Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 15, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tennessee and Iowa Pass Bills For Advanced Plastic Recycle Facilities
Apr 13, 2019 | Solution Rocket News
By Akshay Kedari
They became the most recent states to support the conversion of more post-consumer plastics into valuable raw materials -
(ACC Mentioned) The First EWG VERIFIED™ Fragrance, Unregulated Factory Farms in Ohio and More
Apr 12, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
... Thus far, the legislation has received support from numerous organizations and private companies, including the GC3 Sustainable Chemistry Alliance, the American Chemical Society, the American Chemistry Council, the American Sustainable Business Council, the Dow Chemical Co., DuPont, the Environmental Working Group, Procter & Gamble, and others. -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Nylon Resins Market – CAGR Status, Industry Analysis, Trends, and Forecast (2018 – 2023)
Apr 15, 2019 | Akron Daily
By Dollie Freeman
Global “Nylon Resins Market” (2018 – 2023) Report Provides Overall study of Approximate CAGR, Leading Manufacturers, Key Development, Market Dynamics and SWOT analysis for Key Players. The Nylon Resins market is expected to register a CAGR of approximately 3.52% during the forecast period of (2018 – 2023) -
EPA Proposes Changes For 2020 Chemical Data Rule
Apr 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA is proposing a series of changes for its 2020 rule governing chemical use and other data industry must submit under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), measures that include provisions aimed at reducing businesses' reporting burdens which industry groups had failed to win when a negotiated rulemaking on the issue collapsed in 2017. -
U.S. EPA Takes Action Under TSCA Identifying Chemicals For Agency Scrutiny
Apr 15, 2019 | Mondaq
By Lawrence E. Culleen
In its continuing quest to meet regulatory deadlines imposed by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has published a list of 40 chemicals that must be "prioritized" by the end of 2019. -
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainable Chemistry R&D Bill Introduced In US Congress
Apr 12, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Legislation garners bipartisan support in Senate and House of Representatives -
New Step For Better Chemical Decontamination
Apr 15, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
An industrial chemical accident. An attack with a chemical warfare agent. Either of these situations can leave many people in acute need of decontamination. -
Cancer Risks From Monsanto’s Weedkiller Deserve Further Scrutiny, Government Agency Says
Apr 12, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Alexis Temkin and Olga Naidenko
A new analysis of Monsanto’s signature herbicide, glyphosate, released by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gives weight to studies connecting glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and recommends monitoring children’s exposure to this toxic weedkiller. -
Plastics-to-fuel Plant Gets Financing
Apr 12, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The energy development company Brightmark Energy has secured $260 million in funding to construct a plastics-to-fuel plant in Ashley, Indiana -
Brightmark Energy Cmpletes Fnancing For Pastics-to-fuel Pant
Apr 12, 2019 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Tom Mostyn,
Brightmark Energy, a San Francisco-based waste and energy development company, has announced the closing of a US$260 million financing package for the construction of the US’ first commercial-scale plastics-to-fuel plant, which will be located in Ashley, Indiana. -
Climate, Clean Tech Could Curb Demand For U.S. Gas — Study
Apr 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Concerns over emissions, evolving technology and global competition could soften the demand outlook for U.S. natural gas even as supplies remain plentiful, according to new research. -
The Week In Energy: The Waning Of An Era in US Shale
Apr 15, 2019 | Financial Times
By Ed Crooks
The early years of the US shale oil and gas industry, documented well in both Russell Gold’s The Boom and Gregory Zuckerman’s The Frackers, were a colourful era, full of big personalities, inspired visionaries and dubious chancers. -
Trump (Still) Digs Coal, Energy Official Reassures Industry
Apr 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
Coal executives received assurances April 12 that the Trump administration still supports them as an Energy Department official reiterated the president’s promise to bring back the industry. -
Supporting Collaborations For Chemical Safety
Apr 15, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Bonnie A. Charpentier
The core values of the American Chemical Society include “professionalism, safety, and ethics.” Energy and attention directed to safety have been growing in support of this core value -
Report Warns Of 'Probable' Cyberattack On Small Utilities
Apr 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak,
Smaller power utilities are not investing enough to address the "very probable" threat of a cyberattack against their networks, according to a report from the Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment. -
New York Sues EPA Over Interstate Ozone Pollution (2)
Apr 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood and John Herzfeld
New York is suing the Environmental Protection Agency to try to compel the agency to act against air pollution drifting from power plants and other pollution sources in upwind states. -
Fight Over MATS Rollback Serves As Proxy For Battle Over ‘Co-Benefits’
Apr 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A fight between critics and supporters of EPA’s proposal to scrap its cost-benefit finding underpinning the Obama-era utility air toxics rule is serving as a proxy for a broader battle over how, and whether, the agency should in future rulemakings count the “co-benefits” of reducing pollutants that are not directly regulated by a specific policy. -
D.C. Circuit Expected To Order FERC To Broaden Pipeline GHG Reviews
Apr 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Appellate judges are expected to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to expand consideration of greenhouse gas emissions when approving natural gas pipelines with a known upstream producer, which would extend a two-year-old precedent requiring FERC to address downstream GHGs when the end user is known.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tennessee and Iowa Pass Bills For Advanced Plastic Recycle Facilities
Apr 13, 2019 | Solution Rocket News
By Akshay Kedari
They became the most recent states to support the conversion of more post-consumer plastics into valuable raw materials
Reports confirm that the Tennessee House and Senate has passed Senate Bill 0923 and the Iowa House and Senate has passed Senate File 534, for supporting advanced recycling facilities that would transform plastic scrap into valuable raw materials through chemical recycling or pyrolysis.
Senior director of recycling and recovery at the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division, Craig Cookson, said that by passing SB 0923 and SF 534, Tennessee and Iowa became the most recent states to support the conversion of more post-consumer plastics into valuable raw materials, which will keep plastic resources out of the landfills.
Apparently, Tennessee and Iowa have joined Wisconsin, Georgia, and Florida in passing this legislation, supporting states’ growing recognition of the environmental and economic benefits of reusing the plastic resources.
For the uninitiated, the legislation defines the process called pyrolysis, which involves converting post-consumer polymers into chemical feedstock, resin pellets, fuels, waxes. It also outlines that pyrolysis facilities are to be separated from solid waste disposal facilities.
According to American Chemistry Council (ACC), in Iowa, converting 25% of the post-consumer plastics of the state into transportation fuels and feedstocks could support five advanced recovery and recycling facilities, producing $309 million in economic output each year.
In addition, transforming post-consumer plastics into transportation fuel in Tennessee could power an estimated 219,000 vehicles every year. By converting 25% of the post-consumer plastics of the state into manufacturing transportation fuels and feedstock, support can be provided to eight advanced recovery and recycling facilities that will generate $264 million in economic output per year, ACC mentioned.
A report released by the ACC in March supposedly found that expansion of advanced recycling technologies have a potential $10 billion impact on the country and the passage of bills in the five states is serving to boosting implementation of these innovative technologies.
http://solutionrocket.com/tennessee-iowa-pass-bills-advanced-plastic-recycle-facilities/
-
(ACC Mentioned) The First EWG VERIFIED™ Fragrance, Unregulated Factory Farms in Ohio and More
Apr 12, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
This week, Michelle Pfeiffer launched Henry Rose, a line of five distinct fragrances that became the first fine scents to earn the EWG VERIFIED™ mark. Typically, a fragrance can be concocted from any number of almost 4,000 ingredients and kept under wraps as a “trade secret” – but Henry Rose discloses 100 percent of its ingredients, setting a new industry standard for transparency for perfumes.
“Earning the EWG VERIFIED mark isn’t easy, as anyone who has read our exacting criteria can attest,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “We are thrilled to add a fine fragrance to the growing list of EWG VERIFIED products. These scents prove that fragrance companies are capable of disclosing all of their ingredients.”
Also happening this week, EWG released a groundbreaking analysis of unregulated factory farms along the Maumee watershed in Ohio – one of the leading causes of yearly toxic algae outbreaks along Lake Erie. Manure and fertilizer from the many farms along the watershed funnel nutrient-rich pollution into the lake, which leads to blooms. Through aerial photography, EWG mapped hundreds of operations along the basin – a 40 percent increase in factory farms since 2005.
In a rare move, the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general’s office issued an alert this week claiming the agency had failed to provide information about toxic chemical releases across the nation. The issue stems from the agency’s Toxic Release Inventory, which contains out of date and inaccurate data.
Also this week, a group of bipartisan lawmakers introduced legislation that would provide members of the military with up-to-date information on the presence of and the latest scientific information about the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS.
And finally, President Trump’s outlandish statements about wind energy have earned a ton of airtime in recent weeks, but despite his ridiculous dismissal of wind, the energy source is being welcomed more and more across the nation.
Here’s some news you can use going into the weekend.
Maumee River Basin and Harmful Algal Blooms
The Columbus Dispatch: Report: Growth in unregulated farms in Maumee Watershed fuels Lake Erie’s toxic algae blooms
Over half of the manure in the Maumee River watershed comes from an exploding number of unregulated factory farms, according to a new report by the Environmental Working Group and Environmental Law & Policy Center.
Scientific American: Environment Watchdogs Harness AI to Track Overflowing Factory Farm Waste
“That’s something we would strongly considering investing in,” say Soren Rundquist, director of spatial analysis at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) in Washington, D.C.
Akron Beacon Journal: Report: Growth in unregulated farms in Maumee Watershed fuels Lake Erie’s toxic algae blooms
The Environmental Working Group and Environmental Law & Policy Center took about a year to collect and analyze the data, which showed a 40 percent increase in hog, cattle, dairy and poultry operations in the Maumee River watershed in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan from 2005 to 2018, for a total of 775 livestock farms.
Civil Eats: Factory Farms are Polluting Lake Erie. Will the Lake’s New Legal Rights Help?
A report released today by the Environmental Working Group and the Environmental Law & Policy Center states that “unregulated animal factory farms are funneling nutrient-rich pollution into Lake Erie.”
Michigan Advance: New enviro report underscores loose factory farm regulation
More than a hundred farms in Southeast Michigan may be contributing to Lake Erie pollution, according to a new report from the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Environmental Law & Policy Center.
Henry Rose Launch
TODAY Show: Michelle Pfeiffer Dishes on New Projects, Perfume Line
Oscar-nominated actress Michelle Pfeiffer joins TODAY to talk about launching her new line of fragrances called Henry Rose, plus how she’s keeping busy with her latest acting roles and being a working mom.Good Morning America: Michelle Pfeiffer launches ‘100% transparent’ fine fragrance
The Henry Rose collection has five fragrances that have all been confirmed by Environmental Working Group (EWG), as being free of chemicals that can be harmful. Reprinted by ABC News; WIMS (Radio, Michigan City); My Central Oregon (Radio); KTSA (Radio, Portland); WFIN (Radio, Findlay OH); WADK Newport (Radio); WOND (Radio, South Jersey); US92 (Radio, Nebraska); KWLM (Radio, Lakeland MN); KONP (Radio, Port Angeles); Q93.7 (Radio, Ohio); My Central Oregon and other ABC News radio affiliates.
Vogue: Michelle Pfeiffer on the Power of Fragrance, and Launching Her Own Clean Perfume Line
One day she stumbled upon the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Database, which creates online profiles for cosmetics and personal care products, honing in on their potential hazards. Reprinted by Yahoo!
Vogue: Michelle Pfeiffer Is Launching A “Clean” Fragrance Line
To that end, Pfeiffer partnered with the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit that advocates for safer consumer goods, to establish what could and could not be included in a clean fragrance line, whittling down an ingredients list from some 3,000 to 250. Reprinted by Vogue U.K.
Allure: Michelle Pfeiffer’s New Fragrance Is the Perfume the Clean Beauty World Has Been Missing
They had already been doing some work with Cradle to Cradle, so I thought, Great, let’s get that certification [which assesses a product’s sustainability] on top of the EWG’s.
Bloomberg: Michelle Pfeiffer Thinks You Should Know What’s in Your Perfume
The breakthrough for Pfeiffer came approximately three years ago when she met Ken Cook, a co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based nonprofit with a database that scores the toxicity of chemicals. Reprinted by The Oklahoman; Business Times; Business Maverick; Edge Markets; The Star; Canada 24 News
The Cut: Michelle Pfeiffer Is Now a Beauty Entrepreneur
She discovered the Environmental Working Group’s database and deep dived into the world of personal care and beauty red-flags.
People: Michelle Pfeiffer Didn’t Wear Perfume for 10 Years – So She Launched Her Own Fragrance Line
he Academy Award-winning actress discovered the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database and became shocked to learn that fragrances she and her children, Claudia Rose, 26, and John Henry Pfeiffer, 24, used were flagged as “high hazard.”
People: Michelle Pfeiffer Announces Foray Into Fragrance With Henry Rose Collection
The line is set to be a gamechanger in the celebrity fragrance world, as it will be the first fine fragrance collection to be verified by the Environmental Working Group. Reprinted by Tattle Times; Hollywood.com
People: Michelle Pfeiffer Targeting Both Men And Women With New Fragrance Line
Her research has led her to become a more educated beauty consumer and she frequently researches products through Skin Deep, a database of cosmetic items led by the Environmental Working Group that informs buyers about what ingredients are in personal care products. Reprinted by Tattle Times.
PopSugar: Michelle Pfeiffer’s New Fragrances Are Gorgeous Inside and Out
The five-fragrance line is completely free of chemicals deemed harmful by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
W Magazine: Michelle Pfeiffer on the Radical Transparency of Her New Fragrance Brand
What's more, it is the first fine fragrance to receive the distinction of Environmental Working Group Verified® and Cradle to Cradle Certified at the gold level, with a Material Health score of platinum—which is an official way of saying, it's legit.
Coveteur: 60 Seconds with Michelle Pfeiffer
It’s the first fine fragrance to be developed with the Environmental Working Group, and the brand is also committed to using sustainable and renewable packaging whenever possible.
Congress and Chemistry Research and Development Act
The Ripon Advance: Moolenaar’s bipartisan, bicameral bill provides federal support for sustainable chemistry
Thus far, the legislation has received support from numerous organizations and private companies, including the GC3 Sustainable Chemistry Alliance, the American Chemical Society, the American Chemistry Council, the American Sustainable Business Council, the Dow Chemical Co., DuPont, the Environmental Working Group, Procter & Gamble, and others.
Chemical Watch: US Congress round-up
The bill has been endorsed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and a variety of other trade groups and corporations.
Energy
Truth Out: Trump Is Rewriting the Rules to Favor the Pipeline Industry
Solar and wind energy production have tripled in recent years, lowering costs for renewable energy and creating as many jobs as the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, according to the Environmental Working Group.
Environmental Protection Agency
The Hill: Overnight Energy: EPA watchdog issues rare ‘alert’ on toxic substances data | Trump to announce new orders to speed up pipeline permits | New Keystone XL pipeline permit challenged in court | Congress approves seven-state drought bill
“EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler should take the inspector general’s warning seriously and move immediately to restore the integrity of the TRI,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group. Reprinted by The Rural Blog
PressReleasePoint: Weeler Defends Trumps Plan To Slash EPA Budget
“As the nation’s population has grown, the environmental and public health challenges caused by pollution have grown even greater,” said EWG President Ken Cook.
Lifehacker: How to Do Laundry Without Making the Environment Worse
You can also search for your current detergent on the Environmental Working Group’s website to get a better sense of your impact now.
Live Kindly: The Complete Guide to Cruelty-Free Cleaning Products
Alongside its Environmental Working Group verified personal care products, Attitude also stocks a line of vegan household cleaning products which are made from plant and mineral compounds.
Cosmetics
PopSugar: When We Say “Clean” Beauty, Here’s What That Really Means
“When I ask companies to explain, I get responses like that a product is vegan, organic, natural, or has no chemicals, preservative, is ‘ethical’ with minimal waste, or ingredients that are on the warning list with the Environmental Working Group that would be glass and not plastic.”
California Cosmetics Bill
Los Angeles Times: Cosmetics industry crushes bill that would have made makeup and hair products safer
Susan Little, senior advocate for California government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, said it’s foolish to keep products on store shelves if there’s even a remote chance they’re dangerous. Reprinted by The Virginian-Pilot; Post Bulletin; Rome News-Tribune; Bristol Herald Courier; Santa Maria Times; Bakersfield.com
Consumer Affairs: Cosmetics industry crushes California’s proposal to ban potentially toxic ingredients
“California has the fifth-largest economy in the world and is a leader in the makeup industry,” an Environmental Working Group lobbyist who supported the bill told the Los Angeles Times.
Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database
The Epoch Times: 8 Everyday Cancer-Causing Chemicals Hiding at Home That You May Have Overlooked
EWG provides a wide list of safer alternatives to use.
Fashionista: 8 Common Fear-Mongering Natural Beauty Marketing Claims, Fact-Checked
"Thankfully, many nonprofits have stepped in to help watchdog the industry," says Dahl, nodding at the Environmental Working Group's efforts to clarify the risks and rewards of synthetic versus natural ingredients.”
EWG VERIFIED™
The Science Times: 6 Korean Beauty Products That Are Eco-Friendly
The brand is 100 percent EWG (Environmental Working Group) certified.
Food Additives
Yahoo!: Chemicals that make food last longer may harm us
According to the Environmental Working Group, “the [baking] industry claims potassium bromate is theoretically fully converted into potassium bromide, a similar yet non-carcinogenic chemical, during baking. Reprinted by MSN; Press From.
Natural News: Phosphates are common food additives that could be making you tired and lazy
On the contrary, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) considers sodium phosphate, which is a common type of phosphate added to more than 6,000 food products, as a “moderate concern” in foods. Reprinted by Chemicals.News
Food Scores
Observer-Dispatch: Sugary cereals are back
A report on sugar in children’s cereals by the Environmental Working Group noted that a 2012 study by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, then a part of Yale University, found that the average sugar content in children’s cereals had decreased from 36 percent to 33 percent from 2009 to 2012.
Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change + Health
Eat This, Not That!: 10 Ways You Can Eat For The Planet (And Be Healthier)
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), while lamb, beef, pork, and cheese generates the most climate-affecting greenhouse gases, high-protein plant foods like lentils, tofu, and beans produce the least. In addition, producing meat also uses up large amounts of “environmentally destructive and energy-intensive” pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, and water.
Reprinted by msn lifestyle
Monsanto’s Glyphosate
The Herald & Review (Decatur, Ill.): Dear Dr. Roach: Traces of herbicide are not pleasant, but probably benign
A 2018 study by the Environmental Working Group found levels of glyphosate in oatmeal breakfast cereals to be between 0.5 and 1 parts per million.
Natural News: A peek behind the (toxic) curtain: Here’s why glyphosate is sprayed on food crops before harvest
Research from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has shown that a striking majority of cereals, snack bars and other grain-based foods are tainted with glyphosate residue.
Reprinted by chemicals.news
Chemicals.news: Would you feed your kids cancer-causing breakfast foods? Tests reveal many cereals contain the weed killer glyphosate
Tests carried out by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found glyphosate in every sample they tested of popular oat-based cereals and other foods marketed to children – and the levels aren’t insignificant.
Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™
People: 17 Easy Ways to Be Eco-Friendly (without Exerting Any Effort)
Not in the budget to eat all-organic? Start by prioritizing the EWG’s “Dirty Dozen,” a list of produce most plagued by pesticides.
Reprinted by My Style News
Detroit Free Press: Pesticides in fruits and vegetables: List of cleanest, dirtiest
It [kale] has wound up on Environmental Working Group’s 2019 Dirty Dozen list, an annual ranking of the fruits and vegetables that contain the most pesticides.
KALW (San Francisco): One Planet: Pesticides in fruits and vegetables
On this edition of Your Call’s One Planet Series, we’ll discuss the Environmental Working Group’s “Dirty Dozen,” a list of the fruits and vegetables with the highest amount of pesticides.
CBS12: WJTV (Jackson, Miss.): Focused on Fitness: Kale named one of the dirtiest veggies
Kale was named as one of the 12 fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide residue. For the last 15 years, the nonprofit, nonpartisan, Environmental Working Group has ranked produce on pesticide contamination levels. Specifically, after that produce has been washed and peeled.
FOX8: WJW (Cleveland, Ohio): Local dietitian shares recipe for produce cleaner to help reduce pesticide risk
Strawberries and spinach top this year's 'Dirty Dozen' list put out by the Environmental Working Group. This annual list is based on reports from the USDA's Pesticide Data Program.
EWG Guide to Sunscreens
Reader’s Digest: Is Your Sunscreen Doing More Harm Than Good? Here’s What to Look for
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) reviewed data on the nine chemicals most commonly found in sunscreen—and concluded that there is cause for alarm.
PFAS in Drinking Water
Consumer Reports: Should You Be Concerned About PFAS Chemicals?
You can also check data from the EPA testing results or look at this map created by researchers from the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University based on that data.
Reprinted by Yahoo!
Central Jersey: Engineer: Freehold Borough water system complies with federal standards
He made note of a drinking water report from the Environmental Working Group, which presents data from the EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for each of the state’s large water utility systems that serve more than 10,000 people.
Center for American Progress: 5 Ways Wheeler Is Dirtying Our Water
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the tap water for an estimated 110 million Americans is contaminated with PFAS, which have been shown to cause various cancers, thyroid disease, and a weakened immune system in children.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/04/ewg-news-roundup-412-first-ewg-verified-fragrance-unregulated-factory
-
Apr 15, 2019 | Akron Daily
By Dollie Freeman
Report Title: “Global Nylon Resins Market – Segmented by Product Type, Application, End User Industry and Region – Growth, Trends and Forecast (2018 – 2023)”
Global “Nylon Resins Market” (2018 – 2023) Report Provides Overall study of Approximate CAGR, Leading Manufacturers, Key Development, Market Dynamics and SWOT analysis for Key Players. The Nylon Resins market is expected to register a CAGR of approximately 3.52% during the forecast period of (2018 – 2023)
Nylon Resins Market Report Covers Leading Manufacturers: BASF SE, AAA Plastics, Inc, Ag Polymers, AMETEK Westchester Plastics, Aquafil USA Inc, Arc Resin Corporation, Asahi Kasei Corp, Ascend Performance Materials LLC, DowDupont, DSM Company, INVISTA, Kuraray, Nilit America Corp, Polymer Technology & Services LLC, Solvay
Get Sample PDF of Report @ https://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/request-sample/12885393
The nylon resins market is expected to register a CAGR of 3.52% during the forecast period, 2018-2023. The market is driven by many factors including, increasing demand from automotive industry and packaging sector. However, high raw material prices are restraining the market.
Increasing Demand from the Automotive Industry
The Automotive sector is an important market for nylon resins and according to the American Chemistry Council. Light weight vehicles account to around 30% of the nylon resins demand. Consumers are increasing their preference to light weight vehicles in response to low maintenance cost and low fuel consumption. This is resulting in increasing demand for nylon resins, thereby driving the market. In North American countries like United States and Canada, there is an increase in demand for light weight vehicles, forcing the automotive manufacturers to increase plastics, such as nylon in automobiles.
Nylon 6 – the Dominant Product Type
The global nylon resins market is segmented on the basis of product type, application, and end-user industry. Based on product type, nylon 6 is the dominant market because of its lustrous surface finish and high impact strength, which is increasing its usage in the manufacture of films in the packaging sector. In addition, its aesthetic appeal and easy process ability using extrusion is also augmenting its demand in the packaging sector in countries like Vietnam etc.
Asia-Pacific – the Fastest Growing Market
Asia-Pacific is the largest market for nylon resins with a share of approximately 40%, and is expected to grow at a high rate during the forecast period, mainly because of increasing manufacturing capacities. China is the largest market in the Asia-Pacific region. With various government initiatives like, ‘China Manufacturing 2025’ is encouraging the use of energy saving automobiles to promote light weight vehicles. This is expected to drive the market in this region. In addition, the Chinese defense sector has started incorporating 3D printing technologies in manufacturing interior products which require plastics. This technology is producing light weight products which are providing opportunities for the market.
Notable Development
July 2017: Arkema SA planned to expand its nylon production activities in Asia, with an investment of around EUR 300 million over five years, to increase its global production capacity by 50 percent.
Major Players: BASF SE, AAA Plastics, Inc., Ag Polymers, AMETEK Westchester Plastics, Aquafil USA Inc., Arc Resin Corporation, Asahi Kasei Corp., DowDuPont, DSM Company, and Solvay amongst others.
Order a Copy Of Nylon Resins Market Report @ https://www.360marketupdates.com/purchase/12885393
Reasons to Purchase Nylon Resins Market Report:Identification of key factors instrumental in changing the market scenario, exploiting new opportunities, and gaining a competitive edge. Analysing various perspectives of the market with the help of Porter’s five forces analysis.The authentication mode is likely to witness the highest adoption of these systems in the market.The regions that are expected to witness the fastest growth during the forecast period.The SWOT analysis for key players and a detailed study of their current strategic interests and key financial performance indicators.3 months analyst support along with the Market Estimate sheet (in excel).
https://akrondaily.com/2019/04/14/16203/2018-2023-global-nylon-resins-market-cagr-status-industry-analysis-trends-and-forecast/
-
EPA Proposes Changes For 2020 Chemical Data Rule
Apr 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA is proposing a series of changes for its 2020 rule governing chemical use and other data industry must submit under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), measures that include provisions aimed at reducing businesses' reporting burdens which industry groups had failed to win when a negotiated rulemaking on the issue collapsed in 2017.
The agency April 12 released its proposed Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule for 2020, a rule the agency issues every four years to gather information on industrial chemicals and their use. The proposal will be open for a 60-day public comment period once it publishes in the Federal Register.
The data generated by the rule has becomes increasingly important in light of the revised TSCA and requirements that EPA assess and manage chemicals' risks.
In its prepublication notice, EPA explains that its goals include aligning the rule with TSCA reform changes, improving the CDR data collected to support the implementation of TSCA, and reducing the burden for CDR reporters pursuant to TSCA section 8(a)(5).
Under the revised law, EPA was required to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee to address industry concerns about the CDR program and potentially craft a narrower rule limiting reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts in some cases.
EPA did so, but the effort broke down over the committee's inability to reach the required consensus on recommendations, and disbanded in September 2017. Environmentalists and others balked at possible reporting limits as too broad while industry argued the proposals failed to reduce burden. An EPA staffer said the talks' collapse would force EPA to start over but she added that the panel's deliberations were still helpful to the agency.
Referencing these efforts and others, the notice says to address burden on industry, EPA is proposing “the new ability to alternatively report inorganic byproducts within defined metal categories, the introduction of two new exemptions related to byproducts, a revised approach to reporting for co-manufactured chemicals, and the harmonization of function and product codes with those used by other countries.”
EPA adds that it was also encouraged to modernize its data collection and public access to the database. In response, EPA is updating its reporting application and “replacing the current preformatted Form U with a customized report based on the actual information submitted by a site through e-CDRweb, the electronic reporting tool.” EPA says it will provide webinar training for industry after the rule is finalized but “prior to the 2020 CDR submission period.”
In addition, EPA says other changes it is implementing to meet TSCA reforms include altering confidential business information (CBI) requirements, modifying CDR's definition of small manufacturers following consultation with the Small Business Administration and “make some changes to the CDR data reporting so the information collected is tailored to better meet the Agency’s overall information needs and aligned with specific needs for prioritization and risk evaluation under TSCA section 6.”
The notice specifies that these proposed changes “include the addition of data elements, such as a site-specific NAICS code and how much of a chemical is a byproduct; modification to multi-reporter submission requirements, including adding a process for jointly reporting co-manufactured chemicals; and changes to current data elements, such as codes used for reporting processing and use information.”
Industry representatives, like the Bergeson & Campbell law firm, have been urging EPA to move the planned proposal quickly, noting that industry will need time to adjust to and prepare for the changes before the 2020 reporting cycle begins.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-proposes-changes-2020-chemical-data-rule
-
U.S. EPA Takes Action Under TSCA Identifying Chemicals For Agency Scrutiny
Apr 15, 2019 | Mondaq
By Lawrence E. Culleen
Prioritization of ChemicalsIn its continuing quest to meet regulatory deadlines imposed by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has published a list of 40 chemicals that must be "prioritized" by the end of 2019. The announcement marks the beginning of the Agency's process for designating the 40 listed chemicals identified as either "high" or "low" priority substances for further the U.S. EPA scrutiny. At the conclusion of the prioritization process, at least 20 of the substances likely will be designated as high priority.
A high priority designation immediately commences the U.S. EPA's formal "risk evaluation" procedures under the amended statute. The risk evaluation process can lead to "pause preemption" under the terms of the 2016 amendments and new state laws and regulations restricting the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of a chemical substance undergoing a risk evaluation could not be established until the evaluation process is completed. The U.S. EPA commenced its first 10 risk evaluations as required under the amended law at the close of 2016. The Agency is required to have an additional 20 risk evaluations of high priority substances ongoing by December 22, 2019. If the U.S. EPA's risk evaluation process concludes that a substance presents an "unreasonable risk" to health or the environment under its "conditions of use," the Agency must commence a rulemaking to prohibit or limit the use of the substance under Section 6 of TSCA.
The Agency's announcement of the list of chemicals to undergo prioritization provides the makers and users of the listed substances an important, time limited opportunity to submit relevant information such as the uses, hazards, and exposure for these chemicals. The U.S. EPA has opened a docket for each of the 40 chemicals and the opportunity to submit information for the U.S. EPA's consideration will close in 90 days (on June 19, 2019). The U.S. EPA will then move to propose the designation of these chemical substances as either high priority or low priority. The statute requires the U.S. EPA to complete the prioritization process, by finalizing its high priority and low priority designations, within the next nine to 12 months.
The list of 20 substances to be reviewed as high priority candidates consists entirely of substances previously identified by U.S. EPA in 2014 as "Work Plan" chemicals. Thus, the list contains few chemicals that should be considered complete "surprises." However, the inclusion of formaldehyde may raise concerns in certain quarters given the scrutiny that has been given to the U.S. EPA's previous struggles with assessing the potential effects of formaldehyde. The Agency has attempted to address these concerns by stating "Moving forward evaluating formaldehyde under the TSCA program does not mean that the formaldehyde work done under IRIS will be lost. In fact, the work done for IRIS will inform the TSCA process. By using our TSCA authority EPA will be able to take regulatory steps; IRIS does not have this authority." Also included in the listing are several chlorinated solvents, phthalates, flame retardants, a fragrance additive, and a polymer pre-curser:p-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichloroethanetrans-1,2- Dichloroethyleneo-Dichlorobenzene1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,2-Dichloropropane1,1-DichloroethaneDibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester)Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) – 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) esterDi-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester)Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester)Dicyclohexyl phthalate4,4′-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA)Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP)Ethylene dibromide1,3-Butadiene1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB)FormaldehydePhthalic anhydride
The U.S. EPA has signaled that it has received a manufacturer request for a EPA to undertake a risk evaluation of two additional phthalates which, if administrative requirements for such request have been met, the Agency would announce publicly in the very near term.
The 20 low priority candidate chemicals were selected from the U.S. EPA's "Safer Chemicals Ingredients List"—a list of substances previously evaluated and considered to meet the U.S. EPA's "Safer Choice" criteria for use in certain common product categories, such as cleaning products.Other Recent and Impending U.S. EPA Actions Under TSCA
Given the numerous deadlines that are looming under the amendments to TSCA, it is critical that chemical manufacturers and processors of chemicals and formulations remain aware of the recent and upcoming actions under TSCA that can significantly impact their businesses. The following provides a short list of important actions of which to be aware.
Active/Inactive TSCA Inventory Designations. EPA released an updated version of the TSCA Inventory in February 2019. The Inventory is available for download here. This version of the Inventory includes chemical substances reported by manufacturers and processors by their respective reporting deadlines in 2018. The updated TSCA Inventory (confidential and non-confidential versions) includes 40,655 "active" chemical substances and 45,573 "inactive" chemical substances. Once the current 90-day "transition period" has concluded, it will be unlawful to manufacture, import or process in the US any substance that is listed as "inactive" without first providing notice to the U.S. EPA. Thus, prior to the expiration of the "transition period" on May 20, 2019, manufacturers and processors of chemical substances that are not listed as active on the February 2019 TSCA Inventory must take steps to activate the substance by filing a Notice of Activity (NOA Form B) for any chemical substance that they currently are manufacturing or processing, or anticipate manufacturing or processing within 90 days of submission.
Final TSCA Section 6(a) for Methylene Chloride in Paint and Coating Removers. EPA has released its long-awaited TSCA Section 6(a) rule restricting the use of methylene chloride in paint and coating removers. The final rule prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution of methylene chloride in paint removers for consumer use. The rule prohibits the sale of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers at retail establishments with any consumer sales (including e-commerce sales). The U.S. EPA declined to finalize its determination that the commercial use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers presents an unreasonable risk. Therefore, distributors to commercial users, industrial users, and other businesses will continue to be permitted to distribute methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. However, given recent efforts by store-front retailers to "deselect" such products for consumer sales, it remains unclear how distributions to commercial users can or will occur.
The U.S. EPA simultaneously released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking related to a potential certification program for commercial uses of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. The U.S. EPA has similar programs in place for certain pesticides and refrigerants, and the United Kingdom currently has in place a program to certify commercial users of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. The U.S. EPA is seeking comment on whether a certification program is the appropriate tool to address any potential risks that could be posed by the commercial use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers.
Upcoming Draft Risk Evaluations. The U.S. EPA is expected to publish within days or weeks the highly anticipated draft Risk Evaluations for the remaining 9 of the 10 initial substances to undergo TSCA Risk Evaluations under the amended law and which have been under review since December 2016. The Agency will accept comments on the drafts for a limited period.
Proposed Rules for 5 PBT substances. The U.S. EPA is required to issue no later than June 2019 proposed TSCA Section 6 regulations for 5 persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances that were identified during 2016 as priorities for regulatory action. The Agency must propose expedited rules intended to reduce exposures to the extent practicable.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/798800/Chemicals/US+EPA+Takes+Action+Under+TSCA+Identifying+Chemicals+For+Agency+Scrutiny
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainable Chemistry R&D Bill Introduced In US Congress
Apr 12, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Legislation garners bipartisan support in Senate and House of Representatives
Lawmakers in the US Congress are backing legislation to promote research and development in chemistry that benefits the economy, the environment, and human health.
Introduced April 3, the measure would create a work group under the White House National Science and Technology Council to coordinate sustainable chemistry R&D, technology transfer, and training programs across the federal government. It would also encourage the validation of tools to assess the sustainability of chemicals, processes, and products.
Republicans and Democrats teamed up to sponsor identical measures in the Senate (S. 999) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 2051).
The American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN, is backing the legislation. “Supporting sustainable chemistry at the federal level will empower the pursuit of cutting-edge science, ensuring a generation of sustainable products, new jobs, and a greener world,” says Glenn S. Ruskin, vice president for ACS external affairs and communications.
The US chemical industry’s main lobbying group, the American Chemistry Council, is also supporting the measure. “Importantly, the legislation does not include any regulatory components, nor does it authorize any spending,” the ACC says.
The bill was introduced in the Senate last year but died from inaction.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/legislation/Sustainable-chemistry-RD-bill-introduced/97/web/2019/04
-
New Step For Better Chemical Decontamination
Apr 15, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Victims wipe themselves with dry, absorbent materials
An industrial chemical accident. An attack with a chemical warfare agent. Either of these situations can leave many people in acute need of decontamination.
Until recently, the US government’s decontamination protocol for first responders dealing with people exposed to most types of liquid chemicals had two major steps. First, affected people would strip off their clothes and walk through a spray of cold water provided by two fire trucks hooked up to a fire hydrant. Next, victims would take a warm, soapy shower set up in a tent.
Now, citing evidence in a peer-reviewed study, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has added a new step to its decontamination guidance for chemical incidents (Ann. Emerg. Med. 2018, DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.06.042).It calls for exposed people to first wipe themselves off with dry, absorbent materials, such as paper towels or diapers, before they pass through the water spray.
The main reason for this new step, dubbed dry decontamination, is time.
“If you’ve got something which can kill you very quickly, the sooner you can get it off the skin and hair, the better,” says Robert P. Chilcott, a University of Hertfordshire toxicologist and lead author of the study. Responders may need 10–20 min to set up the water spray, called a pipe-and-ladder system. The warm shower system takes even longer to install and get operational.
The dry process is also impressively effective. A team led by Chilcott found that dry wiping, when performed under the instruction of a first responder, can remove 70–99% of a liquid contaminant from a person’s body. The research, conducted under contract with HHS’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), involved a 2017 exercise conducted at the University of Rhode Island. Researchers applied a chemical warfare agent simulant to 80 volunteers who role-played as casualties. Local firefighters acted as first responders and led the volunteers through various combinations of decontamination procedures, including dry wiping.
Dry decontamination provides several other benefits besides speed and effectiveness. For one, it helps prevent hypothermia. “The water that comes out of a fire hydrant is less than 10 °C,” Chilcott says. “It’s cold.”
Having wet, cold people wait for a shower isn’t ideal, especially when outdoor temperatures are low, Chilcott explains. Wiping gives people a way to help themselves while both the spray and shower systems are readied so they can move quickly from cold to warm.
In addition, dry decontamination minimizes potential exposure of first responders and medical personnel, Chilcott points out. And it cuts back on the accumulation of hazardous material in the subsequent decontamination steps, says Rick Bright, director of BARDA.
HHS is spreading the word about the new dry-wiping step. The department recently integrated the dry decontamination step into guidance for first responders called Primary Response Incident Scene Management.
Plus, HHS and the University of Hertfordshire crafted a tool to help first responders determine which approaches to decontamination will work best in a particular situation. Called the Algorithm Suggesting Proportionate Incident Response Engagement, or ASPIRE, this tool is integrated with the new decontamination guidance in a mobile app called the Wireless Information System for Emergency Responders, or WISER.
Chilcott warns, however, that “dry decontamination isn’t a universal panacea. It only works for liquid contaminants.”
https://cen.acs.org/safety/New-step-better-chemical-decontamination/97/i15
-
Cancer Risks From Monsanto’s Weedkiller Deserve Further Scrutiny, Government Agency Says
Apr 12, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Alexis Temkin and Olga Naidenko
A new analysis of Monsanto’s signature herbicide, glyphosate, released by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gives weight to studies connecting glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and recommends monitoring children’s exposure to this toxic weedkiller.
Although EPA has maintained its outdated position that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer, the ATSDR stated in its report, based on the findings of studies in humans, that “a possible association between exposure to glyphosate and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma could not be ruled out.”
These differing views may seem subtle, but they are not. The review by scientists at ATSDR clearly raises alarms over the potential risks the weedkiller poses to human health.
The report also notes that positive associations between glyphosate and cancer have been reported by three separate meta-analyses, a type of study that analyzes several studies together. A fourth meta-analysis, published earlier this year, identified a 41 percent increase in cancer risk for agricultural workers in the highest glyphosate exposure group.
This assessment by an authoritative U.S. health agency supports the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, which classified the weedkiller as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
The herbicide, produced for decades by Monsanto and marketed as Roundup, is now sold by Bayer AG and remains one of the most heavily used herbicides in the world. Last year, Bayer acquired Monsanto for $63 billion.
In the past eight months, juries for two separate cases in California have found Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup responsible for causing cancer.
The New York Times reported in 2017 that Monsanto systematically attempted to discredit scientists and independent scientific research, swayed EPA scientists in charge of the agency’s review of glyphosate, and even ghostwrote stories that appeared to be authored by scientists not affiliated with Monsanto.
People who do not work on a farm or in other settings where glyphosate is sprayed, such as landscaping, are being exposed to the cancer-causing chemical through food. The ATSDR report recommends continued monitoring of the human health effects associated with glyphosate exposure through food , especially in children.
Two separate rounds of laboratory tests commissioned last year by EWG found glyphosate in nearly every sample of popular oat-based cereals and other oat-based food marketed to children, including several by General Mills and Quaker. These are the foods children love to eat, making breakfast products likely one of the major sources of their exposure to glyphosate.
A recent study from researchers at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy have found that early exposure to glyphosate in rodents can affect the endocrine system and reproductive development.
EWG analysis also showed that glyphosate contaminates wheat-based products, lentils and beans, as well as other grains, such as barley and buckwheat. In fact, nearly every time a government agency or public interest group tests food for glyphosate, they find it.
Along with 18 companies, EWG has petitioned EPA to sharply limit glyphosate residues allowed on oats and prohibit the herbicide’s use as a pre-harvest drying agent. The ATSDR study underscores the urgent need for EPA to restrict the use of glyphosate.
Glyphosate should not be found in food, especially in foods frequently consumed by children. Help EWG get the weedkiller out of our food. Sign our petition and urge companies like General Mills, Quaker and Kellogg’s to stop using crops sprayed with glyphosate.
The companies that joined EWG in the petition to EPA include: Amy’s Kitchen, Clif Bar & Company, Earth’s Best Organic, GrandyOats, INFRA, KIND Healthy Snacks, Lundberg Family Farms, Organic Valley, Patagonia Provisions, PCC Community Markets, MegaFood, Ben & Jerry’s, Stonyfield Organic, MOM’s Organic Market, Nature’s Path, One Degree Organic Foods, National Co+op Grocers and Happy Family Organics.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/04/cancer-risks-monsanto-s-weed-killer-deserve-further-scrutiny-government
-
Plastics-to-fuel Plant Gets Financing
Apr 12, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The energy development company Brightmark Energy has secured $260 million in funding to construct a plastics-to-fuel plant in Ashley, Indiana. The plant will have the capacity to convert about 100,000 metric tons of postconsumer plastic each year into 70 million L of fuel and nearly 20 million L of wax. The financing includes $185 million in Indiana green bonds. With the cash, Brightmark will also purchase a majority stake in RES Polyflow, which has been developing the project. The companies expect to break ground next month.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/sustainability/Plasticsfuel-plant-financing/97/i15
-
Brightmark Energy Cmpletes Fnancing For Pastics-to-fuel Pant
Apr 12, 2019 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Tom Mostyn,
Brightmark Energy, a San Francisco-based waste and energy development company, has announced the closing of a US$260 million financing package for the construction of the US’ first commercial-scale plastics-to-fuel plant, which will be located in Ashley, Indiana. The financing for ‘Brightmark Energy Ashley Indiana’ includes US$185 million in Indiana green bonds, which were underwritten by Goldman Sachs & Co. As part of the financing closure, Brightmark has become the controlling owner of RES Polyflow, the Ohio-based energy technology company that innovated the process for converting plastics directly into transportation fuel and other products.
The Ashley facility will be the first of its kind to take mixed waste single-use plastics and convert them into usable products at commercial scale. The facility will initially convert approximately 100 000 t of plastics into over 18 million gallons/yr of ultra-low sulfur diesel and naphtha blend stocks and nearly six million gallons/yr of commercial grade wax in a process that is expected to be 93% efficient. Ultimately, the outputs of this technology could also be used to produce the feedstocks necessary for manufacturing plastic again, thus creating the world’s first truly circular economy technology for plastics.
“We are excited about the market’s confidence in the validity of this technology to economically convert single-use plastics for new uses,” said Bob Powell, CEO of Brightmark Energy and of RES Polyflow. “This technology provides a strong incentive for diverting single use plastics away from oceans, waterways, communities and landfills by creating reusable value. Plastic pollution is such a pressing global issue, and we are thrilled at the opportunity to provide a solution.”
RES Polyflow’s plastics-to-fuel process sustainably recycles waste that has reached the end of its useful life – including items that cannot readily be recycled, like plastic film, flexible packing, styrofoam and children’s toys – directly into useful products, like fuels and wax.
According to analysis released this week by Closed Loop Partners, there is an existing US$120 billion addressable market in the US and Canada for plastics and petrochemicals that could be met, in part, by recovering waste plastics like those used as feedstock in the Ashley, Indiana facility. The resources recovered from waste plastics could displace fossil fuels being used in these markets today.
Jay Schabel, President of Brightmark Energy’s plastics division and of RES Polyflow, said, “I’m excited to be joining a team that has the experience and capability to further the RES Polyflow technology. The Ashley facility provides the next step in realising our vision to end plastic pollution, and we look forward to partnering with Brightmark to develop future plastics-to-fuel projects throughout the United States.”
A total of 136 full time manufacturing jobs will be created in Northeast Indiana when all phases of the facility are operational. BP will purchase the fuels produced by the facility, which will be distributed in the regional petroleum market. The Ashley plant will also produce commercial grade waxes for sale to the industrial wax market, which will be purchased by AM WAX.
https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/clean-fuels/15042019/brightmark-energy-completes-financing-for-plastics-to-fuel-plant/
-
Climate, Clean Tech Could Curb Demand For U.S. Gas — Study
Apr 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Edward Klump
Concerns over emissions, evolving technology and global competition could soften the demand outlook for U.S. natural gas even as supplies remain plentiful, according to new research.
Boston Consulting Group, in a report titled "Preparing for an Abundance of U.S. Natural Gas," found that growth in the domestic gas supply may eclipse that of demand after 2020.
BCG highlights three key areas where gas demand could be weaker than some experts expect, including power generation, use of the fossil fuel in buildings and U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas.
Demand growth for U.S. gas may slow in the late 2020s and could flatline by 2030, BCG found, citing lower costs for renewable energy and battery storage and a push to decarbonize heating for buildings.
In the longer term, U.S. trade policy could hamper demand for LNG exports, according to BCG. That has the firm cautioning natural gas players — especially gas distribution companies — that challenges lie ahead and they need to be prepared to adapt. BCG's report says the Henry Hub benchmark spot gas price could drop under $2.50 per million British thermal units "for a sustained period" beginning in the early 2020s.
"Lower prices will create new opportunities for consumers, particularly those in export-oriented industries, such as petrochemicals and manufacturing," wrote the report's authors. "However, it will challenge some upstream and midstream gas players, requiring fresh strategies and a renewed focus on cost competitiveness."
The report arrives as companies in the oil, gas and power sectors wrestle with evolving economics and new technologies. Use of gas has been credited with helping to lower carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. power sector, but its role henceforth remains a point of debate. Many experts see the fuel as a welcome complement to wind and solar. Environmental critics counter that gas-fired power plants still emit CO2, even if at a lower rate than coal plants.
In January, the U.S. Energy Information Administration released an energy outlook with projections out to 2050. EIA said the U.S. could continue to have record high oil and gas production in the years ahead.
But, citing potential domestic and export issues, BCG's report outlines a potential shortfall of 7 trillion cubic feet of gas demand relative to an EIA reference case in 2040.
That, the BCG report says, "would equate to a market that is 18% smaller" than many forecasters expect.Methane emissions
Climate is a key driver in the gas discussion, Alex Dewar, a senior manager with the Center for Energy Impact in the Washington, D.C., office of BCG, said in an interview. That includes concerns about emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
"And one of the challenges for gas, as well, has been all the research recently showing that methane emissions through the gas value chain being much higher than previously expected," Dewar said. "That's in effect worsened the climate credentials for gas."
Dewar, who's one of the authors of the new BCG report, said some assumptions about "continuous, sustained, rapid natural gas demand growth domestically" in the power sector should be reconsidered.
It's almost becoming outdated, he said, to view gas as a transition fuel for some period to come as it replaces coal while renewables gradually take a greater share. The world is moving faster than that may suggest, he said.
Dewar said the energy industry often looks at things in silos. In the power sector, he said, the technological advancement of wind, solar and batteries is apparent, as are projections around falling costs. But a lot of that isn't translating on the gas-oriented side, he said.
He said some state and local governments are looking at policies that could affect gas, such as potentially large greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2050.
There could be changes, Dewar said, around how people heat their homes and water and cook their food. A first phase could involve a focus on electricity in new construction, followed possibly by some future retrofits at existing buildings.
Dewar said potential losers could include utilities with local gas distribution operations and possibly some gas transmission infrastructure.
"And those are utilities effectively in regions that have very rapidly growing renewables penetration and a policy-led shift towards electrification of heating in buildings and industrial uses," he said.Need for debate
BCG's report offers potential suggestions for gas utilities, including tapping incremental demand sources, persuading the public and policymakers of gas's environmental benefits, using power as a hedge by expanding electric distribution businesses, and preparing for disruption through bold and timely bets.
In an interview last month in Houston, CEO Patti Poppe of Michigan-based CMS Energy Corp. described efforts to reduce carbon emissions, particularly in power generation.
But Poppe, who was attending the CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference, said she expects natural gas to remain important in home heating in Michigan for a long time. She said pipe replacements can help to reduce methane emissions, while shifting everyone in the state away from gas would be expensive at this point.
"Maybe with heat pumps and electric home heating," Poppe said, there is "a model that would work for new construction."
She added: "It's not quite economic yet in Michigan because gas is so cheap, but it could get there in the next decade."
On LNG, Dewar said the next year or two will be a critical period for potential developments. The challenge of global competition from other projects, he said, and trade conflict with China raise questions about the idea of unconstrained U.S. gas exports.
Dewar said upstream gas producers may see downward pressure on price, especially as pipeline capacity expansion opens up from the Permian Basin. But he said many producers have diversity with liquids output as well as a history of innovation to reduce costs. Diversification also could help large pipeline companies as change occurs.
Dewar sees his role as helping to identify blind spots for the industry. Locking in a view of the future that's just a little bit more of the past has led the industry into trouble before, he said.
Still, he said he expects pushback on the new report as it challenges conventional wisdom.
"But I think it's good to have the debate," Dewar said. "The industry needs to be debating these things."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/15/stories/1060162655
-
The Week In Energy: The Waning Of An Era in US Shale
Apr 15, 2019 | Financial Times
By Ed Crooks
The early years of the US shale oil and gas industry, documented well in both Russell Gold’s The Boom and Gregory Zuckerman’s The Frackers, were a colourful era, full of big personalities, inspired visionaries and dubious chancers. Its future seems likely to be a much more prosaic business, dominated by large corporations. ExxonMobil and Chevron have already positioned themselves to be the fastest-growing oil producers in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico. Chevron’s planned $50bn acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum will accelerate the process of the shale industry being absorbed into Big Oil, and there are fundamental financial reasons why we can expect that trend to continue.
Chevron already has a very strong position in the Permian Basin, thanks largely to an accident of history. As other companies pulled out of the region, when it seemed like a mature province heading into inexorable decline, Chevron somehow never found an acceptable buyer for its assets. When the shale oil boom began, it found it had inadvertently ended up with some of the best real estate in the industry. Michael Wirth, Chevron’s chief executive, still thought it was worth adding to that position by buying Anadarko, however, for reasons that he summed up when I interviewed him. “This was the right transaction at a terrific price,” he said.The persistent failure of most US companies to generate sustained free cash flows from their shale operations has frayed investors’ patience, and US exploration and production companies’ shares are still out of favour. The S&P oil and gas exploration and production industry select index has dropped about 60 per cent from its peak in June. What is particularly troubling for the industry is that its share prices have failed to revive as the oil price has rebounded. Since the end of 2016, US West Texas Intermediate crude has risen by 21 per cent, but the sector index has dropped by 22 per cent.
At these valuations, it is easy to see why strategic buyers can see acquisitions as attractive, especially if there are significant benefits available from rationalisation, as there are for Chevron in the Permian Basin from the Anadarko deal. It is also easy to see why public company boards might be tempted to throw in the towelwhen a bid arrives at a 39 per cent premium to the previous share price. Merger and acquisition activity in the US oil and gas industry dropped to a ten-year low in the first quarter, but Chevron’s move for Anadarko was widely seen as a portent of another wave of dealmaking. Shares in companies seen as possible targets, including Pioneer Natural Resources and Concho Resources, jumped on Friday, with companies including Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell cited as possible buyers. Shell has made very clear it is looking for deals to buy more Permian assets at the right price.
Underlying Big Oil’s evolution into Big Shale is what could be the start of a fundamental shift in the financial structure of the US industry. The entrepreneurial years of the industry’s rise were financed liberally by the capital markets and banks, and supported by cheap money and quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve. This year, though, there have been signs that the inflow of capital into the US E&P industry is slowing down, creating opportunities for Chevron and other large companies with stronger balance sheets to come in to fill the gap. These estimates from Rystad Energy show that after the Anadarko deal Chevron is expected to become by far the largest producer in the Permian Basin.
https://www.ft.com/content/a9e6dd92-5f05-11e9-a27a-fdd51850994c
-
Trump (Still) Digs Coal, Energy Official Reassures Industry
Apr 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
Energy Department announces $100 million for advanced coal technologies
Coal exports up, new uses for coal coming to fore, speakers say
Coal executives received assurances April 12 that the Trump administration still supports them as an Energy Department official reiterated the president’s promise to bring back the industry.
President Donald Trump remains “completely on board” with a plan for more coal innovation and less regulation, said Mark Menezes, undersecretary of energy at the Department of Energy, speaking at the National Coal Council’s annual spring meeting, where he announced the department will invest more than $100 million in the fourth quarter for advanced coal research projects.
The projects, which fall under the banner of Energy’s Coal FIRST (Flexible, Innovative, Resilient, Small, and Transformative) program, will focus on developing critical parts needed for next-generation coal plants, Menezes said. Small modular coal units of the future will use parts that will likely be made with 3D printers and can’t be manufactured using current processes, he said.
Component PartsThirteen projects will receive $1.95 million in initial funding, he said. The grantees, which include Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co. and Washington University in St. Louis, will take on a range of technical projects that will “lay the groundwork for Coal FIRST,” Menezes said.
Trump campaigned on oaths that he would restore coal’s historic place in the energy pecking order. So far those promises haven’t panned out, with coal-fired plants continuing to shut down, and coal production falling by 19 million tons in 2018, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Throughout his remarks, Menezes underscored the argument that only coal provides the reliable energy the nation needs in emergencies like severe cold snaps.
“What we have seen time and again is that, when your system is stressed, when people need energy the most, coal comes to the rescue,” Menezes said. “It is coal that provides that incremental increase of generation that was not anticipated during the times of stress.”
More OptimismSeth Schwartz, president of consultancy Energy Ventures Analysis, said coal demand is growing worldwide, and that the U.S. record 116 million tons of exports in 2018 brought in $10 billion of revenue.
Nations like Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Vietnam, and the Dominican Republic have been demanding U.S. coal, according to Schwartz. “Coal is part of our geopolitical influence,” he said.
Later, Nicola Ferralis, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, discussed his research on using coal in thin film electronics, nanoscale filtration, and carbon fibers. In his view, coal can be a feedstock for various purposes without the social stigma, in much the same way petroleum is used for plastic.
R. William West, president of U.K.-based Arq Ltd., talked about his company’s nascent method of extracting pure hydrocarbons from coal refuse to create a new, low-cost energy source. The company hopes to market an initial version of the product in June or July, West said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-dept-official-reassures-coal-bosses-of-trumps-backing
-
Supporting Collaborations For Chemical Safety
Apr 15, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Bonnie A. Charpentier
The core values of the American Chemical Society include “professionalism, safety, and ethics.” Energy and attention directed to safety have been growing in support of this core value. In 2019, I am happy to support several efforts related to safety, including the second ACS Safety Summit and programming at national meetings. I am fortunate to be able to build on efforts of previous ACS presidents to improve laboratory safety and to look at safety in broader contexts.
In 2018, then–ACS president Peter Dorhout sponsored the first ACS Safety Summit, which involved participants from across the chemical enterprise, including small businesses, national laboratories, government, academia, industry, and nonprofit organizations. He presented the takeaways from that summit in a C&EN Comment last year.
This March, I cosponsored a second ACS Safety Summit with Peter, which was organized by collaborators from the ACS Committees on Chemical Safety, Corporation Associates, Professional Training, and Education; the Divisions of Chemical Health and Safety and Chemical Education; and ACS staff. The focus of the 2019 Safety Summit was chemical safety education. My thanks to all the organizers and participants who shared their expertise and ideas, and especially to Ralph Stuart for providing an early summary of the summit outcomes presented here.
A strong, positive safety culture is possible only if researchers internalize and own safety.
More than 30 participants discussed strategic opportunities for ACS, reviewed outcomes from the previous summit, and focused on four exploratory questions:
▸ What expectations do employers of chemists have for the safety competencies of their chemists?
▸ Which emerging safety knowledge, skills, and attitudes do chemistry educators believe should be included in a 21st-century chemistry education?
▸ What are the differences between safety training and education, and how do they both support the development of required safety competencies?
▸ Within the current chemistry curriculum, how and where are chemists best educated in a safety culture ethos?
From these discussions, three key themes emerged:
▸ Chemical safety instruction is an important opportunity to develop critical thinking, chemical information, and other technical skills that cut across the chemistry discipline.
▸ Safety culture, knowledge, and skills need to be consciously developed and are core to supporting professionalism and collaboration in the 21st-century chemical enterprise.
▸ The development of chemical safety competencies is an ongoing opportunity for all chemists.
Participants also worked in smaller groups to develop strategic plans for six specific opportunities identified. The groups aimed to define the opportunities as specifically as possible, identify stakeholders interested in these opportunities, develop a timeline for when these ideas might be implemented, and identify measurable indicators of progress for these opportunities. The intent was to establish plans that were actionable, were sustainable, and could reach a broad audience.
The opportunities explored were the following:
▸ a rubric for assessing the strength of safety case studies and lessons-learned reports
▸ a user-centered system for dissemination of case studies and lessons-learned reports
a white paper on partnering safety training with education efforts to provide safety instruction for chemists
▸ venues for disseminating information for ACS leaders about the opportunities for professional development available in safety skills and instruction
▸ an “education toolbox” for access to specific chemical safety education resources
▸ a crowdsourced platform for peer sharing of safety insights
In addition to the work described above, a group discussion was held about the broader ethos of a safety culture, including providing safe and inclusive environments that individuals can be comfortable with, and can depend on their colleagues to operate in safely.
Other 2019 collaborations for safety, in a broad context, include national meeting programming. In Orlando, Florida, relevant symposia included the presidential symposia “Bridging the (Safety) Gap between Academia and Industry,” cosponsored by the Division of Chemical Health and Safety (CHAS), Corporation Associates, the Committee on Chemical Safety (CCS), the Division of Chemical Education, the Division of Professional Relations, and the Younger Chemists Committee; and “The Chemistry of Disasters,” focused on hurricanes and floods, cosponsored by CHAS and CCS.
Plans for San Diego include the presidential symposia “Connecting Lab Safety and Green Chemistry Education” and “The Chemistry of Disasters,” focused on wildfires and earthquakes. A symposium titled “Keeping Water Safe” will be sponsored by the Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Division. Many thanks to the collaborative organizers of these symposia.
A strong, positive safety culture is possible only if researchers internalize and own safety. Safety cannot be effectively imposed from outside. One venue to instill a strong safety ethos is symposia at our meetings. I ask symposia and program organizers to consider embedding relevant information and presentations on safety in your sessions. This could be individual presentations or a few minutes within presentations to discuss relevant safety topics for a particular type of chemistry. Please join ACS leadership in strengthening the safety culture for our profession.
https://cen.acs.org/acs-news/comment/Supporting-collaborations-chemical-safety/97/i15f
-
Report Warns Of 'Probable' Cyberattack On Small Utilities
Apr 15, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak,
Smaller power utilities are not investing enough to address the "very probable" threat of a cyberattack against their networks, according to a report from the Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment.
Researchers urged state-level utility regulators, who typically sign off on spending requests from local power companies, to gather more data on utilities' security budgets and cyberdefenses.
"A coordinated attack on multiple distribution system control centers and substations could have the same impact as an attack on the bulk power system," said the report, which was commissioned by the grid security advocacy group Protect Our Power.
Large power utilities face mandatory cyber and physical security standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
But thousands of smaller utilities across the country are overseen by state utility commissions, which have adopted a hodgepodge of mostly voluntary security measures.
Vermont Law School cited state-level case studies from California to Delaware of how distribution utilities and their regulators dealt with "obstacles" to effective cybersecurity funding and oversight. Researchers based their findings on interviews with regulators, grid executives and security specialists (Energywire, Feb. 11).
Rural and municipal power companies have puzzled over how to deal with sophisticated hackers who may be backed by foreign spy agencies in China or Russia.
Costly, state-of-the-art technical defenses and cybersecurity personnel are out of reach for mom-and-pop grid operators, and their customers may not be eager to shoulder the cost.
"I know how difficult it can be to strike the right balance between the need for new investments to protect critical infrastructure and the potential cost to electric ratepayers," said Richard Mroz, senior adviser to Protect Our Power and former president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. The report highlights the "clear challenge" ahead for industry and regulators, he added.
The report observes that "there is no single pathway" for states to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities, but it credits approaches from California, Michigan and Connecticut.
California has taken a page from federal regulators at FERC and NERC, setting binding requirements for distribution-level utilities to report malicious activity on their systems. The California Public Utilities Commission has also encouraged major grid security research and development projects under the California Energy Systems for the 21st Century program, working with Pacific Gas and Electric Co., San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison.
Michigan has set similar cyber event rules, the report notes, and requires the largest utilities in the state to provide a detailed overview of cybersecurity investments and rationale for new cyber spending.
Connecticut regulators hew to a voluntary system of cybersecurity oversight that encourages utilities to use a Department of Homeland Security framework to assess their cybersecurity maturity and report back to the state Public Utilities Regulatory Agency.
The report doesn't pick a favorite protection strategy, instead urging states to "be willing to expand agency jurisdiction or create new agencies as needed" to handle the evolving threat. It also recommends that regulators find ways to dig up more security information from utilities — whether by requiring annual reports on cybersecurity programs like Delaware's Public Service Commission, or by conducting regular audits like those from the New York Public Service Commission's Office of Utility Security.
The study further documented "concerns" with utilities' efforts to recoup costs for cybersecurity expenses.
Many distribution utilities must file for approval from state regulators before moving ahead with major investments. Rate cases offer a chance for regulators and consumer advocates to weigh in on whether certain expenses justify raising electricity prices for utilities' customers.
But some states, such as Ohio and Texas, offer alternative paths for utilities to recover their cybersecurity expenses, the report notes.
"The move away from general rate case proceedings as the vehicle for assessing the prudence of investments raises concerns about the proper allocation of risk between customer and utility," the researchers conclude, adding that utilities seeking ways around rate cases should provide more details on the threats facing their systems and their own cybersecurity performance records.
"Doing so will alleviate the concern that alternative rate mechanisms are solely advancing utility interests," they said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/15/stories/1060162741
-
New York Sues EPA Over Interstate Ozone Pollution (2)
Apr 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood and John Herzfeld
State sues EPA for failing to respond to March 2018 petition
Air pollution targeted from plants in nine Midwestern, Southern states
New York is suing the Environmental Protection Agency to try to compel the agency to act against air pollution drifting from power plants and other pollution sources in upwind states.
The lawsuit, filed April 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, follows through on the state’s February announcement of its intention to go to court to get the agency to respond to previous pleas for action.
The new litigation opened up another legal front in efforts by East Coast states to prevent air pollution from Midwestern and southern states from driving up their levels of ozone pollution, or smog, above federal limits. The pattern is known as interstate ozone transport.
New York is asking the court to step in to order the EPA to act on a March 2018 petition for more pollution controls in upwind states. The petition named more than 350 power plants, factories, and oil and gas operations in the upwind states as major sources of pollution that contribute to ozone formation.
Those sources should be operating with modern nitrogen oxide emission controls, the state said. Nitrogen oxide is a precursor that reacts in the presence of sunlight to form ozone.
The upwind states cited by New York are Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Air Breathed by 16 MillionOn the worst days for summer air pollution, the upwind states “sigificantly contribute” to unhealthy air for more than 16 million New York residents, a total that includes upstate regions, the state alleged in its lawsuit. More than 12 million people live in the New York metropolitan area defined by EPA as failing to meet ozone pollution limits. That non-attainment area includes parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, in addition to New York City and its in-state suburbs.
The EPA didn’t respond to the 2018 petition within the 60 days required by the Clean Air Act, and then failed to meet its own extended deadline of Nov. 9, the state said. It still hasn’t held a public hearing or taken final action on the petition, as required by law, according to the complaint. The federal agency in the past has denied other, similar petitions.
Ozone is a lung irritant that worsens asthma, other respiratory conditions, and heart disease. It has also been linked to early deaths, the state said.
New York’s petition targeted several industrial and energy companies, including AEP, Alcoa, ArcelorMittal, Archer Daniels Midland, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, and U.S. Steel.
A spokeswoman for the EPA said the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
The case is New York v. Wheeler, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:19-cv-03287, complaint 4/12/19.
(Updates with more information from the lawsuit throughout. )
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-york-sues-epa-over-interstate-ozone-pollution
-
Fight Over MATS Rollback Serves As Proxy For Battle Over ‘Co-Benefits’
Apr 12, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A fight between critics and supporters of EPA’s proposal to scrap its cost-benefit finding underpinning the Obama-era utility air toxics rule is serving as a proxy for a broader battle over how, and whether, the agency should in future rulemakings count the “co-benefits” of reducing pollutants that are not directly regulated by a specific policy.
Stakeholders’ comments ahead of an April 17 deadline for weighing in on the power plant mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) proposal highlight the dispute. Some MATS opponents, including coal company Murray Energy, are urging EPA to use the rule as a vehicle for establishing a more general policy against counting co-benefits in developing rules, while environmentalists say that would be an “unjustified departure” from agency practice.
The agency’s proposal to undo the finding that the MATS rule is “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act after a review of its costs and benefits will only affect utilities. But whatever the agency decides in the final version on cost-benefits could set an important precedent for a host of future rulemakings.
The comments note the potential broader implications of the rollback beyond the utility sector -- and some industry groups are wary of this outcome. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is calling on EPA to reject consideration of co-benefits in utility air rules but limit that precedent to the power sector.
The Chamber is instead placing a major focus on EPA’s plan to overhaul cost-benefit analysis across the board. That plan, issued as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in 2018 separate from the MATS proposal, is still in its infancy, and it is unclear when it might result in binding regulation.
The reticence of industry groups such as the Chamber to use MATS as a vehicle to remove co-benefits from future cost-benefit analyses reflects what sources say is the limitation in using the rollback for that purpose.
Although EPA proposed to reverse the Obama-era finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate air toxics from power plants, the agency is proposing to keep the MATS emissions limits themselves in place. This is in large part a response to pressure from much of the utility sector to leave MATS essentially intact, as the rule is fully implemented and utilities risk making losses on multi-million dollar investments in compliance.
Critics say EPA is undermining the legal basis of the MATS rule and inviting an effort to kill it entirely, because removing the cost-benefit analysis underpinning the regulation could spur a lawsuit arguing that the move invalidates the entire rule. The agency counters that so long as it does not “de-list” power plants as a source of air toxics under the air law, MATS must remain in place, and that legal precedent sets a prohibitively high bar to attempt such de-listing.
However, the decision to scrap the underlying finding rests on the agency’s view that the Obama administration failed to justify the costs of MATS relative to the air toxics benefits.
The Obama EPA initially made no effort to justify the costs, saying it had no legal duty to do so. On remand from the Supreme Court, which faulted EPA’s failure to consider costs, EPA then justified the finding in part by relying on the cost-benefit analysis prepared for MATS itself in 2011 -- and this in turn relies overwhelmingly on the co-benefits of cutting fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions -- not toxics emissions.
EPA has historically relied on PM2.5 emissions cuts and their associated monetized health benefits to justify several major air rules, but the agency’s detractors say this amounts to “double-counting” emissions benefits.
Competing Arguments
In his testimony to a March 18 public hearing on MATS in Washington, D.C., Cody Nett, assistant general counsel for Murray Energy, was unequivocal in opposing consideration of co-benefits.
Murray Energy commends EPA “for rejecting the Obama EPA's unlawful effort to justify MATS' overreach based on so-called ‘co-benefits.’ MATS was adopted under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which only authorizes EPA to regulate hazardous air pollutants” (HAPs), such as mercury.
“Realizing that MATS would never pass muster based on its meager effects on such emissions, the Obama EPA sought to justify MATS based on its incidental reductions in fine particulates, even though Congress clearly directed EPA to regulate particulates under a fundamentally different system,” Nett said.
Murray Energy, which opposed other Obama utility sector rules, says EPA’s repudiation of the appropriate and necessary finding on these grounds requires EPA to go further and rescind MATS.
However, Heath Knakmuhs, vice president of the U.S. Chamber’s Global Energy Institute, in his testimony took a more nuanced position. While noting the massive disparity between air toxics costs and benefits originally cited by EPA to support MATS -- only $6 million in annual benefits compared to at least $9 billion in annual costs -- Knakmuhs said EPA should take a “do no harm” approach and leave MATS in place.
On co-benefits, Knakmuhs said, “EPA's rulemaking processes should be adjusted, on a prospective basis, to ensure that future "appropriate and necessary" determinations under Clean Air Act section 112 are reached in a manner consistent” with the Supreme Court’s 2015 remand in Michigan v. EPA. That ruling said the agency had failed to consider costs in its initial MATS finding, prompting the agency to redo the finding with costs as a factor.
“Regulated entities should not now be put in double jeopardy solely to correct an invalid ‘appropriate and necessary’ finding when parallel and ongoing rulemakings, such as the EPA's already underway costs and benefits rulemaking process, provide an appropriate forum to establish an enduring resolution to the rulemaking shortcomings identified in Michigan v. EPA,” Knakmuhs said.
The Chamber has commented already on EPA’s cost-benefit analysis ANPR, stressing “the need for co-benefits to truly be incidental, rather than the unspoken focus of EPA's regulatory actions.”
Knakmuhs adds, “Though the costs of implementing the MATS rule greatly overshadowed the hazardous air pollutant benefits, the best option in this instance is for EPA to prospectively ensure that not yet finalized and future rulemakings properly quantify the costs and benefits integral to an ‘appropriate and necessary’ finding.
“To this end, we are encouraged by the agency's consideration of a concurrent rulemaking to improve the development of cost-benefit estimates across the agency, and recommend that finalization of this proposal is done in a manner consistent with the objectives of the broader cost benefit reforms.”
A broad coalition of utility industry groups including the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), electric co-operatives and labor unions takes a similar approach in March 26 comments. EPA should sustain MATS but “separately pursue a regulatory process regarding the considerations of costs and benefits analysis” under the air law.
EPA’s ANPR on cost-benefit analysis separate from the MATS rule can “serve as a starting point for this effort. EPA could also apply these principles in a prospective manner in separate rulemakings. Such a rule could establish general principles on cost considerations that recognize that there are statute-specific requirements that may require different consideration of costs, at least with respect to standard setting,” the coalition says.
Both the Chamber and EEI are therefore resisting the suggestion, raised by EPA in the ANPR, that costs and benefits could be reassessed retrospectively.
‘Unjustified Departure’
Sources tell Inside EPA that the specific nature of power plant regulation under air law section 112 always made MATS a poor vehicle to definitively shift agency policy on co-benefits.
The “appropriate and necessary” finding is unique to power plants, and therefore any decision by a court in this case would not be binding on other rules, sources say.
Nonetheless, environmentalists continue the fight to oppose any undermining of the cost-benefit process by exclusion of co-benefits. Consideration of all benefits, both direct and indirect, is required under longstanding presidential orders and is integral to sound agency practice, environmentalists say.
In March 18 testimony, the Clean Air Task Force says, “EPA's proposal to devalue the MATS public health benefits due to concurrent reductions of [PM2.5] represents an unjustified departure from longstanding agency practice under administrations of both parties. Under existing agency guidance, EPA has consistently estimated and given weight to all benefits of regulation.”
Further, the proposal “is part of a broader effort by EPA to devalue the health benefits from PM2.5 reductions, which are an inconvenient obstacle to a deregulatory agenda. Other attempts have included attacking the health science underlying PM2.5 benefits, questioning the role of co-benefits in the rulemaking process, and excluding PM2.5 health benefits below the levels of the national ambient air quality standards.”
The Environmental Protection Network, a group of former EPA employees opposed to Trump administration policies, in March 18 testimony called the co-benefits policy change the “centerpiece” of EPA’s proposal.
The proposal would “overturn decades of regulatory practice and ignore basic principles of regulatory economics by cherry picking the benefits it will consider, focusing only on emissions of a target pollutant, and ignoring co-benefits that the regulation is certain to produce.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/fight-over-mats-rollback-serves-proxy-battle-over-%E2%80%98co-benefits%E2%80%99
-
D.C. Circuit Expected To Order FERC To Broaden Pipeline GHG Reviews
Apr 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Appellate judges are expected to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to expand consideration of greenhouse gas emissions when approving natural gas pipelines with a known upstream producer, which would extend a two-year-old precedent requiring FERC to address downstream GHGs when the end user is known.
However, the expected ruling is unlikely to address FERC’s new policy that limits need to consider upstream or downstream GHGs at all in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for other pipelines because the case that is directly challenging that policy is unlikely to survive a key procedural hurdle.
Court observers are widely predicting this outcome following April 11 oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in two related cases, Otsego 2000 v. FERC and Birckhead v. FERC, which both challenge the commission’s approval of gas infrastructure without a broad GHG assessment.
FERC lawyer Robert Solomon conceded at the end of arguments in Birckhead that a 2017 precedent the D.C. Circuit set in Sierra Club v. FERC -- requiring the commission to assess the downstream GHGs of the Sabal Trail pipeline in its NEPA review because the gas was dedicated to power plants in Florida -- could be extended to the approval of the Tennessee project at issue because the upstream gas producers are known.
“That could be akin to the downstream situation that we have in Sierra Club,” Solomon said. “Just as in Sierra Club,we knew that the electric generating plants could not operate without that additional pipeline, I guess it’s hypothetically possible that you could have a producer that says we can’t ship the molecules from designated specific wells unless we have a particular buildout on a particular line in an integrated system. And in that particular circumstance, I think there could be an analogy to the Sierra Club decision.”
Solomon’s concession came one day after FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee told an energy summit that the commission lacks statutory authority to consider climate change in pipeline reviews. But he added: “We’ll see where the courts come down” on the topic, according to news reports.
Solomon also conceded the point after he told the court that a different case, Sierra Club v. Department of Energy -- decided just before Sabal Trail and holding that the Energy Department did not need to broadly consider GHGswhen approving liquified natural gas exports -- should control.
Birckhead’s attorney Carolyn Elefant told the court that it could not affirm FERC’s approval of the Tennessee project without vacating its decision in Sabal Trail. In that case, the court held that GHGs are an indirect effect of the project whereas in the Birckhead approval, FERC said GHGs were not indirect effects. There is no way to reconcile the two, she argued.
Standing Arguments
While observers are predicting that the D.C. Circuit will require FERC to consider the emissions, they are also expecting the panel to toss Otsego on standing grounds, even though analysts had previously identified that case as one where FERC was especially vulnerable.
Standing did not come up during briefing, but the three-judge panel -- consisting of Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges David Tatel and Roger Wilkins -- issued an unprompted April 3 order directing that “the parties be prepared to discuss at oral argument . . . the issue of petitioner Otsego 2000’s Article III standing.”
The bulk of the arguments in that case focused on whether Otsego 2000 -- a non-member group that seeks to educate the public and protect the environment near Cooperstown, NY -- had “organizational standing” to bring the case in the first place. Otsego’s attorney Michael Sussman argued that the group has standing because it was injured by FERC’s failure to do the GHG analysis, since that lack of information impairs public information which is relevant to the group’s purpose.
However, the judges seemed skeptical, noting that reasoning could give any group standing to challenge any agency action.
Tatel noted that FERC argued that assessing the GHGs associated with the New York pipeline upgrade was “futile” because it is designed for intermittent peak use, and the amount of gas that will be used cannot be known, which is distinct from Sabal Trail in Sierra Club.
However, he and the other judges also staunchly questioned FERC’s attorneys about why -- during the certification process -- it could not ask pipeline applicants for information about the expected GHG emissions from the project including from an applicants’ customers or suppliers.
Tatel in particular repeatedly questioned why FERC could not seek this information, pointing out that it cannot know what it does not ask.
Observers on all sides of the case expect the D.C. Circuit to dismiss Otsego on standing, which would mean future plaintiffs cannot directly challenge FERC’s policy shift stating that it would no longer consider GHGs in many pipeline reviews. This is because it issued the policy as part of a denial of a rehearing request that was the subject of the suit.
Only two parties had engaged with FERC on the relatively small project -- Otsego 2000 and a local couple -- and others were unable to join the litigation. The New York attorney general’s office blasted the move last summer and submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Otsego.
Should the court rule along these lines, that would mean even though the policy would not be directly challengeable, the court would effectively reject the policy in Birckhead, and others could bring as-applied challenges should FERC continue to implement the policy.
“The panel wants to flip FERC, but Otsego’s standing does not look great,” one source says. “Birckhead suddenly looks interesting on the upstream side, given FERC’s own arguments on how to apply Sabal Trail. . . . If there is a way to do it, I think the panel wants to, but I’m not sure it’s there.”
Analysts at ClearView Energy Partners reach a similar conclusion: “Otsego may have failed to convince the court it has standing, even though we think that the judges seemed skeptical of FERC’s arguments on the merits.”
Regarding Birckhead, ClearView says it is “possible” that the court may grant the appeal, “but potentially on the upstream indirect emissions and not necessarily on the downstream emissions basis.”
During arguments in that case, intervenor Tennessee Gas acknowledged that it could ask its customers to provide GHG information requested by FERC, which “may carry weight” with the judges.
However, another observer says the court is less likely to order FERC to ask applicants to provide information from its customers’ customers or suppliers’ suppliers because “that would seem to be a rather intrusive and categorial directive” that interferes with agency deference.
What is more likely, according to this source, is that the court could require such information in NEPA reviews when FERC and the applicant know the identity of the producer and/or end-user.
Otsego attorney Sussman tells Inside EPA April 11 that he hopes he was able to convince the court the group has standing, though he did not make a prediction. He cites a declaration from an Otsego supporter who had engaged in air monitoring activities to deal with the effects of the FERC approval as a “major hook to provide standing for the organization.”
However, another declaration, which Tatel cited, said the monitoring was conducted not for informational purposes but to prepare for the lawsuit, which would exclude it from standing. Tatel wondered how the court should address two conflicting declarations.
A third observer says Tatel’s interest in that conflict is noteworthy and predicts “a legitimate chance the court kicks it on standing and does not get to the merits.”
‘Overruling’ The Policy
If that does occur, then FERC’s new policy on not assessing indirect GHG emissions cannot be challenged. But the second source explains that FERC made clear in Birckhead -- where petitioners did not and probably could not have directly challenged the policy -- it is not arguing that its policy prevents parties from challenging its lack of GHG analysis.
So, the court could say, “You have to [conduct the broader analysis], and that in effect would be overruling the policy change,” the source says.
A fourth person familiar with the cases says the court in Birckhead was “far more receptive to arguments” on upstream emissions than anticipated, which was “a plus.”
However, on the downstream side, “I did not think they interpreted the Sierra Club precedent” as strictly as they should. “Sierra Club says that downstream emissions are indirect impacts. FERC does not always have to quantify those impacts, but to say, as it did in this case, that there are no indirect effects associated with gas pipelines due to combustion goes against Sierra Club. My take on the court was that it was most concerned about how FERC would measure the impacts.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-expected-order-ferc-broaden-pipeline-ghg-reviews
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested