Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/3/2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former Mass. AG Martha Coakley Joins E-Cigarette Company Juul
Apr 2, 2019 | Boston Globe
By Michael Levenson and Matt Stout
Martha Coakley, who developed a reputation as a fierce consumer advocate as attorney general of Massachusetts, has taken a full-time job with Juul Labs, the e-cigarette giant that has been slammed by regulators and health advocates for allegedly promoting teen vaping. -
House Democrats Press Wheeler for Answers on EPA's Declining Staffing
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Democratic appropriators in the House are pressing EPA chief Andrew Wheeler on what he is doing to shore up the agency's workforce, expressing concerns that agency leadership is not maintaining staff at levels allowed by prior funding laws... -
If I Were Still Working at the EPA, I Would Resign
Apr 2, 2019 | Washington Post
By Bernard D. Goldstein
For years, the fossil-fuel industry has lobbied to weaken air pollution standards. It may now get its wish. -
Democrats Charge EPA Shift of IRIS Staff to TSCA Violates Spending Law
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Democratic appropriators are urging EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to restore the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program's scaled-back agenda and return staff that had been shifted to the toxics office... -
EPA Suspends Work on Formaldehyde, Other Chemical Studies
Apr 2, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA announced today it is suspending work on a key health study of formaldehyde, along with more than a dozen other chemicals whose assessments are being paused or dropped altogether. -
EPA’s Fluorinated Chemical Risk Assessments Due Out in 2020
Apr 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA plans to release drafts of its chemical risk assessments for a handful of ubiquitous chemicals in 2020. -
Bipartisan House Group Seeks DOD Funding Boost for PFAS Cleanups
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
A bipartisan House task force is pushing House appropriators to boost funding next year for the Defense Department's (DOD) cleanup of sites contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), arguing funding at current levels is inadequate... -
Circular Economy Needs More Collaboration – Cefic
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
A platform of experts is required to help the chemicals industry transition effectively to the EU’s circular economy, according to preliminary conclusions of a study commissioned by Cefic. -
Envi Approves Objection to Draft Commission DEHP Authorisation
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Parliament's environment committee (Envi) has voted in favour of an objection to the European Commission’s draft implementing decision to authorise a specific use of chromium trioxide. -
Funding From Offshore Drillers Touted by GOP at Hearing on Risk
Apr 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
House Republicans repeatedly drove home the argument in a April 2 hearing that offshore drilling sends billions of dollars to fund national and state programs. -
House Democrats Take Aim at Ocean Oil
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen
Jimmy Carroll, the mayor of Isle of Palms, S.C., fears that an oil spill would spell disaster for the region's thriving tourism industry and that "no one will come" to the beaches in the Palmetto State if that happens. -
House Eyes Renewed Ban on Oil Drilling in Gulf Military Range
Apr 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Travis J. Tritten
The House may insert protections against oil drilling in the U.S. military’s sprawling Gulf of Mexico testing range into this year’s annual defense authorization bill, the Armed Services Committee chairman said Tuesday. -
Cheap Gas and Support for Renewables Drive Us Coal Plant Closures
Apr 2, 2019 | Platts
By Morris Greenberg
The aging US coal fleet is being squeezed from all sides, with policy, cheap domestic gas supply and developments in clean energy generation all contributing to fast-paced closures. -
Perry Grilled over Clean Energy Budget Cuts
Apr 2, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Republican and Democratic senators alike grilled Energy Secretary Rick Perry Tuesday over the Trump administration's plans to slash funding into developing carbon-free energy. -
Another Houston Chemical Fire Leaves One Dead, 2 Injured (1)
Apr 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley and Jack Kaskey
An explosion and fire at a chemical plant northeast of Houston left one person dead and two injured, just two weeks after a blaze at an oil storage facility became the Gulf Coast’s worst industrial disaster in 14 years. -
1 Dead as Fire Erupts at 2nd Texas Facility in 2 Weeks
Apr 2, 2019 | AP (E&E News PM)
By Juan A. Lozano
A tank holding a flammable chemical caught on fire at a Texas plant today, killing one worker, critically injuring two others and sending other panicked employees fleeing over a fence to safety. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell to Leave Refiner Lobbying Group over Climate Change
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Timothy Cama
Royal Dutch Shell PLC said it is ending its membership in the main petroleum refiner lobbying group in Washington, D.C., over its disagreement with the association's stances on climate change. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Aims to Help Polluters by Cutting Air Quality Standards
Apr 3, 2019 | Who What Why
By Vanessa Nason
The Trump administration has found another way to undermine Environmental Protection Agency regulations and secure a win for Big Oil, according to environmental advocates. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell To Cut Ties With American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
Apr 3, 2019 | Climate Liability News
By Dana Drugmand
Royal Dutch Shell is cutting ties with the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers over the group’s stance on climate change. -
Critics Urge Court to Vacate EPA’s Rejection of Ozone Transport Petitions
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
Delaware, Maryland and environmental groups are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate EPA’s rejection of petitions the states filed asking the agency to impose ozone-reduction measures on pollution sources beyond the states’ boundaries... -
New Air Office Deputy Draws Mixed Reactions
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
Anne Idsal, the Region 6 EPA administrator recently tapped as the air office’s principal deputy, is drawing mixed albeit expected reactions, with environmentalists warning that she will doggedly push the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda... -
Inslee Presses Trump on Climate Change in House Testimony
Apr 2, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee became the first Democratic presidential candidate to testify before Congress on Tuesday, appearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee to offer sharp criticism of the Trump administration on his signature issue of climate change. -
Has the Green New Deal Changed Republican Politics on Climate Change?
Apr 3, 2019 | Washington Post
By JM Rieger
After denying the existence of climate change for years, a handful of elected Republicans now acknowledge that human activity is the primary cause and are calling for “innovative” action to address it. -
2020 Democrats Go Silent After Senate’s Green New Deal Debacle
Apr 3, 2019 | Roll Call
By David Winston
In the awkward aftermath of the Green New Deal’s rollout, perhaps the most appropriate question for its supporters, especially the Democratic presidential field, is one often posed by tennis bad boy John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!” -
NASA Chief Mum on White House Climate Review
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The head of NASA extolled the value of climate science before lawmakers yesterday but would not say whether his agency is participating in a White House effort to cast doubt on that science. -
These Countries Have Prices on Carbon. Are They Working?
Apr 2, 2019 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich
The idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions to help tackle climate change has been slowly spreading around the globe over the past two decades.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former Mass. AG Martha Coakley Joins E-Cigarette Company Juul
Apr 2, 2019 | Boston Globe
By Michael Levenson and Matt Stout
Martha Coakley, who developed a reputation as a fierce consumer advocate as attorney general of Massachusetts, has taken a full-time job with Juul Labs, the e-cigarette giant that has been slammed by regulators and health advocates for allegedly promoting teen vaping.
Coakley, who was most recently a lawyer and lobbyist at Foley Hoag, will join Juul’s government affairs team in mid-April, according to the San Francisco-based company. She has been consulting for Juul for several months.
Her hiring comes amid growing concern that e-cigarettes, promoted as a way to help adults quit traditional cigarettes, have instead launched an epidemic of teens addicted to inhaling nicotine from the sleek electronic devices.
Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, noted that Juul is hiring Coakley after her successor and onetime deputy, Maura Healey, launched an investigation last summer into the company’s alleged marketing and sales to minors.
The company is also preparing for a new regulatory regime in Washington following the announcement last month that Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a harsh critic of Juul, was resigning.
“Juul is building an army of lawyers and influencers to prevent meaningful regulation across the country,” Myers said. “It’s not a coincidence that they hired a former attorney general from Massachusetts when the current attorney general has done so much to expose their targeting of young people.”
Juul, the largest US e-cigarette maker, in December sold a 35 percent stake to Altria, the big tobacco company whose brands include Marlboro and Benson & Hedges. The nearly $13 billion investment, which valued Juul at $38 billion, was seen as a move by Altria to protect itself from declining cigarette sales.
As attorney general from 2007 to 2015, Coakley was known for taking corporations to court, and was among 40 attorneys general who in 2013 urged the FDA to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors and to clamp down on youth-oriented advertising of vaping products.
“People, especially kids, are being led to believe that e-cigarettes are a safe alternative, but they are highly addictive and can deliver strong doses of nicotine,” Coakley told CBS News at the time.
In a statement Tuesday, Coakley said still she hopes to help eliminate e-cigarette use by minors.
“I believe in Juul Labs’ commitment to eliminate combustible cigarettes, the number one cause of preventable death in our country, and to combat youth usage,” she said. “Juul has an incredible opportunity to switch adult smokers and I look forward to working with stakeholders from the private and public sectors as we fulfill that mission and prevent youth from ever using vapor products like Juul.”
Marc Hymovitz, director of government relations in Massachusetts for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said the contention that Juul is committed to reducing teen use of e-cigarettes “sounds like the double speak we heard from big tobacco decades ago.”
“If not for Juul, we probably wouldn’t have the epidemic we have amongst kids, where we have a whole new generation that is addicted to nicotine,” said Hymovitz, adding that Juul has marketed fruit-flavored products, which appeal to children.
Most of the kids wouldn’t have started if it were not for their products,” he said.
A Democrat, Coakley was considered a rising star in Massachusetts politics before she lost a 2010 Senate election to Republican Scott Brown and the 2014 governor’s race to Republican Charlie Baker.
After joining Foley Hoag in 2015, she lobbied on behalf of a raft of heavily regulated corporate clients, including the American Chemistry Council and DraftKings. Still, news of Coakley’s hiring by Juul, which was first reported by Politico, chagrined some of her former supporters.
“E-cigarettes are addictive poison marketed to and targeted at kids,” Benjamin Downing, a former Democratic state senator, wrote on Twitter. “I spent summer and fall of 2014 criss crossing the state for Martha Coakley, among others. To say this is profoundly disappointing is an understatement.”
Steve Kerrigan, Coakley’s running mate in the 2014 governor’s race, said he was “surprised, to say the least” that she is working for Juul, and likened her task to an attorney who represents a criminal defendant.
“The product that Juul peddles is dangerous and the way they market to young people is awful,” Kerrigan said. “But again, they deserve the best possible representation they can get, and they have it in Martha.”
Healey, who worked under Coakley as chief of her civil rights division, said Juul’s decision to hire her former boss would not influence her investigation of the company’s marketing and sales practices.
“Juuling and vaping in schools has reached epidemic proportions, and our office will continue to investigate this company’s role in creating this health crisis,” Jillian Fennimore, a Healey spokeswoman, said. “This announcement has no impact on our efforts to keep young people healthy and safe in Massachusetts.”
Healey spoke Tuesday at Newton South High School about the “growing youth health epidemic” of vaping.
The surgeon general has also labeled e-cigarette use among youth an “epidemic” and warned that nicotine exposure can cause addiction and harm the developing adolescent brain.
In Massachusetts, nearly half of high school students have tried e-cigarettes at least once, and nearly one-quarter reported in surveys that they had used them in the past 30 days, the Globe reported last year.
Dr. Michael B. Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University, said Coakley’s knowledge of the legal and regulatory landscape could help Juul reduce teen usage.
“I don’t think the company is necessarily trying to fend off regulations,” he said. “I think they are trying to figure out a way to preserve their adult market while trying to rid themselves of the youth market, if they can. I think they recognize, if they’re going to stay in business, they have to do that.”
Christina Prignano of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/04/02/former-mass-martha-coakley-joins-cigarette-company-juul/oMPtK9L4M2wuYWZJoTKvdK/story.html
-
House Democrats Press Wheeler for Answers on EPA's Declining Staffing
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Democratic appropriators in the House are pressing EPA chief Andrew Wheeler on what he is doing to shore up the agency's workforce, expressing concerns that agency leadership is not maintaining staff at levels allowed by prior funding laws and that staff departures are jeopardizing environmental protection.
The workforce concerns surfaced during an April 2 House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Trump EPA's fiscal year 2020 budget request, though the proceeding also allowed lawmakers to query Wheeler on an array of Trump administration policies.
Wheeler's testimony likely foreshadows additional written responses from the agency on workforce and a range of other topics.
“EPA just can't shrink anymore if it is going to be able to fulfill its mission of public health,” House Appropriations Interior subcommittee Chairwoman Betty McCollum (D-MN) said during the hearing. “Basically, we want to know whether the agency has been hiring new staff to replace the people who leave.”
McCollum said upcoming written questions from panel lawmakers to Wheeler will reflect concerns that staff has continued to decline over roughly the past three years, in the wake of a series of staff buyouts. The departures have occurred despite relatively steady funding from Congress that pushed back against Trump administration proposals for deep cuts to the agency.
“Our concern is that when EPA does not have enough personnel on board, the work that the American people expect the government to do goes undone,” she said, noting that many of her colleagues feel the Trump administration has been trying to shrink the agency's workforce “any way it can.”
Other Democrats raised similar concerns including Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) who argued that there is a disconnect between EPA promises to implement congressional budget priorities and what has been happening on the ground at the agency.
Quigley raised particular concerns that EPA's Region 5 office has lost over 120 engineers and scientists since 2017, has yet to spend funding Congress made available in FY18 to hire replacements, and has replaced fewer than 20 percent of the staff it has lost.
He pressed Wheeler on why each region has not fully spent accounts designated for salaries and expenses.
“What steps will you take to speed up the hiring in each region?” he asked. “You can't say you are going to implement the budget if you haven't and are not.”
Wheeler's Response
Wheeler's responses on the issue broadly focused on acknowledging challenges facing the agency and pledging to work with lawmakers.
But his assurances come after more than two years of the Trump administration that have tested the patience of EPA staff, amid the ongoing rollback of many Obama EPA initiatives, restructuring efforts and uncertainty -- exacerbated by the recent month-long government shutdown.
“Congressman, I will tell you that we are trying,” Wheeler told Quigley, acknowledging “serious workforce challenges” that include the agency having gone for several years without a permanent human resources director until one was hired less than a month ago, after he personally interviewed job candidates.
Wheeler added that 40 percent of the agency workforce is eligible to retire in the next five years, and that the agency is now trying to hire staff but also losing people at a “very fast rate.” In the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program, for example, “we are hiring people as fast as we are losing people.”
Quigley asked Wheeler to detail in writing “exactly what you are doing to recruit, the numbers that you are interviewing, and exactly what your approach is.”
Wheeler at another point sought to assure McCollum that he understands EPA's workforce challenges, noting that he had confronted issues related to looming retirements at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during the 2000s when he worked for Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). He characterized NRC as perhaps the only government agency with more technical experts than EPA.
McCollum, however, noted that the recent government shutdown certainly “didn't help” when it comes to retaining agency staff.
American Federation of Government Employees Council 238 President Gary Morton said in a statement coinciding with Wheeler's testimony that “to properly support our work, the EPA must be funded at around $11 billion with 16,500 full-time workers -- a far cry from the outlandish $6.1 billion proposed by the president.”
'Misguided Policy'
Lawmakers at the hearing also grilled Wheeler on a range of agency activities, including the proposed rollback of vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards, the agency's plans for regulating perfluorinated substances, the recent replacement of numerous members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and its decision to review formaldehyde risks within the TSCA program and not the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
McCollum predicted that Congress would spurn -- as it has in previous years -- the Trump administration's call for drastic cuts to EPA funding, with this year's request seeking between a 25-31 percent cut to the agency's budget, depending on the funding baseline.
But she argued that EPA's “under staffing and misguided policy priorities” -- including delays in protections from toxic chemicals, a drop off in enforcement activity, and backing away from vehicle GHG controls -- mean the agency is “failing to deliver the basic protections for human health and the environment that people expect.”
Wheeler in his prepared testimony touted increased industry compliance with environmental rules through self audits and efforts by the agency on criminal enforcement that he said are reversing a downward trend in new criminal cases since 2011.
Regarding vehicles, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) asked Wheeler to provide records on the agency's consultation with California and other state officials, and Wheeler at another point appeared to downplay divisions between EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) over their joint rollback proposal.
Full Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) also pressed Wheeler on widely-publicized concerns that the agency's technical staff had with the vehicle rollback plan. He responded that “we certainty plan to have a final rule that both the technical staff and career staff at EPA and [DOT] will fully embrace and stand behind.”
In response to questioning from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) on the agency's proposal to scrap the existing determination that utility mercury emissions should be regulated, Wheeler reiterated claims that its rulemaking would not cause utilities to turn off controls that have already been installed.
Among the concerns from Republican lawmakers at the hearing is the status of EPA's efforts to offer small refiners compliance waivers from the renewable fuel standard (RFS), an issue flagged by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT).
Wheeler told Stewart that the agency has yet to receive formal waiver requests for 2018. Those requests are initially reviewed by the Department of Energy, and he said they could come within days.
He said that the agency will try to respond to those applications within 90 days, but may not be able to clear all of them due to a half dozen pending RFS-related regulations, including a proposal to allow 15 percent ethanol blends to be sold year-round, and the latest annual RFS blending targets expected late this year.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-democrats-press-wheeler-answers-epas-declining-staffing
-
If I Were Still Working at the EPA, I Would Resign
Apr 2, 2019 | Washington Post
By Bernard D. Goldstein
Bernard D. Goldstein was chairman of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the EPA assistant administrator for research and development under President Reagan from 1983 to 1985. He is dean emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health.
For years, the fossil-fuel industry has lobbied to weaken air pollution standards. It may now get its wish.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee met via teleconference to devise a new standard for airborne particle pollution. It’s a vitally important task: These tiny particles reach deep into human lungs, causing significant pulmonary and heart problems. And in many parts of the United States, such pollution exceeds the existing health-based particulates standard.
But EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal-industry lobbyist, has hobbled the committee’s long-standing process to the point that its members cannot provide an informed opinion consistent with the Clean Air Act’s mandate of being “requisite to protect the public health.”
I was the chair of the advisory committee, or CASAC, under Anne Gorsuch, President Ronald Reagan’s first EPA administrator, and was subsequently appointed by Reagan to head the EPA’s Office of Research and Development under Gorsuch’s replacement, the moderate Republican environmentalist William Ruckelshaus. I would have resigned either position had the agency’s overall advisory processes been subject to its current destructive alterations.
The EPA’s organizational structure necessitates a strong and unbiased external advisory process. By having its own in-house science arm, the agency’s political leadership can exert pressure to get the answers it wants. As a counterbalance, it is necessary to have external advisory processes through independent bodies such as CASAC.
Congress established this committee in 1977 to provide unbiased external scientific advice on air-pollutant standards, which are revisited every five years. Congress requires the committee to have seven members, including one from a state agency. But it soon became clear that a seven-member committee would not have sufficient in-depth expertise to make a science-based recommendation. Accordingly, for more than 40 years, the committee has drawn on the expertise of external advisory subcommittees established for each pollutant of concern. These much larger committees openly review the EPA’s own scientific analysis of the thousands of pertinent peer-reviewed papers and inform the committee’s members of their findings, which committee members then use to recommend health-based standards to the EPA administrator.
That is how it is supposed to work. But last October, Wheeler suddenly and highhandedly terminated the subcommittees working to develop recommendations for the particulate standard, as well as the standard for ozone pollution (which CASAC will review next).
The full weight of providing advice now falls solely on the seven CASAC members. The science underlying particulate standards is especially complex, and the scientific discipline of epidemiology is central to understanding the health effects of both particulates and ozone. But CASAC, for the first time in memory, lacks a single epidemiologist.
Wheeler has appointed four state agency members to CASAC, an unprecedented majority. All work for Republican governors. The current chairman of CASAC is a consultant who also works for industry clients.
Moreover, Wheeler promulgated a new rule that prohibits scientists funded by the EPA from providing the agency with advice. While the ostensible justification for this rule is to root out any pro-EPA bias, the effect is to disqualify the best scientists from advising the agency. Meanwhile, industry representatives and consultants — including those from polluting industries with a clear interest in lax standards — are welcome to provide advice.
When I served at the EPA, Gorsuch was criticized for attempting to control the statements of EPA scientists and cutting the agency’s science budget, as has current EPA leadership. But she did nothing that even came close to the assault on the independence and expertise of the scientific advisory processes carried out by Wheeler and his predecessor, Scott Pruitt.
I had hoped Wheeler would reverse Pruitt’s initial policies. Instead, he has taken them well beyond the point that, were I a member of CASAC, I would have resigned. Neither my conscience, nor my concern for the respect of my peers, would have allowed me to provide advice on a complex health-related subject when I could not interact in a scientific consensus advisory process with those who have the necessary expert credentials.
I cannot ask President Trump’s EPA assistant administrator for research and development to resign. That position remains unfilled. Nor is it likely that any credible scientist would accept such a nomination. But I urge the current members of CASAC to step down rather than seemingly acquiesce to this charade. The EPA’s leadership is destroying the scientific foundation of environmental regulations, to the detriment of the health of the American people and our environment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-i-were-still-working-at-the-epa-i-would-resign/2019/04/02/88e6e2b8-519a-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.128ebeb4e4a4
-
Democrats Charge EPA Shift of IRIS Staff to TSCA Violates Spending Law
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Democratic appropriators are urging EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to restore the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program's scaled-back agenda and return staff that had been shifted to the toxics office, charging their redirection amounts to a cut to the IRIS budget in violation of congressional appropriations.
EPA leaders “took steps to effectively cut the IRIS program's funding by reducing its workload by 50 percent and reassigning significant staff time to other activities,” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), chair of the House appropriations panel that oversees EPA, and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), ranking Democrat on the equivalent Senate panel, write in a March 28 letter to Wheeler.
They add that these moves appear “consistent with proposals included in the President's [FY18 and FY19] budget requests that were specifically and overwhelmingly rejected by Congress.”
They ask Wheeler to “reassign[] . . . IRIS staff to IRIS activities full time and restor[e] the program's planned workload” by April 12.
The letter echoes broader efforts by McCollum, who told an April 2 hearing on EPA's fiscal year 2020 budget request that rather than focus on the Trump administration's “unrealistic” budget request, she plans to “examine what EPA has been doing with the money that we have already appropriated. Because, frankly, a lot of EPA's actions don't make sense, or worse, appear to fly in the face of Congressional directives.”
But the letter also marks the latest effort by Trump administration critics to restore the IRIS program's agenda after Wheeler and other top officials scaled it back, saying nine of 22 chemical assessments it was crafting were no longer priorities for program offices.
Among those dropped was the agency's long-running assessment of formaldehyde, which the agency recently announced it was shifting the nascent program in the toxics office implementing the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
But the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in a March 4 report that the prioritization process -- during which the program was barred from advancing pending assessments -- lacked adequate documentation. GAO also found that as of last October, 28 of 30 IRIS staff spent 25 to 50 percent of their time working on TSCA program assessments.
Several Democrats have since called for an ethics investigation and an EPA inquiry to determine whether the officials' actions violated the agency's scientific integrity policy.
But McCollum and Udall's letter adds to that pressure, with the lawmakers expressing “deep concern” over the GAO report's findings of “political interference with the IRIS program's operations and funding.”
McCollum underscored her concern during the FY20 budget hearing. Pointing to the GAO report, McCollum said she believes “clearly EPA [is] thumbing its nose at congressional directives.”
McCollum noted that in FY19, Congress funded IRIS at the same level of funding as the prior year, and directed EPA to do its work within [the Office of Research and Development (ORD), where IRIS is housed]. Instead, GAO found IRIS staff have been pulled away from critical chemical assessment work to support [TSCA].”
IRIS Employees
Wheeler sought to respond, explaining that IRIS staff have taken short details with the office implementing TSCA but they remain IRIS employees and return to the program.
“It is important for people working on risk assessments under IRIS to know how the risk assessments are being used under TSCA,” Wheeler added. “They are still IRIS employees … they are on short details, and when they come back they have better understanding of how the work they are doing under IRIS will be used.”
He also sought to push back on McCollum's concerns about the formaldehyde assessment being dropped from IRIS' agenda, saying it “was not removed from IRIS” but that after he requested a review of all chemicals on IRIS' agenda by EPA's program offices, “None of the program offices actually requested formaldehyde.”
Wheeler said that is “one reason why we went ahead and put formaldehyde through the TSCA program, because we knew of the interest of Congress and the public in getting some answer on formaldehyde.”
And he argued that “if we were to move forward with the formaldehyde assessment under [IRIS] that is at least 18 months away from being available to the public,” when instead EPA “could be moving forward under the TSCA program,” which would be able to regulate the chemical if any uses do not meet the TSCA risk standard.
His comments stand in contrast to recent testimony from EPA's acting research chief, who testified before the House science committee last week that the Office of Children's Health Protection had sought the formaldehyde assessment in the second round of the prioritization process -- though its request reached her a day after she had published the December IRIS agenda, without formaldehyde.
Additionally, GAO found that in the first round of reviews, memos from the children's health, Superfund, and water offices, as well as Region 4 indicated “that they had a need for the formaldehyde health assessment.”
GAO received no documentation regarding a second round of review conducted last fall, in which program offices were told to prioritize just three or four assessments, leading GAO to conclude that review had been done verbally.
Shortly after Wheeler's testimony, the IRIS program released an April 2 update to its agenda, providing time lines for most of the 13 chemicals on the lists.
It indicates, for example, that IRIS plans to release an assessment plan for its methylmercury assessment on April 4. An attached memo describes formaldehyde and eight other chemicals as assessments “not identified as priorities for fiscal year 2019 [that] have been suspended but may be restarted as Agency priorities change.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-charge-epa-shift-iris-staff-tsca-violates-spending-law
-
EPA Suspends Work on Formaldehyde, Other Chemical Studies
Apr 2, 2019 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA announced today it is suspending work on a key health study of formaldehyde, along with more than a dozen other chemicals whose assessments are being paused or dropped altogether.
In an "outlook" memo for EPA's Integrated Risk Information System program, the agency said the moves were a result of a recent prioritization process. According to the memo, four assessments will be "discontinued," including one looking at the health risks of phthalates, a widely-used class of chemicals, while assessments of nine other chemicals — including formaldehyde, naphthalene and ethylbenzene — will be suspended, "but may be restarted as Agency priorities change."
A Government Accountability Office report last month faulted the prioritization process on which today's announcement is based, finding that political officials interfered in it.
Top congressional Democrats have pressed EPA about the moves, and particularly on the formaldehyde study, which POLITICO reported last year links the chemical with leukemia and other ailments. The chemicals industry has fiercely opposed that finding.
While EPA has said formaldehyde is not a priority for the IRIS program, it has identified it as a "high priority" for consideration under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Testifying before an appropriations panel today, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said reviewing the chemical through the TSCA program will allow the agency to regulate the chemical more swiftly, if necessary.
"If we were to move forward with the formaldehyde risk assessment under IRIS, it’s at least 18 months — at a minimum — away from being available to the public ... Putting it in TSCA today is going to allow us to regulate it much faster than doing the iris risk assessment," he said.
But environmentalists argue that is a false choice, saying that the IRIS work can proceed while TSCA consideration begins.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA’s Fluorinated Chemical Risk Assessments Due Out in 2020
Apr 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA plans to release drafts of its chemical risk assessments for a handful of ubiquitous chemicals in 2020.
The Environmental Protection Agency is studying the potential adverse health effects of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, under the Integrated Risk Information Program.
The agency on April 2 released its time frame for public comment on draft assessments of PFNA, PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, and PFDA projecting comment submission for the third or fourth quarters of fiscal year 2020.
There are thousands of chemicals in the PFAS family, and some are being found in drinking water around the country. Manufacturers have used PFAS chemicals to make nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and other consumer and industrial products.
PFAS chemicals may cause adverse health effects, including developmental harm to fetuses, testicular and kidney cancer, liver damage, immune system or thyroid effects, and changes in cholesterol, where exposure levels exceed certain levels, according to the EPA.
State and federal regulators combine the EPA’s IRIS assessments with exposure information to set standards and regulations on air and water pollution, chemicals, and contaminated sites.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epas-fluorinated-chemical-risk-assessments-due-out-in-2020
-
Bipartisan House Group Seeks DOD Funding Boost for PFAS Cleanups
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
A bipartisan House task force is pushing House appropriators to boost funding next year for the Defense Department's (DOD) cleanup of sites contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), arguing funding at current levels is inadequate given the approximately $2 billion DOD says it needs to remediate the chemicals.
Twenty-eight members of the Congressional PFAS Task Force -- a bipartisan coalition of House members -- wrote an April 1 letter to the leaders of the House military construction and defense appropriations subcommittees urging them to increase funds for PFAS cleanups at both active and closed military bases.
“We are writing to request robust funding for remediation of [PFAS] contamination on or near military bases in the Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) Department of Defense and Miltiary Construction and Veteran's Affairs appropriations bills,” the task force members, led by co-chairs Dan Kildee (D-MI) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), write.
The task force is a bipartisan group of House lawmakers that formed earlier this year to push legislative, funding and other measures to pressure EPA and other agencies to clean up growing contamination from PFAS.
The letter was sent to Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D- FL) and John Carter (R-TX), chairman and ranking member, respectively, for the appropriations military construction subcommittee, and to Reps. Peter Visclosky (D-IN) and Ken Calvert (R-CA), chairman and ranking member, respectively, for the appropriations defense subcommittee. The letter was signed by 19 Democrats and nine Republicans.
They point out that PFAS, which has been used in firefighting foam at military bases for decades, has leached into the groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies around installations, noting DOD has identified 401 active and former bases with known or suspected PFAS releases. They cite PFAS exposure links to cancer, and thyroid, kidney, liver, heart and reproductive conditions.
And in April 2 testimony before the military construction subcommittee, Kildee called on the panel to prioritize funding for PFAS cleanup at DOD sites. He noted that Republicans and Democrats collaborated last year to secure appropriations for the military to clean up PFAS, urging that “Much more investment is needed to adequately address this issue,” according to a press release from his office.
He criticized DOD for failing to act urgently to address PFAS contamination, calling it a “growing public health and environmental crisis,” and pointing out that DOD's budget request does not come close to the $2 billion a defense official cited last month as a rough estimate for the amount it will cost the military to clean up its PFAS contamination.
“In fact, for BRAC bases, the President did not request any increase in funding to address PFAS contamination,” he said. “Since the Administration continues to fail to ask for the money to address this serious health issue, Congress needs to act.”
The letter says that for FY19, Congress specified that $148 million go to PFAS DOD cleanups -- including $134 million for active bases and $14 million for closed bases -- a level that was $74 million beyond DOD's request.
“While this is significant, the current levels of funding to remediate PFAS are inadequate to address the problem facing communities across the country,” the task force members write. They say more robust funding must be appropriated “to ensure that people are able to have safe drinking water in their communities.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/bipartisan-house-group-seeks-dod-funding-boost-pfas-cleanups
-
Circular Economy Needs More Collaboration – Cefic
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
A platform of experts is required to help the chemicals industry transition effectively to the EU’s circular economy, according to preliminary conclusions of a study commissioned by Cefic.
Sustainability director Ann Dierckx presented the initial findings of the study, due to be published on 25 June, at Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit in Brussels last week.
A key recommendation in Waste in the context of the circular economy and REACH is the need for stakeholders to work together to improve information flows.
The idea of a platform where all in the supply chain would have a space for knowledge exchange is "quite powerful'', she said. And it would help to reflect on what a consistent framework would look like, she added.
Ms Dierckx urged consistent and coherent legislation within the EU with harmonised rules and definitions across the member states.
Examples of best practice from study participants showed that support from local, national and EU authorities is needed to scale up innovations.
The study also suggested increased communication efforts at the international level, in order to highlight that certain rules must be respected to bring products into the EU.
This should create a level playing field between imported and EU-produced articles containing substances of concern, Ms Dierckx said. A lack of fairness impacts the potential for successful recovery and recycling, she added.Study background
As industry initiatives and efforts on the circular economy intensify, the research explores the best ways to tackle issues and overcome barriers, Ms Dierckx said.
In particular, it focuses on how to reduce uncertainties about end-of-waste, starting a "resource-orientated thinking" and increase legislative coherence in the context of the circular economy, she said.
A report objective was to gain insight from a different set of stakeholders on those two major issues, through informal debates, talking to policy makers and other interested parties, Ms Dierckx added.
Conducted by consultancy Risk & Policy Analysts, it involved 28 experts from public authorities, universities, NGOs and industry.
It comes after the European Commission published its summary report of last year’s public consultation on the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation. This received 461 comments.In December, a group of 13 organisations from the plastics value chain called on member states and other stakeholders to help them meet their circular economy goals.
In December, a group of 13 organisations from the plastics value chain called on member states and other stakeholders to help them meet their circular economy goals.
Key questions
Experts were asked to reply to ten questions. These were similar to those posed by the Commission in its public consultation, Ms Dierckx said.
They included:· the problems and uncertainties of moving to a circular economy and measures to overcome them;
· examples or best practices that achieve the circularity of materials lifecycles;
· information systems on substances of concern;
· primary and secondary raw materials and how they are dealt with in the legislation;
· the absence of a level playing field between imported articles and EU-produced articles;
· thresholds for substances of concern in articles; and
· end-of-waste criteria and classification of waste as hazardous or non-hazardous.
The study fits into Cefic’s mid-century strategy as it "sets out big strategic aims for industry", Ms Dierckx said.
Also speaking at the Global Business Summit, Cefic director general Marco Mensink warned about the risks of fragmentation of regulatory systems across the world.https://chemicalwatch.com/75854/circular-economy-needs-more-collaboration-cefic
-
Envi Approves Objection to Draft Commission DEHP Authorisation
Apr 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Parliament's environment committee (Envi) has voted in favour of an objection to the European Commission’s draft implementing decision to authorise a specific use of chromium trioxide.
On 27 March MEPs backed the objection by 309 in favour, 296 against and 24 abstentions. The objection is not binding but applies political pressure.
At the next REACH Committee meeting on 11 April, the Commission and EU member states will discuss whether modifications should be made to the draft authorisation decision.
The development follows a March ruling by the EU General Court that a Commission decision to allow a company to sell pigments for paints containing lead chromates in the EU was illegal.
Background
On 5 March the EU executive adopted a decision granting Germany's Federal-Mogul Burscheid permission to use the chemical in functional chrome plating of piston rings for automotive engines as applied in the segments light vehicle petrol, light vehicle diesel, middle range diesel and heavy duty.
The substance is subject to authorisation for its carcinogenic and mutagenic properties.
Envi’s objection said the draft decision "exceeds the Commission’s implementing powers" and called for the the authorisation to be rejected.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75852/envi-approves-objection-to-draft-commission-dehp-authorisation
-
Funding From Offshore Drillers Touted by GOP at Hearing on Risk
Apr 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
House Republicans repeatedly drove home the argument in a April 2 hearing that offshore drilling sends billions of dollars to fund national and state programs.
Nearly all of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund’s funding comes from receipts from oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) said at a hearing of a House Natural Resources subcommittee with the title “Protecting Coastal Communities from Offshore Drilling.”
“If we were having a hearing on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it would be totally opposite,” Westerman said. “We would be talking about how every state should have access to LWCF funding, regardless of where it was produced, because these are national resources and we all should get our fair share of them.”
Democrats on the panel offered little pushback to this argument. Broadly, however, Democrats say the U.S. can’t keep relying on oil and gas revenues because of climate change and the threat of spills.
In arguing against drilling on the Pacific coast, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, said an oil spill off California coast would cause grave national economic damage.
Bills to Ban Drilling, Testing
The hearing was convened to gather testimony on three bills that seek to ban offshore drilling and seismic testing off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (H.R. 1149), block the administration’s right to lease program in certain planning areas (H.R. 1941), and permanently extend the moratorium on leasing off Florida’s west coast (H.R. 205), which is set to expire in 2022.
The three bills are considered long shots, given President Donald Trump’s support for expanded oil and gas development.
The need for the hearing was at least partly pre-empted by a March 29 ruling from a federal judge in Alaska overturning President Donald Trump’s executive order to open Arctic waters to oil and gas leasing.
The judgment by Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska doesn’t set precedent, but other courts could nevertheless find it persuasive.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/funding-from-offshore-drillers-touted-by-gop-at-hearing-on-risk
-
House Democrats Take Aim at Ocean Oil
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen
Jimmy Carroll, the mayor of Isle of Palms, S.C., fears that an oil spill would spell disaster for the region's thriving tourism industry and that "no one will come" to the beaches in the Palmetto State if that happens.
That's why he asked a House Natural Resources panel during a hearing yesterday to ban any drilling off the Atlantic coast.
"This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue — it is a nonpartisan plea to put our environment over the greed of big oil companies who don't give a damn about our coasts," said Carroll, testifying before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
The oil industry found itself under attack as drilling opponents pushed for legislation that would block the Trump administration's once-stated goal of opening up more than 90% of federal waters to energy exploration.
"When you drill, you spill," said Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.), a freshman who made opposition to offshore drilling a top issue in his campaign last year.
Piggybacking on Cunningham's remarks, Vipe Desai, founding member of the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, said: "I would like to add when you drill, you kill. You kill our habitats, you kill small businesses. These are facts. The facts are in."
Cunningham, a former ocean engineer, is the sponsor of H.R. 1941, the "Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act," which would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to limit offshore leasing. He introduced the bill last week.
H.R. 1941 was one of three anti-drilling bills the panel considered during its two-hour hearing. The other two were H.R. 205, the "Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act," sponsored by Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), which would extend the moratorium on leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and H.R. 1149, the "Atlantic Coastal Economies Protection Act," sponsored by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.), which would prohibit the Interior Department from issuing geological and geophysical exploration permits under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), the panel's ranking member, said it would be a mistake to pass any of them.
"These legislative proposals would preclude the generation of billions of dollars in revenues for the states, the federal Treasury and conservation programs, not to mention the creation of millions of jobs," he said.
While the panel took no votes, the bills prompted a spirited debate between drilling opponents and those who favor more U.S. energy production.
"It was said when you drill, you spill —- that's not what statistics show," said Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.). "It shows that you spill through transporting it from other places."
Worried about the potential impact on tourism, Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.) said the entire congressional delegation in his state is united in opposition "to avoid this oil drilling from ever happening off Florida's coasts."
State Sen. Sharon Hewitt (R-La.) told the subcommittee that the oil and gas industry had brought "significant benefits" to her state and shown that it's possible to balance energy production with fishing, hunting and recreation. And she said the industry has invested hundreds of millions of dollars "to develop cutting-edge efforts" to protect the state's coastal wetlands and communities.
"Oil and gas is a way of life for Louisianans," Hewitt said. "Nowhere else in America would you find an annual festival called the Shrimp & Petroleum Festival, but here in Louisiana we celebrate these two bountiful resources each Labor Day weekend."
Desai reminded the panel that this year marks the 50th anniversary of an oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., which he said dumped 3 million gallons of crude oil into the coastal waters.
"Thousands of marine mammals, fish and seabirds were killed as a result of the dispersion of toxic oil," he said. "Decade after decade, the American people are told by the oil and gas industry that it is committed to safety and the prevention of these disasters, yet time and again they occur."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/03/stories/1060140665
-
House Eyes Renewed Ban on Oil Drilling in Gulf Military Range
Apr 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Travis J. Tritten
The House may insert protections against oil drilling in the U.S. military’s sprawling Gulf of Mexico testing range into this year’s annual defense authorization bill, the Armed Services Committee chairman said Tuesday.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said he would be “very open” to extending a moratorium on energy exploration in the range, as requested by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a committee member who represents the Florida panhandle where multiple military bases are located.
The military is concerned that encroachment by oil drilling along the western side of 100,000-square mile range when an existing moratorium expires in 2022 could hamper exercises, as well as the development of new defense technologies like hypersonic missiles and directed energy weapons.
“We will absolutely work on that issue, it is very important,” said Smith, who took over the Armed Services Committee and its work on the annual National Defense Authorization Act after Democrats won a majority in the chamber in November.
The potential drilling has been causing anxiety within the Pentagon since at least 2017 and the military submitted a report to Congress last year saying its testing and training would be severely affected.
“We cannot afford to have our ranges get smaller. They have to get bigger,” Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, said during testimony to the committee Tuesday.
Sprawling Range
The range runs the length of the Florida coast and extends out to the center of the Gulf. At least eight military bases in the state have direct access to the area, including Naval Air Stations Pensacola and Key West, as well as Eglin, MacDill, and Tyndall Air Force bases.
The Tyndall base was recently ravaged by Hurricane Michael in October and the Air Force is asking Congress for $4.9 billion in emergency funds partly to repair it.
“The No. 1 reason we need to rebuild Tyndall is because of its immediate access to the Gulf test range without going over any population areas,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told the committee.
Gaetz said there was bargaining underway with oil companies that could trade away some of the Gulf range for exploration.
Trump Proposes Expanded Drilling
The Trump administration has moved to expand offshore drilling in federal waters in the Gulf and elsewhere. Florida banned offshore drilling in state waters in November.
Earlier efforts in the House to extend the moratorium failed despite the military’s warnings. But Gaetz said he was optimistic this year could be different and renewed protections could be passed as part of the defense bill.
“This is an issue where there is an unequivocal position by the Air Force that they need this and during the 115th Congress the special interests that wanted to explore energy won, and we couldn’t get these protections into the NDAA,” he said during a committee hearing Tuesday.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-eyes-renewed-ban-on-oil-drilling-in-gulf-military-range
-
Cheap Gas and Support for Renewables Drive Us Coal Plant Closures
Apr 2, 2019 | Platts
By Morris Greenberg
Ahead of the S&P Global Platts Global Power Markets conference in Las Vegas, April 8-10, 2019, The Barrel presents a series of articles on the global and US electricity sectors. Here, Morris Greenberg explores the drivers behind US coal generation retirements in recent years.
The aging US coal fleet is being squeezed from all sides, with policy, cheap domestic gas supply and developments in clean energy generation all contributing to fast-paced closures.
S&P Global Platts Analytics data show that since peaking at 317 GW at the end of 2011, US generating capacity with coal as the primary fuel fell by 73 GW, or 23%, due to retirement of 61 GW and primary fuel conversion – mainly to natural gas – of 16 GW. This was offset by additions of 4 GW.
Most of the additions were made early on in this eight-year period. Coal-fired generation has fallen even more steeply than capacity, with a decline of 33.5% between calendar years 2011 and 2018. The drop reflects a reduction in average capacity factor (utilization rate) from 62% to 52%.
While capacity factors have stabilized during the past three years, announced plans for retirement of around 20 GW and conversion of around 5 GW indicate that, without some form of policy support, capacity declines will continue.
Indeed, the announcements may only reflect the tip of an iceberg that includes many more GW of capacity at risk. To get a better handle on that number, it is useful to review first the economics of retirement and then factors that have driven the restructuring observed to date. These factors are: an aging coal fleet; stagnating demand; low natural gas prices; environmental regulation; and finally, cost declines and policy support for clean energy.
Retirement economics
The decision to permanently retire a merchant coal unit, or really any merchant unit, is made by comparing the present value of future revenues from sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services to the present value of costs including fuel, non fuel variable operating and maintenance expense, fixed operating and maintenance expense, and required capital spending. For regulated units, the relevant measure is the present value of revenue requirements. The calculations are similar if replacement energy and capacity is acquired from the market. There are several factors that play into this calculation and have driven the restructuring seen in the US market in recent years.
Aging fleet
Of the 317 GW of operable capacity in 2011, 125 GW exceeded 40 years of age and 50 GW exceeded 50 years. Older units are less efficient, require higher spending per unit of capacity to maintain availability, and tend to face higher capital requirements for environmental retrofits, leaving them more vulnerable to changes in market conditions.
Stagnating power demand
A combination of improving energy efficiency among consumers combined with rising behind-the-meter generation has led to stagnating demand, leaving US retail electricity sales virtually unchanged from 2011 to 2017. Weak demand depresses energy and capacity prices for all generation, but coal units were exposed due to the factors that follow.
Lower natural gas prices
Low natural gas prices have had a major impact on the erosion of US coal-fired capacity. The direct impact is the conversion of existing capacity from coal to gas. But there is also an indirect impact, as lower electric energy and capacity prices reduce the value of coal capacity and may boost operating costs due to operational changes.
Since 2011, rising gas supply associated with shale gas development has allowed US consumption of gas for power generation to increase by 38%, from 21 Bcf/d to 29 Bcf/d and accommodated higher net exports with no upward pressure on prices.
Accounting for permitting, financing and engineering, the development cycle for gas capacity ranges from about two years for fuel conversions, to five years for greenfield development. As a result, while gas prices have an immediate impact on energy prices, the impact on capacity prices and decisions to build or retire plants occurs with a lag of that duration.
A three-year moving average of Gulf Coast gas prices lagged by two years peaked in late 2010 near $8/MMBtu, fell to the $3.50 range in 2015-17, and to the low $3 range in 2018. It will fall below $3/MMBtu this spring and likely remain there for several years. That means gas markets will remain a drag on coal unit economics for years to come.
Environmental regulation
Coal units must comply with air, water and solid waste emissions standards. Air emissions include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates, mercury and other air toxics, and carbon dioxide. Water standards cover plant effluents as well as cooling water intake structures and temperature impacts. Coal combustion residuals are also regulated.
The Mercury and Air Toxics rule, which took effect in April 2015, was the most important regulation to impact coal capacity during the 2011-18 period, driving units facing high compliance costs to retire. In some cases, units that remained in service faced increased costs associated with operating emissions controls or purchasing coal additives to improve mercury capture.
While the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan proposed in 2014 was never implemented, the potential for future carbon regulations must be considered in a decision to retire or maintain coal capacity, particularly if capital infusions are required. In addition, while the federal regulatory role is currently limited, carbon emissions caps are in effect in California and the Northeast, through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and several other states have emission reduction targets.
Cost declines and policy support for clean energy
A combination of falling costs and state, as well as federal, policy has led to rapid growth in US wind and solar generation. Solar PV costs have declined from about $4,000/kW-AC in 2011 to about $1,200/kW-AC at present. During the same period, onshore wind costs fell from over $2,000/kW to about $1,500/kW. In addition, the cost of battery storage that can help integrate intermittent renewables, particularly solar, has fallen dramatically.
States have played a role in renewables growth primarily through renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which mandate a certain proportion of renewables in the energy mix. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently have mandatory RPS. Qualifying technologies vary from state to state – though solar and wind qualify everywhere – and percentage requirements vary over a wide range. Based on current law, renewable generation to meet RPS requirements of load serving entities – that is, companies that provide power on a retail basis, mainly utilities but also unregulated marketers – will more than double between 2018 and 2030. Corporations in pursuit of sustainability goals have also stepped up their purchases of renewable energy, signing deals for over 6 GW of capacity in 2018 alone.
State support for merchant nuclear units challenged by weak margins may come at the expense of coal capacity. Unlike intermittent renewables, nuclear units provide significant capacity value – meaning they can provide energy whenever needed. New York and Illinois are already providing support, with New Jersey and Connecticut also moving down this path. Pennsylvania, home to 10 GW of nuclear capacity, may follow.
The federal role in promoting renewables has mainly been through tax credits, including production tax credits (PTC) for onshore wind and investment tax credits (ITC) for solar. Under legislation enacted in late 2015, wind projects starting construction in 2016 are eligible for a PTC of $23/MWh for 10 years; the value of the credit steps down for projects started in subsequent years and is phased out for projects begun after 2019.
The ITC is 30% for projects started by the end of 2019 and then steps down over the following two years with the residential credit expiring for projects begun after 2021 while the ITC for non-residential systems falls to 10%.
The cost of wind generation (including ROI) from projects qualifying for the full PTC in areas with high average wind speeds is in the $15-20/MWh range, competitive with the variable cost of coal and gas generation. The cost of solar PV qualifying for the full ITC in areas with high insolation is in the $25/MWh range. Variable production costs are lower, and producers are often willing to sell at negative prices to capture tax credits (in the case of wind) and renewable energy credits (used for RPS compliance).
Due to lower variable production costs, rising renewables generation will displace both coal and gas generation and result in lower energy prices. In addition, more extensive cycling of dispatchable generation to balance supply and demand will result in higher operating costs.
Despite its impacts on energy prices and operating costs, growth in renewables output by itself has not been a major driver of coal retirements because the resources do not provide much capacity value, and lost energy revenues can be partially recouped in capacity markets. That may change, however, with additional investment and the ability of battery storage to add capacity value. According to the American Wind Energy Association, there are 35 GW of wind capacity in advanced development and the Solar Energy Industry Association report 27 GW of solar projects with signed PPAs and another 37 GW announced.
Global perspective
While this discussion has been focused on US developments, the same factors apply elsewhere in the world as well, though their relative importance may vary. Europe, for example, is expected to see a significant reduction in coal-fired generating capacity during the next two decades. Slow demand growth, policy support for renewables, and explicit coal shutdown plans play a role. As a gas importer, gas prices tend to be higher in Europe, but the impact is offset by carbon allowance prices that boost the effective cost of burning coal relative to gas.
In Asia, the picture for coal is a little brighter thanks to high gas prices, faster load growth and looser environmental regulations. However, renewables are making inroads, particularly in China, causing growth in coal to slow.
https://blogs.platts.com/2019/04/02/gas-renewables-coal-plant-closures/
-
Perry Grilled over Clean Energy Budget Cuts
Apr 2, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Republican and Democratic senators alike grilled Energy Secretary Rick Perry Tuesday over the Trump administration's plans to slash funding into developing carbon-free energy.
Under the budget put out by the White House last month, the energy department's budget would be cut to $31.7 billion next year, down from $35.7 billion in 2019, with more than 50 percent cuts to renewable energy, advanced manufacturing and energy efficiency programs.
"I understand the need to cut the budget but not at the expense of innovation," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"Science says we have 12 years to curb our emissions, to avoid the most disastrous effects of climate change. Why then is this administration proposing to do the exact opposite," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
Since coming into office, President Donald Trump repeatedly posed massive cuts to the energy department, only to watch Congress go ahead and increase the funding from the previous year.
Perry, the former Texas governor, acknowledged his budget was unlikely to hold during testimony Tuesday, promising to "work with this committee."
"This isn't a take it or leave it budget," he said. "We can quibble about what the amounts are but we have a shared interest in american energy being sent around the world."
Among the technologies Perry cited Tuesday were carbon capture, advanced nuclear power and solar energy, pointing out his department had just made available $130 million in research funding for advanced solar technology, which he called the "largest in history."
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., implored Perry to focus on carbon capture, to allow coal and natural gas to continue to be burned without pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
"We need a moonshot," he said. "My hope is that between the brilliant minds at [the energy department], our national labs and the private sector, we can crack this nut sooner rather than later."
Perry is contending with a Congress whose messaging on expanding clean energy is increasingly at odds with Trump's.
At a rally in Michigan last week, Trump questioned the nation's increasing reliance on wind energy, which along with solar represents the fastest growing power sources in the United States.
"If it doesn't blow, you can forget about television for that night," Trump said, adding, "I know a lot about wind."
Sen. Martin Heinrich, D- N.M., asked Perry whether he had that problem while governor of Texas, which last year got almost 20 percent of its total power load from wind turbines.
"I didn't have an issue with that," Perry said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Perry-grilled-over-clean-energy-budget-cuts-13734888.php?cmpid=ffcp#item-85307-tbla-2
-
Another Houston Chemical Fire Leaves One Dead, 2 Injured (1)
Apr 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley and Jack Kaskey
An explosion and fire at a chemical plant northeast of Houston left one person dead and two injured, just two weeks after a blaze at an oil storage facility became the Gulf Coast’s worst industrial disaster in 14 years.
Students near the fire at the KMCO LLC plant in Crosby and residents within a one-mile radius were instructed to remain inside, Harris county officials said on Twitter April 2. Firefighters are at the scene and smoke was visible nearly 25 miles (40 kilometers) away in downtown Houston for about an hour before ebbing away. An ignition of isobutylene, a flammable gas, was the initial cause of the fire, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said on Twitter.
“We are deeply saddened to confirm at this time that there have been injuries and one fatality,” KMCO said in a statement that was tweeted by the Harris Country fire marshal’s office. “We are working with local first responders to extinguish the fire.”
A warehouse is currently burning, Rachel Moreno, a spokeswoman for the Harris County Fire Marshall’s office said by phone. It wasn’t immediately evident what chemicals were involved in the incident, she said. Several “pops” were heard, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said on Twitter as he drove to the scene.
The disaster comes just two weeks after oil storage tanks owned by Mitsui & Co.’s Intercontinental Terminal Co. burned for four days, causing thousands of gallons of gasoline products to pour into the Houston Ship Channel.
KMCO is owned by Owner Resource Group LLC , a private equity firm based in Austin, Texas. Its sites in Crosby and Port Arthur have the capacity to produce more than 900 million pounds (410 million kilograms) a year of chemicals, including antifreeze, brake fluid and oilfield products. The Crosby site has 28 reactors and more than 600 chemical storage tanks, according to KMCO’s website.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/another-houston-chemical-fire-leaves-one-dead-2-injured-1-1
-
1 Dead as Fire Erupts at 2nd Texas Facility in 2 Weeks
Apr 2, 2019 | AP (E&E News PM)
By Juan A. Lozano
A tank holding a flammable chemical caught on fire at a Texas plant today, killing one worker, critically injuring two others and sending other panicked employees fleeing over a fence to safety.
Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez confirmed the fatality in a tweet and said the two injured had been taken by helicopter to a hospital. The two injured were in critical condition, said Rachel Moreno, spokeswoman for the Harris County Fire Marshal's Office.
Authorities shut down a roadway near today's fire at a KMCO chemical plant in Crosby, about 25 miles northeast of Houston, Gonzalez said.
Residents within 1 mile of the plant were ordered to stay indoors or shelter in place.
Gonzalez said a transfer line ignited in the area of a tank of isobutylene — a flammable colorless gas used in the production of high octane gasoline — which then caught on fire. First responders were trying to contain the fire, he said.
Worker Justin Trahan told Houston television station KPRC that he heard "some panic on the radio" but no alarms sounding before the plant caught fire.
"We didn't think anything of it — we didn't think it was anything severe," he said.
Trahan said employees began running after "the tank ignited."
He said that he and other colleagues had to jump over a fence to escape because all the gates were locked.
John C. Foley, CEO of KMCO, said in a statement that the company had activated its emergency response team and set up a command center.
"We are working with local first responders to extinguish the fire," he said.
KMCO is a chemical company that offers coolant and brake fluid products and chemicals for the oil field industry.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said it has dispatched emergency response personnel to conduct an initial assessment.
The fire comes about two weeks after a March 17 blaze at a petrochemical storage facility in Deer Park, located about 20 miles south of Crosby. That earlier fire burned for days and triggered air quality warnings.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/02/stories/1060140451
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell to Leave Refiner Lobbying Group over Climate Change
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Timothy Cama
Royal Dutch Shell PLC said it is ending its membership in the main petroleum refiner lobbying group in Washington, D.C., over its disagreement with the association's stances on climate change.
The Anglo-Dutch oil giant made the announcement as part of its first thorough examination of how its association memberships align with its positions and goals on climate, a piece of a strategy to demonstrate to investors that it is serious about the 2015 Paris Agreement and cutting emissions.
It found that the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers' advocacy against or silence on many greenhouse gas reduction policies was in "material misalignment" with Shell's positions.
The company put another nine associations around the world on notice for having "some misalignment" with its policies.
"AFPM has not stated support for the goal of the Paris Agreement. Shell supports the goal of the Paris Agreement," Shell said in the report released today.
AFPM also departs with Shell on the oil company's support for carbon dioxide emissions pricing, government intervention to support low-carbon technologies, the Obama administration's fuel economy standards for cars and boosting natural gas use, it said.
"Shell benefits from its membership of AFPM through shared insights in important areas, in particular process safety. Our participation also creates opportunities to engage with independent refiners and petrochemical companies. Shell has identified material misalignment on climate-related policy positions with AFPM," the company said.
Shell, a diversified energy company with investments in oil and gas drilling, refining, renewables and other areas, is the first major oil company to exit AFPM over climate.
The exit comes amid growing concern in recent years among climate activists over the role of lobbying associations and their members in climate policies.
For example, many companies have left the American Legislative Exchange Council in recent years over climate, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has vocally blamed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its members for stopping more aggressive global warming policies.
The Chamber of Commerce is one of the organizations Shell said had "some misalignment" with its positions.
AFPM thanked Shell for its contributions to the organization and defended its advocacy.
"AFPM will continue to foster collaboration among our nearly 300 members on important topics like safety and environmental protection. We will also continue working on behalf of the refining and petrochemical industries to advance policies that ensure reliable and affordable access to fuels and petrochemicals, while being responsible stewards of the environment," CEO Chet Thompson said in a statement.
"Like any family, we aren't always fully aligned on every policy, but we always strive to reach consensus positions on policies that are in the best interest of our membership and the communities and consumers that rely on us," Thompson continued.
ShareAction, a group that promotes environmental responsibility in investment worldwide, cheered Shell's decision.
"The AFPM has a history of obstructing the implementation of sensible climate policy. Notably, it funded campaigns to oppose carbon tax policies in Washington State in both 2016 and 2018 and has consistently opposed [electric vehicle] subsidies and mandates," Jeanne Martin, the group's senior campaigns officer, said in a statement.
"Investors should keep a close eye on Shell's engagement with these trade associations and urge the other oil majors to follow suit," Martin said.
The exit highlights a tension between diversified, worldwide oil companies and companies that only refine petroleum. While the oil majors frequently advocate for climate policies that would boost natural gas demand, refiners see efforts to reduce petroleum use as little more than a threat to their businesses that would not be mitigated.
AFPM has about 300 domestic and international members, including Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp. It brought in $33 million from membership dues in 2017, accounting for 78.8 percent of its income that year, according to the most recent tax filings available. Neither Shell nor AFPM would disclose the company's dues.
Among the groups that Shell put on notice for having some misalignment with its policies are the Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute and National Association of Manufacturers, as well as some groups outside the United States.
Shell said it will push those groups to be more supportive of climate policies, while continuing to regularly monitor its group memberships to determine whether to leave them.
"The plan is to take an active role in fostering alignment between ourselves and the various industry associations," Shell spokesman Curtis Smith told E&E News.
"We will be proactive in our monitoring and engagement with these associations and be transparent along the way," Smith said. "On a case by case basis, we'll assess where there are opportunities to positively influence from within, or leave if deemed appropriate."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/02/stories/1060140291
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Aims to Help Polluters by Cutting Air Quality Standards
Apr 3, 2019 | Who What Why
By Vanessa Nason
The Trump administration has found another way to undermine Environmental Protection Agency regulations and secure a win for Big Oil, according to environmental advocates.
The White House wants to dial back the standards for particulate matter (PM) — solid particles or liquid droplets in the air, which will be a financial boon for industries that benefit from weaker environmental regulations and, according to critics, would result in the death of even more people than those already at risk.
The air is dirty enough already. “Right now, in the US, under the current standards, there are 23 million Americans that live in areas that have air quality worse than the current standard,” Gretchen Goldman, the research director at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told WhoWhatWhy.
“There does seem to be evidence that there are health effects at levels below the current standard, so there’s a significant health impact on the American public.”
Long-term exposure to air pollution has been linked to premature death, according to a paper written by Goldman and data scientist Francesca Dominici. This link is consistent with what the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) — which advises the EPA, and is composed of PM and Ozone Review panels — has found in the past.
The current CASAC panel, however, cannot even agree that long-term exposure to particulate matter causes premature death. This lack of agreement may reflect recent changes initiated by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
On October 31, 2017, Pruitt announced new chairs for three advisory panels, including CASAC, and signed a directive banning scientists receiving EPA grants from sitting on advisory committees.
Republicans in Congress had long been trying to pass similar legislation co-sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), then-chair of the House Science Committee and noted climate change denier. The move has been harshly criticized by many in the scientific community.
Pruitt, Republicans, and industry-backed supporters like the American Chemistry Council, claim it will keep bias out of the EPA. But the change, critics say, tilts the advisory committees clearly in their favor by allowing scientists funded by oil, fossil fuel, and chemical companies to offer advice on regulating their industries. This is happening with CASAC.
Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox Jr., the current panel chairperson, is an expert in risk analysis and president of a private Denver consulting firm whose clients include those in the oil and chemical industries.
His new CASAC team is, according to Dr. H. Christopher Frey, former EPA CASAC chairman, inexperienced and insufficient.
“CASAC is not competent scientifically to advise the agency,” he said. “The group does not bring to the table the breadth, depth, and diversity of expertise that’s needed to propose extremely controversial, broad-ranging changes to the overall assessment.”
Notably, the current CASAC committee does not include any epidemiologists, whose studies have been key in determining the health effects caused by air pollutants.
“Every other review of every standard going back to late 1970s had a broader view of scientists than just the seven people who are allowed to be on this division,” said John Bachmann, former associate director for science/policy and new programs in the EPA Air Office
Goldman says what Cox is promoting is “manipulative causation.” While the past framework looked at studies across various fields to determine links between air pollutants and public health concerns, Goldman said, Cox will limit what studies can inform decision-making, only looking at studies that show reducing a particular pollutant will have a positive health effect.
This is inconsistent with how the scientific community determines cause-and-effect relationships.
“The proposals coming forward … are just not vetted in the scientific community,” Frey said. “They may have some merit here and there, but they’re being pushed in an application that’s completely out of context in ways that are inappropriate.”
There have been many changes to the air quality review, he said. “Everything has harmed the process, but collectively it has really gamed the whole system.”
Having those in industries that emit pollutants take part in these committees is an “inappropriate conflict of interest,” Frey said. “Regulated industries are certainly stakeholders in the review process.”
And they are not likely to acknowledge the very real health effects associated with such air pollutants.
Bachmann said a stricter analysis than the new framework Cox is promoting would “prevent thousands of premature deaths.”
https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/04/03/trump-aims-to-help-polluters-by-cutting-air-quality-standards/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell To Cut Ties With American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
Apr 3, 2019 | Climate Liability News
By Dana Drugmand
Royal Dutch Shell is cutting ties with the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers over the group’s stance on climate change.
The decision came in response to demands by institutional investors for Shell to improve transparency on how its trade association membership aligns with its climate change positions.
The company reviewed the climate-related statements and actions of trade groups it belongs to and found it had “material misalignment” with the AFPM, according to the company’s Industry Associations Climate Review, which was released Tuesday. The company said its climate policies “aligned” with nine of the trade groups it belongs to and found “some misalignment” with the remaining nine groups.
Shell determined whether its climate policies aligned by examining four climate-related positions: support for the Paris Agreement; government-led carbon pricing policies; policy frameworks for low-carbon technologies; and the role of natural gas in the energy system.
Shell said it supports the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and supports policies on carbon pricing and low-carbon technology and innovation, as well as government regulation of methane emissions from natural gas.
The AFPM, which has not stated support for the goal of the Paris Agreement, opposes carbon pricing and other policies like the vehicle fuel economy standards.
The trade association maintains the Clean Air Act should not be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions because it “threatens our nation’s economic and energy security.” The Clean Air Act’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is one of the main defenses that oil majors like Shell are using in climate liability lawsuits, arguing that the federal statute displaces and preempts tort claims against fossil fuel producers.
The AFPM thanked Shell for its “longstanding collaboration.
“AFPM will continue to foster collaboration among our nearly 300 members on important topics like safety and environmental protection. We will also continue working on behalf of the refining and petrochemical industries to advance policies that ensure reliable and affordable access to fuels and petrochemicals, while being responsible stewards of the environment,” an AFPM spokesperson said in a statement, adding that its policies don’t always align with its member companies.
Shell also identified “some misalignment” with nine other industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute (API), BusinessEurope, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, European Chemical Industry Council, FuelsEurope, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).
The WSPA opposed a Washington State carbon pricing ballot initiative in 2018, spearheading a campaign to defeat the measure. Shell said it decided not to contribute funding to the campaign due to its “general support for government-led carbon pricing.”
NAM and the Chamber of Commerce both have expressed concern or criticism of the Paris Agreement. The Chamber commissioned a controversial study claiming high costs of the agreement, which the Trump administration used to justify announcing the U.S. withdrawal in June 2017.
Despite these misalignments, Shell remains committed to these trade associations. Both NAM and the Chamber of Commerce are supporting Shell and its oil industry peers in climate liability lawsuits.
Shell said the report is a “first step to greater transparency” and that it “follows talks with investors, NGOs and consultants about our activities with industry associations.”
ShareAction, an investor advocacy group promoting sustainability and responsible investing, praised Shell’s review of its trade association memberships and decision to ditch the AFPM..
“The AFPM has a history of obstructing the implementation of sensible climate policy. Notably, it funded campaigns to oppose carbon tax policies in Washington State in both 2016 and 2018 and has consistently opposed [electric vehicle] subsidies and mandates,” said Jeanne Martin, a senior campaigns officer at ShareAction, adding that her group is pleased that Shell identified and acted on the risks of remaining in the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) following forceful engagement by institutional investors and non-profits organizations.
“Shell has also put its membership of nine other trade bodies, including the American Petroleum Institute, the National Manufacturers Associations and the US Chamber of Commerce, under review,” Martin said.
“This should send a strong message to the US lobby powerhouse that the days of funding climate denial groups and being a toxic drag on US climate policy debate are coming to an end. Investors should keep a close eye on Shell’s engagement with these trade associations and urge the other oil majors to follow suit.”
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/04/03/shell-to-cut-ties-with-american-fuel-petrochemical-manufacturers/
-
Critics Urge Court to Vacate EPA’s Rejection of Ozone Transport Petitions
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
Delaware, Maryland and environmental groups are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate EPA’s rejection of petitions the states filed asking the agency to impose ozone-reduction measures on pollution sources beyond the states’ boundaries, saying in opening briefs the decision is based on flawed data.
The arguments, detailed in March 29 briefs in the case State of Maryland, et al., v. EPA, et al., say the agency acted arbitrarily in its decision, published in the Oct. 5 Federal Register, because its justification for the denial fell short of several Clean Air Act requirements.
Environmentalists in their brief say the decision is part of a broader EPA pattern of rejecting such petitions while also declining to pursue any new federal regulations to reduce the impact upwind states’ ozone emissions have on downwind states.
The denial “is just the most recent move in the Agency’s ozone transport shell game, in which it repeatedly justifies denials by pointing to separate regulations -- which EPA later delays and denies -- thus foreclosing downwind states’ ability to obtain relief from out-of-state ozone pollution using any of the statutory tools provided by the Act,” says a brief filed by the Environmental Defense Fund, Adirondack Council, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Clean Air Council, Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club.
Delaware and Maryland filed their petitions under section 126(b) of the Clean Air Act, which allows states to request that EPA cut air pollution from sources in other states that are outside the petitioning state’s control but whose emissions are transported across state lines, hindering the petitioner’s ability to attain federal ambient air limits.
The Trump EPA has rejected several such petitions from Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, preferring to rely instead on state implementation plans that states are required to craft to meet the air law's “good neighbor” obligation to prevent their emissions worsening air quality in other states. The administration said an existing update to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program for power plants adequately addressed the ozone air pollution concerns the states detailed in their petitions.
CSAPR will by 2023 have met its goal of helping states meet the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 ppb, EPA predicts.
Northeastern states counter that EPA's projections are too optimistic, and agency action is not adequate to help states meet NAAQS by applicable attainment deadlines. Critics of the Oct. 5 Register notice formalizing the denial of Delaware and Maryland’s petitions raise these claims in their pending suit.
Petitioners’ Claims
Maryland’s brief says EPA erred by finding that the CSAPR update would be adequate to curb the air pollution cited in the petitions. The state says that even with the trading rule, the pollution sources it identified in the petition for control will continue to worsen air quality downwind. Further, it says, EPA “cannot reasonably” support its denial by relying on emissions data from 2017, the first year after implementation of the CSAPR update.
The state also faults EPA for refusing to assess the pollution controls sought in the petition as a necessary step for Maryland to meet the stricter 2015 ozone standard of 70 ppb. The more-stringent NAAQS was in place at the time of the petition and confirms the need to grant the request, according to the brief.
“EPA’s denial of the Petition should be vacated, and the Petition should be remanded for EPA to impose appropriate source specific emissions limitations at each of the identified sources,” it concludes.
Delaware makes similar arguments in its brief and says the denial of the First State’s petition relies on “overly optimistic future modeling” about its ability to attain the ozone NAAQS. “This Court should not permit EPA to continue delaying meaningful action on interstate ozone transport by endorsing EPA’s ‘wait and see’ approach” that declines to impose ozone controls due to the belief the state will meet the standard, the state argues.
Among other claims, Delaware also argues that EPA took an “unreasonably narrow” interpretation of section 126(b) by ignoring monitoring data that the state says justify the petition.
“For these reasons, this Court should vacate EPA’s denial decision and remand Delaware’s and Maryland’s petitions for proper consideration,” the state concludes.
The environmentalists’ brief endorses many of the arguments raised in the two states’ petitions and similarly asks the D.C. Circuit to vacate the agency’s denial of the petitions.
EPA’s response brief is due June 26, with final briefs in the case due Sept. 30. The court has not yet scheduled oral argument.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/critics-urge-court-vacate-epa%E2%80%99s-rejection-ozone-transport-petitions
-
New Air Office Deputy Draws Mixed Reactions
Apr 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
Anne Idsal, the Region 6 EPA administrator recently tapped as the air office’s principal deputy, is drawing mixed albeit expected reactions, with environmentalists warning that she will doggedly push the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda while industry officials praise her as someone who can “get it done.”
Wheeler announced March 27 that he was naming Idsal principal deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), replacing Mandy Gunasekara, who left recently left the agency. Idsal began her new job April 1.
Environmentalists are warning that Idsall will likely continue to push the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda and overlook the agency’s mission to protect health.
They question her work on regional haze at both EPA’s regional office in Dallas and in prior roles with the state of Texas. For example, during her tenure as a state official, Texas opposed taking steps to comply with the program, so the Obama EPA imposed a federal plan.
Now she is part of the agency that is seeking to bring wholesale changes to the state’s haze plan in a way that one source says has “no tether to the regional haze program or prior federal implementation of it” and had sought to do so without notice and comment.
A second Texas environmentalist says under Idsal’s watch, the regional haze program has “languished.”
At the same time, industry attorneys are praising Idsal as someone who will help Administrator Andrew Wheeler and air chief Bill Wehrum be more effective.
The first Texas environmentalist adds that Idsal has had a meteoric rise through Texas politics -- from general counsel of the state environment agency to a top official in its lands office -- and while she has not stayed in any position for more than a year or so, “every time she is in a position of leadership, bad stuff happens” to the environment and public health. Now, she is heading to a national post that even further “belies her experience level.”
The environmentalist also points out that Region 6 under Idsal “appears to be capitulating to” Texas officials, over the recommendations of nonpolitical regional career staff on several crucial Clean Air Act issues. In addition to regional haze, these include ozone and sulfur dioxide nonattainment designations.
“So, when someone like Anne gets moved into positions of authority over national programs,” the Texas environmentalists see it as a bad sign for the country.
“It’s deeply disappointing but not at all surprising that instead of putting someone in this important [headquarters] position that would further EPA’s mission of protecting public health and the environment, a new political deputy is being put in place to take the agency backwards to dirtier air,” the second source says.
But industry sources are praising Idsal’s move to OAR, which is overseeing EPA’s efforts to roll back a host of Obama-era climate and air policies.
GOP energy strategist Mike McKenna says, “Anne is going to be a great addition to the team. Savvy, careful, experienced. She will be an ideal complement to Bill Wehrum.”
A Texas-based industry attorney adds that Idsal “has proven to be a respected manager and adept problem-solver at multiple stops in Texas, and we look forward to her continuing that good work in Washington, D.C.”
Another says Idsal was “fabulous for morale in Region 6. Some people just know how to manage and bring out the best in people. She's focused on the basics; she's not a grand-stander, not looking to make headlines, just to get it done."
This source expects her to work on Wehrum's priorities including “reform, not repeal, and modernization” of the Clean Air Act new source review permitting program, as well as modernizing air enforcement to address growing industry accidents with adverse air quality impacts, such as recent Texas facility fires.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/new-air-office-deputy-draws-mixed-reactions
-
Inslee Presses Trump on Climate Change in House Testimony
Apr 2, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee became the first Democratic presidential candidate to testify before Congress on Tuesday, appearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee to offer sharp criticism of the Trump administration on his signature issue of climate change.
As Democrats work to fast-track a bill that would recommit the U.S. to the Paris climate accord, Inslee said that President Trump abandoned America’s international responsibility by walking away from the agreement.
Responding to committee members who argued the agreement did not do enough to push developing nations to curb their carbon use, Inslee said U.S. inaction discouraged other countries from taking action on climate change.
“There are a lot of people … saying we shouldn’t do something until the last person on earth does something, and then they turn around and say we shouldn’t be in the Paris agreement. It’s not very inspiring to the rest of the world and encouraging them to do things when we tear up an international agreement we’re a part of,” Inslee said. “That’s not going to inspire representatives of China or India.”
Inslee has made fighting climate change the cornerstone of his fledgling presidential campaign, saying he wants to be known as “the climate guy.”
But he was quickly questioned by a fellow Washingtonian, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R), who asked how Inslee arrived at the hearing and what he would be doing to offset his carbon footprint.
Ranking member Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) criticized Inslee’s invitation at the expense of advancing other policy proposals.
“It’s disappointing today that this hearing is really more about the politics of climate change than realistic work on solutions,” he said. “I can’t remember the last time in my 18 years on this committee where we cleared the decks for a presidential candidate to come take center stage.”
Walden pushed for the committee to take up the Green New Deal, while other Republicans on the committee opened by voicing that “climate change is real.”
But the discussion diverged over whether the green economy can produce jobs.
Republican representatives from coal and fossil fuel-producing states questioned how a transition to green energy would impact local economies as well as global markets reliant on U.S. energy exports. Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) repeated Republican calls for an “all of the above” approach to energy that would include fossil fuels.
Inslee touted the transition program used during the closing of Washington’s last coal-fired power plant as well as what he said will be a wealth of high-paying green energy technician jobs in the solar and wind sector.
“There are a heck of a lot more jobs fighting climate change than there are in denying climate change,” Inslee told the committee, but the U.S. risks losing jobs to growing green energy industries overseas.
“The question is where the jobs are going to be created, not whether they are going to be created,” he said.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/436955-inslee-presses-trump-on-climate-change-in-house-testimony
-
Has the Green New Deal Changed Republican Politics on Climate Change?
Apr 3, 2019 | Washington Post
By JM Rieger
After denying the existence of climate change for years, a handful of elected Republicans now acknowledge that human activity is the primary cause and are calling for “innovative” action to address it.
In 2011, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney staked out no fewer than four different positions on climate change, at one point telling a Pennsylvania voter, “We don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” By mid-2018, Romney was calling for federal action to curb climate change.
Before heading the House Republican conference for six years, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) called the science around human activity and climate change “inconclusive at best.” Now she says human activity is at least “partially” responsible.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) called climate change science “condescending elitism” in 2010. Now, Roberts not only acknowledges the science, but he also says humans contribute to climate change.
And in 2011, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), then-chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency, said climate change was not “man-made.” Now he says climate change is real and must be addressed, while not explicitly acknowledging its cause.
That Republicans are publicly discussing ways to combat climate change is remarkable, considering that 49 of 54 Republican senators voted against attributing climate change to human activity just four years ago. The science of the causes and effects of climate change has not changed significantly over the past decade. What has changed is the politics of climate change, as the video above illustrates.
Three years ago, 49 percent of Republicans believed in climate change. Today, 64 percent do.
A record 45 percent of Americans now believe immediate action is needed to combat climate change, including 15 percent of Republicans, according to a December Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. In 2010, fewer than 10 percent of Republicans thought immediate action was needed to combat climate change.
Today, fossil fuel companies are curbing greenhouse gas emissions or calling for action to combat climate change (“All the climate arguments are real, urgent and important,” BP’s chief economist recently told The Washington Post).
And Democrats have seized on an issue largely skirted by Republicans over the past decade with proposals including the nonbinding Green New Deal, which has led to a flurry of alternatives, many offered by Republicans.
A growing number of Republicans now no longer contest the science behind human-caused climate change, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who told reporters last week that he believedhuman activity is causing the climate to change, a far cry from when he would not even acknowledge the existence of the science in 2014.
“I’m not a scientist,” McConnell told the Cincinnati Enquirer at the time. “I’m interested in protecting Kentucky’s economy.”
Scott Clement contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/03/has-green-new-deal-pushed-republicans-acknowledge-that-man-made-climate-change-is-real/?utm_term=.3085b1d8bc2f
-
2020 Democrats Go Silent After Senate’s Green New Deal Debacle
Apr 3, 2019 | Roll Call
By David Winston
In the awkward aftermath of the Green New Deal’s rollout, perhaps the most appropriate question for its supporters, especially the Democratic presidential field, is one often posed by tennis bad boy John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!”
But, apparently, when New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey introduced their proposal in February, they were deadly serious, and breathless progressives couldn’t wait to hop aboard the climate change express. First in line, the Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate who were eager to offer up their enthusiastic support.
There was just one snag. The Green New Deal, in reality, wasn’t serious. These weren’t well-thought-out ideas or vetted policies. They were far left talking points that couldn’t possibly survive any real scrutiny. And they didn’t.
The blowback was epic. Critics pounced on the resolution’s absurd provisions. America would have to retool every structure in the country to maximize energy efficiency. No cars. No planes. Trains to everywhere. Well, except from L.A. to San Francisco, where fiscal reality has already ended that green dream.
But there’s more. The Green New Deal goes far beyond a “chicken in every pot.” It would turn meat-eating America into a vegan “utopia” with “universal access to healthy food and high-quality health care” for every American, what most of us call socialized medicine.
And last but certainly not least, the Green New Deal would guarantee a job “with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security” for all.
This is clearly a ridiculous proposal and perhaps Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can learn a lesson from her Green New Deal launch. There is more to legislating than naïve ideas and a lot of wishful thinking, even with a big megaphone.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sat back and let the Democrats and their presidential candidates climb one by one out on a politically perilous limb called the Green New Deal. He’s been around long enough to know the difference between serious policymakers on both sides who want to get something done and politicians who are more comfortable on the campaign trail than in a committee markup.
He also knows the difference between a catchy sound bite and solid policy.
So he decided to call the Democrats’ bluff and scheduled a vote on the Green New Deal they had all been touting. For weeks, Democratic presidential candidates had been talking up the climate change issue from Iowa to New Hampshire, as support for the deal was becoming a kind of “litmus test” for many progressive Democratic primary voters. And now there was to be a vote, an actual vote.
Thanks to McConnell, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren would have the opportunity to actually deliver on what had been only pie-in-the-sky promises on climate change. Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker would have a chance to stand tall for bold action and save the planet from climate change. And Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand could now earn their bona fides as relentless climate change warriors.
On March 26, Mitch McConnell gave Democrats the opportunity to stand on principle and vote for the Green New Deal policies they claimed to support. To do their job and legislate.
They whiffed.
All but three Democratic senators voted present, and the Green New Deal went down by a 57-0 vote. It didn’t take long for Democrats to realize they’d been had.
They rushed to the microphones to label the lopsided vote a “sham” and with great indignation, defended their non-votes by claiming McConnell had rushed the bill to the floor, outside proper procedure. No hearings, no expert testimony, they complained. No consensus and not enough time. In other words, not enough process, never a very effective argument.
Moving on
The candidates, still out on that limb, quickly opted for radio silence on the Green New Deal, and turned their focus to crucial issues like packing the Supreme Court, abolishing the Electoral College and giving 16-year-olds the vote. Given the contenders’ near unanimity of thought on these and most issues, it’s not surprising the primary campaign has since begun to devolve into more of a personality contest than a policy debate.
Their response wasn’t to look inward and ponder over the fact that the stumble was theirs. That, perhaps, particularly as presidential candidates, more serious thought should have gone into considering the substance of the Green New Deal rather than rushing to officially embrace a completely unrealistic proposal.
No, their reaction was to blame McConnell for forcing them into an embarrassing position. What they couldn’t admit is that the Republican majority leader understood the Green New Deal better than they did.
He understood that, at its essence, the debate about the Green New Deal isn’t really between Republicans and Democrats. It’s represents a bigger question, whether socialism or capitalism will create a better future for America. Whether this nation wants more government control or values individual freedom. It’s a crucial debate that the 2020 election will help settle.
Time to get serious.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/the-green-new-deal-you-cannot-be-serious
-
NASA Chief Mum on White House Climate Review
Apr 3, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The head of NASA extolled the value of climate science before lawmakers yesterday but would not say whether his agency is participating in a White House effort to cast doubt on that science.
The White House is formulating a plan to conduct an "adversarial" review of the science that shows climate change poses a national security risk. A copy of a National Security Council memo announcing a February meeting on the review, obtained by E&E News, showed that NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine was invited to attend.
In a short interview yesterday on Capitol Hill, Bridenstine said he didn't know any details about the plan or whether his agency was participating.
"I don't know what NASA has done. I'll have to get back to you on that," Bridenstine said. His spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Acting NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs told E&E News last week that he was not participating and suggested the White House stick to peer-reviewed climate science (Climatewire, March 28).
Bridenstine said he didn't know if the White House would rely on NASA climate data during its review.
"What we do is collect the data and we share it with the world, and we share it with the world for free," he said.
He added that the agency's science, which President Trump has doubted, "is absolutely peer-reviewed."
The White House climate review is still taking shape. It's unclear whether it will rely on federal scientists or outside researchers who question the vast majority of climate science that shows humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace.
Bridenstine himself was once a critic of climate science spending but has acknowledged that his views "evolved." Yesterday, he told members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, on which he served as a former congressman from Oklahoma, that NASA's Earth Sciences Division was essential for understanding the planet. He cited an example of NASA climate monitoring now being used for agricultural purposes and said it has improved crop yields while conserving water resources.
Bridenstine also touted a new satellite, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3, that NASA will launch to monitor carbon dioxide levels across the planet.
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We put more of it into the atmosphere than ever before, and it is in fact causing the climate to change," Bridenstine said.
"And by the way," he added, "we're studying every day and we're launching in a month the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3, which was cut in the last budget request but not in this budget request."
In a different Capitol Hill hearing room, lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday considered the national security risks of climate change, establishing a record showing myriad ways that global warming threatens the nation.
Even as some Republicans expressed doubts about the value of the Paris Agreement and Obama-era climate policies, none questioned the Department of Defense's finding that climate change poses a security risk.
Military leaders plan for risks, and climate change has acted as a threat multiplier around the world, said retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, the former assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations and environment.
It's not just U.S. military installations that face risks such as flooding or other threats from rising seas, McGinn said. Climate change also threatens vulnerable people across the world, including populations in India and Africa that may be destabilized by changing environmental conditions.
"Ultimately, people in uniform are pragmatists," McGinn said. "You can't debate whether the intelligence about a minefield, at sea or shore or whatever, is supported by 75% of the intelligence or 90% or 10% — you act on what you know."
He added: "And in our military, especially among our senior military leaders who are on record talking about climate change as a significant growing national security challenge, they are saying we need to do something about it. We are doing something about it."
Some Republicans pushed back on the assertion that climate change posed a serious risk on par with cybersecurity or China. They said American security depended on a robust fossil fuel industry.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said China dominates the market for precious metals used in technology, and therefore increasing reliance on technologically advanced clean energy posed a greater risk than climate change.
"From a national security standpoint, are we playing into China's hands by eschewing what we have in our country?" Perry asked.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/03/stories/1060140709
-
These Countries Have Prices on Carbon. Are They Working?
Apr 2, 2019 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich
The idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions to help tackle climate change has been slowly spreading around the globe over the past two decades.
This week, Canada’s federal government took the latest step when it extended its carbon-pricing program nationwide by imposing a tax on fossil fuels in four provinces that had declined to write their own climate plans.
More than 40 governments worldwide have now adopted some sort of price on carbon, either through direct taxes on fossil fuels or through cap-and-trade programs. In Britain, coal use plummeted after the introduction of a carbon tax in 2013. In the Northeastern United States, nine states have set a cap on emissions from the power sector and require companies to buy tradable pollution permits.
Economists have long suggested that raising the cost of burning coal, oil and gas can be a cost-effective way to curb emissions. But, in practice, most countries have found it politically difficult to set prices that are high enough to spur truly deep reductions. Many carbon pricing programs today are fairly modest. In France and Australia, efforts to increase carbon taxes were shelved after a backlash from voters angry about rising energy prices.
Partly for that reason, carbon pricing has, so far, played only a supporting role in efforts to mitigate global warming. Here are some efforts to date:
CANADA
Current prices per metric ton of CO2$ 15-$30
Share of emissions covered per province 47%-90%
Canada currently has one of the most ambitious carbon pricing programs in the world. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Liberal government has enacted a nationwide tax on oil, coal and gas that starts at $15 per ton of carbon dioxide this year and will rise to $38 per ton by 2022. Most of the revenue will be refunded to Canadians on their tax bills; the government estimates that these refunds will offset higher energy costs for about 70 percent of people.
A number of key industries that face intense trade competition, like steel and chemicals, are exempt from Canada’s tax. Instead, they will participate in a separate program in which the dirtiest companies within each sector will either have to pay the government for their excess emissions or buy carbon credits awarded to the cleanest companies.
Individual provinces can opt out of the federal program by designing their own local climate policies. British Columbia, for instance, has its own higher carbon tax in place, which rose to $30 per ton this year, and Quebec has enacted a local cap-and-trade system. But four provinces, including Ontario, refused to create their own plans, and the federal tax went into effect in those places on April 1.
The tax is a core part of Mr. Trudeau’s plan to reduce Canada’s emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. However, Canada is expected to hold national elections in October and the opposition Conservatives have vowed to repeal the tax if they take power.
BRITAIN
Current price per metric ton of CO2$ 25
Share of emissions covered 23%
In Britain, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gas emissions have fallen to their lowest level since 1890. One key factor: A carbon tax that has prompted electric utilities to switch away from coal.
Technically, Britain is covered by the European Union’s broadercap-and-trade system, which sets an overall ceiling on emissions from key industries and allows companies to buy and sell carbon permits. But, because of a glut of permits on the market, carbon prices in Europe remained low for years and the program has had a relatively muted effect on emissions.
So, in 2013, Parliament enacted a carbon price floor under the system for certain sectors, including electricity, a policy that essentially functions as a carbon tax of around $25 per ton. That tax has encouraged electric utilities to rapidly switch from coal to somewhat cleaner natural gas. This is perhaps the clearest example in the world of a carbon tax leading to a significant cut in emissions.
UNITED STATES 9 Northeastern states
Current price per metric ton of CO2 $5
Share of emissions covered 18%
California
Current price per metric ton of CO2 $15
Share of emissions covered 85%
With Congress largely gridlocked on climate policy, the main carbon pricing efforts in the United States have unfolded at the state level.
In the Northeast, nine states currently participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade system that auctions to power plants a steadily dwindling supply of carbon pollution permits. Carbon prices under this system have been fairly modest to date, and it is unclear how much the prices themselves have driven emissions reductions in the region. But states have used the money raised by the auctions to invest in efficiency and clean energy programs.
California, meanwhile, has enacted its own cap-and-trade program that goes beyond power plants and also covers manufacturers, refineries, and other polluters. Here, too, carbon prices under the system have remained modest to date, in part because the initial cap was set fairly high, and most of California’s emissions cuts to date have come as a result of other climate policies. Those include the state’s efficiency standards for buildings, and aggressive renewable power targets. State officials are now struggling to tighten the cap so that it drives bigger cuts in future years.
There are some signs that carbon pricing could expand further in the states. Virginia and New Jersey are making moves to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and several Northeastern states are planning a similar program for cars and trucks that would put a price on transportation fuels and invest in mass transit, electric buses or other low-carbon solutions.
CHINA
Expected price per metric ton of CO2 TBD
Expected share of emissions covered 25%-30%
Since 2011, China has been experimenting with cap-and-trade programs in several pilot cities, including Shanghai and Shenzhen. The country plans to gradually roll out a nationwide cap-and-trade program starting in 2020, with several years of testing before expanding to major sectors like electricity, steel and concrete.
If China manages to follow through, it will have created the largest carbon-pricing program in the world. But the government has not yet finalized key details, like how high it will set the overall emissions cap. Chinese officials have been talking with representatives from California and the European Union, trying to learn from their often-rocky experiences in designing cap-and-trade programs.
AUSTRALIA
Current price per metric ton of CO2 $10
Share of emissions covered Minimal
In 2012, Australia’s Labor Government rolled out a cap-and-trade program that essentially set a price on carbon of $23 per ton. Emissions fell nationwide under the program, but the policy faced a fierce political backlash from industry groups and voters. When the more conservative Liberal Party swept into power in 2013, it quickly repealed the program.
Australia currently has a far more lenient carbon pricing program in place, called the Safeguard Mechanism, in which large industrial polluters that exceed a pollution baseline can buy carbon credits to compensate. In 2017, only a handful of companies, including several coal mines, spent about $6 million buying credits. Australia is currently on track to miss its overall goals for cutting emissions.
Carbon pricing could still make a comeback. Australia is expected to hold federal elections in May, and the Labor Partyhas proposed bringing back a scaled-down version of cap-and-trade for the nation’s largest polluters. Still, carbon pricing remains a contentious issue in the country, which has been hit hard by global warming but is also the world’s biggest exporter of coal.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/pricing-carbon-emissions.html
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested