley Environmental Law Center issued the agency a 60-day intent to sue notice on behalf of several groups and individuals “for failure to perform a non-discretionary duty” under the Clean Water Act.
In the absence of an update, the EPA has continued to allow emergency responders to use a chemical mixture called Corexit to disperse oil into droplets that allow microbes to further break it down, the groups say.
About 20 percent of nearly 5,000 Coast Guard personnel who responded to the BP spill and were exposed to the toxin reported persistent coughing. Others experienced wheezing and trouble breathing, according to a 2018 study commissioned by the National Institutes of Health.
“The combination of both oil and oil dispersants presented associations that were much greater in magnitude than oil alone for coughing, shortness of breath and wheezing,” the report said.
A Louisiana State University study two years prior reported a similar finding: that symptoms from exposure resulted in “burning in nose, throat or lungs, sore throat, dizziness and wheezing."
That was evident during the Deepwater Horizon cleanup efforts, when “dispersants and oil combined to form droplets of chemical enhanced oil that is more deadly than oil alone to people,” said Riki Ott, the marine toxicology director for Alert, a project of Earth Island Institute, one of five plaintiffs in the suit.
The other plaintiffs come from Alaska, where the Trump administration is pushing to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil leasing for the first time. They include an activist inletkeeper, a community group and an Inuit woman.
As the Trump administration pushes an unprecedented proposal to offer oil and gas industry leases on 90 percent of the U.S. outer continental shelf, the plaintiffs say the EPA’s guidance using new science related to dispersants is crucial.
Under the proposal, leases also would be offered off the Atlantic seaboard for the first time in decades. A bipartisan coalition of Atlantic coast governors who oppose the plan say it stands to destroy beach communities and a rich tourism industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs from Massachusetts to Florida.
“This leasing program, combined with the [administration’s] planned dismantling of federal drilling safety standards, puts coastal communities at serious risk of disastrous oil spills,” the law center said in a statement. “Given the history of offshore oil drilling, it is simply a matter of when — not if — a devastating oil spill will occur.”
EPA spokesman John Konkus said, “We are reviewing the NOI letter,” with no further comment.
Some scientists say the use of Corexit should be eliminated and replaced with a system that uses microbes to break down and naturally consume large volumes of oil.
Rosemary Ahtuangaruak of Nuiqsut, Alaska, “is deeply concerned that ... dispersants will exacerbate the harms to the wildlife and arctic ecosystem central to her community,” which is enclosed by oil infrastructure, such as rigs and pipelines, the letter said.
Researchers for a study in 2013 found that “when Corexit and oil are mixed, toxicity increases 52-fold” for a microscopic zooplankton at the bottom of the marine food web, a major source of nutrition for ocean animals.
A 2018 study of U.S. Coast Guard respondents to the Deepwater Horizon disaster showed a strong correlation between their exposure to dispersant and higher rates of coughing and gastrointestinal problems, Ott said.
Arnesen said her family moved about 15 miles north from Venice to Buras on a spit of Louisiana land that extends into the Gulf of Mexico.
She said her husband, George, was on one of eight shrimping boats that sped out into the ocean to collect shrimp before the oil reached a productive fishing area. When six of the boats turned around because their crews could not endure the odor, her husband’s captain stayed.
“Men started to feel nauseous and dizzy,” she said. Eventually, the odor reached land. “It just depended on which way the wind was blowing. For me it was severe skin problems, upper respiratory problems and severe headaches, the worst I’ve experienced in my life.”
Arensen said that she tried to take her boat out about a year after the spill, but there were so few shrimp “it wasn’t worth it,” and the fish were skinny.
“I want people to understand this isn’t just about what happened to us,” she said. It is also about what happened to the fishery. “It seems like we’re not going to get anything done until we go to court.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/03/26/chemical-that-epa-sanctions-help-clean-up-oil-spills-sickens-people-fish-lawsuit-claims/?utm_term=.dcada9f1ddc5

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

From Texas to the World: A Flood of U.S. Oil Exports Is Coming

Mar 26, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Javier Blas

Oil trader Paul Vega is at the vanguard of shale’s next revolution.
Driving his pick-up truck through the heartland of the Permian basin -- the vast tract of west Texas scrub where one of history’s greatest oil booms means miles-long traffic jams -- Vega says there’s more crude being pumped than America’s refineries can absorb. Today, the primary task of trading houses like his is getting the stuff overseas.
“We buy it, we truck it, we put it on a pipeline, and there it goes to the port -- and from there to the world,” said Vega, who heads the office of global commodities trader Trafigura Group in Midland, the region’s oil industry hub.
What started as an American phenomenon is now being felt around the world as U.S. oil exports surge to levels unthinkable only a few years ago. The flow of crude will keep growing over the next few years with huge consequences for the oil industry, global politics and even whole economies. OPEC, for example, will face challenges keeping oil prices high, while Washington has a new, and potent, diplomatic weapon.
American oil exports stepped up a gear last year, jumping more than 70 percent to just over 2 million barrels a day, according to government data. Over the past four weeks, U.S. oil exports have averaged more than 3 million barrels a day --- more than what Middle East petro-state Kuwait sells.
“This is the new American energy era,” U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry told an industry conference in Houston earlier this month.
Oil traders and shale executives believe U.S. crude exports are set reach 5 million barrels a day by late 2020, up another 70 percent from current levels. If the U.S. hits that target, America will be exporting, on a gross basis, more crude than every country in OPEC except Saudi Arabia. (On a net basis, the U.S. remains, just, a net importer, but that’s likely to change in the next few months.)
“The second wave of the U.S. shale revolution is coming,” said Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency. “This will shake up international oil and gas trade flows, with profound implications for geopolitics.”
The political impact is already being felt. The Trump administration has been able to impose aggressive sanctions on oil exports from Iran and Venezuela knowing the flow of crude from Texas will keep on rising. The economic impact on the U.S. is also evident: in dollar terms, the country’s petroleum trade deficit fell to its lowest in 20 years in 2018.
The U.S. is already a big exporter of refined products such as gasoline and diesel. When combined with rising crude exports, the IEA forecasts American petroleum exports will reach roughly 9 million barrels a day within five years, up from just 1 million in 2012. In the process, the U.S. will become the world’s second-largest exporter of crude and refined products by 2024, overtaking Russia and nearly topping Saudi Arabia.
Until now, the surge in U.S. oil production from the Permian and other shale basins like the Bakken in North Dakota was absorbed at home, feeding refineries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. Now, U.S. refiners are finding it increasingly hard to process more of the kind of light crude pumped in the Permian as their plants were built to process denser heavy crude -- the type pumped in Venezuela and the Middle East.
“The United States is probably darn close to being able to process as much light crude as it can,” Thomas J. Nimbley, the head of U.S. oil refiner PBF Energy Inc., told investors.
As a result, shale executives are traveling the world to seek new customers. Gary Heminger, the head of Marathon Petroleum Corp., for example, was recently in Singapore and South Korea looking for buyers for shale crude.
“All the incremental Permian production needs to be exported,” said Raoul LeBlanc at consultant IHS Markit Ltd. and a former head of strategy at Anadarko Petroleum Corp. “The Permian needs to find refineries willing to take U.S. light sweet crude as a base-load, most likely in Asia.“
Despite a tight oil market due to American sanctions on Venezuela and Iran mixed with OPEC production cuts, finding new buyers isn’t as easy as it sounds. The crude from the Permian is light, yielding lots of naphtha -- used in the petrochemical industry -- and gasoline, but comparatively little diesel. And most refineries want to produce diesel.
Until now, U.S. shale producers and oil traders had been selling most of their crude on spot transactions -- one at a time. As a result, American oil exports saw wildly different destinations from month to month, from Spain to Thailand to Brazil.
A few stable markets are starting to emerge. Oil refineries in Canada, Italy, the U.K., and South Korea are becoming regular buyers. And little by little, oil traders are securing long-term deals with overseas refineries, known as term contracts.
Yet, the rapid rise in oil exports is challenging. Not even Saudi Arabia in the 1960s and 1970s saw exports grow so quickly.
“The U.S. export market needs to transition from infancy to adulthood far more rapidly than any major exporter ever has,” said Roger Diwan, another oil analyst at IHS Markit.
Key for U.S. oil exports is China, mired in a trade war with Washington. Until this year, Chinese refiners were buying large chunks of American shale exports. But the flows all but dried up in August. If U.S. oil exports are going to increase at the pace that executives and traders anticipate, the shale industry needs the White House to strike a trade deal with the Chinese.
“If the China demand pull fails to materialize, for political reasons, quality mismatch or otherwise, U.S. exports will likely have to muscle their way into the global refining system, likely via price discounts,” Diwan said.
U.S. shale crude is already selling at a big discount to Brent, the international oil benchmark. West Texas Intermediate sells nearly $10 under Brent. And some of the lighter grades from the Permian, including a new stream called West Texas Light, are seeing even wider discounts.
Finding buyers for the light Permian crude isn’t the only obstacle. Pipelines and ports have become the biggest bottleneck in U.S. oil exports, with traders engineering logistically complex chains combining railways, trucks, pipelines, barges, and ship-to-ship transfers to get crude out of the country. Several ventures are aiming to build new facilities to allow exports via supertankers, which need deepwater ports.
The export surge started in late 2015 when Washington lifted a 40-year ban on most oil sales overseas, imposed in the aftermath the 1973-74 oil embargo by the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Although the Permian isn’t growing as fast as last year, oil traders and executives still anticipate that America will add another million barrels a day this year to its production, with the bulk coming in the second half. The current slowdown, which some executives jokingly call a “fracking holiday,” is the direct result of shareholder demands for higher returns and less growth, and lower oil prices in late 2018 and early 2019. But the Permian is likely to re-accelerate in the second half of this year when new pipelines open.
If the forecast proves correct, U.S. crude production will surpass 13 million barrels a day by December, up from 11.8 million barrels a day at the end of last year and well above the previous all-time high set in 1970.
“It’s going to be less than if people were able to spend unconstrained, but there’s going to be growth, lots of it,” said Osmar Abib, chairman of global energy at Credit Suisse Group AG.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/from-texas-to-the-world-a-flood-of-u-s-oil-exports-is-coming

Return to headline | Return to top
Global Emissions Hit Record as Energy Demand Boosts Fuel Use

Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Mathew Carr

Carbon emissions from fossil fuel use hit a record last year after energy demand grew at its fastest pace in a decade, reflecting higher oil consumption in the U.S. and more coal burning in China and India.
Those findings from the International Energy Agency mark a setback for the effort to rein in the pollution blamed for global warming just three years after a landmark deal in Paris, where all nations committed to cut emissions.
The figures showed that natural gas is becoming a preferred fuel for factories and utilities while the pace of installing renewable forms of energy is lagging. The report also indicated the strength of the global economic expansion last year, with gains in electricity consumption and more notably in the U.S.
“We have seen spectacular growth of the economy in the U.S.,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the Paris-based institution advising nations on energy policy. “We have seen several new petrochemical projects coming online.”
Energy demand grew 2.3 percent last year, the most in a decade, according to the IEA. It showed a record 33 gigatons of carbon emissions from energy, up 1.7 percent from the previous year. Global electricity demand rose 4 percent and was responsible for half the growth in overall energy demand.
Global coal demand grew for the second consecutive year in 2018, driven by Asia’s appetite for the dirtiest fossil fuel. Even as coal’s share of the global energy mix declined, it remains the world’s largest source of electricity. Natural gas use rose 4.6 percent, its fastest growth since 2010.
Global coal demand grew for a second year in 2018.Source: IEA
The U.S. increased its use of oil products at a faster rate than any other country for the first time in 20 years, overtaking China. The U.S. boosted oil use by 540,000 barrels a day, a fifth more than China even though the Asian nation has four times the population and is moving toward a less oil-intensive model in order to improve its urban air quality.
“European oil demand remained stagnant on slowing economic activity and rising prices,” the IEA said in its report. “Germany saw an important decline in oil demand,” which fell 5.4 percent in 2018.
The pace of energy efficiency improvements fell, and renewables growth didn’t keep pace with surging electricity demand, falling below 50 percent of new power supply last year.
Global output of greenhouse gases from energy-related sources rose to a record as energy demand jumped at its fastest pace in a decade.
“Renewables growth is not keeping pace with the electrification of our society,” Birol said on a call with reporters. “We need to see more support for renewables.”
Global energy-related emissions hit an all-time high in 2018 of 33 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a growth rate of 1.7 percent, which represents the fastest increase since 2013. Coal-fired power plants, which are closing across western Europe, were the single largest contributor to the growth in emissions, accounting for 30 percent of the increase, the agency said.
Emissions are still increasing in China and India. The U.S. saw an increase of emissions after they fell in 2017. Germany, Japan, Mexico, France, and the U.K. all saw declining output.
The world needs to cut the use of coal-fired power to almost nothing by 2050 to get anywhere close to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a panel of United Nations scientists said in a report last year.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/global-emissions-hit-record-as-energy-demand-boosts-fuel-use

Return to headline | Return to top
Environmentalists Threaten Suit to Force Oil Spill Rule Update

Mar 26, 2019 | Inside EPA

Environmental groups are threatening to sue EPA for failing to update its oil spill response regulations to address dispersants, with groups arguing an update is urgently needed as the rules have not been revised over the last 25 years and the federal government anticipates opening up vast coastal areas for oil and gas drilling, increasing spill risks.
Several grassroots environmental and community groups, including the ALERT Project and Alaska Community Action on Toxics, on March 22 sent EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler a 60-day notice of intent to sue for failing to update the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) to ensure it endorses actions that minimize harm.
“EPA has shirked its nondiscretionary duty to amend the NCP,” the groups say in the notice, which was filed on their behalf by the University of California, Berkley, Environmental Law Clinic.
In the notice, the groups say EPA has a nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Water Act (CWA), where section 311 requires EPA to establish an NCP that provides for “'effective action to minimize damage from oil . . . discharges.'” This means the NCP must “reflect current scientific understanding of spill-response methods,” the notice says.
“Accordingly, the CWA imposes on EPA a nondiscretionary duty to update the NCP periodically,” it says.
Since 1994, when the NCP was last updated, “there have been significant advances in understanding the behavior and risks of using such chemical dispersants on conventional marine oil spills -- a response method contemplated in the existing NCP and used, with widely publicized adverse outcomes, in the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010,” the groups say.
While the ALERT Project, run by the environmental group Earth Island Institute, long campaigned during the Obama administration for EPA to strengthen its spill response requirements in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill, and EPA in 2015 received nearly 600 comments on proposed revisions, it never finalized the measures.
Instead, in 2016, the agency decided to delay its schedule for finalizing the revisions by two years, saying it would issue a final rule in 2018. The move alarmed environmentalists, with one source doubting the revisions would receive any priority under a new administration.
The Trump administration then relegated the rule to its list of “long-term actions” under the Unified Agenda, further suspending any action.
The groups say the need for revisions now is urgent, pointing out that the federal government, under a draft oil and gas leasing program plan for 2019-2024, expects to open up 90 percent of U.S. coastal areas to oil and gas drilling.
This, in addition to reduced drilling safety standards, places communities at risk of significant oil spills, they say. Therefore, it is critical EPA acts now to amend the NCP to ensure it promotes effective cleanups that minimize damage.
EPA's 2015 proposed rule would have strengthened requirements related to the use of chemical and biological agents, including dispersants, applied during the cleanup of oil spills. It also proposed to add new product toxicity and efficacy test methods and criteria for listing dispersants on a schedule of acceptable spill mitigating substances, and to require manufacturers to provide more detailed product application information and human health and safety data, among other measures.
In response to the 2015 proposal, environmentalists and citizens argued EPA's attempt at overhauling the regulations was “incomplete” because it failed to address unconventional oil spills and the toxic nature of oil. Meanwhile, the oil industry warned against the potential impacts of stricter controls, such as cleanup responses that may be less effective.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-threaten-suit-force-oil-spill-rule-update

Return to headline | Return to top
2 Years After Trump's Energy Order: What Remains

Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Pamela King

President Trump spent the first half of his term in aggressive pursuit of "energy dominance."
Unless he wins a second term, Trump will have 21 months — or less, given the demands of a presidential campaign — to strike all of the Interior Department, EPA and other agency rules targeted in his "energy independence" executive order, which the president signed two years ago this week.
"That EO was a really great start," said Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA appointee who now leads Trump's political action committee. "The agency took it and has been applying it in earnest, and that work will continue as fast as practicable."
After a couple of unsuccessful attempts to stamp out some Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration has begun to unveil proposed replacement standards for greenhouse gas emissions from energy operations and power plants.
Some of those final revised rules should hit the Federal Register later this year.
Their next stop? Court.
Last September, Trump's Bureau of Land Management locked in its updated rule for methane releases from energy activity on federal and tribal lands. The regulation, an effective rescission of the Obama rule it replaced, was immediately challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit, led by California and New Mexico Attorneys General Xavier Becerra and Hector Balderas, serves as the judicial system's first avenue to assess the merits, and not just the delay tactics, of Trump's deregulatory plan.
"In the courts and in Congress, or at the polls, we have to fight for our agenda," said Becerra, one of the administration's key legal opponents, in his prepared Spanish-language response to Trump's most recent State of the Union address.
In the last half of 2018, the Trump administration also released draft replacement rules for the Obama EPA's Clean Power Plan for the power sector and the agency's methane requirements for new oil and gas sources. A partial government shutdown earlier this year may have stalled release of final standards.
The president's efforts have been in service to his campaign promises to bring back coal and boost the oil and gas industry — a business whose booms and busts are dictated more by price than by federal mandate.
Market realities muted the impact of Trump's order to cancel an Obama-era moratorium on coal leasing. Since Interior lifted the ban, just one day after Trump signed his energy order, coal companies have withdrawn applications for nearly 1 billion tons of coal.
Unlike the cancellation of the coal leasing ban, the Trump administration will need to usher in replacement rules for the other policies targeted for repeal under the 2017 "energy independence" executive order.
Here's a look at where the rollbacks stand.Power plant rules
Rule watchers got their first look at Trump's Clean Power Plan replacement rule last summer.
Many were sorely disappointed.
The proposed Affordable Clean Energy, or ACE, rule would toss the Obama administration's approach to greening the power grid and instead focus on emission-slashing technologies at existing coal-fired plants.
A final rule is expected this spring. Lawsuits are guaranteed to follow. Environmental groups and some states are already plotting courtroom battles.
EPA is still reviewing a sister rule on carbon emissions from new and modified power plants. A repeal or revision of those requirements would carry less weight, as industry has shown limited interest in building new facilities.Methane standards
The Trump administration has been hard at work unraveling Obama-era methane controls.
BLM's revised Methane and Waste Prevention Rule is the subject of litigation in California district court, and final changes to EPA's separate methane standards could come down at any time.
A proposed replacement for EPA's methane requirements, introduced last fall, drew fire from former agency officials, legal experts and the state of California.
EPA's rule applies to new and modified oil and gas sources, while BLM's rule pertains to existing sources on public lands.Other oil and gas rules
Federal regulators haven't replaced all of the rules demolished in the wake of Trump's order.
Interior completely wiped out Obama-era requirements for hydraulic fracturing operations and for the valuation of federal minerals. Litigation on both of those rescissions is still pending, and replacement rules are nowhere to be found.
A new valuation rule could be introduced this fall, according to the administration's October 2018 regulatory agenda.
The Trump administration appears to have spared two less controversial rules governing energy development in national parks and wildlife refuges.Coal leasing
Another casualty of "energy independence" was the Obama administration's stay on new federal coal leasing.
The cancellation is facing court challenges from environmental groups and tribal advocates.
But while the Trump administration keeps saying the "war on coal" is over, the amount of federal coal up for lease has actually shrunk significantly since the moratorium ended.
The downturn is driven by declining coal demand as natural gas and renewable energy capture a greater share of the electricity market.
Most major coal companies already have years' worth of coal under lease. At the same time, they are losing customers as more coal-fired power plants close.
Reporters Kelsey Brugger, Dylan Brown and Niina Heikkinen contributed.
See below for an annotated version of the executive order, or click here for a PDF version.Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
PROMOTING ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. (a) It is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation. Moreover, the prudent development of these natural resources is essential to ensuring the Nation's geopolitical security.
(b) It is further in the national interest to ensure that the Nation's electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean, and that it can be produced from coal, natural gas, nuclear material, flowing water, and other domestic sources, including renewable sources. The order sets out lofty goals for promoting development of all types of energy, but its recommended regulatory rollbacks focus on streamlining fossil fuel development.
(c) Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that executive departments and agencies (agencies) immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.
(d) It further is the policy of the United States that, to the extent permitted by law, all agencies should take appropriate actions to promote clean air and clean water for the American people, while also respecting the proper roles of the Congress and the States concerning these matters in our constitutional republic.
(e) It is also the policy of the United States that necessary and appropriate environmental regulations comply with the law, are of greater benefit than cost, when permissible, achieve environmental improvements for the American people, and are developed through transparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics.
Sec. 2. Immediate Review of All Agency Actions that Potentially Burden the Safe, Efficient Development of Domestic Energy Resources. (a) The heads of agencies shall review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. Such review shall not include agency actions that are mandated by law, necessary for the public interest, and consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.
(b) For purposes of this order, "burden" means to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.This clause gives the order broader reach, prompting regulatory reviews from many agencies beyond EPA and the Interior Department.
(c) Within 45 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency with agency actions described in subsection (a) of this section shall develop and submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) a plan to carry out the review required by subsection (a) of this section. The plans shall also be sent to the Vice President, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The head of any agency who determines that such agency does not have agency actions described in subsection (a) of this section shall submit to the OMB Director a written statement to that effect and, absent a determination by the OMB Director that such agency does have agency actions described in subsection (a) of this section, shall have no further responsibilities under this section.
(d) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit a draft final report detailing the agency actions described in subsection (a) of this section to the Vice President, the OMB Director, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The report shall include specific recommendations that, to the extent permitted by law, could alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency actions that burden domestic energy production.
(e) The report shall be finalized within 180 days of the date of this order, unless the OMB Director, in consultation with the other officials who receive the draft final reports, extends that deadline. Some agencies, including EPA, the Interior Department and the Department of Energy, began to make their regulatory reviews public in 2017.
(f) The OMB Director, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall be responsible for coordinating the recommended actions included in the agency final reports within the Executive Office of the President.
(g) With respect to any agency action for which specific recommendations are made in a final report pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, the head of the relevant agency shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding, those actions, as appropriate and consistent with law. Agencies shall endeavor to coordinate such regulatory reforms with their activities undertaken in compliance with Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs).
Sec. 3. Rescission of Certain Energy and Climate-Related Presidential and Regulatory Actions. (a) The following Presidential actions are hereby revoked:
(i) Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change);
(ii) The Presidential Memorandum of June 25, 2013 (Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards);
(iii) The Presidential Memorandum of November 3, 2015 (Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment); and
(iv) The Presidential Memorandum of September 21, 2016 (Climate Change and National Security).
(b) The following reports shall be rescinded:
(i) The Report of the Executive Office of the President of June 2013 (The President's Climate Action Plan); and
(ii) The Report of the Executive Office of the President of March 2014 (Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions).
(c) The Council on Environmental Quality shall rescind its final guidance entitled "Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews," which is referred to in "Notice of Availability," 81 Fed. Reg. 51866 (August 5, 2016).
(d) The heads of all agencies shall identify existing agency actions related to or arising from the Presidential actions listed in subsection (a) of this section, the reports listed in subsection (b) of this section, or the final guidance listed in subsection (c) of this section. Each agency shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding any such actions, as appropriate and consistent with law and with the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.
Sec. 4. Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Power Plan" and Related Rules and Agency Actions. (a) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator) shall immediately take all steps necessary to review the final rules set forth in subsections (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of this section, and any rules and guidance issued pursuant to them, for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules. In addition, the Administrator shall immediately take all steps necessary to review the proposed rule set forth in subsection (b)(iii) of this section, and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, determine whether to revise or withdraw the proposed rule.
(b) This section applies to the following final or proposed rules:
(i) The final rule entitled "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 80 Fed. Reg. 64661 (October 23, 2015) (Clean Power Plan);The Trump administration has formally proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan and last summer unveiled a proposed replacement rule.
(ii) The final rule entitled "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 80 Fed. Reg. 64509 (October 23, 2015); andThe new source rule is still in effect. A legal challenge over the 2015 rule is stalled while EPA works on a replacement rule.
(iii) The proposed rule entitled "Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations; Proposed Rule," 80 Fed. Reg. 64966 (October 23, 2015).
(c) The Administrator shall review and, if appropriate, as soon as practicable, take lawful action to suspend, revise, or rescind, as appropriate and consistent with law, the "Legal Memorandum Accompanying Clean Power Plan for Certain Issues," which was published in conjunction with the Clean Power Plan.
(d) The Administrator shall promptly notify the Attorney General of any actions taken by the Administrator pursuant to this order related to the rules identified in subsection (b) of this section so that the Attorney General may, as appropriate, provide notice of this order and any such action to any court with jurisdiction over pending litigation related to those rules, and may, in his discretion, request that the court stay the litigation or otherwise delay further litigation, or seek other appropriate relief consistent with this order, pending the completion of the administrative actions described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 5. Review of Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon, Nitrous Oxide, and Methane for Regulatory Impact Analysis. (a) In order to ensure sound regulatory decision making, it is essential that agencies use estimates of costs and benefits in their regulatory analyses that are based on the best available science and economics.
(b) The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), which was convened by the Council of Economic Advisers and the OMB Director, shall be disbanded, and the following documents issued by the IWG shall be withdrawn as no longer representative of governmental policy:The Trump administration’s proposals to replace the Clean Power Plan and BLM and EPA methane rules feature significantly reduced estimates of the social cost of emitting greenhouse gas.
(i) Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (February 2010);
(ii) Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (May 2013);
(iii) Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (November 2013);
(iv) Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (July 2015);
(v) Addendum to the Technical Support Document for Social Cost of Carbon: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide (August 2016); and
(vi) Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (August 2016).
(c) Effective immediately, when monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations, including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount rates, agencies shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that any such estimates are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003 (Regulatory Analysis), which was issued after peer review and public comment and has been widely accepted for more than a decade as embodying the best practices for conducting regulatory cost-benefit analysis.
Sec. 6. Federal Land Coal Leasing Moratorium. The Secretary of the Interior shall take all steps necessary and appropriate to amend or withdraw Secretary's Order 3338 dated January 15, 2016 (Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to Modernize the Federal Coal Program), and to lift any and all moratoria on Federal land coal leasing activities related to Order 3338. The Secretary shall commence Federal coal leasing activities consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. Interior lifted the Obama administration’s federal coal leasing freeze in 2017 but industry interest in new leases has been light.
Sec. 7. Review of Regulations Related to United States Oil and Gas Development. (a) The Administrator shall review the final rule entitled "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources," 81 Fed. Reg. 35824 (June 3, 2016), and any rules and guidance issued pursuant to it, for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules. EPA tried but failed to stall the Obama administration’s methane standards for new oil and gas. The rule is now in effect while EPA moves forward on a broader rollback.
(b) The Secretary of the Interior shall review the following final rules, and any rules and guidance issued pursuant to them, for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules:
(i) The final rule entitled "Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands," 80 Fed. Reg. 16128 (March 26, 2015);Interior rolled back the fracking rule in 2017. A lawsuit filed by environmentalists is still pending in court.
(ii) The final rule entitled "General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights," 81 Fed. Reg. 77972 (November 4, 2016);
(iii) The final rule entitled "Management of Non Federal Oil and Gas Rights," 81 Fed. Reg. 79948 (November 14, 2016); andInterior has made no announcements on these less controversial rules. Efforts to repeal under the Congressional Review Act failed.
(iv) The final rule entitled "Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation," 81 Fed. Reg. 83008 (November 18, 2016).After an unsuccessful Congressional Review Act push, Interior tried twice to delay the Bureau of Land Management’s methane rule, but both attempts were rejected in court. A revised regulation, which mostly rescinds the 2016 standards, now faces a challenge in a California district court.
(c) The Administrator or the Secretary of the Interior, as applicable, shall promptly notify the Attorney General of any actions taken by them related to the rules identified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section so that the Attorney General may, as appropriate, provide notice of this order and any such action to any court with jurisdiction over pending litigation related to those rules, and may, in his discretion, request that the court stay the litigation or otherwise delay further litigation, or seek other appropriate relief consistent with this order, until the completion of the administrative actions described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 28, 2017.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/27/stories/1060130057

Return to headline | Return to top
State Close to Finalizing Cap-and-Trade Bill

Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Sarah Zimmerman

Oregon lawmakers on Monday unveiled a compromise proposal to a cap-and-trade bill regulating greenhouse gas emissions, responding to overwhelming opposition from businesses and agricultural groups that worry the plan could put them out of work.
The bill would make Oregon the second state in the country after California to implement an economywide cap-and-trade program. Under the bill, the state would place an overall limit on emissions and then sell a set number of pollution permits or "allowances" to the highest bidder.
But the plan sparked criticism from both sides, drawing thousands to testify at a series of public hearings around the state over the past two months. Environmentalists complained that the program doesn't go far enough and exempts too many polluters, while businesses say the costs associated with it would mean higher fuel costs and lost jobs.
Co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Carbon Reduction Sen. Michael Dembrow and Rep. Karin Power said the new changes are meant to address those concerns and strike a delicate balance between preserving economic interests and combating an impending climate catastrophe.
Most notably, they're proposing to invest a majority of the funds in rural and low-income communities and added a plan to refund any additional fuel costs to those making less than their area's median income.
"The rural communities are in the front lines of climate change," said Dembrow, a Democrat from Portland. "They're going to feel those effects most directly, so we want to make sure any invests coming out of this program are investing heavily in rural areas and where low-income individuals are located."
At least half of all funds must benefit rural and low-income communities, with 10 percent earmarked for federally recognized tribes. Other revenue would go to clean energy job training, wildfire prevention and a program that would fund environmentally friendly transportation projects.
And around a fifth of the funds would be dedicated to the gasoline refund program, to help low-income people adjust to possible increases in gas prices as a result of the legislation.
The revised proposal now also covers emissions from waste incinerators and from fluorinated gas, which were previously exempted. Landfills would also be regulated separately.
Businesses would be allowed to discharge up to 95 percent of their emissions for free for the first three years of the program. After that, they could still receive allowances for 95 percent of their emissions if they prove to the state that they're using the best available technology.
Power, a Democrat from Milwaukie, said they're taking a "stick and carrot approach" to encourage businesses to remain in the state while also reducing their carbon emissions.
"If you're really, truly doing what's best in class, you'll be getting allowances to reflect that investment," she said. "And if you're not, you have an incentive to move to that quickly."
The Joint Committee on Carbon Reduction will hear the details of the amendment this week, along with alternative proposals from other lawmakers. Dembrow said he's hoping for final passage within the next few weeks.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/27/stories/1060129791

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Houston Chemical Distribution Tank Farm Burns, Cause Unknown

Mar 26, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Jeff Johnson

The cause of a massive fire at a petrochemical storage and distribution facility near Houston remains unknown, more than a week after the blaze and resulting smoke and chemical releases resulted in shelter-in-place orders for residents and shut down the Houston ship channel. No workers were injured or killed.
In all, 11 above-ground chemical storage tanks, each with a capacity of 80,000 barrels (12.7 million L), caught fire on March 17 and burned for three days. Residents of nearby Deer Park, which abuts the Houston ship channel, were twice ordered to stay indoors, first because of the initial fire and chemical releases and then again several days later following more releases due to a containment dam breach. Also, throughout the week several smaller fires broke out but were quickly contained.
A 10-mile stretch of the busy ship channel remained closed as of C&EN’s deadline.
Intercontinental Terminals Company (ITC), a subsidiary of Mitsui & Co., owns and operates the large tank facility. It is one of two ITC terminal centers along the Houston ship channel.
Sign up for C&EN's must-read weekly newsletterSubscribe »
Contact us to opt out anytime
The Deer Park facility provides chemicals to regional companies and has 242 tanks with a total storage capacity of 13.1 million barrels (2.1 million m3 or 2.1 billion L). It holds petrochemical liquids and gases as well as fuel oil, bunker oil, and distillates, according to a company statement. The terminal has five ship docks and ten barge docks, rail and truck access, and multiple pipeline connections.
In a brief statement, the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board said it would begin an investigation of the accident the week of March 25. ITC will become the ninth chemical distribution facility accident to be investigated by the board since it was established in 1998. The 11 tanks that caught fire were among 15 located in a specific portion of the tank farm, an ITC spokesperson said. Two tanks were empty. Plant and emergency personal are attempting to drain the tanks’ contents that remain following the fire, evaporation, and leakage. As of C&EN’s deadline, accident specifics were limited because personnel were unable to get to the site, the spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, the state of Texas has filed an environmental lawsuit against ITC seeking unspecified injunctive relief and civil penalties, alleging that the fire released air pollution in violation of the Texas Clean Air Act. In the suit, the state attorney general’s office specifically highlighted benzene releases, noting that residents of Deer Park and neighboring Galena Park were twice told to stay indoors because of concerns about unhealthy air quality. Also, schools in the area were closed for more than a week.
Texas environmental groups are concerned about the impact of leakage to the ship channel of 280,000 L of a mix of firefighting foams, contaminated water, and petrochemicals once held in the tanks. The channel and bayous near the tank facility are being skimmed by US Coast Guard ships, ITC officials say.
Some 1,100 federal, state, and local first responders and contractors as well as 34 vessels have been involved in the containment and cleanup operation, ITC says.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Houston-chemical-distribution-tank-farm/97/web/2019/03

Return to headline | Return to top
Harris County Sues ITC Over Deer Park Chemical Fire

Mar 27, 2019 | Houston Chronicle

By Zach Despart

Harris County sued Interncontinental Terminals Co. Tuesday for failing to prevent a massive petrochemical tank fire that burned for more than 60 hours last week, spewing an unknown volume of hazardous chemicals into the air and nearby waterways.
The county is seeking a temporary injunction and restraining order against the company, alleging it violated the Texas Clean Air Act and the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, among other rules.
“The primary purpose of the action is to do everything we can as a county to keep this from happening again,” First Assistant County Attorney Robert Soard said.Unlimited Digital Access for as little as $0.99.Read more articles like this by subscribing to the Houston Chronicle SUBSCRIBE
The lawsuit accuses ITC of violating the state’s water code, health and safety code and administrative code on multiple days, by “causing suffering or allowing the discharge of at least one air contaminant without a permit and in such concentration and or such duration as to be injurious to human health, welfare or property, or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of property.”
An ITC spokeswoman declined to comment on the suit.
At their first meeting since the blaze began March 17, court members promised to hold the petroleum product storage company accountable for the Deer Park fire. They passed a series of motions directing county departments to assess how to improve emergency preparedness and took two hours of testimony from residents who feared for the community’s health after the blaze.
Precinct 4 Commissioner Steve Radack blasted ITC’s response and said steep penalties often are the only remedy to ensure firms reform after major incidents that put the public at risk.
“Until some of these people who go out and put massive amounts of human beings at risk… start finding themselves placed in jail, you’re not going to see what you need to see,” Radack said. “When you take a look at how many people could have been killed in this incident, and these people’s track record, I think it’s a shame. Something drastic needs to be done, and our state Legislature needs to do it. ”
Radack also criticized ITC’s public relations strategy since the fire and said officials’ claims to care for the Deer Park community were insincere.
In addition to the lawsuit, the court authorized the county attorney’s office to hire an in-house auditor to review ITC’s actions during and after the fire. Soard said the investigation will help the county determine how much to seek from the lawsuit in damages.
Soard also said Harris County will demand ITC cover the cost of the government’s response, which included air and water monitoring, mobile clinics sponsored by the health department and an ongoing activation of the Office of Emergency Management.
County Judge Lina Hidalgo urged lawmakers in Austin to oppose several bills she said would hamper the ability of the county to recoup damages from ITC.
One bill filed in the Legislature would allow the attorney general to settle claims in civil lawsuits brought by local governments without local officials’ approval, and would only apply to suits related to laws, rules, orders or permits under the jurisdiction of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Another would cap how much local governments could recoup in civil suits at $4.3 million, half of which would go to the state.
“What we want to do is ensure we are holding those responsible to account,” Hidalgo said.
Court members directed the county’s legislative director in Austin to lobby against the bills and encouraged Houston-area legislators to do the same.
The county attorney’s lawsuit and investigation are separate from a probe already started by the Harris County Fire Marshal’s office, and a second underway by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.
The Texas Attorney General’s office sued ITC last Friday, accusing it of violating Texas Commission on Environmental Quality rules regarding unauthorized air pollution, outdoor burning and emissions.
More than 30 residents, many from Houston Ship Channel communities, testified about the ITC fire during Tuesday’s six-hour court session. Some said they feared county officials, including the newly elected Hidalgo and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, were downplaying the risk to the public from hazardous chemicals emitted by the ITC site.
“I worked on your campaigns. I went to these communities in the East End,” Heights resident Deirdre Scott said. “We voted you in and we can vote you out.”
Pasadena mother Victoria Salas said she was frustrated the county was unable to test water and air samples more quickly, leading her to question the accuracy of officials’ assurances.
“I limit my kids’ shower time,” she said. “They have to brush their teeth with bottled water, because I don’t trust anything I’m seeing. I don’t trust anything I’m hearing.”
Cleanup crews at the charred ITC plant still were scooping up pockets of oil in the Houston Ship Channel, Tucker Bayou and Buffalo Bayou, U.S. Coast Guard officials said Tuesday.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-County-sues-ITC-over-Deer-Park-chemical-13718822.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Signs Executive Order on Protecting US from Potential EMP Attacks

Mar 27, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Jacqueline Thomsen

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order directing federal agencies to identify the threats posed by potential electromagnetic pulses (EMP), which are believed to be potentially dangerous to critical infrastructure like the electric grid, and find ways to guard against them.
Senior administration officials told reporters during a call Tuesday that the order will direct federal agencies to coordinate in assessing the threats that EMPs pose, and find ways to prevent their impact. An EMP is a burst of electromagnetic energy that can be caused by a nuclear weapon or solar storms.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement that the order will create an environment "that promotes private-sector innovation to strengthen our critical infrastructure."
"Today’s executive order – the first ever to establish a comprehensive policy to improve resilience to EMPs – is one more example of how the administration is keeping its promise to always be vigilant against present dangers and future threats," she said.
The officials noted during the call with reporters that the national security strategy released in 2017 was the first to identify EMPs as a threat, and that the executive order will build off that work.
“We are taking concrete steps to address this threat,” one senior administration official said. “The steps that we are taking are designed to protect key systems, networks and assets that are most at risk from EMP events.”
The order signed by Trump directs agencies to identify pieces of critical infrastructure, like the electric grid, that could potentially be impacted by an EMP. It tasks national security adviser John Bolton with overseeing the order's implementation.
Under the directive, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has 90 days to create a list of national critical systems that, if disrupted, would cause harm to public safety or national security, and then a year to identify critical infrastructure that could be impacted by EMPs.
Other parts of the order require the Homeland Security chief to later review data on the potential impact of EMPs, and for the Energy Secretary to create benchmarks laying out the effects of different kinds of EMPs.
The secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense and Energy are also required to submit an annual report to the president on how to best make critical infrastructure resilient to EMP attacks.
The Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Energy, Commerce and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are among the agencies involved in the executive order.
Senior administration officials told reporters that the executive order was not in response to new intelligence showing that the U.S. could soon experience an EMP attack, but is rather "driven more on overall risk than just threat."
"We’re taking action on longstanding recommendations from the scientific community," one senior administration official said, "and recognizing that we have to work with our partners across the board to make sure that we’ve got a risk-based approach here that balances threat but also looks at the vulnerabilities and potential consequences associated with EMP events."
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/435917-trump-signs-executive-order-on-protecting-us-from-potential-emp-attacks

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Pipeline Safety Update - Issue No. 147

Mar 26, 2019 | National Law Review

On March 26, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced that it will exercise enforcement discretion with respect to farm taps which PHMSA describes as “individual service lines that are directly connected to transmission, gathering, and production pipelines lines.” Specifically, PHMSA has announced that it will not initiate enforcement against an operator that elects to manage the safety of farm taps under a distribution integrity management plan (DIMP) instead of performing the inspections specified in section 192.740 of the pipeline safety regulations. The purpose of PHMSA’s announcement is to allow operators to choose whether to address the safety of farm taps under section 192.740 or DIMP. PHMSA’s announcement becomes effective on March 26 and remains effective until further notice. PHMSA also states that it is considering whether to revise sections 192.740 and 192.1003 to codify the option of managing the safety of farm taps under either regulation.
Although not addressed in PHMSA’s announcement, state regulators will have the same enforcement discretion with respect to state-regulated farm tap facilities.
The background to this announcement is that, in January 2017, PHMSA issued a final rule adopting section 192.740 which requires that operators inspect and perform tests on pressure regulating or limiting devices, relief devices (except rupture discs), automatic shut off devices and associated equipment that are located on “any service line directly connected to a production, gathering, or transmission pipeline that is not operated as part of a distribution system.” Under section 192.740, an operator is required to inspect such facilities once every 3 calendar years, not to exceed 39 months. The final rule also adopted section 192.1003(b) exempting individual service lines directly connected to transmission, gathering, and production pipelines from DIMP.
After issuance of these regulations, the American Gas Association (AGA), Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and American Petroleum Institute (API) filed comments in response to the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) October 2, 2017 notice seeking input on existing rules that are good candidates for repeal, replacement, suspension or modification. The associations urged that sections 192.740 and 192.1003 be modified to give operators the flexibility to address the safety of farm taps under either regulation. In particular, the trade associations argued that operators continue to have the ability to manage farm tap risks under DIMP. PHMSA’s announcement addresses that request. DOT Office of Inspector General Initiates Audit of PHMSA’s Safety Culture
On March 13, DOT’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a memorandum to PHMSA announcing an audit to assess PHMSA’s safety culture in carrying out its mission of ensuring safe transportation of energy by pipeline and the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Noting that PHMSA’s strategic plan contains a goal of emphasizing safety over competing goals and demands, OIG states that the audit will assess how PHMSA influences its own safety culture through internal controls such as compliance and enforcement measures and by upholding leading practices. DOT Extends Deadline for Commenting on Guidance Documents That Should Be Repealed or Revised
On March 8, DOT issued a notice extending until May 8 the deadline for submitting comments on a Notice issued February 5 inviting the public to file comments identifying guidance documents issued by DOT modal agencies, including PHMSA, that should be repealed or revised.
PHMSA Rulemakings Update. The chart below shows the status of PHMSA’ pending pipeline safety rulemaking initiatives as reflected in DOT’s February Significant Rulemaking Report, PHMSA’s Chart (updated March 12) summarizing the status of legislatively mandated actions, and the Office of Management & Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Unified Agenda appears in two principal parts, Current Agenda Agency Regulatory Entries for Active Actions and Current Long Term Actions.
New information appears in bold. Note that, according to PHMSA’s chart, the final rule on the Safety of Onshore Hazardous Liquid Pipelines was transmitted to OMB on March 8.  Pending Final RulesProceedingDOT Estimated PublicationOIRA Estimated PublicationPHMSA’s Chart
Emergency Order Procedures
March 20, 2019
October 2018
April 22, 2019
Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, MAOP Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements and Other Related Amendments
July 2, 2019
March 2019
July 2, 2019
Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, Repair Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments
December 20, 2019
December 2019
Not Listed
Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines
December 20, 2019
December 2019
Not Listed
Safety of Onshore Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
May 27, 2019
December 2018
June 18, 2019
Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities
July 2, 2019
December 2018
July 2, 2019Pending Notices of Proposed RulemakingsProceedingDOT Estimated PublicationOIRA Estimated PublicationPHMSA’s Chart
Class Location Requirements
Not Specified
September 2019
Not Listed
Gas Pipeline Regulatory Reform
August 14, 2019
May 2019
Not Listed
Liquid Pipeline Regulatory Reform
Not Listed
Feb. 2019
Not Listed
Periodic Standards Update
Not Listed
April 2020
Not Listed
Repair Criteria for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
Not Specified
Next Action Undetermined
Not Listed
Valve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards
August 7, 2019
January 2019
August 7, 2019Pending Advance Notices of Proposed RulemakingsProceedingDOT Estimated PublicationOIRA Estimated PublicationPHMSA’s Chart
Coastal Ecological Unusually Sensitive Areas
Not Listed
April 2020
Not SpecifiedOther PHMSA Updates
DOT’s FY 2020 budget would decrease funding for PHMSA’s pipeline safety programs.  On March 11, DOT released its Budget Highlights for Fiscal Year 2020 which reflects a request for $149 million for PHMSA’s pipeline safety program. The FY 2020 budget request reflects a decrease of $16 million from enacted FY 2019 levels.
The Voluntary Information-Sharing System Working Group releases recommendations.  On March 12, the Voluntary Information-Sharing (VIS) System Working Group released its Recommendation Report. The VIS Working Group was developed to explore issues relating to the development of a centralized, organized system to permit operators to voluntarily share information about pipeline safety for the purpose of improving safe pipeline operations. The VIS Working Group offered three recommendations that, combined with continued emphasis on robust safety management system programs, are essential to establishing an effective VIS: (1) congressionally authorized VIS, including a technology platform, that provides for the participation of operators, PHMSA and other stakeholders; (2) federal legislation to provide confidentiality, non-punitive, and other legal protections for participating operators; and (3) inclusion of information about distribution systems.
PHMSA seeks comments on information collections related to safety-related condition reports and hazardous liquid pipeline integrity management. On March 22, PHMSA issued a notice requesting comments regarding the renewal of two expiring information collections. The first involves the requirement that operators submit safety-related conditions when such conditions exist on gas or hazardous liquid pipelines or LNG facilities. The second involves recordkeeping and reporting requirements under PHMSA’s hazardous liquid pipeline integrity management regulations. Comments must be filed at PHMSA by May 21.
PHMSA releases report to Congress analyzing the safety of shipping crude oil by various modes.  On March 19, DOT Secretary, Elaine Chao, transmitted a report to Congress analyzing the comparative safety of shipping crude oil by truck, rail and pipeline. The study concluded that, when the percentage of product spilled per volume shipped is used as a proxy for safety, shipping by water is the safest, followed by pipeline, truck and rail. If the rate of incidents is used as the proxy, shipping crude by pipeline is more safe than truck, followed by rail. If safety is measured using human consequences (i.e., serious injuries and fatalities), then shipping crude by rail is safer than truck, followed by pipeline.
PHMSA recommended further study using additional composite consequence metrics, including economic or environmental damage, and the exploration of additional risk methodologies, such as a risk matrix methodology. PHMSA also emphasized that significant knowledge gaps exist regarding the exposure, vulnerability and consequences of crude oil transportation, and noted that PHMSA is conducting additional studies and surveys to fill those knowledge gaps as required under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. DOT prepared the March 19 report pursuant to the Fiscal Year 2016 Senate Appropriations Report.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pipeline-safety-update-issue-no-147

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Senate Blocks Green New Deal

Mar 26, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Jordain Carney and Miranda Green

The Senate on Tuesday blocked the Green New Deal, a progressive climate change resolution that Republicans view as prime fodder heading into the 2020 presidential election.
The Senate voted 0-57 on taking up the resolution, with 43 Democrats voting present. The measure was widely expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome the procedural hurdle.
Most Democrats were expected to vote present, a move that allowed them to avoid taking a formal position. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.) and Angus King (I-Maine) voted with Republicans against the measure.
Republicans have seized on the measure as an example of Democrats shifting to the left ahead of next year's presidential election. Every Democratic senator running for the party’s nomination in 2020 has co-sponsored the Senate Green New Deal resolution.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lashed out at the proposal ahead of the vote on Tuesday, calling it an item on the “far-left wish list that many of our Democratic colleagues have rushed to embrace.”ADVERTISEMENT
“The American people will see, they will see which of their senators can do the common sense thing and vote no on this destructive socialist daydream. And they will see which senators are so fully committed to radical left-wing ideology that they can’t even vote no on self-inflicted economic ruin,” he said.
The resolution, introduced last month by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), strives for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the United States while creating millions of “good, high-wage jobs.” It’s faced pushback from conservatives as well as some Democrats for being too broad and including wish list items not directly related to climate change, like expanding family farming and transitioning away from air travel.
Leading into Tuesday, Democrats accused McConnell of trying to set up a “gotcha” vote since no hearings were held on the fast-tracked legislation, which was widely expected to fail to get the 60 votes needed to ultimately pass the Senate.
Speaking at a rally Tuesday morning, Markey blasted Republicans for putting on a "sham vote."
“They are calling a vote without hearings, without expert testimony, without any true discussion of the costs of climate inaction and the massive potential for clean energy job creation in our country. And that is because Sen. McConnell wants to sabotage the call for climate action,” he said.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) added that Republicans were making “a mockery of the legislative process” by bringing the Green New Deal resolution up for a vote just to have the Senate vote it down.
“Republicans want to force this political stunt to distract from the fact that they neither have a plan nor a sense of urgency to deal with the threat of climate change. ... It’s a political act. It’s a political stunt,” he said.
The resolution has divided the Senate Democratic caucus, which ranges from red-state centrists to progressives such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who are both running for president.
Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said the Green New Deal was “aspirational” and he wanted something that was “legislational.”
“I think there are parts of that Green New Deal that are excellent and some that I disagree with. At this point in time I’m going to be voting present … because I believe we should be legislational. I believe we should be bipartisan,” he said.
A dozen Democratic senators co-sponsored Markey’s Green New Deal resolution, including six 2020 White House hopefuls. Those senators followed suit with Markey in voting present on the bill Tuesday.
Prior to the vote, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a co-sponsor, said that he and “almost every, if not every” Democrat would be voting present on the resolution.
Progressive groups signaled ahead of the vote that they were giving senators a pass on the Green New Deal vote and were supportive of senators who planned to vote present.
Ocasio-Cortez also lashed out over the weekend at Republicans, saying they were “wasting votes” and should “stop wasting the American peoples’ time [and] learn to govern.”
Pushing back on Senate Republicans, Democrats attempted to turn the tables by trying to debate their conservative counterparts on their climate views. Many lawmakers goaded GOP members to state what climate legislation they instead supported, if not the Green New Deal.
"[McConnell] and his colleagues want to make a mockery of the national debate that we have started with the Green New Deal, and that’s because they have no plans to fight climate change,” said Markey. “Republicans have no intention of passing legislation to combat climate change.”
All 47 members of the Senate Democratic Conference introduced a short alternative resolution last month stating that human activity is the “dominant cause” of climate change and that Congress should take “immediate” action. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) — who is up for reelection next year in a state won by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 — is the only Republican senator who supported it.
McConnell said Tuesday that he believes that climate change is real and caused by humans, but characterized the Green New Deal resolution as "nonsense."
"The way to do this consistent with American values and American capitalism is through technology and innovation … not to shut down your economy, throw people out of work," McConnell told reporters. "This is nonsense. And if you're going to sign onto nonsense, you ought to have to vote for nonsense."
After a year of extreme weather, including historic, deadly fires and hurricanes, as well as reports that 2018 was one of the warmest years on record, Democrats argue they have public opinion on their side.
Two polls released earlier this year found that a majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. More than 70 percent of respondents held that view, according to a University of Chicago and Associated Press poll. Meanwhile, 73 percent told researchers at Yale University and George Mason University that global warming is happening, marking a 10-point shift from March 2015.
But Republicans and the White House doubled down Tuesday on their belief that the Democrats coalescing around the Green New Deal could pay dividends for the president and GOP lawmakers during next year's election.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Trump brought up the proposal during a closed-door lunch with Senate Republicans and told them to "make sure you don't kill it too much, because I want to run against it."
As the Senate floor drama unfolded Tuesday, the Democratic-led House remained quiet as to how it plans to address its own Green New Deal resolution.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not committed to holding a hearing on the plan, despite calls from House GOP leaders last week to do so. And Ocasio-Cortez nor climate activist supporters of the legislation have called for a similar vote on the legislation in the House.
The House GOP campaign arm pounced on the reality Tuesday, with National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Michael McAdams saying progressives should “demand” Pelosi bring the Green New Deal up for a vote otherwise “they should quit their political posturing and admit the Green New Deal is nothing but a fantasy right up there with Bigfoot and rainbow unicorns.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/435899-senate-blocks-green-new-deal

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Blocks Green New Deal but Expends Plenty of Carbon Talking About It

Mar 26, 2019 | The New York Times

By Lisa Friedman

The Senate blocked consideration of the Green New Deal on Tuesday, ending a Republican effort to hitch Democratic presidential candidates to the climate plan and paint Democrats as out-of-touch socialists and fantasists.
The resolution that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, put to a test vote called on the federal government to rapidly eliminate planet-warming fossil fuel emissions; accelerate the deployment of wind, solar and other zero-carbon energy sources; and create a national jobs program.
But the procedural motion simply to take up the Green New Deal failed to get a single vote. Democrats, including those who were sponsors of the resolution, denounced the move as a sham intended to divide their party and provide Republicans with election-season talking points. They overwhelmingly voted “present” on the motion, and it failed, 0 to 57.
Three Democratic senators — Joe Manchin III, who represents coal-heavy West Virginia; Doug Jones of Alabama; and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — joined Republicans voting no, as did Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the hours of discussion that preceded the desultory procedural vote marked the most extensive examination of climate change on the Senate floor in years. The fight also took on larger dimensions as a proxy for the 2020 presidential battle, with Republicans charging that liberals intend to raise energy costs and devastate middle-class livelihoods, and Democrats blasting their counterparts for climate denial and inaction on an issue most Americans agree is serious.
The day of drama included Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, exhibiting a poster of former President Ronald Reagan astride a dinosaur in an effort to treat the Green New Deal with “the seriousness it deserves.” Mr. McConnell dismissed the plan as a “science-fiction novel.” Outside the Senate, environmental activists chanted: “What do we want? A Green New Deal. When do we want it? Now!” even as they clarified that they did not actually want the Senate to pass this particular Green New Deal resolution at this precise moment.
“To ordinary people, climate change is not politics. It’s life and death,” said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a sponsor of the Senate version of the Green New Deal. Mr. Markey accused Republicans of trying to “sabotage” efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and predicted that “they will pay a price at the ballot box in 2020.”
Still, the maneuvering ultimately allowed both parties to declare political victory.
Democrats said they intended to move forward on a number of fronts. In the House, a senior Democratic leadership aide said lawmakers would introduce sweeping legislation this week to require the Trump administration to stay in the Paris Agreement on climate change and create a plan for meeting the United States’ commitment to the global climate deal.
In the Senate, Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, and Brian Schatz of Hawaii will announce a new special committee on climate change. Democrats are also expected to push to prioritize climate change in coming legislation on infrastructure and a deal to raise spending caps.Editors’ PicksA Beloved Restaurant Where Fried Chicken Achieves Its Highest FormA Handyman Asks: After Servicing a Home, Can I Get Paid to Service My Clients’ Other Needs?Felicity Huffman: Desperate Housewife, Devoted Parent and Now a Defendant
ADVERTISEMENT
Environmental activists said they believed the Republican strategy to ridicule, campaign on and raise money off the Green New Deal had backfired, with even Mr. McConnell acknowledging at a news conference on Tuesday that climate change was real and caused by human activity.
“Mitch McConnell bet big that today’s vote would fracture the Democratic caucus,” said Varshini Prakash, the executive director of the Sunrise Movement, a youth movement for climate action. “Today he bet wrong,” she added.
Shortly after the vote, however, Republicans including Mr. McConnell and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming were scheduled to appear at a $500-a-plate fund-raiser for Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa at the National Mining Association, the chief lobbying group for the coal industry.
Republicans meanwhile boasted that they had exposed a plan so extreme that even Democrats shied away from it.
“Democrats are trying to duck, dodge and distance themselves from a vote on their own Green New Deal,” Mr. Barrasso said. “Every Democrat senator running for president supported it. Now when given the chance to actually go on the record, Democrats are desperate to avoid it.”
All six presidential candidates in the Senate — Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — had been sponsors of the Green New Deal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/senate-green-new-deal.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Lawmakers See Legislative Opening after Green New Deal Vote

Mar 27, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss

From the ashes of yesterday's Green New Deal vote may come legislative compromise.
The Senate yesterday rejected a procedural motion on the progressive climate framework, with "no" votes from all 53 Republicans and four Democrats: Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia; Doug Jones of Alabama; Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona; and Angus King, the Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats.CONTINUING COVERAGE
E&E News' continuing coverage of the Green New Deal. Click here to read more.
All other Democrats voted "present," including every 2020 presidential candidate and its Senate sponsor, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
The political battle isn't over, but the vote has given climate change a historic Senate limelight and may offer an opportunity for scaled-back measures to address climate change.
Debate on the floor during the last few weeks has featured only a handful of instances of outright climate change denial, though Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) notably suggested global warming is caused by volcanoes.
Instead, Republicans have mostly ticked off talking points about the Green New Deal and touted the need for energy "innovation."
"We're seeing, I think, a real tectonic shift taking place in the Republican Party away from blanket denial into they-don't-know-what-yet," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told reporters after the vote. "And it's going to be interesting to watch them as they move to whatever their next fallback trench is in this long battle for their fossil fuel funders."'New Manhattan Project'
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has led GOP opposition to carbon pricing and regulation for more than a decade, acknowledged yesterday that climate change is real and caused by humans.
"I do. The question is how do you address it?" McConnell told reporters when asked if he believes in man-made climate change.
When the partisan dust settles, senators from both parties said they believe there is still an opportunity to legislate on energy policy.
Some Republicans think that might mean advancing the kind of carbon capture and advanced nuclear measures Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has been pushing in recent weeks.
"That's what I'm hoping, when the smoke clears," said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who derided the Green New Deal as "goofy."
Cramer added that the Green New Deal debate raised some substantive policy discussions worth pursuing. Nuclear, in particular, could also be ripe for legislative horse trading, given its lack of carbon emissions, Cramer said.
He singled out a Monday floor speech by Sen. Lamar Alexander in which the Tennessee Republican laid out a comprehensive clean energy research effort he dubbed the "New Manhattan Project" (E&E Daily, March 26).
Several Democrats yesterday also expressed interest in Alexander's ideas, which include doubling Department of Energy research spending, with a focus on advanced nuclear and battery technologies.
"I want to talk to Lamar," said Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
"I thought he had some interesting ideas, with respect to climate change, that I share," he said. "When you look at the preamble to the Green New Deal and you look at some of Lamar's suggestions, there might be a way to meld them together."
Alexander said he has heard from "several" Democrats since the floor speech. He and a handful of other GOP senators have said in recent weeks that Republicans should have alternative policy ideas to make clear what they stand for on climate change.
"My hope is that it is not a Republican proposal, that it's a bipartisan proposal," Alexander told reporters yesterday. "There's not much in what I said that a Democrat couldn't support."
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who has carved out space in the climate debate for his own pro-natural gas policies, added that discussions continue among Republicans for a "conceptual" alternative to the Green New Deal (E&E Daily, Feb. 15).'Roosevelt-era programs'
Democrats are still solidly skeptical of all the Republican "innovation" rhetoric.
While plenty of Democrats support measures such as carbon capture and advanced nuclear, Republicans often use "innovation" as an argument for the status quo in the energy industry.
"Maybe we can have a side-by-side — we can vote on the Green New Deal and then we can vote on the clean energy Manhattan Project and see which reference to Roosevelt-era programs has the most votes," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) jokingly said to reporters yesterday.
Murphy said Alexander's ideas are a positive development. But, he added, "we need a step forward from people who are running for re-election."
Still, Alexander's proposals could be executed largely through the appropriations process, rather than in separate legislation.
Congress is unlikely to pass much of anything in divided government, much less on controversial topics such as climate change, but promoting clean energy might be a place where both parties can score political points.
"We don't need a big new law to do this," Alexander said. "We just need to direct the dollars that we are spending through our 17 national laboratories in an appropriate way."'Cognitive dissonance'
The lead-up to yesterday's vote, however, was pure political theater.
The Sunrise Movement kicked it off with a news conference outside the Capitol, featuring chants and an oversized Green New Deal banner.
It was joined by a gaggle of senators, including Markey and one presidential candidate — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) showed a series of images during debate on the Green New Deal, including a cartoon of Aquaman. He suggested that riding a seahorse would be a transportation option for Hawaiians if ideas tied to the climate resolution came to pass. Senate
The House Western Caucus followed up with an event where it continued to raise hyperbolic warnings about the Green New Deal, suggesting it would end everything from fresh cow milk to air travel.
Those claims are based in part off a fact sheet released, and then retracted, by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the lead sponsor in the House. The existing resolution says nothing about cows or air travel, but it does suggest "working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers" to reduce emissions.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Western Caucus, predicted the Senate vote would put the Green New Deal "out of its misery." He then drank a glass of milk to signify that one might be hard to come by under the Green New Deal that allegedly would limit cattle grazing.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), meanwhile, wore a tie bespeckled with oil rigs to the Senate vote.
It was all another sign that the Green New Deal vote was more about scoring political points than beginning a serious debate regarding climate change. Both sides believed they came out on top.
Democrats have for weeks celebrated that the Senate is finally debating climate policy, while Republicans are hoping it's an easy trick for fundraising and the campaign trail.
To be sure, the Senate vote was not the last gasp of publicity for the resolution.
President Trump told Republicans at the GOP policy luncheon yesterday he hopes it gets more attention because he wants to run against it, according to two senators in the room.
And House Republicans have already indicated they will keep on talking about it and even attempt to force their own floor vote in the lower chamber.
In fact, the action will continue today on Capitol Hill, with a Senate Democratic news conference on climate this morning and, later, yet another House Republican event on the Green New Deal.
On the Senate side, Democrats will announce that they are forming their own "Special Committee on Climate Change."
Congress will also continue to spend billions of dollars on natural disasters that scientists say are made more frequent and more intense by climate change.
In what Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called unfathomable "cognitive dissonance," the Senate moved to a procedural vote on a more than $13 billion disaster relief package directly after the Green New Deal failed.
"People who are experiencing floods, who've experienced wildfires, who've experienced hurricanes don't find this funny at all," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/27/stories/1060130181

Return to headline | Return to top
CASAC Research Scientist Attacks Panel Chairman’s NAAQS Review Shift

Mar 27, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

Mark Frampton, the sole research scientist on EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory committee (CASAC), is lambasting panel Chairman Tony Cox’s controversial new approach to assessing air pollution science for reviewing the agency’s particulate matter (PM) air standards, saying it undermines and misstates the latest data on PM.
Conclusions about the uncertainty on PM and its adverse health effects that Cox outlined in a March 7 draft letter to EPA do not represent a consensus of the panel, and in some cases Cox has misrepresented the panel’s prior discussions, Frampton warns in comments on the letter. Cox’s letter “does not accurately reflect the results of that discussion or represent a consensus among CASAC members,” writes Frampton.
The comments show the high-profile split within the independent CASAC over Cox’s new approach to reviewing science underpinning EPA’s national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Cox is proposing that the panel use the new approach for its ongoing review of the agency’s PM NAAQS.
And they reflect the lone CASAC research scientist’s input on the new approach, with other panelists such as toxicologists either not addressing Cox’s approach or offering some support for it.
The split could dominate a slated March 28 teleconference where panel members will review Cox’s draft letter, in which the committee gives its input on the agency’s integrated science assessment (ISA) for the PM NAAQS.
The ISA a key step in the Clean Air Act-mandated five-year NAAQS review process, summarizing the most policy-relevant science on the health and environmental impacts of PM air pollution. The ISA will inform the agency’s ultimate decision on whether to tighten its fine PM (PM2.5) and large “coarse” PM standards. The ISA under review by CASAC supports findings from prior reviews about the harmful effects of the pollutant, but also adds some new conclusions about the likely causal relationship between various forms of PM and neurological effects.
Cox’s draft letter broadly condemns the method used by agency staff to determine whether air pollutants cause specific adverse health effects. His attacks go well beyond questions specific to PM, calling for a wholesale change in EPA’s approach to NAAQS reviews. Cox is an industry consultant and longstanding skeptic of the agency’s conclusions on health effects, and considered something of a fringe voice by some scientists.
Perhaps most provocatively, Cox in his draft letter to the agency accuses EPA of ignoring evidence that PM2.5 air pollution does not, in fact, cause death as many scientists believe it does.
Cox also says the ISA “does not provide a comprehensive or systematic assessment of the available science relevant to understanding the health impacts of exposure to fine particulate matter, nor does it follow widely accepted scientific methods for deriving sound, independently verifiable, scientific conclusions from available data.”
Cox offers a scathing critique of EPA’s “causality framework,” and advocates for a new, narrower approach to determining causation of health effects than the weight-of-evidence approach used so far.
Frampton’s Push-Back
But Frampton says the “framework used by the EPA for determining causality was extensively discussed in the comments of individual CASAC members” in a public meeting in December. Yet Cox’s conclusion “does not accurately reflect the results of that discussion or represent a consensus among CASAC members.”
Frampton writes, “The causal determination categories as used in this as well as previous ISAs, provide clear and workable descriptions of the level of certainty for potentially causal relationships.”
Cox’s criteria “essentially eliminate determination that a PM effect is causal because such a requirement is unachievable in accountability studies,” he writes. Accountability study is a nascent field that seeks to verify whether air rules produced not only cuts in pollution but also the projected improvements in public health.
Cox doubts EPA’s conclusion, accepted by many in the scientific community, that PM2.5 exposure can cause death, saying EPA ignores some scientific studies that do not find increased mortality rates from exposure to elevated PM2.5.
But Frampton in his written comments counters that, “Overall the ISA presents a reasonably balanced view of the convincing evidence linking long-term PM2.5 exposure and mortality.”
Cox in the draft letter says, “the Draft ISA does not clearly communicate what science has revealed about the real-world effects of changing PM exposures on human health and welfare -- and hence about whether or under what conditions changes in PM are needed to protect human health. Substantial discordant and conflicting evidence remains ignored or unresolved.” But Frampton says this criticism is too broad.
Frampton says, “This is not an accurate assessment of most of the draft ISA, and such sweeping statements are inappropriate,” arguing the draft letter departs from CASAC’s task of reviewing the assessment.
However, CASAC panelist and Texas state toxicologist Sabine Lange in her comments posted to EPA’s website largely backs Cox’s draft letter. And there appears to be consensus on the panel that EPA has not justified its findings on neurological effects of PM2.5 air pollution and the even smaller “ultrafine” PM.
Other CASAC panelists have few observations on Cox’s comments. However, Janes Boylan, a Georgia air regulator, says in his comments that, “There is substantial controversy over CASAC’s recommendations with regards to the causal framework approach used by EPA. Since this subject is outside my area of expertise, I do not feel comfortable providing consensus on a controversial subject that I am not intimately familiar with.”
‘Delays And Paralysis’
Meanwhile, others continue to strongly criticize Cox’s approach, including former CASAC Chairman H. Christopher Frey who warns the new method would significantly slow the NAAQS review process.
In public comments prepared for the March 28 meeting, Frey -- a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University -- says Cox “is attempting to redefine the policy and decision context of the science review. The policy and decision context of the science review is set forth by Congress in the Clean Air Act, as interpreted by Federal courts, and is not amenable to ad hoc redefinition by CASAC or its chair.” Cox’s approach contradicts the 2016 review plan already approved by CASAC, Frey says.
Frey echoes Frampton’s criticisms that Cox has ignored contrary opinions to his own in his draft letter, such as Frampton’s prior assertion that Cox’s attempt to redefine key terms in the ISA related to causation will merely “obfuscate” and lead to confusion. Cox’s approach risks “delays and paralysis,” Frey warns.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/casac-research-scientist-attacks-panel-chairman%E2%80%99s-naaqs-review-shift

Return to headline | Return to top
Court Sets May 1 Argument for EPA Air Permit Policy Shift

Mar 26, 2019 | Inside EPA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has set May 1 as the date to hear oral arguments in Sierra Club’s case challenging EPA’s revised policy governing challenges to Clean Air Act operating permits, a change the appellants say stifles judicial review of allegedly flawed state permits.
In Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., environmentalists are seeking to scrap a Trump EPA policy that bars the agency from “second guessing” states’ air permitting decisions when it reviews air act “Title V” operating permits.
The suit challenges a landmark 2017 decision from former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to decline Sierra Club’s petition to object to the 2016 Title V permit of a Utah power plant.
Sierra Club says the state years ago allowed the plant, Pacificorp’s Hunter facility, to avoid tougher pollution control mandates that should have flowed from proper application of new source review (NSR) permit review. The plant won a weaker “minor source” NSR permit instead. Title V permits are “umbrella” permits that record the terms of “applicable requirements,” including all underlying permits, such as NSR permits.
In the Hunter decision, EPA broke with prior agency policy, establishing a new doctrine that EPA will not re-open old state decisions on underlying permits when states update their Title V permit for a facility. The Hunter decision, combined with another 2017 permit decision known as Big River Steel, bars EPA from either questioning the terms of underlying permits, or from questioning whether such underlying permits were required in the first place.
In its final reply brief filed March 25, Sierra Club says, “Defining ‘applicable requirement’ to mean something other than a requirement a source can be held accountable for violating contravenes the phrase’s plain meaning and undermines Title V’s purpose of clarifying a source’s Clean Air Act obligations.”
But EPA in its March 25 final brief counters that, “EPA concluded that it should not employ Sierra Club’s Title V petition to object as a vehicle to second guess” Utah’s NSR permitting decisions from 20 years ago. “Although this approach represents a departure from EPA’s approach in certain prior Title V adjudications, it represents a return to EPA’s original view of how Title V works. It is consistent with EPA’s implementing regulations. And it is consistent with the text of the Act and its legislative history.”
EPA’s chief arguments against Sierra Club’s suit are jurisdictional, however. The agency says that its Hunter decision is only “locally or regionally applicable,” and hence should only be heard in the 10th Circuit, where a parallel suit is on hold pending the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Nor is the Hunter order a “legislative rule” that sets binding national obligations or is subject to public notice-and-comment requirements, EPA says.
“Nothing in EPA’s Order or explanation imposes legal obligations in future proceedings on States, sources, or on EPA itself.” But, “EPA in a subsequent adjudication may, of course, look to its reasoning in the Hunter Order.”
EPA has, in fact, cited the Hunter order as the basis for several subsequent decisions declining to object to Title V permits. EPA says its order “at most would be an interpretive rule. EPA’s analysis in the Hunter Order does not have the future force and effect of law.”
The state of Utah and utility Pacificorp are backing EPA in the case.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/court-sets-may-1-argument-epa-air-permit-policy-shift

Return to headline | Return to top
Global Carbon Emissions Hit Record High in 2018-IEA

Mar 26, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

Global energy-related carbon emissions rose to a record high last year as energy demand and coal use increased, mainly in Asia, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Tuesday.
Energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.7 percent to 33.1 billion tonnes from the previous year, the highest rate of growth since 2013, with the power sector accounting for almost two-thirds of this growth, according to IEA estimates.
The United States' CO2 emissions grew by 3.1 percent in 2018, reversing a decline a year earlier, while China's emissions rose by 2.5 percent and India's by 4.5 percent.
Europe's emissions fell by 1.3 percent and Japan's fell for the fifth year running.
Carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of global average temperature rise which countries are seeking to curb to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change.
ADVERTISEMENT
For the first time, the IEA assessed the impact of fossil fuel use on the increase in global temperature and found that CO2 emitted from coal consumption was responsible for over 0.3 degrees Celsius of the 1 degree rise in global average temperature since pre-industrial times.
Global energy demand grew by 2.3 percent in 2018, nearly twice the average rate of growth since 2010, driven by a strong global economy and higher heating and cooling demand in some parts of the world, the IEA said.
"We have seen an extraordinary increase in global energy demand in 2018, growing at its fastest pace this decade," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director.
"Last year can also be considered another golden year for gas ... but despite major growth in renewables, global emissions are still rising, demonstrating once again that more urgent action is needed on all fronts," he added.
By country, China, the United States, and India together accounted for nearly 70 percent of the rise in energy demand.Editors’ PicksAnd You Thought Your Family Was ModernA Handyman Asks: After Servicing a Home, Can I Get Paid to Service My Clients’ Other Needs?Felicity Huffman: Desperate Housewife, Devoted Parent and Now a Defendant
ADVERTISEMENT
Global gas demand increased at its fastest rate since 2010, up 4.6 percent from a year earlier, driven by higher demand as switching from gas to coal increased.
Demand for energy from renewable sources rose by 4 percent but the use of renewables needs to expand much more quickly to meet long-term climate goals, the report said.
Oil demand grew by 1.3 percent in 2018, while coal consumption was up 0.7 percent as higher demand in Asia outpaced declines everywhere else.
"Coal-to-gas switching avoided almost 60 million tonnes of coal demand, with the transition to less carbon-intensive natural gas helping to avert 95 million tonnes of CO2 emissions," the IEA said.
"Without this coal-to-gas switch, the increase in emissions would have been more than 15 percent greater," it added.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/03/26/us/25reuters-iea-emissions.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested