Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - April 18, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pressure NJ Legislators to Ban Single-Use Plastics: Nasif
Apr 18, 2019 | Ashbury Park Press
By Gregory Nasif
New Jersey has a chance to make a huge splash in the fight to save our oceans, waterways, and environment from plastic pollution by joining New York and California in enacting a statewide ban on single use plastic bags. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Issues Final Snur for Asbestos
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has finalised a TSCA significant new use rule (Snur) for asbestos, closing a "30-year-old loophole" that has allowed abandoned uses of asbestos in products to return to the market without review, it says. The Snur, proposed... -
EPA Releases Updated Systematic Review Supplemental Files for CI PV29 Risk Evaluation; Reopens Comment Period
Apr 17, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On April 17, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of updated systematic review supplemental files with data evaluation scoring sheets as supporting documents for the draft risk evaluation for... -
US EPA Round-Up
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
TSCA ‘not likely’ determinations: The US EPA has issued five TSCA 5(a)(3)(c) findings for substances subject to pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). These "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" determinations will allow the... -
EPA’s Latest Asbestos Regulation Falls Short of Full Ban
Apr 18, 2019 | Asbestos.com
By Tim Povtak
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new regulation on Wednesday that will make it tougher to domestically manufacture, import or sell products made with asbestos, the toxic mineral that causes mesothelioma and other... -
Georgia Legislature Sends PFAs Firefighting Foam Bill to Governor
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Georgia has become the latest US state to take action to restrict the use of firefighting foams containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). On 11 April, with nearly unanimous approval in both chambers, the state’s... -
Green Groups Call for Probe of Formaldehyde Assessment
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
Several environmental groups sent a letter to EPA this week asking the agency to investigate whether there were "losses of scientific integrity" related to an unreleased risk assessment of formaldehyde. Public evidence and... -
US Screening Tool to Predict Carcinogenicity
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
US researchers have created a screening tool to predict chemical carcinogenicity and genotoxicity from in vitro gene expression assay results. The standard way to test carcinogenicity is with a two-year rodent assay. But models based... -
Gillibrand Bill Would Ban Chloropyrifos in School Lunches
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Marc Heller
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a presidential candidate, has introduced legislation to keep food treated with the pesticide chlorpyrifos out of schools. The New York Democrat proposed the "Safe School Meals for Kids Act," S. 1187... -
Hurricane Harvey Flushed Toxic Metals into Houston’s Water
Apr 17, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Katherine Bourzac
Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall in southeast Texas in 2017, dropped about 154 cm of rain over four days, making it the wettest tropical cyclone ever to hit the US. The storm’s rainfall caused widespread flooding in the... -
President Issues Executive Order to Expedite Energy Infrastructure and Export Permitting at Border Crossings
Apr 18, 2019 | National Law Review
Executive Order (EO) 13867 is the most recent in a series of EOs issued by President Trump in an effort to cut through red tape in infrastructure permitting – particularly for energy infrastructure and even more particularly for energy export... -
FERC Approves 2 More LNG Export Terminals Despite Lafleur 'Concerns'
Apr 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
FERC leaders greenlighted two liquefied natural gas export projects this morning, piling on more wins for an industry that has long complained about the agency’s pace of reviewing energy infrastructure. The agency approved Tellurian's... -
America’s Gas Export Clout Set to Grow With Two LNG Approvals
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham and Naureen S. Malik
America is set to become an even bigger player in the global liquefied natural gas market after the nation’s top regulator approved two more projects to export the super-chilled fuel. Tellurian Inc.’s proposed $28 billion Driftwood... -
DOE Funding More Oil, Natural Gas Technology Projects
Apr 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Department of Energy (DOE) is providing up to $39 million for research and development projects aimed at improving oil and natural gas technologies, including those for offshore wells, methane mitigation and transmission. -
Rick Perry Is Said to Plan His Exit as Trump’s Energy Secretary
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Jacobs, Jennifer A. Dlouhy, and Ari Natter
Energy Secretary Rick Perry is planning to leave the Trump administration and is finalizing the terms and timing of his departure, according to two people familiar with his plans. While Perry’s exit isn’t imminent and one person familiar... -
Colorado Energy Reform Bill Possibly Not as Onerous as Expected
Apr 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has signed into law the fast-tracked and controversial oil and natural gas reform bill, which revises oversight and instills increased power in local governments. -
Kinder Morgan in Discussions to Build Third Natural Gas Pipeline in Permian Basin
Apr 18, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
Houston pipeline operator Kinder Morgan is in the middle of building two projects to move natural gas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf Coast but has confirmed discussions to develop a third. Kinder Morgan is the lead... -
Schlumberger Looks Overseas for Recovery Amid Shale Challenges
Apr 18, 2019 | Bloomberg
By David Wethe
Schlumberger Ltd. said parts of its international business are finally starting to recover, but the world’s biggest oil services giant warned that spending by U.S. shale producers will continue to shrink in 2019. -
N.M. Looks for Savings with State Building Upgrades
Apr 18, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Morgan Lee
New Mexico is pushing forward with multimillion-dollar, energy-saving upgrades to its portfolio of agency buildings in the state capital, as part of an emerging climate change strategy from Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. -
Scientists Identify Opportunities to Better Understand Oilfield Wastewater
Apr 18, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Cloelle Danforth and Nichole Saunders
Collaborative research is a critical element for identifying unforeseen risks associated with using the oil industry’s wastewater outside the oilfield. That’s the recommendation of a new peer-reviewed paper accepted this week in... -
Washington State’s Oil Transport Bill Causing Heartburn in Bakken
Apr 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
A rail tank oil transport bill making its way through the Washington legislature is stirring anxiety 1,200 miles to the east in the Bakken Shale and has captured the attention of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), which wants to... -
Trump Order to Allow LNG by Rail Would Expand ‘Bomb Train’ Risks
Apr 18, 2019 | DeSmog Blog (In Nation of Change)
By Justin Mikulka
On April 10, first responders in Durham, North Carolina, responded to a suspected natural gas leak. While they were evacuating people from the area, the gas exploded, killing one person and injuring at least 25. The same day Durham... -
The Energy 202: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Doubling down on Green New Deal
Apr 18, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Even after recent setbacks in Congress, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is expanding her push for her Green New Deal. The unconventional congresswoman found an unconventional way of sharing her message: On Wednesday, the online... -
New Satellite Wave Could Pinpoint Greenhouse Gas Offenders
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Aaron Clark
A wave of satellites set to orbit the Earth will be able to pinpoint producers of greenhouse gases, right down to an individual leak at an oil rig. More than a dozen governments and companies have or are planning to launch satellites... -
Pressure Builds on CEOs to Navigate Climate Action: It's a New Reality for Corporate America.
Apr 18, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Murray
The days when business leaders could dodge social or political issues are coming to an end. CEO engagement on issues such as health care, sexual harassment, gun control and immigration have been steadily on the rise.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pressure NJ Legislators to Ban Single-Use Plastics: Nasif
Apr 18, 2019 | Ashbury Park Press
By Gregory Nasif
New Jersey has a chance to make a huge splash in the fight to save our oceans, waterways, and environment from plastic pollution by joining New York and California in enacting a statewide ban on single use plastic bags.
The trio of states are among the largest economies nationwide, and New Jersey could make a game-changing difference in the global campaign to slash plastic pollution.
For the past few decades, the seas have become highly contaminated with plastic, so much so that within a few years there could be a pound for every three pounds of fish. Estimates show there could be more plastic than fish in the oceans by 2050, and it’s killing marine life and birds. Last month, a dead whale floated onto a beach in the Philippines, starved to death. It had 88 pounds of plastic in its stomach.
Most of the litter on New Jersey beaches is plastic. Made from fossil fuels with an increasing amount from fracked gas and oil, plastic takes hundreds of years to decompose. In the meantime it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces called microplastics that flow into water supplies, oceans, and permeate the environment. We are all eating, drinking, and breathing plastic. Traces have shown up in breast milk.
A growing list of towns and cities are passing single-use plastic ban ordinances. Little Silver joined the list this month, and passed legislation banning single-use plastic bags, plastic straws and Styrofoam. The public support is there, but the New Jersey Legislature is dragging its feet on comprehensive legislation (A433/S2776). The bill would ban plastic carryout bags, place a 10-cent fee on paper carryout bags, ban polystyrene foam food containers, and make singe-use plastic straws available only upon request.
A statewide ban could help enormously in changing consumer habits. Similar legislation has been done in New Jersey before. Clean Water Action fought vigorously to ban mercury from home batteries, and a state law was passed in 1991. Since companies were not going to start manufacturing a specially designed battery just to sell in New Jersey, mercury-free batteries became an industry standard. In the late 1990s, the organization fought to stop manufacturers from treating wood with arsenic, a carcinogen. Again, consumer behavior changed and a new industry standard set. Lumber is no longer treated with arsenic.
And just like old times, there is tremendous push back from industry to kill the bill. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an oil industry lobbying group, has launched the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA) in a campaign to oppose New Jersey legislation and instead promote recycling as a viable solution.
Recycling plastic bags is not the answer. Plastics, especially plastic bags, are increasingly facing outright rejection from recycling facilities, and ending up in another terrible solution–incineration. Incinerating plastic releases heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change. The ACC previously dumped $9.4 million into fighting a similar law in California. They failed when voters eventually passed the ban by referendum, and California’s beaches and the Pacific Ocean will be cleaner for it.
Pro-industry lobbyists also argue costs, but it’s likely that retailers could save money by phasing out high volumes of single use plastic bags. Four billion are given to consumers annually in New Jersey alone.
The New Jersey legislation doesn’t mean the newspaper is no longer delivered in a weather-shielding plastic bag. Meat and fish can still be wrapped in plastic. And if a restaurant patron wants a straw, they can ask and receive one.
The plastics habit didn’t take off until the late 1980s. Before that, we drank out of a glass and then rinsed it out. We ate meals on plates and then washed the dishes. Groceries were toted in whatever was handy. We can do that again and create a strong foundation for a healthier planet for future generations.
Take action by contacting your legislators today and urge them to support the plastic ban legislation (A433/S2776).
https://www.app.com/story/opinion/columnists/2019/04/18/pressure-nj-legislators-ban-single-use-plastics-nasif/3501656002/
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Issues Final Snur for Asbestos
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has finalised a TSCA significant new use rule (Snur) for asbestos, closing a "30-year-old loophole" that has allowed abandoned uses of asbestos in products to return to the market without review, it says.
The Snur, proposed last August, covers a variety of products (see box) that have been discontinued but are otherwise not regulated. And the final version expands the proposal’s list to include "any other use of asbestos that is neither ongoing nor already prohibited under TSCA."
Leaked internal emails last summer showed that EPA staff had concerns that without such a catch-all category, a failure to comprehensively list all abandoned uses could leave gaps.
With the rule in place, anyone wishing to resume the manufacture, import or process of asbestos for any of these uses would need to provide notification first. This would allow the EPA to evaluate the potential risk and "take any necessary regulatory action, which may include a prohibition."
"Prior to this new rule, EPA did not have the ability to prevent or restrict certain asbestos products from being reintroduced into the market," said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
"This new rule, combined with our ongoing risk evaluations, gives us unprecedented authorities to protect public health from domestic and imported asbestos products and gives us the ability to prohibit asbestos products from entering or reentering the market."
TSCA risk evaluation
The EPA described the Snur as a ‘complement’ to its ongoing risk evaluation of the limited, still ongoing uses of asbestos – one of the first ten substances subject to assessment under the amended TSCA. The scope of the review includes: asbestos diaphragms for use in the chlor-alkali industry; sheet gaskets for use in chemical production; brake blocks used in oil drilling equipment; and certain aftermarket automotive parts.
The EPA had previously planned to evaluate cement products, woven products and packings, but set those aside when it could not confirm those uses are still active. Instead, those uses are now covered by the Snur.
The agency says that if its risk evaluation – which is due to be finalised in December – determines any of the ongoing uses of asbestos pose unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, it will "take prompt action to address those risks, which could include restricting or banning other asbestos uses in products."
‘Half step’
The move represents the first action to regulate asbestos under TSCA since 1989, when the EPA attempted to ban most asbestos-containing products under a section 6 rule.
A 1991 court ruling, however, largely overturned the regulation. And consequently, the only existing prohibitions on asbestos in the US are on "new" uses – defined as those initiated after 25 August 1989 – as well as on five specific uses: corrugated paper, rollboard, commercial paper, speciality paper and flooring felt.
Nevertheless, consumer advocacy groups were quick to dismiss the Snur as inadequate.
"This new rule makes it more difficult for industry to resume some abandoned uses of asbestos, but that is a half step at best," said Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at EWG.
Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, added that the "toothless regulation … does not ban these uses, but leaves the door open to their return to the marketplace."
But the American Chemistry Council said the rule will strengthen the EPA’s ability to regulate the substance by reinforcing restrictions on products that "have not been used in decades". Under the Snur, potential new uses would be subject to "rigorous safety review, regulation and restrictions," it added.
Nonetheless, Ms Benesh said a full ban is the "only way the public can trust industry will never again be able to use this dangerous material that has literally killed tens of thousands of Americans."
Legislation was introduced in Congress last month to amend TSCA to prohibit the manufacture, processing and distribution of asbestos and articles containing it. The Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2019 (HR 1603) has been referred to two House of Representatives committees for further consideration.
Covered uses
The following uses are subject to the Snur: adhesives, sealants, and roof and non-roof coatings; arc chutes; beater-add gaskets; cement products; extruded sealant tape and other tape; filler for acetylene cylinders; friction materials (with certain exceptions); high-grade electrical paper; millboard; missile liner; packings; pipeline wrap; reinforced plastics; roofing felt; separators in fuel cells and batteries; vinyl-asbestos floor tile; woven products; any other building material; and any other use of asbestos that is neither ongoing nor already prohibited under TSCA.
For the purposes of the rule, asbestos is defined as "asbestiform varieties of six fibre types: chrysotile (serpentine), crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite), anthophyllite, tremolite or actinolite".
https://chemicalwatch.com/76690/us-epa-issues-final-snur-for-asbestos?q=%E2%80%9CAmerican+Chemistry+Council%E2%80%9D
-
Apr 17, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On April 17, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of updated systematic review supplemental files with data evaluation scoring sheets as supporting documents for the draft risk evaluation for Colour Index (C. I.) Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 84 Fed. Reg. 16011. EPA states it is “seeking public comment on the draft risk evaluation for PV29 in light of the additional materials already made or being made publicly available.” In her April 16, 2019, blog item, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, described the updated systematic review documents for PV29 as “a tool that guides our review and selection of scientific studies used to evaluate chemicals,” and that the updates were made “based on public input we received during the initial comment period.”
On March 22, 2019, EPA made 24 full study reports on PV29 available to the public, in some instances with information withheld as confidential business information (CBI) pursuant to EPA regulations. EPA has considered these materials in the risk evaluation process of PV29 and has also submitted these materials to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). EPA states that comments submitted will be considered by the agency and also provided to the TSCA SACC peer review panel, which will have the opportunity to consider the comments during its discussions.
The comment period for the draft risk evaluation of CI PV29 closed on January 14, 2019, but via this notice is being extended. The Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the updated systematic review supplemental files lists a comment deadline of the same date as the notice -- April 17, 2019, but Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604-0038, however, lists a comment deadline of May 17, 2019; it is most likely that the docket is correct in this instance especially considering that follows what was stated by Ms. Dunn in her blog item that in light of the new and updated information EPA has recently released, "we will be reopening the public comment on the draft risk evaluation for PV29. It is important that the public have the opportunity to provide input on all of the information EPA is considering before our risk evaluation is finalized, so we invite you to provide us with your feedback. The public comment period will reopen for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.”
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-releases-updated-systematic-review-supplemental-files-ci-pv29-risk-evaluation
-
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
TSCA ‘not likely’ determinations
The US EPA has issued five TSCA 5(a)(3)(c) findings for substances subject to pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). These "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" determinations will allow the substances to come to market without restriction.
The findings cover the following confidential substances: P-17-0220: a polymer imported for use as an additive; P-17-0191: alkyldiamine, aminoalkyl dimethylaminoalkyl dimethyl-, reaction products with propylene oxide, manufactured for use as a polyurethane catalyst; P-18-0085: fatty acids reaction products with ethyleneamines and dialkyl ester, manufactured and processed for industrial use in oilfields; P-18-0101: a pentaerythritol manufactured for industrial use; and P-19-0027: a substance imported in solution for use in certain Allnex coating resin products, and used as an additive for corrosion protection.
In the case of the first two PMNs, which were submitted in 2017, the agency noted that its original screening analyses had identified certain risk concerns, but the PMN submitters subsequently "clarified" process information. The EPA says its final determinations are based on these intended conditions of use.
Respiratory sensitisation webinar
The US EPA – along with Peta’s International Science Consortium and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) – will host a webinar entitled 'New approaches for respiratory sensitisation' on 24 April.
This is the third installment of a series on the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in risk assessment.
States council revises TSCA CBI resolution
The Environmental Council of the States (Ecos) has updated an existing resolution, urging the EPA to commit more resources to TSCA confidential business information (CBI) review and to facilitate more state access to information.
The resolution on state access to CBI has been revised every three years since 2001. It requests that the agency:commit sufficient resources to address timely review and substantiation of new and existing CBI claims and to make information publicly available as required by the 2016 Lautenberg amendments to TSCA; continue working with states to streamline the process of requesting access to confidential data; recognise the breadth and diversity of state laws for which access to confidential information could be useful for administration or enforcement; and respond to requests to both enter into information sharing agreements and for TSCA CBI access within 30 days.
Updates to PCB disposal guidance
The EPA is requesting public comment on a proposed information collection activity, arising from planned updates to its existing guidance for disposing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The agency developed two guidance documents in 1986, to provide industry with information on how to apply for agency approval to dispose of PCBs via thermal (incineration) or non-thermal methods. It is currently updating these documents and will combine them into a single document.
The agency is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget to address reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the updated document. Comments on this can be submitted until 17 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76652/us-epa-round-up
-
EPA’s Latest Asbestos Regulation Falls Short of Full Ban
Apr 18, 2019 | Asbestos.com
By Tim Povtak
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new regulation on Wednesday that will make it tougher to domestically manufacture, import or sell products made with asbestos, the toxic mineral that causes mesothelioma and other diseases.
The regulation closes a loophole in the partial ban of asbestos that was legislated almost 30 years ago.
It will strengthen the EPA’s ability to review and prohibit the use of a long list of asbestos products that are not banned but have been long abandoned by the industry.
The ruling is part of a legislative process that requires the EPA to review its regulation of asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Wednesday’s ruling was tougher than what the EPA originally proposed — and was loudly criticized for — in 2018.
But the agency’s decision still falls short of the complete ban of asbestos environmental groups and anti-asbestos advocates want.
Critics Fear Rule Opens Door to Increased Use
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, EPA assistant administrator, said the rule would “close the door on certain asbestos products to prevent them from returning to the marketplace.”
Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, called the regulation “toothless,” while insisting a total ban was necessary.
Under the new rule, companies would need EPA approval before importing most asbestos products.
“Prior to this new rule, EPA did not have the ability to prevent or restrict certain asbestos products from being reintroduced into the market,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
Wheeler said the regulation gives the agency “unprecedented authority to protect public health.”
Earlier this month, he told the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that he would commit to a ban of all current uses of asbestos.
Wednesday’s announcement fell short of that commitment.
“This new rule makes it more difficult for industry to resume some abandoned uses of asbestos, but that is a half step at best,” said attorney Melanie Benesh from the Environmental Working Group, an organization insisting on a total ban. “Administrator Wheeler should use the authority under the new Toxic Substances Control Act law and ban all uses of asbestos.”
What Does the EPA Asbestos Rule Cover?
Asbestos products covered by the new ruling include:Vinyl floor tiles, Insulation, Cement products, Roofing felt, Reinforced plastics, Millboard, High-grade electrical paper, Extruded sealant tape, Automobile adhesives, sealants and coatings, Any use of asbestos not otherwise identified
Asbestos products banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act are spray-on insulation, corrugated paper, flooring felt, commercial paper, rollboard and any new commercial uses that began after 1989.
Under its risk evaluation authority, the EPA already could restrict or ban other uses of asbestos products when necessary.
Asbestos products still legal and still being imported include: Sheet gaskets, Aftermarket automobile brakes and linings, Diaphragms, Vehicle friction products, Oilfield brake blocks, Other gaskets
Asbestos Use Still Prevalent in US
More than 60 countries have banned asbestos, including the United Kingdom and Australia.
Mesothelioma specialist and thoracic surgeon Dr. Raja Flores at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York recently wrote an op-ed about the need for a total ban of asbestos in America.
The mining of asbestos in the United States stopped in 2002, and the importation has dropped significantly in recent decades.
The chloralkali industry used all of the 750 tons of raw asbestos imported in 2018, according to the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries report.
Outside the chloralkali industry — which manufactures semipermeable diaphragms to make chlorine — no other asbestos-containing products are manufactured in the United States.
While any new uses of asbestos or the reintroduction of older uses will be difficult under the new regulation, the issue of legacy uses still pose a threat to public health.
Homes, schools, hospitals and most commercial structures built before 1990 likely still contain asbestos products.
As they age, the asbestos in these structures becomes more dangerous.
“A complete ban is appropriate, but this [regulation] is an easier thing to do. It’s something that should put a fence around the current uses,” Gary Timm of the Environmental Protection Network told the New York Times. “It’s a partial step, a good first step.”
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2019/04/18/epa-asbestos-rule-no-ban/
-
Georgia Legislature Sends PFAs Firefighting Foam Bill to Governor
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Georgia has become the latest US state to take action to restrict the use of firefighting foams containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
On 11 April, with nearly unanimous approval in both chambers, the state’s legislature sent HB 458 to Governor Brian Kemp.
If signed into law, the measure will amend Georgia’s firefighting foam regulations to prohibit the non-emergency use of Class B firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals. However, the bill contains exceptions for training and testing at a facility that "has implemented containment, treatment and disposal measures to prevent uncontrolled releases" to the environment.
It is scheduled to take effect from 1 January 2020.
Kentucky and Virginia have both recently enacted laws restricting the products for training or testing purposes, but unlike Georgia not allowing these activities to continue with certain controls in place. These all come on the heels of the more stringent Washington state law, passed last year, which banned the use of the foams for all but federally-mandated uses.
At the national level, the US Congress has also recently taken action on the products. A spending bill passed last autumn included a provision directing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to no longer require foams to contain PFASs to meet federal requirements for airports.
A group of 40 organisations has recently pushed the agency to begin implementing this change.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76694/georgia-legislature-sends-pfas-firefighting-foam-bill-to-governor
-
Green Groups Call for Probe of Formaldehyde Assessment
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
Several environmental groups sent a letter to EPA this week asking the agency to investigate whether there were "losses of scientific integrity" related to an unreleased risk assessment of formaldehyde.
Public evidence and information obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists through the Freedom of Information Act suggest "that significant and sustained political interference in the risk assessment process is harming public health by preventing communities throughout the United States from reducing exposure to the chemical," says the letter, addressed to EPA scientific integrity official Francesca Grifo.
The Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Protection Network also signed the letter, which was first reported by Politico.
At a congressional hearing last month, Alfredo Gómez, director of the Government Accountability Office's natural resources and environment team, said there were "questions about what happened" to the Integrated Risk Information System's assessment of formaldehyde. It had been in the works since 1997 (E&E Daily, March 28).
IRIS had been poised to release the formaldehyde assessment last year, but GAO found that the agency had stymied it (E&E News PM, March 4).
According to emails obtained by the environmental group, Erika Sasser, director of the Health and Environmental Impacts Division at the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, wrote that "we have a strong interest in this review and are anxious to see it completed" in a 2017 email to Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta of EPA's Office of Research and Development.
"We think that the EPA has not only the authority but the responsibility to investigate what looks like political interference related to the suppression of the formaldehyde assessment," said Genna Reed, lead science and policy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
As recently as 2017, EPA staff had prioritized the IRIS assessment, according to evidence from a Government Accountability Office report, and she added that it "seems that their scientific concerns were ignored when the agency was prioritizing IRIS assessments."
The Department of Health and Human Services has listed formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen. It is used in products such as plywood, insulation and pesticides.
"The public has the right to know what the science says about the risks of formaldehyde. If that information has been suppressed politically, the EPA must investigate and make that public," Reed said.
EPA did not immediately comment.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/18/stories/1060178741
-
US Screening Tool to Predict Carcinogenicity
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
US researchers have created a screening tool to predict chemical carcinogenicity and genotoxicity from in vitro gene expression assay results.
The standard way to test carcinogenicity is with a two-year rodent assay. But models based on gene expression profiles are capable of rapidly and accurately predicting "long-term" carcinogenicity and genotoxicity, according to a team led by Stefano Monti from Boston University.
The researchers used a commercially available high-throughput platform called Luminex to measure gene expression profiles in human cells for over 300 known carcinogens and non-carcinogens. They then used machine learning techniques to build models to predict a chemical's long-term carcinogenicity based on the profiles. When tested using known carcinogens, the model made accurate predictions, the team reports in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Once further optimised and validated, the team hopes that the method will provide a low-cost and rapid way to prioritise chemicals for further testing. "Additionally, our approach could be easily extended to evaluate adverse effects of exposure other than carcinogenicity, such as endocrine disruption, metabolic disruption, etc," added Professor Monti.
The study included researchers from the toxicoinformatics group at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Durham, North Carolina.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76584/us-screening-tool-to-predict-carcinogenicity
-
Gillibrand Bill Would Ban Chloropyrifos in School Lunches
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Marc Heller
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a presidential candidate, has introduced legislation to keep food treated with the pesticide chlorpyrifos out of schools.
The New York Democrat proposed the "Safe School Meals for Kids Act," S. 1187, which would prohibit schools from buying food with detectable levels of chlorpyrifos.
Chlorpyrifos is a pesticide commonly used on apples, oranges, strawberries and other crops. Studies have linked it to developmental disabilities in children, although there's debate about whether residue occurs in big enough amounts to pose human health threats.
The senator has led efforts in Congress to ban chlorpyrifos — a move EPA was contemplating during the Obama administration but abandoned soon after President Trump came to office and put Scott Pruitt in charge of the agency.
"As a mother of two young sons, it's alarming that the food in school meals could contain even a trace of a chemical that could harm students' development and ability to learn," said Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, in a news release.
Gillibrand's bill would prohibit schools from purchasing food for school meals with chlorpyrifos residue greater than 0.001 microgram per kilogram, the lowest possible limit detectable by modern testing systems. It also would require the secretary of Agriculture to report every two years on compliance, for a period of 10 years.
The pesticide's maker, Corteva Agriscience, has said it's a critical tool for farmers, adding that regulatory agencies in 79 countries have reviewed the science and continued to approve its use.
Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA to effectively stop the use of chlorpyrifos, citing the potential health risks. The Trump administration appealed the ruling, and the case remains pending.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/18/stories/1060178475
-
Hurricane Harvey Flushed Toxic Metals into Houston’s Water
Apr 17, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Katherine Bourzac
Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall in southeast Texas in 2017, dropped about 154 cm of rain over four days, making it the wettest tropical cyclone ever to hit the US. The storm’s rainfall caused widespread flooding in the Houston metro area, and inundated wastewater treatment plants, industrial facilities, and superfund sites.
Early results from a sweeping study of the area’s water quality in the aftermath of Harvey suggest that the flooding transported as much as 1,000 kg of chromium and 650 kg of nickel from sites around Houston into nearby Galveston Bay. The researchers also found that the storm caused a drop in the pH of the region’s waters. These changes likely had adverse effects on aquatic wildlife and fisheries in the region, the researchers say (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b00792).
While the storm raged, University of Houston environmental engineer Hanadi Rifai applied to the National Science Foundation and to her dean to fund a water-quality study. As soon as the rain stopped, members of her lab collected water samples from 41 sites in the Houston metro area every week for the next 90 days. The area’s watershed is diverse, with slow-moving streams called bayous passing through areas that are relatively urbanized or more rural; Rifai and postdoc Amin Kiaghadi chose sample sites to reflect this diversity. They analyzed samples for bacterial load, pH, dissolved oxygen, metal concentrations, and other parameters.
Water in less developed parts of the watershed returned to normal in days, Rifai says. But there were more sustained changes in the water quality of Houston’s main waterway, Buffalo Bayou. The bayou passes through a shipping channel used by the petrochemical industry, and its banks are heavily industrialized. Downstream from industrial and superfund sites, Buffalo Bayou water had elevated levels of chromium, nickel, arsenic, and lead for as long as two weeks after the storm. Trace-metal concentrations did not exceed safe drinking water standards. But hundreds of kilograms of toxic metals from the entire area would have been flushed into the region’s estuary, Galveston Bay. And this is what concerns Rifai. “The total amount of metals going into the bay is really big,” she says.
This estuary is home to hundreds of species of birds, and its shrimp, blue crabs, oysters, and many kinds of fish support the local commercial fishing industry. This body of water connects with the Gulf of Mexico, home to another rich ecosystem that includes coral reefs.
There was one surprising result: The pH of Buffalo Bayou dipped as low as 5.67 after the storm. Rifai suspects the cause was the acidic soil of Houston’s flood reservoirs. The storm filled these reservoirs, allowing the trapped water to become acidic. Harvey dumped so much water in the region that the reservoirs filled and the Army Corps of Engineers released this water, which eventually flowed into Galveston Bay via the Buffalo Bayou, where its acidity likely stressed creatures. This new study doesn’t connect water quality measurements to changes in ecological health, but Rifai says biologists are continuing to look for impacts.
Metal contamination is commonly seen after industrial areas are flooded, but acidification is “something I never would have anticipated,” says John Pardue, an environmental engineer at Lousiana State University, who studied water quality in the aftermath of 2005’s Hurricane Katrina. This surprising result shows that researchers are still learning about how these storms affect water quality, he says.
Such extreme storms occur infrequently, and institutional knowledge gets lost in the meantime, Pardue says. “That’s why studies like this are so important—by documenting what happens, researchers can help agencies draw lessons from them,” he says.
Agencies in hurricane-prone areas already evaluate how sites like wastewater-treatment plants might be vulnerable to flooding. But Rifai hopes her work will encourage regulators and companies in these areas, particularly around the Gulf of Mexico, to consider sites like industrial facilities and superfund sites. “All of these need a fresh look to evaluate their vulnerabilities,” she says.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/water/Hurricane-Harvey-flushed-toxic-metals/97/i16
-
Apr 18, 2019 | National Law Review
Executive Order (EO) 13867 is the most recent in a series of EOs issued by President Trump in an effort to cut through red tape in infrastructure permitting – particularly for energy infrastructure and even more particularly for energy export infrastructure. The unique aspect of this order is that it directly asserts presidential authority and, thus, should be relatively impervious to bureaucratic inertia. While it remains to be seen whether all of its objectives will be achieved, it should, at the very least, stir rigorous discussion that could result in progress.
Background
On April 10, President Trump signed EO 13867, exercising his constitutional authority over foreign affairs to revoke certain previous delegations of authority to the State Department and assert exclusive authority to grant or deny presidential permits for construction, connection, operation or maintenance of certain infrastructure projects at an international border of the US (cross-border infrastructure). This action appears to be predicated on decisions such as the Keystone Pipeline and Alberta Clipper cases, which held that, particularly where permit authority is not based on a federal statute (as is the case with crude oil pipelines), the President has inherent constitutional authority to issue presidential permits and the permit issuance process is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Thus, by “taking back” authority previously delegated to the State Department, the President asserts singular authority to expedite (or delay or reformulate) the permitting process for the infrastructure projects, such as Alberta Clipper and Keystone XL, that have up to this point been conducted by the State Department.
It is important to note that this new, relatively unfettered authority does not apply to cross-border natural gas pipelines or electric transmission lines with respect to which authority remains delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to EOs 10485 and 10530 issued by President Eisenhower in 1953 and 1954. It does, however, apply to all of the projects that were covered by the State Department delegation orders (EOs 13337 and 11423), which the new EO repeals.
Goals of the Executive Order – Expediting Presidential Permits
The EO states that, over the years, presidential permits have become “unnecessarily complicated” by requirements for review by multiple federal agencies. To reduce this complexity, the President revokes the prior delegation to the State Department and retains exclusive decision-making authority over those permits.
Presidential permits covered by the EO consist of:
-Pipelines (other than natural gas pipelines covered by section 3 of the Natural Gas Act), conveyor belts, and similar facilities for exportation or importation of all products to or from a foreign country
-Facilities for the exportation or importation of water or sewage to or from a foreign country
-Facilities for the transportation of persons or things, or both, to or from a foreign country
-Bridges, to the extent that congressional authorization is not required
-Similar facilities above or below ground
-Border crossings for land transportation, including motor and rail vehicles, to or from a foreign country
Next Steps
Significant issues to be addressed in these procedures will likely include:
-The precise scope of the EO’s coverage: Does it apply only to facilities crossing the border or to “facilities at the border”? How does the President’s authority over foreign relations relate to DOE’s statutory authority to grant the export of natural gas through pipelines?
-The extent of the EO’s effect: Does a federal agency’s authority to make recommendations implicate APA and NEPA even if the President’s decision does not?
There will, of course, be others.
The State Department is to adopt procedures to assure that all actions comprehended by the new presidential permitting process can be completed within 60 days after receipt of an application.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/president-issues-executive-order-to-expedite-energy-infrastructure-and-export
-
FERC Approves 2 More LNG Export Terminals Despite Lafleur 'Concerns'
Apr 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
FERC leaders greenlighted two liquefied natural gas export projects this morning, piling on more wins for an industry that has long complained about the agency’s pace of reviewing energy infrastructure.
The agency approved Tellurian's Driftwood and Sempra's Port Arthur projects on 3-1 votes, with Commissioner Rich Glick dissenting in both cases.
Today’s decisions add credence to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee’s February announcement of a potential "breakthrough" on LNG reviews when the agency approved Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass in February. The main dispute among commissioners has been over how FERC weighs the negative impact of greenhouse gas emissions from a growing number of natural gas projects, a longstanding concerns of Glick and Cheryl LaFleur, a fellow Democrat, against their economic benefits.
LaFleur, who is leaving the agency later this year, said she wrote concurring statements on today’s LNG projects but warned the commission still needed to improve its approach to climate change.
"It’s not lost on me that people consider me the swing vote that’s allowing these LNG projects to be authorized," she said, while noting that she’s tried to study each terminal on a case by case basis despite her "considerable, and even growing, concerns about the commission’s current approach to analyzing climate impact in these cases."
“I don’t understand why we do not act proactively together to work to address the issues,” LaFleur said. "We treat climate change in our environmental analyses differently than every other environmental impact and I think we’re just waiting for the court to impose requirements on us that could add unnecessary complexities and legal risks."
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/ferc-approves-2-more-lng-export-terminals-despite-lafleur-concerns-3106863
-
America’s Gas Export Clout Set to Grow With Two LNG Approvals
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham and Naureen S. Malik
America is set to become an even bigger player in the global liquefied natural gas market after the nation’s top regulator approved two more projects to export the super-chilled fuel.
Tellurian Inc.’s proposed $28 billion Driftwood terminal in Louisiana and Sempra Energy’s Port Arthur LNG project in Texas were cleared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in a 3-1 vote in Washington on Thursday, with Democratic Commissioner Richard Glick dissenting.
The approvals followed a breakthrough at the commission, which had been divided 2-2 along partisan lines over how much climate change should be factored into pipeline and LNG projects. That resulted in Venture Global LNG Inc. getting the go-ahead for its $5 billion Calcasieu Pass LNG export terminal in Louisiana in February.
Tellurian and Sempra will face fierce competition as global gas supplies soar, however. New terminals in Australia, Russia and Qatar are sending cargoes across the world, and three more U.S. projects may start up by the end of the year, putting the nation on course to challenge Qatar as the second-largest exporter. LNG prices have plunged, calling into question the economics of new plants.
”FERC’s job is not to judge which projects are the most competitive or have the best chances of finding financing,” said Jason Feer, global head of business intelligence at ship broker Poten & Partners Inc. in Houston. “So while you need FERC approval to start construction, you still need to have all of the contracts or financial commitments you need to actually execute the project.”
Since the Venture Global approval, U.S. regulators have said LNG projects will be decided on their own merits, and the Democratic commissioners have renewed calls for FERC to pay more attention to greenhouse gas emissions in its deliberations. The commission is short one member following the death of former Republican Chairman Kevin McIntyre in January.
Both projects received final environmental impact statements in January. ClearView Energy analysts said the Energy Department may issue LNG export licenses for both proposals over the next few weeks.
Still, FERC approval is no longer a clear sign that a project will definitely go ahead, according to Feer. “Neither Driftwood nor Port Arthur appear to have the offtakers” they’d need to secure financing and make a final investment decision, so, Feer said, they have “a lot more work to do in order to actually get built.”
Unlike the three U.S. LNG terminals that are already exporting, the projects by Venture Global, Tellurian and Sempra won’t be built at existing import facilities with storage tanks or ship berths. That means they may be costlier to build.
Driftwood took a step forward earlier this month after French energy giant Total SA agreed to invest $500 million in the project, take about 1 million tons annually of LNG and raise its stake in Tellurian. But Tellurian also broadened its timeline for making a final investment decision. Port Arthur LNG signed a 20-year gas purchase agreement with Poland’s PGNiG late last year.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/americas-gas-export-clout-set-to-grow-with-two-lng-approvals
-
DOE Funding More Oil, Natural Gas Technology Projects
Apr 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Department of Energy (DOE) is providing up to $39 million for research and development projects aimed at improving oil and natural gas technologies, including those for offshore wells, methane mitigation and transmission.
Subscription required for full article.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118085-doe-funding-more-oil-natural-gas-technology-projects
-
Rick Perry Is Said to Plan His Exit as Trump’s Energy Secretary
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Jacobs, Jennifer A. Dlouhy, and Ari Natter
Energy Secretary Rick Perry is planning to leave the Trump administration and is finalizing the terms and timing of his departure, according to two people familiar with his plans.
While Perry’s exit isn’t imminent and one person familiar with the matter said the former Texas governor still hasn’t fully made up his mind, three people said he has been seriously considering his departure for weeks. All of the people spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
An Energy Department spokeswoman, Shaylyn Hynes, rejected the idea that Perry would be leaving the administration any time soon. “He is happy where he is serving President Trump and leading the Department of Energy,” she said in a statement.
The White House press office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Perry, an Air Force veteran who was previously Texas’s longest-serving governor, has enjoyed a good rapport with President Donald Trump. Trump personally asked Perry if he’d take over as Homeland Security secretary, before the president asked Kirstjen Nielsen to resign earlier this month, two of the people said. Perry declined, they said.
Perry has been preparing the agency’s deputy secretary, Dan Brouillette, for the transition, two people said. It’s unclear if Trump would name Brouillette as secretary. Part of Perry’s motivation in seeking to leave before the end of Trump’s first term is a desire to build his income before retiring, two people said.
Considered for Pentagon
Perry, 69, was previously considered for defense secretary, but ultimately was tapped to lead the Department of Energy. The agency has an annual budget of around $30 billion and is responsible for work ranging from safe-guarding nuclear weapons to maintaining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
During his tenure, Perry championed the national laboratory system and other department programs that the Trump administration sought to cut, and he tried unsuccessfully to rescue unprofitable coal and nuclear plants.
Perry hasn’t been a seamless fit with the Energy Department, where the two most recent secretaries had PhDs in physics. Perry was an animal science major at Texas A&M, and he once advocated abolishing the department during his own presidential bid.
Rumors of Perry’s departure from the agency have popped up before. Trump is said to have considered him also as a contender to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Perry is familiar with border issues from his nearly 15 years as governor of Texas, but his views on immigration haven’t always aligned with Trump’s. In 2012, Perry’s presidential campaign foundered after he accused his Republican opponents of not having a “heart” about immigrants. Texas has a large Latino population, and Perry helped advance legislation that let undocumented children of immigrants pay in-state tuition for college.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/rick-perry-is-said-to-plan-his-exit-as-trumps-energy-secretary
-
Colorado Energy Reform Bill Possibly Not as Onerous as Expected
Apr 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has signed into law the fast-tracked and controversial oil and natural gas reform bill, which revises oversight and instills increased power in local governments.
Subscription required for full article.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118083-colorado-energy-reform-bill-possibly-not-as-onerous-as-expected
-
Kinder Morgan in Discussions to Build Third Natural Gas Pipeline in Permian Basin
Apr 18, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
Houston pipeline operator Kinder Morgan is in the middle of building two projects to move natural gas from the Permian Basin to the Gulf Coast but has confirmed discussions to develop a third.
Kinder Morgan is the lead developer for the Gulf Coast Express Pipeline and the Permian Highway Pipeline — two projects that will move natural gas from the Permian Basin of West Texas and southeastern New Mexico to Corpus Christi and Houston.
Gulf Coast Express is expected to come into service in October and the Permian Highway project is expected to be in service by October 2020 but Kinder Morgan CEO Steve Kean told investors during a Wednesday afternoon earnings call that the company is in talks to build a third natural gas pipeline in the West Texas shale play.
"The demand to get out of the Permian continues to grow and the desire to be able to unlock the value that's in oil, natural gas liquids and natural gas continues to put pressure on the need for additional takeaway capacity," Kean said.
The discussions for the company to build a third natural gas pipeline come at a time of record production in the Permian Basin of and other U.S. shale plays. A byproduct of drilling for oil, the Permian Basin produces more than 14.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, U.S. Energy Information Administration data shows.
During the Wednesday afternoon earnings call, Kean told investors that at the current rate of production growth, the Permian Basin would require adding one pipeline per year capable of moving at least 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.
"I don't know that it's going to be at that pace but there is certainly interest in pipeline three," Kean said.
Developed at a cost of $1.75 billion, Kinder Morgan's Gulf Coast Express Pipeline is a 42-inch pipeline that will move 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from the Waha Hub in the Permian Basin to the Agua Dulce hub near Corpus Christi.
The $2.1 billion Permian Highway Pipeline is a 42-inch pipeline that will move 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from the Waha Hub to the Katy Hub near Houston.
Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Houston, Kinder Morgan has more than 11,000 employees across the United States. The company reported making a $556 million profit on $3.4 billion of revenue during the first quarter.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Kinder-Morgan-in-discussions-to-build-third-13776172.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
Schlumberger Looks Overseas for Recovery Amid Shale Challenges
Apr 18, 2019 | Bloomberg
By David Wethe
Schlumberger Ltd. said parts of its international business are finally starting to recover, but the world’s biggest oil services giant warned that spending by U.S. shale producers will continue to shrink in 2019.
American fracking faces "another challenging year," the Paris and Houston-based company said Thursday. Elsewhere in the world, it sees growth in the shallow-water markets, followed by an expansion in deepwater expenditure in 2020.
"The return of international growth, and in particular the return of offshore activity and exploration, is what we have been waiting for," Chief Executive Officer Paal Kibsgaard told analysts and investors Thursday on a conference call. "The last year we had growth internationally was in 2014, so this is five years of waiting, so we are more than ready for this."
Schlumberger’s business outside of U.S. and Canada is where the company generates most of its revenue, and it’s forecasting single-digit growth for 2019, with explorers slated to boost spending as much as 8 percent. The earnings potential for Schlumberger internationally is about four times that of its competitors when considering its larger market share and operating margin, Kibsgaard said.
After closing out 2018 as one of the worst performers in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Energy Index, Schlumberger has rallied 31 percent this year, one of the biggest gains in the 29-member group. Investors in January cheered the company’s plans to slash its capital spending, in part to protect dividend payouts.
First-quarter earnings dropped to 30 cents on an adjusted basis from 38 cents a year earlier, matching analysts’ estimates, while revenue exceeded expectations. Kibsgaard said the company expects to meet the 35 cents per share average of analysts’ estimates for second-quarter earnings. "We don’t at this stage see any upside to this number," he said.
The shares dropped 1.3 percent to $46.80 at 10:56 a.m. in New York, erasing earlier gains.
Exploration and production investments are “starting to normalize as the industry heads toward a more sustainable financial stewardship of the global resource base,” the company said in a statement. Higher investments in international markets are required to keep production flat, while North America land is set for lower investments, Schlumberger said.
While Kibsgaard said he was excited to see the integrated oil companies take a larger position in U.S. land, they don’t make up the majority of the rig count. He said he doesn’t expect to see a major rebound in U.S. rig activity for the rest of this year. Schlumberger forecast U.S. onshore spending by exploration and production companies to fall 10 percent this year.
"I don’t think though at this stage if we have a further run up of the oil price, we’re going to see the same rapid increase in spending as we’ve seen in previous years," Kibsgaard said. "That calls for another challenging year on hydraulic fracturing."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-18/schlumberger-sees-global-oil-industry-rebound-on-rising-demand
-
N.M. Looks for Savings with State Building Upgrades
Apr 18, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Morgan Lee
New Mexico is pushing forward with multimillion-dollar, energy-saving upgrades to its portfolio of agency buildings in the state capital, as part of an emerging climate change strategy from Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
The General Services Department that oversees more than 800 buildings plans to invest $32 million in projects to improve the energy efficiency of state buildings in Santa Fe and generate on-site renewable electricity with photovoltaic solar panels.
Improvements are planned at all 29 buildings overseen by the agency in Santa Fe — the only location where it both owns facilities and pays utility costs.
Solar installations are planned at 19 buildings, including an expansion of solar equipment at the headquarters of the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department that oversees everything from oil field regulation to energy efficiency incentive programs and state parks. Currently, two buildings overseen by General Services are equipped for solar-power production.
The state government's first battery storage for solar energy is part of the project.
Lujan Grisham has vowed to make renewable energy investments and policies that address climate change a hallmark of her administration since taking office Jan. 1, while endorsing the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit global warming.
Detailed strategies by state agencies are being developed by a specialized task force, with broad recommendations due by Sept. 15.
At the same time, New Mexico depends heavily on the oil and natural gas sector for state general fund income to support public services, including public education.
State legislation approved this year provides $20 million in direct spending on the energy upgrades at state buildings. Permission is being sought from the New Mexico Finance Authority to borrow an additional $12 million by issuing bonds to pay for building efficiency improvements in Santa Fe.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/18/stories/1060178149
-
Scientists Identify Opportunities to Better Understand Oilfield Wastewater
Apr 18, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Cloelle Danforth and Nichole Saunders
Collaborative research is a critical element for identifying unforeseen risks associated with using the oil industry’s wastewater outside the oilfield. That’s the recommendation of a new peer-reviewed paper accepted this week in the Journal of Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM).
The paper comes at a crucial moment for the oil and gas industry, which generates some 900 billion gallons of salty, chemical-filled water (also called produced water) each year. Traditionally, companies dispose of this wastewater deep underground where it is less likely to cause contamination. But economics and water scarcity are forcing questions about other ways to treat, reuse and even repurpose this wastewater. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will release a report very soon that could make it more common for companies to discharge their wastewater into rivers and streams.
The IEAM paper outlines the conclusions of a multi-day toxicity workshop where experts from the oil and gas industry, academia, government and the environmental community collectively identified key knowledge gaps associated with this waste stream and determined tools, technologies and methods needed to help close those gaps.
How toxic is it?
That’s one of the critical questions researchers are trying to answer before allowing potentially risky practices (like using wastewater to recharge our aquifers or irrigate our crops) to become the norm. In order to protect communities and environments from harm, policy makers should understand who, or what, may be at risk from varying levels of produced water exposure. Right now, we just don’t have the data we need to prevent unforeseen risks, and that’s a problem because we don’t want to “solve” one problem, only to create several more. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and clean water isn’t something to gamble with.
In the IEAM paper, experts identified specific tools and practices that can be modified or developed to properly evaluate produced water toxicity, and to develop effective management programs.
Key lessons learned
1. Don’t pass the salt
Produced water can be 10-times saltier than seawater, unfortunately most of the methods we use to detect chemicals simply don’t work in water with such high salt content. Furthermore, researchers warn that toxicity assessments for produced water must not ignore salt. In addition to developing tools that can work despite the presence of salt, we also need to evaluate how salt might influence the toxicity of other chemicals and determine what level of toxins might remain even after treatments that reduce or remove salt.2. Evaluate whole mixtures and individual chemicals
As the paper notes, there are existing scientific methods which have been used to assess other complicated mixtures (like municipal wastewater) that can also be applied to produced water. Take Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Methods, for example. These WET tests have historically helped us evaluate how different mixtures may impact certain aquatic organisms like fish or algae.Importantly, permits that require effluent to pass WET tests can stop treated wastewater from being released if it is still toxic, even though it meets limits for specific chemicals. It is difficult to measure everything in a complex waste stream. Therefore, WET tests are a valuable safety check used to help catch unforeseen issues. However, these methods alone are not enough to really understand whether or not a sample of treated produced water is clean enough or safe enough for its intended purpose.
That’s why it’s important to combine traditional tests with other emerging methods that can help identify and predict toxic effects. These newer methods are designed to evaluate the toxic effects of chemicals and mixtures on things like cells rather than whole organisms like fish or rats. EPA uses these types of methods through the ToxCast and interagency Tox21 chemical testing programs. This creates an opportunity to apply the improved methods to produced water as well. This is critically important because these new tools can help us better model how a sample might affect a variety of organisms over time in a more efficient way than traditional tests.
3. Not all wastewater is created equal
Produced water is not a monolith. It varies from well-to-well and even over time from the same well. Therefore, we need to design research programs that account for the ways different water samples could impact different environments in different scenarios.4. Evaluating impacts on land and water
The majority of available research and toxicity assessment tools primarily focus on detecting or predicting impacts on water quality and aquatic organisms – and less so for crops or soils. Given that some produced water reuse options involve land application, there is a need to develop tools to better investigate potential impacts produced water may have on land and soil.5. Better together
Chemists, agronomists, toxicologists, engineers and others must work collaboratively to collect and share vital data about chemical toxicity as well as potential risks of different management methods. Assessing risk requires information on chemical hazards and exposure pathways that don’t live with any one research group. Collaboration – including making produced water samples available for study — is therefore key to closing these data gaps.Why it matters now
The forthcoming EPA report could open up risky new scenarios for expanding discharges of produced water across the country. Some drought-prone states, like New Mexico and Oklahoma, are also actively considering a wide range of opportunities for reuse in the future. It is clear that there are vital knowledge gaps that need closing. The IEAM paper, which reflects the knowledge of industry experts, environmental regulators and scientists, confirms we have tools to advance the science before policy decisions are made. We can and should prioritize this research before significantly expanding produced water reuse outside the oilfield.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/04/17/scientists-identify-opportunities-to-better-understand-oilfield-wastewater/
-
Washington State’s Oil Transport Bill Causing Heartburn in Bakken
Apr 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
A rail tank oil transport bill making its way through the Washington legislature is stirring anxiety 1,200 miles to the east in the Bakken Shale and has captured the attention of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), which wants to modify it.
Subscription required for full article.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118082-washington-states-oil-transport-bill-causing-heartburn-in-bakken
-
Trump Order to Allow LNG by Rail Would Expand ‘Bomb Train’ Risks
Apr 18, 2019 | DeSmog Blog (In Nation of Change)
By Justin Mikulka
On April 10, first responders in Durham, North Carolina, responded to a suspected natural gas leak. While they were evacuating people from the area, the gas exploded, killing one person and injuring at least 25.
The same day Durham was dealing with the aftermath of a deadly natural gas explosion, President Donald Trump was issuing an executive order directing federal regulators to create new rules allowing rail companies to transport liquefied natural gas (LNG) by train in the next 13 months, or less.
The gas and rail industries have lobbied for years to allow LNG by rail, and have found a willing partner in the Trump administration.Last week’s executive order was cheered by lobbyists for both natural gas and rail. One lobbyist, Charlie Riedl of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, immediately spoke about the purported safety of moving natural gas in any form.
“It’s really hard to even get it to ignite to begin with in a gaseous format, let alone in a liquid format,” Riedl told Bloomberg.
Are federal regulators testing the safety?
As I wrote in January 2017, Robert Fronczak, a top official at the Association of American Railroads (AAR), a railroad industry lobbying group, gave the industry position on LNG by rail in a late 2016 presentation titled, “Getting LNG Onto the Rails.”
At the Energy by Rail conference, Fronczak noted that the Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was researching the risks of transporting LNG by rail, but that according to Fronczak, “That could take several years to do and we don’t think it’s necessary to wait all that long … We think they should allow it immediately.”
Fronczak’s presentation also included a slide titled, “What DOT Should Do?” (DOT refers to the Department of Transportation.) His presentation recommended transporting LNG in a class of refrigerated tank cars called DOT-113, which is used to move the hydrocarbon ethylene.
In 2017, DeSmog asked the Federal Railroad Administration about the planned testing around LNG by rail, but the response provided few details: “The testing is still ongoing … there’s no prediction yet on a completion date.”
Last week DeSmog inquired again about the status of this research and received a similar response: “Additional tests are planned this year and next but full details are not yet available.”
These answers are typical of the communication from the FRA these days.
In a follow-up email I asked one question, “Simply put, how can we assure people that this is safe when the research hasn’t been done?”
The FRA’s emailed response did not answer the question directly but, just as in Fronczak’s presentation, referenced the refrigerated tank cars used to transport ethylene: ”DOT-113 cryogenic tank cars have been in service for approximately 50 years transporting ethylene, refrigerated liquid (ethylene and methane have the same cryogenic and flammable characteristics) with a good safety record.” (Natural gas is primarily methane.)
The president has mandated that regulations allowing LNG by rail be in place in 13 months. However, the FRA currently isn’t providing any public information on actions the agency is taking to ensure this can be done safely. And while it is true that the DOT-113 tank cars have been moving hazardous materials safely for years, the number of these tanks cars in service is quite low compared to crude oil and ethanol. In 2015 there were under 13,000 car loads of product moved using DOT-113 tank cars.
To put that in perspective, according to a 2014 AAR document, U.S. railroads were transporting 9,500 carloads of crude oil in 2008 but by 2013, that number skyrocketed to 407,761 carloads. Crude oil trains weren’t experiencing major derailments before rail companies shifted to transporting oil in long unit trains of 100 cars or more at high volumes, which was the case in 2013, the year of the deadly Lac-Mégantic crude oil derailment.
The problems with moving oil by rail showed up once large amounts of crude oil began moving in these long trains dedicated to just moving crude oil (unit trains). As I’ve noted on DeSmog, the oil-by-rail boom also coincided with the use of heavier rail cars that could hold up to 286,000 pounds when fully loaded. The DOT-113 tank cars likely to carry LNG can hold the same weight.
In pushing for LNG by rail, Fronczak was just doing his job, which is to promote rail industry interests, that is, profits. That is what lobbyists are paid to do.When contacted for comment, the AAR pointed to its recent press release on Trump’s executive order and the AAR’s petition to allow LNG by rail. The rail lobbying group did not address questions about the AAR’s current position on unit trains and train length regulations for LNG.
However, unlike the AAR, the FRA’s job is to regulate the rail industry and protect the public from unnecessary risks.
Misleading media headlines
A headline on a story from the oil and gas trade site Oilprice.com, which also appeared on Yahoo Finance, dismisses concerns about the dangers of LNG by rail: “Environmentalists’ “Bomb Train” Concerns Are Overblown.” (“Bomb train” is the nickname rail operators gave oil trains after they began exploding with giant fireballs after derailing.)
While the headline is dismissive, the story itself includes information contradicting the headline and spelling out the very real safety concerns regarding LNG by rail. It mentions “plenty of cautionary tales from previous experiments in sending oil and gas by rail, from spills, explosions, and accidents” to the oil train disaster that killed 47 in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in 2013.
Despite its headline and after citing industry views on the relative safety of LNG, the story goes on to say, “While that sounds like any cause for alarm and cries of ‘bomb trains’ is overblown, however, there is still a wide margin for risk if a tank of LNG were ruptured or caused in any other way to come into contact with air.”
Utah’s propane bomb train previews LNG by rail
An important detail in this conversation about moving LNG by rail is that the LNG likely would travel in much more robust, safer tank cars, the DOT-113 line, than even the new cars used to move ethanol and oil. Even though rail companies now are transporting oil in newer tank cars, those cars have failed repeatedly during derailments, resulting in large oil spills.
Liquefied propane currently travels in DOT-112 tank cars, which are also more robust than the ones used for oil and ethanol. At the end of March, a train moving propane in Utah derailed and the damage led to some propane leaking. However, the derailment was nothing like the typical oil train derailment, with multiple ruptured cars and major product releases.
Why aren’t oil and ethanol moved in the same tank cars as propane? This idea was floated at one point as the Department of Transportation was preparing its 2015 oil-by-rail regulations, but industry lobbyists quickly vetoed it. As a result, the tank cars that oil and ethanol travel in remain one of the many risk factors surrounding these products’ transport.
The accident in Utah showed that the tank cars used to move propane do a better job at preventing product leases than the ones used to move crude oil. However, it also highlights the risks of moving these flammable materials by rail.
While the train in Utah didn’t explode on its own after derailing, the damage to the rail cars carrying the propane and its explosion risks led responders to decide the best way to deal with the derailed cars was to detonate them in place.
This was possible because it was in rural Utah, more than 70 miles from Salt Lake City and six miles outside a town of less than 700. However, the natural gas and rail industries’ top priority for introducing LNG by rail is to move LNG to the Northeast, which is experiencing pipeline bottlenecks.
That means trains carrying LNG would go by and through major cities.
Can you safely detonate rail cars full of flammable gas in a major population center?
As the U.S. grapples with a potential boom in moving fracked natural gas-turned-LNG across this country using long, heavy unit trains, it seems like a question the FRA should be examining. As I’ve documented over the years, we know what happened when federal regulators failed to do this before the crude-by-rail boom: We discovered “bomb trains.”
https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/04/18/trump-order-to-allow-lng-by-rail-would-expand-bomb-train-risks/
-
The Energy 202: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Doubling down on Green New Deal
Apr 18, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Even after recent setbacks in Congress, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is expanding her push for her Green New Deal.
The unconventional congresswoman found an unconventional way of sharing her message: On Wednesday, the online news publication The Intercept published a seven-minute video narrated by the New York Democrat in which she describes her pitch to drastically curb climate-warming emissions all while providing healthcare and jobs to Americans.
The film, called “A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” illustrated with hand-painted watercolor art several proposals that fall broadly under the Green New Deal umbrella.
The film is the latest indication that Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives will continue to push their climate plan despite its failure in the Senate and continuing headwinds from Republicans who have derided the Green New Deal as a socialist government takeover, sometimes describing parts of it inaccurately while doing so.
The Senate voted 57 to 0 in March to defeat the non-binding resolution, with all Republicans and four Democrats blocking it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had forced a vote on the plan, which he called a “far-left wish list.” Most Senate Democrats dodged directly weighing in on the measuure by voting "present."
In the video, Ocasio-Cortez imagines herself a decade in the future as an ex-congresswomen, and describes a future in which Democrats retake both the Senate and White House in 2020 and pass a version of the Green New Deal.
"When I think back to my first term in Congress, riding that old-school Amtrak in 2019, all of this was still ahead of us,” she said in the video.
Ocasio-Cortez trumpeted several potential energy and environmental projects, such as building high-speed trains and restoring wetlands. She also promoted far-reaching proposals such as universal healthcare and a federal job guarantee as part of her climate plan, which had given some moderate Democrats pause.
The video comes as the Sunrise Movement, the young activists whose protests on Capitol Hill spurred discussion in Washington of the Green New Deal, prepare an eight-city tour to promote their vision for a lower-carbon economy ahead of the 2020 election.
The interest in the Green New Deal is still apparent online too. By Wednesday evening, the Intercept said the video amassed 2 million views on YouTube, Twitter and other platforms in eight hours.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/04/18/the-energy-202-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-doubling-down-on-green-new-deal/5cb79b6a1ad2e52459e24590/?utm_term=.347710f3842c
-
New Satellite Wave Could Pinpoint Greenhouse Gas Offenders
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Aaron Clark
A wave of satellites set to orbit the Earth will be able to pinpoint producers of greenhouse gases, right down to an individual leak at an oil rig.
More than a dozen governments and companies have or are planning to launch satellites that measure concentrations of heat-trapping gases such as methane, which is blamed for about one quarter of man-made global warming. They are looking to track nations, industries, companies and even individual facilities to identify some of the biggest contributors to climate change.
“Space-based technologies are allowing us for the first time to quickly and cheaply measure greenhouse gases,” said Mark Brownstein, a senior vice president at Environmental Defense Fund, which plans to launch its MethaneSAT in 2021. “Oftentimes both government and industry are not fully aware of the magnitude of the opportunity to cut emissions. With that data, they can take action.”
Regulators are taking note. California is partnering with Planet Labs Inc. on a satellite to help it “pinpoint individual methane plumes” from oil and gas facilities, as well as other sources such as landfills, dairies and waste water plants, Stanley Young, a spokesman for the state’s Air Resources Board, said in an email. Researchers have suggested that methane is underestimated in most inventories, he said.
California was the site of the largest natural gas leak in U.S. history in 2015 when a broken well outside Los Angeles owned by Sempra Energy released more than 100,000 tons of methane before being plugged, federal and university researchers said in a study published in Science the following year. The utility in August estimated costs associated with the leak at $1.01 billion.
The information may reinforce shareholder pressure on companies to disclose and reduce emissions. In September, Exxon Mobil Corp. joined the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which targets to cut aggregated upstream industry methane emissions by more than 20 percent by 2025, and Chevron Corp. said this year it plans to tie executive compensation to meeting emissions targets.
Leaks constitute energy that could otherwise be sold. Oil and gas firms can cut 40 to 50 percent of their methane emissions at no net cost, which in terms of climate impact, is the equivalent of shutting two-thirds of the coal-fired generation in Asia, according to Laura Cozzi, the International Energy Agency’s chief energy modeler.
Other emissions sources are more difficult to track because they are more diffuse. Agricultural supply chains, including domestic livestock such as cattle and sheep, which emit gas as part of their digestive process, represent the biggest anthropogenic contributor to methane globally, followed by the oil and gas industry, landfills and coal mining, according to the Global Methane Initiative.
But shareholder pressure is building. Investors representing $6.5 trillion in January called on fast-food giants including McDonald’s Corp., Domino’s Pizza Inc. and Yum! Brands Inc. to implement policies that set targets and help lower greenhouse gas emissions released from agricultural supply chains.
Reducing the amount of methane emitted by livestock means more nutrients are converted into meat, according to Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef Executive Director Ruaraidh Petre. One way to improve the efficiency of an animal’s life cycle is through improving the quality of feed or pasture and introducing a certain type of seaweed into sheep’s diet has been shown to cut their methane emissions by 80 percent, he said.
The satellite projects are a mix of public and private efforts that vary from the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite to Montreal-based GHGSat Inc., which plans a constellation of satellites. ESA, whose craft launched in 2017, released a global map of methane offering insights into where the gas originated. The new satellites can detect invisible bands of the light spectrum, allowing for the identification of gases such as methane and carbon dioxide.
“Seeing exactly who is emitting what, where, how much and when is a must in order to reduce emissions and stop climate change,” said Yotam Ariel, the founder of Bluefield Technologies Inc., which plans to have its first gas-measuring microsatellite in orbit by the end of next year.
Satellite Startups
Bluefield is one of several startups entering the sector, including GHGSat and San Francisco-based Orbital Sidekick Inc. that will launch satellites and sensors to monitor leaks at oil and gas facilities. Bluefield is funded in part by Village Global LP, a venture capital firm backed by tech titans including Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. GHGSat’s investors include the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, Schlumberger Ltd., Space Angels and the Business Development Bank of Canada.
The new crop of satellites have yet to demonstrate the accuracy required to monitor emissions from natural sources like wetlands, or the agricultural sector, but may be useful in helping identify and reduce large point source emissions, according to Lesley Ott, a research meteorologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
“We are in the process of building a data store of emissions from all facilities globally,” said Stephane Germain, president of GHGSat, which aims to have a dozen emissions-monitoring satellites in orbit in the next three years. “Our ambition is to understand carbon dioxide and methane emissions from every single one of those facilities and track them over time.”
The cost to launch a 5-kilogram cubesat into low Earth orbit is as little as $295,000, according to the website of Seattle-based Spaceflight Inc. Final costs can fluctuate depending on the orbit, timeframe, launch vehicle and other factors.
Other efforts, like the EDF’s MethaneSAT, will seek to capture changes on more regional levels. Typically, satellites that scan wider swaths of the Earth offer lower resolution than those with more precise measurements, that usually have a narrower field of vision.
Tracking greenhouse gases by satellite is still in its infancy and its important to combine the data with ground-based calculations, according to Sentinel-5 Precursor Mission Manager Claus Zehner. Even clouds and air pollution can distort measurements, he said.
“The future is to combine different satellite measurements in space together with ground-based measurements and with models,” said Zehner. “You need all those components.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-satellite-wave-could-pinpoint-greenhouse-gas-offenders
-
Pressure Builds on CEOs to Navigate Climate Action: It's a New Reality for Corporate America.
Apr 18, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Murray
The days when business leaders could dodge social or political issues are coming to an end. CEO engagement on issues such as health care, sexual harassment, gun control and immigration have been steadily on the rise.
In a U.S. House committee meeting just last week, lawmakers “grilled [bank] executives more on social issues than business fundamentals,” according to Reuters, and probed them about fossil fuel investments.
And as a recent Axios Trends piece suggests, pressure on CEOs to address social issues is increasing ahead of the 2020 political campaigns. In particular, demands that they act on climate change are heating up.
Push by 6,500+ Amazon workers signals change
More than 6,500 Amazon employees have signed a letter to their CEO Jeff Bezos and his board of directors, asking for broad action to fight climate change, with more workers adding their names daily.
This followed a move in late 2018 where Amazon employees, who are also shareholders, filed petitions asking the company to release a comprehensive plan on climate change. Amazon announced in February that it will, at last, disclose its carbon footprint later this year.
This latest letter to the Amazon CEO shows that employees are becoming a powerful advocate for business leadership on climate.
Investors and millennials weigh in
The investor community is increasingly recognizing that climate change poses a major risk to business performance – and is asking companies to act now.
Environmental issues, mostly focused on climate change, and demand for corporate disclosure on lobbying and election spending, now make up 46% of this year’s shareholder resolution proposals.
At the same time, a groundbreaking survey earlier this year found that nearly 40% of millennials, who will represent one in three workers by 2020, have chosen a job because of its approach to corporate sustainability. This young workforce expects employers to have a strong environmental agenda, and want CEOs to take a leadership role.
As BlackRock CEO Larry Fink wrote in his annual letter to executives, “contentious town halls” where employees speak up about the importance of corporate purpose are becoming a fact of life.
“This phenomenon will only grow,” Fink predicted, “as millennials and even younger generations occupy increasingly senior positions in business.”
No company is immune to the pressure
In other words, it’s no longer enough to post values on a company intranet. Executives need to publicly and visibly put them to work.
For example, last month oil and gas giants ExxonMobil, BP and Shell spoke out in favor of methane regulations – despite the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back such policies. It’s a milestone that could change the course of methane regulations for good.
It still remains to be seen if oil companies’ actions will match their rhetoric, but these developments show a remarkable shift in social and environmental pressure on CEOs.
How CEOs can navigate it all
With pressure mounting on corporate America to wield its influence to address climate change, more businesses need to get off the sidelines and take charge. It’s not just the planet that demands action; every business stakeholder does.
Here’s a roadmap for how to get started:
1. Commit to corporate sustainability leadership. Deciding to take action and setting science-based climate goals are the first key steps in any company’s sustainability journey. Many companies lack the resources or expertise to get started, but programs like Climate Corpshelp companies set – and meet – climate and energy goals.
2. Collaborate for scale and impact. Partnering across industries and supply chains, and with nonprofits, can lead to transformative change. The urgency of the climate challenge has shifted the needle toward crowdsourcing for sustainability solutions, and connecting uncommon bedfellows.
3. Advocate for smart environmental policy. Only public policy can deliver the emissions reductions necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Business voices matter in the climate debate – and lawmakers need to hear them. That’s why four major food brands – Nestlé, Danone, Mars and Unilever – just backed a price on carbon.
4. Accelerate environmental innovation. The same technologies that are changing the way we work and live can change the way protect the planet. These “Fourth Wave” innovations have the potential not just to unlock trillions in value but also to supercharge sustainability efforts.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2019/04/18/pressure-builds-ceos-navigate-climate-action-its-new-reality-corporate-america
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested