Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/23/2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Sacks Visible Around City
Apr 22, 2019 | Brownsville Herald
By Steve Clark
If you’re curious about the impact, nine months on, of the city’s repeal of its single-use plastic bag ordinance after the Texas Supreme Court ruled such ordinances illegal, take a look out the window. -
Environmental Chief Vows to Listen to Scientists—Sometimes
Apr 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is promising to do a better job heeding the advice of its own scientific advisers -- but only to a point. -
Milwaukee Brewers Announce Ban on Plastic Straws at Miller Park on Earth Day
Apr 22, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
The Milwaukee Brewers on Monday marked Earth Day by announcing that they will stop offering plastic straws in the concession stands at Miller Park. -
EPA Proposes 11 TSCA Significant New Use Rules
Apr 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has proposed 11 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) for new substances that were permitted to come to market, subject to certain restrictions, in the first quarter of this year. -
US EPA Finalizes Rule Employing “SNUR-Only” Approach for TSCA New Chemical Reviews
Apr 22, 2019 | National Law Review
By Nicole E. Bothwell
On April 5, 2019, US EPA finalized significant new use rules (SNURs) for 13 new chemical substances under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Blog) The Revised IARC Monographs Preamble Fails to Meet Current Scientific Benchmarks for Evidence-Based Decision Making
Apr 22, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
Over the past few years, headlines have claimed everything from shift work to drinking “very hot” beverages can cause cancer. -
(ACC Mentioned) Colorado Lawmakers Take First Step Toward Banning Polystyrene Takeout Containers
Apr 22, 2019 | Denver Post
By Anna Staver
Two Democratic lawmakers are hoping that two weeks is enough time to pass a bill banning polystyrene food containers starting in 2024. -
US FDA Extends Consultation on Sunscreen Proposal
Apr 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended the comment deadline on its proposed rule to put in place a final monograph for non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen products. -
Feature: Does EU Pic Provide 'Consent' to Outsource Harm?
Apr 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The chemical ethylene oxide made US headlines in February, after the Illinois EPA ordered a Sterigenics’ medical supply sterilisation plant shut down over concerns about potentially carcinogenic emissions. -
Experts Call for 'Identical' ED Management for All Sectors
Apr 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The current EU regulatory framework does not protect human health and the environment from the impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDs), according to a French scientific report commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Petitions (Peti). -
Lawmakers Developing Proposals For Utility Sector Clean Energy Standard
Apr 22, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Capitol Hill lawmakers are fleshing out proposals to create a clean energy standard (CES) for the utility sector that would reward a wide range of technologies that reduce greenhouse gases, including nuclear plants and carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects... -
Quote-Unquote: EPA's Mats Proposal Draws Strong Reactions
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA’s proposal to eliminate the legal underpinning of its landmark mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants but retain the overall standard is drawing strong, diverse reactions in written comments from supporters and opponents of the plan... -
Floridians Shoot for Permanent Oil and Gas Ban
Apr 22, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney
New bipartisan legislation introduced in the House today would make permanent the existing oil and gas drilling moratorium off Florida's coast. -
Robots in the Permian? Climate Concerns Drive Innovation
Apr 23, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Chevron Corp.'s $33 billion takeover of Anadarko Petroleum Corp. shows how some of the world's supermajor oil companies are investing in the Permian Basin oil field as a hedge against a future clouded by climate change. -
New Mexico Governor Envisioning State as Clean Energy Model
Apr 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told a U.S. House subcommittee recently that she sees the leading oil and natural gas producing state also becoming the nation's leading developer of clean energy alternatives. -
Is the 'Most Popular' State Climate Policy Too Costly?
Apr 23, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Renewable portfolio standards have long prompted grumbling from economists, who would prefer a price on carbon emissions over a mandate on clean electricity sales. -
Dow Locks Union Workers out of Houston-Area Plant
Apr 22, 2019 |
By Erwin Seba
Dow Inc locked 226 employees out of its Houston-area chemical plant in Deer Park, Texas, on Monday afternoon after United Steelworkers union (USW) workers rejected the latest labor contract proposal, USW officials said. -
Trump Earth Day Message Touts Job Gains, Ignores Climate Change
Apr 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
President Donald Trump commemorated Earth Day with a message that included nods to “historic economic and job growth,” but made no mention of climate change. -
Senate Democrats Launch Environmental Justice Caucus
Apr 22, 2019 | Inside EPA
Three Democrats -- Sen. Cory Booker (NY), who is running for president, along with Sens. Tammy Duckworth (IL) and Tom Carper (DE) -- have launched a Senate Environmental Justice Caucus, an effort aimed at raising awareness of, and advancing legislation to address... -
House to Consider Paris Climate Legislation Next Week
Apr 22, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Legislation barring the U.S. withdrawal from the landmark Paris climate accord and demanding the Trump administration craft a plan for hitting its emissions reduction targets will be considered on the House floor the week of April 29, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said today. -
Goldman Sachs Earth Day Impact Report Shows Change Isn’t Easy
Apr 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is finding that it’s not easy being green. -
Democratic Contenders Lay out Climate Visions
Apr 23, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews and Adam Aton
The climate change primary officially began last night. -
Inslee Urges 2020 Rivals to Join Push for Debate Focused on Climate Change
Apr 22, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Michael Burke
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), a 2020 presidential candidate, is urging his rivals for the Democratic nomination to join his calls for a debate focused exclusively on climate change. -
We Can Take Climate Action Now – and Create Millions of Green-Collar Jobs
Apr 22, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
When Congress returns, the House will consider the Climate Action Now Act, which would direct the Trump administration to honor America’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. -
NHL to Purchase Carbon Offsets to Counter Playoff Travel
Apr 23, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Zack Budryk
The National Hockey League (NHL) plans to purchase carbon offsets to balance its air travel for the Stanley Cup playoffs, the league announced Monday. -
Most Parents Support Teaching Climate Change — Poll
Apr 23, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Ines Kagubare
Most parents want schools to teach their kids about climate change, according to a new poll. -
Mayor Wants to Ban New Glass Skyscrapers to Cut Emissions
Apr 23, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to introduce a bill banning new construction of glass skyscrapers as part of his efforts to reduce citywide greenhouse emissions by 30%.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Sacks Visible Around City
Apr 22, 2019 | Brownsville Herald
By Steve Clark
If you’re curious about the impact, nine months on, of the city’s repeal of its single-use plastic bag ordinance after the Texas Supreme Court ruled such ordinances illegal, take a look out the window.
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.
The flimsy bags that virtually disappeared from the cityscape as a result of the ordinance are making a comeback, though whether the problem becomes as bad as it was before remains to be seen.
When Brownsville enacted the state’s first plastic-bag ordinance in January 2010, the lightweight sacks were everywhere: caught in tree branches and along fence lines, clogging resacas and stormwater drains. The Brownsville Public Utility Board reported finding large numbers of the bags during the course of resaca restoration, and noted that the bags can harm resaca wildlife.
The city’s ordinance prohibited free distribution of plastic bags at grocery store points-of-sale and other retail businesses, though customers were able to get unlimited plastic bags for a $1 fee per transaction. The city dropped the fee in 2017 after Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, filed suit.
Between 2011 and 2017 the fee generated more than $4 million, funds that went toward the purchase of sanitation trucks, street sweepers and other equipment, according to the city.
The death knell for bag ordinances in Brownsville and the several other Texas cities that passed them, including South Padre Island, was last year’s ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Laredo Merchants Association v. City of Laredo. Justices sided with the plaintiff in interpreting Laredo’s ordinance as being in violation of state law, which forbids any rule to “prohibit, restrict, for solid waste management purposes, the sale or use of a container or package in a manner not authorized by state law.”
The Laredo Merchants Association did not and does not exist except as the name of the plaintiff in the lawsuit, though internet searches of the name formerly led to the website of the Empower Texans political action committee.
Following the Supreme Court decision, Paxton declared all bag ordinances in the state unenforceable. While he framed the issue as being all about the primacy of state law over local ordinances, it’s also true that the lobbying group American Progressive Bag Alliance, which represents the plastic bag manufacturing industry, has spent considerable resources successfully challenging bag ordinances and pushing preemptive anti-bag-ban legislation in Texas and other states.
APBA was founded in 2005 and originally was housed within the American Chemistry Council, according to the Sierra Club.
Rose Timmer, executive director of Healthy Communities of Brownsville, who pushed hard for the city’s bag ordinance in the beginning, said it breaks her heart to see plastic bags littering the city and few shoppers bothering to bring reusable bags to the store anymore.
“It’s sad,” she said. “I’ve had a lot of people trying to get in touch with me to see if we’re going to fight it.”
Timmer said the city was very supportive in helping get the ordinance passed, though she was disappointed when commissioners voted to repeal it immediately after Paxton’s pronouncement without making a stand.
Andrew Dobbs, legislative director for Texas Campaign for the Environment, said that in Austin, which also had a bag ordinance, plastic bags haven’t come roaring back after the repeal ala Brownsville and Laredo.
“Here in Austin, most of the big retailers have not brought the bags back,” he said. “They’re hidden away somewhere and you have to ask for them.”
California and New York have banned single-use plastic bags, and Hawaii has a de facto ban. Major cities such as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle have passed bag bans, while Boulder, Colo., New York City, Portland, Maine, and Washington D.C. are among the cities with a combination of bans and fees on bags, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Bangladesh was the first country to ban plastic bags, China, Israel, Morocco, South Africa and The Netherlands are among several other countries that have followed suit. New Zealand initiated a one-year phase-out of plastic bags last year.
Dobbs predicted the tide in the United States will turn against plastic bags just as it did, eventually, against the cigarette industry, though it’s not likely to happen soon.
“Unfortunately it’s going to be a very long-term fight to be able to get back to where we need to be,” he said. “Brownsville was leading the way. We may be one of the last ones when we get it back. But the die is cast historically. Single-use plastics bags are going to be going away sooner or later. It’s just too bad we didn’t get to keep leading on that issue.”
https://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/plastic-sacks-visible-around-city/article_69ec3ed4-6550-11e9-a2cc-ff7b79a606a1.html
-
Environmental Chief Vows to Listen to Scientists—Sometimes
Apr 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency is promising to do a better job heeding the advice of its own scientific advisers -- but only to a point.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler offered the assurance in an eight-page letter to the agency’s Science Advisory Board, after the panel complained the agency was ignoring its own research while unwinding Obama-era environmental rules throttling emissions from automobiles, power plants and oil wells.Andrew WheelerPhotographer: Bess Adler/Bloomberg
The advisory board is a panel of nearly four dozen outside researchers and experts tasked with reviewing the technical information used by the EPA, giving advice on broad scientific matters and examining agency research programs.
Wheeler said he was directing EPA offices to share information with the expert advisers earlier and to be more transparent “on key regulatory science issues,” by holding “more rapid and frequent briefings.” Wheeler also said he would be asking the board for advice on how the EPA can better tell the public about health and environmental risks. The planned changes should provide “greater support to the vital role the SAB is expected to play in providing scientific advice to the agency,” Wheeler said in the April 19 letter released Monday.
Wheeler said the agency will turn to more specialized advisory committees for specific policy recommendations, after previously deciding to disband extra-specialized subcommittees of air quality experts in order to “streamline” their reviews.
Wheeler also signaled there were limits to his interest in the SAB’s counsel. EPA decisions “are informed by scientific considerations,” Wheeler said, but ultimately, “the EPA must take account of a wide range of considerations” to ensure its actions are “reasonable, defensible and consistent with our responsibilities to the American people.”
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/environmental-chief-vows-to-listen-to-scientists-sometimes
-
Milwaukee Brewers Announce Ban on Plastic Straws at Miller Park on Earth Day
Apr 22, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
The Milwaukee Brewers on Monday marked Earth Day by announcing that they will stop offering plastic straws in the concession stands at Miller Park.
The organization added that paper straws would be available for customers upon request.
The move comes as businesses and cities in the U.S. make a concerted push to ditch plastic straws. Miami Beach, Fla., and Seattle have enforced bans on plastic straws over concerns about ocean pollution.
Ikea announced last year that it would begin phasing out single-use plastic products from all of its stores and restaurants.
Most Americans support the move. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they supported businesses shifting to biodegradable straws, according to an August 2018 survey conducted by BuzzFeed News and market research firm Ipsos.
The Chicago White Sox became the first MLB club to ban plastic straws in April 2018, according to Bloomberg Environment.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/440117-milwaukee-brewers-announce-ban-on-plastic-straws-at-miller-park-on
-
EPA Proposes 11 TSCA Significant New Use Rules
Apr 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has proposed 11 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) for new substances that were permitted to come to market, subject to certain restrictions, in the first quarter of this year.
Each of the substances is subject to a section 5(e) consent order, but this only applies to the original pre-manufacture notice (PMN). The Snurs are intended to hold the rest of the marketplace to those same conditions.
The Snurs include certain restrictions, such as how the substance may be manufactured or used, how it is released or protective measures that must be in place. These are designed to safeguard against potential risks identified in the new substance’s premarket review.
Any manufacturer wishing to use a substance outside these parameters must first submit a significant new use notice (Snun), which gives the EPA the opportunity to review it and determine if it poses an unreasonable risk.
The latest Snurs join a long queue of rules proposed since last summer that have yet to be finalised. These include:
· 145 Snurs, proposed on 1 August;
· 27 Snurs, proposed on 17 August;
· 29 Snurs, proposed in two batches on 27 August;
· 28 Snurs, proposed on 17 September;
· 26 Snurs, proposed on 3 October;
· 28 Snurs, proposed on 10 October;
· 66 Snurs, proposed on 15 November.
· 28 Snurs, proposed on 19 March.
Earlier this month, the EPA finalised 13 Snurs that were issued in the absence of 5(e) consent orders. This ‘Snur-only’ practice, while commonplace before TSCA was amended in 2016, has since been the subject of controversy.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76705/epa-proposes-11-tsca-significant-new-use-rules
-
US EPA Finalizes Rule Employing “SNUR-Only” Approach for TSCA New Chemical Reviews
Apr 22, 2019 | National Law Review
By Nicole E. Bothwell
On April 5, 2019, US EPA finalized significant new use rules (SNURs) for 13 new chemical substances under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Notably, the 13 chemicals are not also subject to orders under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) – an approach that differs substantially from US EPA’s long-standing past practice. US EPA previously outlined this “SNUR-only” strategy in a “framework” policy document in late 2017 that was challenged in a lawsuit. As discussed below, while the lawsuit was withdrawn without court review, the April 5, 2019 final rule revives the framework’s approach, making it likely that US EPA will again face legal challenges related to the issuance of SNURs without enforcement orders.
Under the TSCA New Chemicals Review Process, a prospective manufacturer (or importer) of a chemical substance must submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) to US EPA before the substance can be manufactured, imported or processed in the United States. The PMN must describe the chemical substance and the substance’s intended conditions of use. US EPA then reviews the PMN and must determine that the chemical is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of harm” under its intended conditions of use in order for it to be manufactured, imported or processed in the US. Historically, if US EPA concluded that a certain use of a substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of harm but that another use might, the Agency would enter into a TSCA section 5(e) consent order with the PMN submitter that would restrict the other use and then also issue a SNUR for the substance. The SNUR identifies the use of concern as a “significant new use” for the substance, and once the SNUR is in place, a party must submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) to US EPA before manufacturing, importing or processing the substance for that use. When reviewing the PMNs for the 13 chemicals, US EPA made “not likely” determinations for the intended uses identified in the PMNs. In contrast to the past practice, however, while other uses raised concerns, US EPA did not enter into a consent order (or issue a section 5(f) order) for any of the 13 chemicals. Instead, US EPA concluded that a SNUR alone would be adequate in each case because the use of concern was not likely to commence before the SNUR was finalized.
As noted, the April 5 final rule is not the first time US EPA introduced the idea of a SNUR-only process for determinations on new chemicals. US EPA broached the SNUR-only approach in the “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework” issued in late 2017. US EPA indicated that SNURs would “generally be effective vehicles to address such concerns and that, as a general matter, EPA will address such concerns through SNURs.”
In January 2018, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition for review of the “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework” in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Environmental and industry groups joined the litigation as amici and intervenors. The NRDC argued that the framework improperly limited US EPA’s review of new chemicals to the intended conditions of use specified in the PMN and disregarded the Agency’s congressional mandate to address risk concerns through enforceable orders. Because the NRDC withdrew the suit after US EPA indicated that it was considering abandoning the framework, there was no judicial consideration of the legality of US EPA’s SNUR-only approach.
The April 5, 2019 final rule indicates US EPA intends to go forward with the SNUR-only approach. This could lead to a legal challenge reviving previous arguments about the proper scope of the Agency’s review of new chemical substances under TSCA and whether the SNUR-only approach is lawful.© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-epa-finalizes-rule-employing-snur-only-approach-tsca-new-chemical-reviews
-
Apr 22, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
Over the past few years, headlines have claimed everything from shift work to drinking “very hot” beverages can cause cancer. These alarmist headlines stemmed from the work of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Program, which evaluates cancer hazards. The Monographs Program only examines cancer hazards (the potential of an “agent” or chemical to cause cancer) rather than cancer risks (the actually risk of developing cancer based on exposure to a cancer hazard). Many of the substances classified as cancer hazards by IARC pose a very small cancer risk, if any risk at all, to most people. But even if that risk of developing cancer from exposure to a substance is infinitesimal, once a substance is classified as a carcinogen by IARC, public policy and commercial decisions are triggered around the world.
The Monographs Program has come under significant scrutiny for the manner in which it evaluates and communicates about potential cancer hazards, detracting from IARC’s important mission of enhancing public health.For a bit of a perspective, IARC’s warning that “very hot beverages” are “probably carcinogenic” applies, according to IARC, to beverages at “temperatures above 65 °C.” Yet in the same Monograph, IARC determined that coffee drinking is “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.”
Recently, IARC convened experts to review the IARC Preamble, which describes the process by which IARC staff and Working Groups gather, evaluate, and determine the potential carcinogenic hazards of chemicals and agents.
ACC submitted detailed comments to IARC describing areas where improvements to the Preamble were needed. ACC emphasized that, given all the concerns raised about the Monographs Program—including lack of transparency, inadequate review of or failure to fully review all relevant scientific information, questionable practices for evaluating and integrating mechanistic data, lack of independent peer review, and conflicts of interest—the Preamble required a top-to-bottom, comprehensive review. However, IARC did not act on this recommendation.
Consequently, the revised Preamble, while making some important upgrades, still falls well short of meeting current scientific benchmarks for evidence-based decision making. Below we highlight a few of the major shortcomings and flaws:
IARC removed Group 4 (“probably not carcinogenic to humans”). In other words, now a chemical will be judged by IARC to be a carcinogen or, if the data is really weak, to be “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.” Under the new rules, IARC will never conclude that an agent doesn’t pose a carcinogenic hazard – at best, no matter how much data there is to the contrary, IARC will just say it’s not classifiable.
The revised Preamble still fails to require that the process start with a problem formulation containing specific, testable hypotheses. Evidence-based decision making requires formulating hypotheses in advance, during the design phase, and pairing these with rigorous scientific methodology to measure and evaluate observed results.
The Preamble still fails to include 21st Century standards and best practices for systematic review. Specifically, no guidance is provided for the objective and transparent (and reproducible) evaluation of study quality.
The Preamble still fails to incorporate external independent peer review of the IARC Working Group’s analysis, procedures, results and conclusions. The IARC Monograph Program refuses to consider as part of an evaluation any studies that aren’t independently peer-reviewed and published, except for specific instances for pesticides and pharmaceuticals – yet it explicitly resists calls for ensuring its own Monographs be subjected to such rigorous, independent scientific peer review. National Academy of Sciences reports, Cochran Reviews and other authoritative evidence-based evaluations require reports and conclusions to be subject to expert peer review (see, for example, Guiding Principles for Developing Dietary Reference Intakes Based on Chronic Disease (2017) https://www.nap.edu/download/24828#).
The revised Preamble still fails to use postulated modes of action (MOA) as an organizing principle for problem formulation and evaluation The scientific and medical communities now know more than ever before about the ways chemicals interact with biological systems to cause effects and diseases, including cancer. Yet the approach IARC maintains in the revised Preamble largely ignores this knowledge. Specific MOAs can be postulated, as has been recommended by the International Programme for Chemical Safety (IPCS; a World Health Organization program like IARC), and then the body of evidence in support of a chemical or an agent causing cancer by one or more of such defined pathways can be objectively evaluated. Unfortunately, in the revised Preamble, IARC has largely retained the evidence evaluation framework it originally developed in the 1970s. IARC does not provide any explanation as to why it is ignoring the recommended approach of its sister WHO program, the IPCS. Although the Preamble expands its discussion of mechanistic data, IARC has elected to ignore the finding that the profiles of activities in key characteristics of carcinogens cannot distinguish carcinogens from non-carcinogens. Consequently, the revised Preamble perpetuates an approach that inappropriately considers bioactivity in assays purported to measure such characteristics as mechanistic evidence of carcinogenic potential to support IARC upgrading a cancer hazard classification. The revised Preamble notes that oxidative stress bioactivity needs to be cautiously interpreted. But, unfortunately, the Preamble is completely silent regarding empirical evidence that other key characteristics of carcinogens also require similar notes of caution.
The revised Preamble still only gives lip service to obtaining stakeholder and user input as the analysis is planned, designed, conducted and reported. ACC recommended that IARC develop and implement procedures for subjecting Monographs to public comment and independent peer review before they are finalized, with the IARC Director responsible for ensuring that Monograph revisions are fully responsive to all public and peer review comments before each Monograph is published. Unfortunately, IARC failed to act on these recommendations in revising the Preamble. IARC continues to relegate experts outside of academia or research institutes to observer status. This is apparently based on the belief that scientists from other organizations or affiliations inherently possess conflicts of interest. But bias and conflict of interest are not limited only to industry. Nonprofit- and government-sponsored studies may be biased, and financial conflict is not the only source of conflict of interest. Other potential conflicts include “white hat bias – bias leading to distortion of information in the service of what may be perceived to be righteous ends,” including desire for academic or public recognition.What does this all mean?
This was a tremendous opportunity that’s been lost. IARC had the opportunity to bring its Monographs policies, practices and procedures up to the benchmarks of 21st century evidence-based decision making and it failed to do so.
As a consequence, we’ll likely continue to see IARC Monograph classifications that are scientifically flawed, generate unfounded concern and create perceptions of health risks where, at environmental levels of exposures, no significant risks actually exist.
This leaves us wondering – is IARC really concerned about protecting public health? Or is IARC failing to properly update the scientific approaches of the Monographs Program to meet present day evidence evaluation benchmarks so it can continue to make headlines under the color of authority? In which case, ask yourself, whose health and well-being are really being served?
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/04/the-revised-iarc-monographs-preamble-fails-to-meet-current-scientific-benchmarks-for-evidence-based-decision-making/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Colorado Lawmakers Take First Step Toward Banning Polystyrene Takeout Containers
Apr 22, 2019 | Denver Post
By Anna Staver
Two Democratic lawmakers are hoping that two weeks is enough time to pass a bill banning polystyrene food containers starting in 2024.
“The dangers of (polystyrene) for the environment, for wildlife are well known,” Sen. Mike Foote, D-Longmont, told a Senate committee Monday night during his bill’s first hearing. “It’s well past time as a state that we move on to something else.”
Senate Bill 243 doesn’t specify what kinds of takeout containers Colorado restaurants should use if the state bans polystyrene containers — commonly known by the brand name Styrofoam. It just eliminates that kind of container in 4.5 years.
It’s a different way of getting to the goal Foote and Sen. Dominick Moreno, D-Commerce City, share to transition Colorado toward more recyclable and compostable takeout containers. Their first attempt of the 2019 legislative session failed. They withdrew a bill that would have removed a state rule that prohibits cities and counties from setting their own standards for takeout containers.
“What we heard most from opponents of that bill is they would prefer a standard, uniform approach — a statewide approach,” Moreno said.
The change and long timeline for implementation moved the Colorado Restaurant Association from opposed to neutral on this bill, but the American Chemistry Council and food container manufacturers like Dart Container oppose it.
“Simply banning polystyrene food service products does not automatically result in” more containers being recycled, said Tim Shestek, the first of state affairs for the American Chemistry Council. “There’s a big difference between what’s technically recyclable and what’s actually being recycled.”
He told the committee that cities that banned polystyrene have found it created a “litter substitution situation.” He’d prefer to see a bill that requires compostable and recyclable containers.
Dart representative Rob Gunther said his company collects and recycles its polystyrene containers.
“It’s just completely fictitious to say that polystyrene can’t be recycled,” Gunther said. “It’s amazing what’s happening to polystyrene products and the opportunities to reuse it.”
But Boulder Mayor Suzanne Jones, who is also the executive director of Eco-Cycle, disputed Gunther’s assertions. She said polystyrene is one of the hardest plastics to recycle because of its toxicity and low value on the recycling market.
“There’s a reason we don’t take them in Boulder County,” Jones said.
Another concern Gunther raised is one that’s likely to keep coming up as the legislature reaches the constitutionally mandated end of its 120-day session next week. He told the committee that the public in general — and restaurant owners in particular — didn’t know this bill had been introduced or was set for a hearing Monday.
“I urge you to table this measure, so these people can have their voice and not feel like they are being blind sighted,” Gunther said.
The committee voted 3-2 to send the bill to the full Senate.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/22/colorado-styrofoam-polystyrene-containers-ban/
-
US FDA Extends Consultation on Sunscreen Proposal
Apr 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has extended the comment deadline on its proposed rule to put in place a final monograph for non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen products.
The proposal, issued in February, outlines the conditions under which a product is designated as ‘generally recognised as safe and effective’ (Grase) and can therefore be brought to market without undergoing the new drug application process.
In it, the agency requested additional data on 12 of the 16 currently marketed active ingredients in sunscreen, on the grounds that it currently has "insufficient safety data to make a positive Grase determination" for these.
Only two substances – zinc oxide and titanium dioxide – have been proposed to be recognised as Grase. Two others – aminobenzoic acid (PABA) and trolamine salicylate – are slated to be classified as ‘not Grase’.
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) and the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) jointly filed a request for extension. The extra time is needed "to address the numerous topics contemplated in the proposed rule, including but not limited to broad spectrum tests, the sun protection factor claim, dosage forms and recordkeeping requirements."
The request, however, did not extend to the 12 substances for which the agency is seeking additional data. The groups wrote that they "anticipate requesting that FDA defer further rulemaking on those active sunscreen ingredients subsequently identified by industry and for which additional data may be provided."
The FDA has extended the consultation by 30 days, to 27 June. It noted that this extension applies both to comments and to requests to defer rulemaking on specific ingredients.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76704/us-fda-extends-consultation-on-sunscreen-proposal
-
Feature: Does EU Pic Provide 'Consent' to Outsource Harm?
Apr 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The chemical ethylene oxide made US headlines in February, after the Illinois EPA ordered a Sterigenics’ medical supply sterilisation plant shut down over concerns about potentially carcinogenic emissions.
Sterigenics called the EPA decision "indefensible", arguing that the decision was based on flawed air samples creating "needless fear". The Illinois Department of Public Health recommended further studies using a larger population base and additional sites, but the Willowbrook facility remains shut. The arguments are now tied up in court proceedings.
The US case stirred debate in the EU over the Prior Informed Consent Regulation, commonly known as the Pic Regulation, which applies to industrial chemicals and pesticides that are banned or severely restricted by EU legislation. The regulation aims to promote cooperation in the international trade of hazardous chemicals.
Ethylene oxide is used in the US to make antifreeze, adhesives, detergents, polyester, fumigants and pesticides, and as a sterilisation agent for medical equipment. The US EPA characterises it as "carcinogenic to humans" by inhalation.
In the EU, it is also used in plant protection products, laboratory chemicals, inks and toners, and fertilisers. According to the harmonised classification and labelling approved by the EU, it is toxic if inhaled and may cause cancer and genetic defects, as well as skin and respiratory irritation.
Despite the warnings, EU countries may ship ethylene oxide abroad if the importing country gives 'prior informed consent'. Some NGOs consider the practice flawed, however.
An 'egregious practice'?
The EU practice of exporting chemicals which it has banned is "an egregious practice" that needs to be stopped, says Joe DiGangi, senior science and technical adviser at the International POPs elimination network (Ipen).
"Substances that are dangerous in the EU are not somehow safe in Côte d'Ivoire," he adds. Regardless of the UN Rotterdam Convention which Pic implements, Mr DiGangi says exports of banned substances should "simply be prohibited".But EU companies argue that they are following the law and supplying much-needed chemicals to developing nations.
It isn't clear how widespread the practice is. Echa was notified of 14,000 tonnes of shipments for ethylene oxide in 2017 – but the actual volumes could be higher as companies aren’t required to notify after their first exports. The agency’s database and report do not list company names, only the substances and the EU countries in which the shipments are notified.
Other examples of this legitimate trade include ethylene dichloride, the EU trade bloc's most exported toxic chemical in 2017 with notifications at about 346,000 tonnes. A precursor for PVC, it is identified by the EPA as a "probable human carcinogen". The European Parliament and Council of Ministers have formally adopted a proposal that will add ethylene dichloride to the list of substances recognised as causing cancer in the workplace.
'Pic list'
The 'Pic list' is an array of toxic substances controlled under the Regulation that includes pesticides, hazardous carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and toxic metals, among others.
Some are either phased out in the EU or face severe restrictions. Yet NGOs argue that they are absorbed by developing nations, most of them ill equipped to manage the risks posed to human health and the environment.
Lead is one such example. The poisonous metal, used in a variety of consumer and manufacturing products from batteries and jewellery to shipbuilding and construction, is generally classified in the EU as toxic to reproduction (fertility and development) and toxic following prolonged and repeated exposure (adverse effects on several organs). There are lead restrictions for consumer products and toys and, in March, the EU General Court ruled that a European Commission Decision to allow a company to sell pigments for paints containing lead chromates in the EU was illegal.
Yet, about 13,000 tonnes of lead were notified for shipments in 2017 to developing countries including Ghana, Jordan, Vietnam and Nicaragua.Creosote, used as a preservative and antiseptic, is another carcinogen banned in the EU for consumer use since 2003 and severely restricted for industrial use since 2011. Echa was notified of more than 100,000 tonnes of exports to developing countries as well as to the US, Canada and Australia.
Cameroon, Oman, Pakistan, Senegal and others received 140,000 tonnes of benzene, a carcinogen restricted in the EU under REACH which is predominantly used to make pesticides, plastics, resins, synthetic fibres, drugs and other products. The EU also imported benzene in 2017, however, mainly to Belgium, Italy and Poland.
The list goes on with Pic’s inventory featuring more than 200 chemicals, many of them shipped to developing countries with regulations that may not be as sophisticated as those in Europe. So what is behind this practice?
Border control
Pic, in place since 2012, calls on exporters to use proper labelling, provide directions for safe handling and inform purchasers of known restrictions or bans. Annex III generates data on 50 of the most harmful substances subject to the Pic procedure. That means trades are on record. Importing countries can exercise their right to refuse certain chemicals and governments can control their borders for harmful substances.
Yet the big question remains: should chemicals deemed dangerous in the EU be sold to other regions?
Bob Diderich, head of the OECD's environmental, health and safety division, says many importing countries lack the regulatory framework to implement the same kind of restrictions as those in the countries of origin.
"We are of course aware of the lack of capacity and legislation in many developing countries to handle the information they get," says Gunilla Ericson, senior adviser, international unit at the Swedish chemicals agency (Kemi).
"That is why our work with developing countries is focused on institutional capacity development and building and implementation of national legislation for sound chemicals and waste management."Dangerous trade
"It is easy to find substances banned in the EU for safety reasons, but still manufactured and exported to countries with weak regulatory controls," says Ipen's Mr DiGangi. "It is also easy to find substances that are not banned but extremely dangerous being exported all over the world."
Many Pic chemicals – more than two-thirds of Rotterdam’s Annex III – are strong pesticides. They represent the biggest chemical exposure in developing countries, mainly due to the large proportion of people working in agriculture. Pesticides are needed to fight crop diseases that are typical in warmer climates.
Mercedes Vinas, head of Echa’s submission and processing unit, says that in many countries there is also malaria or endemic disease, which requires "far stronger and effective products" than those available in the EU.
What’s important, says Ms Vinas, is that authorities are informed about the substances they take into their country and know how to use them safely: "And then it is up to them to decide whether they agree with the import."
Importing countries should, in theory, exercise their right to reject chemicals they cannot adequately control, but this only applies to substances listed in Annex III of the Convention. Many of the EU Pic chemicals, including lead, are not in Annex III.
To ban or not to ban
The purpose of Rotterdam is not to ban the exports. The idea, Echa’s Ms Vinas says, is to help developing nations with "capacity building" for risk management and access to information.
Echa provides hands-on training to authorities in importing countries on how to implement international conventions and put a chemical management system in place, she says. Customs officials can use the agency’s data on the chemicals.
Rolph Payet, executive secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, adds that Rotterdam "expressly specifies" the right of the parties to take action that is more stringently protective of human health and the environment than called for in the Convention. It is not clear how often that happens, however.
The 'Pic list' consists of 207 chemicals in Annex I subject to varying degrees of notification procedures. Only in 47 of those substances is the full Pic procedure applied under the Convention. For the rest, an export notification, and at most an explicit consent from the importing country, is sufficient.
Much of the information is not open to public scrutiny. Echa publishes aggregate tonnages for each substance, rather than information about individual countries. Companies report their first yearly exports and, if they get the green light, can export for the rest of the calendar year, Ms Vinas says.
Compliance is an issue. A 2018 enforcement project led to 14 prosecutions in the EU, with a failure to notify Pic exports found in 10% of the companies inspected.
Industry responsibility
Ipen's Mr DiGangi wants multinational producers to withdraw substances globally if they are banned in any country. Will they do that?
BASF, which produces benzene and creosote among others, said it is "aware" of its responsibility in the international trade and export of all Pic substances and "in strict compliance" with the Regulation.
Dow Chemical, a major producer of ethylene oxide and ethylene dichloride, did not respond to a request for comment.
As for Sterigenics, the Willowbrook, Illinois facility remains closed. "We are taking all appropriate legal actions to resume operations," the company told Chemical Watch.
The OECD's Bob Diderich says the organisation will submit a proposal to develop an indicator counting the number of countries that have a regulatory framework for industrial chemicals. It would be added to an existing suite of indicators for measuring Saicm implementation – the UN policy framework to promote chemical safety worldwide.
If it is accepted, a baseline report may be ready for September 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76671/feature-does-eu-pic-provide-consent-to-outsource-harm
-
Experts Call for 'Identical' ED Management for All Sectors
Apr 22, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The current EU regulatory framework does not protect human health and the environment from the impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDs), according to a French scientific report commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Petitions (Peti).
The report provided background before the European Parliament votedto adopt a resolution calling for greater EU action to regulate EDs.
"It is very unlikely that the aim of having all EDs recognised as substances of very high concern by 2020 will be achieved, as promised by the 7th Environment Action Programme, write the report authors Barbara Demeneix and Rémy Slama.
The experts call for "identical management of EDs across all sectors for which ED use is very likely to entail population exposure, notably pesticides, food contact materials and additives, consumer goods, cosmetics, medical devices and toys".
There are currently "insufficient data requirements" to efficiently identify EDs in any sector, they write. "The use of ED tests covering all ED modalities and endpoints should be made compulsory in all application dossiers submitted by the industry," they add.
But they also identify an "urgent need" to accelerate test method development and validation, especially for the thyroid system and metabolic hormones. Regulators also need to make better use of academic publications when assessing ED properties, they add.
The authors point out that the current OECD test guideline validation process can take as long as a decade. "One of the main problems is that the country proposing the test has to find the financial and infrastructural resources to carry the tests out which, in the current economic climate, can be challenging," they say.
France is aware of the problem and has proposed a national centre for ED testing and validation in its ED strategy, they add.
Beyond test development, the experts suggest six research areas that need prioritising:
· epigenetic effects of EDs;
· effects across generations;
· effects on the microbiome;
· green chemistry;
· novel ED modalities; and
· characterising dose-response functions for ED effects in humans.
Low-dose effects
The scientific report covers non-monotonic effects, where EDs have been observed to cause stronger adverse effects at low doses than at higher exposures. As a result, "trying to characterise dose-response functions and identify safe thresholds by testing a small number of doses (usually three in some regulatory tests) may be inefficient for EDs," they suggest.
They caution that "it is unlikely that safe levels can be set", given the scientific knowledge on specific actions of EDs. "In consequence, if a substance is an ED, an 'authorised level' (or risk assessment) logic needs to be replaced by a no exposure logic."
The researchers are confident that their recommendations "will not lead to a ban of a large number of poorly characterised substances". Following the recommendations "would only lead to decreased use or ban for substances with evidence of an adverse effect and their use in products entailing exposure of the general population," they conclude.
Professor Demeneix is a team leader in a National Centre for Scientific Research unit at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. Dr Slama is an environmental epidemiologist and senior investigator at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76691/experts-call-for-identical-ed-management-for-all-sectors
-
Lawmakers Developing Proposals For Utility Sector Clean Energy Standard
Apr 22, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Capitol Hill lawmakers are fleshing out proposals to create a clean energy standard (CES) for the utility sector that would reward a wide range of technologies that reduce greenhouse gases, including nuclear plants and carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, even as the route to enacting such a program remains murky.
The introduction of specific CES bills may be weeks away, sources suggest, but increased public discussion of the policy option highlights pressure on lawmakers of both parties to respond to broad calls for carbon emissions cuts, even if they balk at ambitious efforts such as the “Green New Deal” resolution touted by many progressive groups.
Democrats appear poised to float both broad CES bills, as well as a standard focused more narrowly on renewable energy -- though there is a looming question about whether Republicans will engage on the idea and ultimately offer their support.
“If further global warming is to be held below dangerous levels, then carbon emissions from the U.S. economy must decline rapidly,” says a “discussion draft” generated by Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN), who is developing legislation mandating a CES.
The draft calls power sector cuts “more readily accomplished” than in other sectors of the economy, though it suggests that a cleaner power grid could facilitate cuts by boosting electrification in other sectors such as transportation and buildings.
“A clean electric sector, coupled with beneficial electrification, is crucial for economy-wide reductions,” the document says.
Smith is just one of several lawmakers said to be working on a CES or similar proposals, according to sources and press reports.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) recently told E&E News that he is planning to update legislation that would require utilities to obtain some percentage of their power from renewable energy.
A spokesman for Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), who included a CES in a broad climate change bill a decade ago, told Inside EPA last month that the senator could introduce a revised CES bill “in the coming weeks.”
Additionally, several press reports cite interest by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) in some kind of CES, though perhaps as part of a broader package that would include research or other incentives for CCS.
In this vein, a McKinley spokesperson tells Inside EPA that “we are working on a bipartisan, comprehensive approach to climate change, but the details have not been finalized. The goal is to invest in innovation so that regulated entities have the tools they need to comply with regulations.”
The concept also surfaced during an April 11 Senate energy committee hearing on energy innovation and “other potential solutions” to address climate change, where panel chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told reporters that she was open to discussing a CES.
Multiple witnesses at the hearing flagged a CES as a potential option for lawmakers, including Center for Strategic and International Studies energy and national security program Director Sarah Ladislaw, who suggested a federal CES could build upon existing state renewable energy standards. “[States] know what they are and know what they do. You could have a federal level clean energy standard that tries to build on that.”
'80 Percent' Reduction
But Murkowski during the hearing also cited one of several unresolved and potentially controversial questions surrounding a CES -- the extent it would recognize or preempt existing state programs -- during her embrace of an “all of the above” energy approach.
Lawmakers “start to get in our own way” when they determine “that we are going to favor one [type of resource] over the other, ” Murkowski said. She also criticized state policies that favor one kind of renewable power over another. Murkowski characterized these policies as saying, “We want renewables but we don't want your kind of renewables.”
Smith's discussion draft is a preliminary document, and source with her office says some elements have already changed, including language related to natural gas resources.
Even so, the draft broadly outlines a mechanism for achieving a “nearly 80 percent” reduction in power sector greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2032.
But the plan envisions unique targets -- using different baselines -- for each utility that take effect in 2019, which the draft says would recognize “large regional differences” in current deployment of clean energy.
The draft plan calls for a 2.75 percent annual growth in “clean” power for utilities with little initial deployment of clean energy, reducing that rate of improvement to 1.75 percent once companies meet a “threshold level,” defined as 60 percent clean power. The maximum clean power requirement tops out at 90 percent, and the preliminary draft also includes a less ambitious 1.5 percent annual clean energy growth target for small utilities.
The draft plan also recognizes an array of resources as “clean” and awards plants either full or partial credit depending on the resource.
Full credit would go to “zero emitting” resources such as renewable solar, wind, ocean current, geothermal power and hydropower, as well as nuclear power.
Partial credit would be applied to energy resources in numerous categories, provided they beat gradually declining targets for carbon intensity, beginning with 0.5 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour -- roughly equal to the current average carbon intensity of the domestic power sector -- for the first 10 years of the program.
Resources eligible for such partial credit include biogas and landfill methane, renewable biomass, combined heat and power, natural gas including coal mine methane, and efficiency improvements to existing power plants.
Eligibility for partial or full credit also also extends to “any other sources of energy” that beat the CO2 targets, and GHG emitting resources can increase the credits by using CCS projects that either store the CO2 underground or use it for a range of industrial processes.
The draft thus appears to offer a broad range of options for qualifying as “clean” power, including for coal plants that use CCS, though the word coal does not appear in the document.
'Find Another Target'
One labor source critical of the CES concept faults such proposals for focusing on the power sector, when the sector's emissions are already dropping and transportation is now the largest source of energy-related GHGs.
“Go find another target,” the source says.
This source downplays the prospect of a CES gaining traction prior to the 2020 presidential election, but nevertheless expresses concern that it will serve as a political stand in for “something we can do” on climate that singles out the power sector over others for GHG cuts.
The draft includes several arguments in favor of a CES, including that it does not involve taxes, enables market signals and regional preferences for meeting targets, and would also reward incremental gains at existing plants.
Other benefits include that a CES imposes lower costs than a renewables-only standard, easier compliance for small cooperatives and municipal utilities, and allows targets to vary by geography to minimize impacts on coal states.
One source following the issue say that a CES also has the political advantage of being “not as complicated” as the Green New Deal, and can be defended as a “reasonable, practical” proposal for achieving GHG cuts.
But another backer of the concept says the policy option has been gaining momentum on the Hill due to the political pressure for climate policy created by the Green New Deal.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/lawmakers-developing-proposals-utility-sector-clean-energy-standard
-
Quote-Unquote: EPA's Mats Proposal Draws Strong Reactions
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA’s proposal to eliminate the legal underpinning of its landmark mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants but retain the overall standard is drawing strong, diverse reactions in written comments from supporters and opponents of the plan -- including possible legal arguments in a future suit over the effort.
The agency took comment through April 17 on its proposal to eliminate its finding that it is “appropriate and necessary” regulate power plants’ air toxics, but not to “de-list” power plants as a toxics source. The agency further proposes to find no additional risks that warrant tougher regulation from the sector, and to ease emissions limits for coal-waste burning plants under a “risk-and-technology review” (RTR) of the industry.
Here’s a select roundup of comments from some of the major stakeholders:
“EPA’s proposed revised finding is unlawful and ultra vires, and must be withdrawn. It contradicts the text, structure, and purposes of the Clean Air Act” and federal courts’ precedent. “Even if EPA had authority to reconsider its appropriate and necessary finding -- and it does not -- EPA’s proposed finding that the costs of regulation ‘grossly outweigh’ the hazardous air pollution benefits would be arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.”
-- Attorneys-general of 20 predominantly Democratic-led states.The proposal employs “a skewed parody of a cost-benefit analysis that ignores reality in favor of a gerrymandered test that deliberately elides the actual consequences of EPA’s decision. EPA uses an outdated projection of industry compliance costs that its record shows to be several times higher than the actual costs of compliance. And it has entirely excluded from its analytical focus the benefits of reductions in particulate matter emissions, including thousands of saved lives.”
-- A coalition of 21 environmental groups including Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other national groups.“EPA now proposes to reverse this supplemental finding and determine that it was not appropriate and necessary to regulate [Hazardous Air Pollutants, or HAP] from coal and oil [electrical generating units, or EGUs] because the cost of the regulation was not justified by the HAP-related benefits, and ACC agrees. EPA also now proposes not to delist EGUs from Clean Air Act Section 112 (c) and not to rescind MATS. ACC does not challenge these EPA positions at this point in time, since the impact of MATS has already reverberated through the power sector and the coal industry.”
-- The American Coal Council, backing EPA’s plan to overturn the Obama EPA’s “appropriate and necessary” finding, as revised in 2016 to consider implementation costs to satisfy a Supreme Court directive to do so.In “light of the significant emission decreases that have already occurred and will continue to take place as a result of MATS, and the important benefits to public health that are resulting from these emission reductions, it is critically important that EPA ensure the ongoing success of MATS. EPA must not eliminate or diminish the consideration of co-benefits in analyzing the costs and benefits associated with MATS (or other regulations) and the agency must abandon its proposal to reverse the appropriate and necessary finding related to MATS.”
-- The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), representing air pollution control agencies in 41 states, condemning EPA’s proposed disregard of the “co-benefits” of regulating power plants, such as reductions in fine particulate matter (PM2.5).“In determining whether a revised standard is ‘appropriate’ or ‘necessary’ EPA is correct in concluding that the benefits of regulation should be commensurate with the costs in order to avoid promulgating regulations that do more harm than good.” The Air Permitting Forum backs EPA’s finding that the Obama administration’s “primary reliance on PM2.5 co-benefits in the 2016 Supplemental Finding was flawed."
Further, “Allowing co-benefits to drive regulatory decision making for other targeted air pollutant regulations would be unlawful.”
-- The Air Permitting Forum of major industrial companies, backing EPA’s plan.“EPA should not finalize its proposed determination that regulation of HAPS from EGUs is not appropriate or necessary. If EPA nonetheless finalizes its reversal of the appropriate and necessary finding, the Group urges EPA not to rescind the MATS rule but instead to finalize its proposed interpretation that any withdrawal of the appropriate and necessary finding would not remove EGUs” from the list of toxics sources. The group says, “Jeopardizing financial investments and creating regulatory uncertainty would be particularly unreasonable considering there is no benefit from reversing the appropriate and necessary finding. The finding has no precedential effect for other EPA rules.”
-- The Class of ’85 Regulatory Response Group, representing more than 30 electric generating companies.“Rather than reconsidering MATS or EPA’s 2016 supplemental appropriate-and-necessary finding, EPA should expeditiously finalize the proposed” RTR. “Given the importance of costs and benefits analysis in the [Clean Air Act] regulatory process and the Agency’s desire to establish solid precedent on this important and oft-arising consideration, EPA should expeditiously undertake a separate regulatory process addressing that issue.”
-- The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), representing investor-owned electric utilities.“The applicability of the current single acid gas HAP emission standards under the MATS Rule would likely prevent many of these existing sources in the eastern bituminous region from remaining viable. Therefore, EPA’s Proposed Rule to create a separate subcategory and acid gas HAP emission standard for existing EGUs firing eastern bituminous coal refuse under the MATS Rule would resolve the current issues that threaten the viability of these environmentally beneficial facilities. Consequently, it is completely appropriate for EPA to propose a specific and unique subcategory and acid gas HAP emission standard for existing coal refuse-fired EGUs.”
-- The Appalachian Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA), representing waste-coal burning power plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, welcomes EPA’s proposed RTR and its creation of a new “subcategory” to ease compliance by waste coal plants.“Coal refuse has higher concentrations of mercury and other toxic metals than virgin coals.” Therefore, because “refuse-fired facilities must burn more fuel to produce a megawatt of electricity, mercury emissions per unit of energy production are higher at those facilities than at many conventional coal-fired EGUs.” Overall, EPA’s proposal “relies on an inappropriate methodology incapable of adequately assessing the health and environmental impacts of the MATS rule.”
-- The Northeast States for Co-ordinated Air-Use Management (NESCAUM), representing Northeastern state air regulators, opposes EPA’s plan to create a new subcategory for coal waste plants.“EPA uses a sleight of hand to justify its proposed conclusion that regulating hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from power plants is not appropriate.”
-- Former EPA employees in the Environmental Protection Network (EPN) oppose EPA’s proposal which they say rests on an outdated factual record and skewed cost-benefit analysis.https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/quote-unquote-epa%E2%80%99s-mats-proposal-draws-strong-reactions
-
Floridians Shoot for Permanent Oil and Gas Ban
Apr 22, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney
Correction appended.
New bipartisan legislation introduced in the House today would make permanent the existing oil and gas drilling moratorium off Florida's coast.
The "Marine Oil Spill Protection Act" would ban oil and gas leasing and development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida and the Atlantic waters off the state's coast. The current moratorium expires in 2022.
Florida Reps. Vern Buchanan (R) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) reintroduced the bill on the 49th anniversary of Earth Day, an observance inspired by a massive 1969 oil spill off the California coast. Their home-state colleagues, Reps. Matt Gaetz (R) and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D), are co-sponsors of the legislation.
The bill had 18 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle during the 115th Congress.
"Suncoast residents know the strong connection between a pristine environment and quality of life," Buchanan said in a statement. "Our beaches and wildlife are integral to the Southwest Florida lifestyle. As Florida is the only state on the mainland with two coastlines, protecting water quality and preserving our environment must be a top priority."
The Trump administration’s 2019-24 offshore drilling draft plan proposes opening up more than 90% of the outer continental shelf to drilling, including areas off the coast of Florida.
Then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke got into hot water in January 2018 after meeting with Rick Scott, Florida's then-governor and GOP candidate for Senate, and afterward tweeting that he was "taking #Florida off the table for offshore oil and gas."
Zinke later called Florida unique, much to the anger of other states' leaders.
But Interior Department officials, including Joe Balash, assistant secretary for lands and minerals management, and Walter Cruickshank, acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, have emphasized that the department doesn't have a decision yet on where new lease sales will occur. That means everything is still on the table, both have said (E&E Daily, April 5).
The next iteration of the proposal has been delayed by multiple factors, including a recent court decision.
“This legislation comes at a critical time for Florida’s coasts, as the Trump administration is due to release its revised offshore drilling plan soon, and it reportedly includes Florida’s coasts,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.
The "Marine Oil Spill Protection Act" also aims to strengthen coordination among federal agencies with jurisdiction over the issue, specifically Interior, NOAA and the Coast Guard.
It would create a Gulf Coast Regional Citizens' Advisory Council, as well, composed of various coastal interest groups from the five Gulf Coast states and federal agency representatives.
Correction: An earlier version of this story, based on draft legislation provided by Rep. Vern Buchanan’s (R-Fla.) office, incorrectly stated that the bill extended the current moratorium until 2024. The legislation filed today would make the ban permanent.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/22/stories/1060200831
-
Robots in the Permian? Climate Concerns Drive Innovation
Apr 23, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Chevron Corp.'s $33 billion takeover of Anadarko Petroleum Corp. shows how some of the world's supermajor oil companies are investing in the Permian Basin oil field as a hedge against a future clouded by climate change.
The deal, announced April 12, will leave Chevron with about 2.4 million acres in the Permian Basin, an area almost the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Its biggest rival, Exxon Mobil Corp., has 1.6 million acres.
If the companies' plans work out, the whole enterprise — from the oil well to the refinery — will be largely automated to make it as efficient and profitable as possible, using artificial intelligence and cloud computing to squeeze every drop of oil from the rock.
Shale drilling is faster and cheaper than exploring for oil offshore or overseas.
While other international companies are hedging their bets about the energy industry's future by buying renewable power companies and car-charging networks, Chevron and Exxon appear to be betting on the Permian Basin, and technology innovations for fossil fuels, to keep them on firm footing (Energywire, Feb. 19).
The quick returns in the Permian Basin can act as a hedge if there's ever a slowdown in oil demand due to regulations or a change in the world's energy mix because of a warming climate. Unlike a multibillion-dollar offshore project, which can take years to produce its first barrel of oil, the companies can reap quick profits and also walk away if the price drops.
"Nobody wants to be left with stranded oil at this point," said Rob Thummel, a managing director at Tortoise Capital Advisors. "That's one of the views about why shale's changed the game globally for oil and gas. The ability to get it out and get it out quickly and then react based on what the price of oil is ... make the returns much better."
The development is sparking criticism from environmentalists who say that more pumped oil means more CO2 emissions. Companies like Chevron and Exxon — which want to at least double their production within a decade — are under pressure from their own shareholders to do more to address the role that their industry plays in climate change.
"Acquiring more fossil fuel reserves, rather than aligning with a clean energy future, seems to be a short-sighted approach, not a deal that is likely to add long-term value to Chevron's shareholders," said Danielle Fugere, president of the activist investing group As You Sow.
Getting there
The Permian Basin is one of the country's oldest oil fields, covering 75,000 square miles in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. Its first gusher was drilled in 1923 on land owned by the University of Texas system — the original pumpjack is enshrined on the main campus in Austin. But the majors began abandoning it in the 1980s as its production declined.
The turnaround started about a decade ago, when smaller independent producers like EOG Resources Inc. began exploring the layers of shale beneath the conventional pools of oil and gas.
Until the late early 2000s, it was hard to tap into shale formations because they're dense and the oil and gas is trapped in the rock's pores. The small companies began drilling horizontally through the shale and breaking up the rock with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — a high-pressure blast of water, sand and chemicals.
The technique had already been used to produce natural gas from shale, and it proved effective on oil-bearing shale. The industry began to realize that the Permian, which has produced 28.9 billion barrels of oil over its lifetime, had billions of barrels left. Some parts of the basin have a half-dozen or more shale formations stacked like layers in a cake between 4,000 and 12,000 feet underground.
By the mid-2010s, the majors became interested in the Permian again. Exxon bought Bopco LP, owned by the Bass family of Fort Worth, Texas, for $5.6 billion in early 2017.
Chevron found itself at an advantage — it already owned large amounts of acreage through mergers with Texaco Inc. and Unocal Corp. in the 1980s and '90s. What's more, it owned much of its property outright, so it doesn't have to pay royalties.
"We have a unique advantage," Chevron spokeswoman Veronica Flores-Paniagua said in an email. "Going forward, we'll continue optimizing our land position, further increasing the value of our portfolio."
By the end of 2018, the Permian Basin was pumping nearly 4 million barrels a day, and the majors announced plans this spring to boost the production even further.
Chevron said it plans to double its production to the equivalent of 900,000 barrels a day by 2023. Exxon said it planned to produce 1 million oil-equivalent barrels by 2024, an 80% increase over its current level.
Exxon declined to comment.
'Brute force trial and error'
Technology is integral to both companies' plans, even though Big Oil isn't known for nimbleness.
Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said the smaller oil producers have done the "brute force trial and error." Now his company can do what it does best — squeeze efficiencies out of the system through repetition.
Even small improvements, such as steering a more accurate path through the shale formation, can pay big returns over thousands of wells. The company said it plans to deploy 1 million automated sensors over its operations worldwide, and it may one day be able to steer a drill bit in the Permian Basin from a control room hundreds of miles away in Houston.
"This really fits with something we've been good at for a long time," Wirth said at last month's CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference.
Exxon said it'll incorporate Microsoft Corp.'s Azure data lake — a system that stores massive amounts of information on cloud-based computer servers — in the Permian Basin. The companies say the new technology will account for 50,000 barrels a day of Exxon's projected growth.
The innovation is already creating marriages between oil producers and technology companies, and the tech industry is shopping for more. The CERAWeek conference in Houston last month, which focused on the oil industry, featured remarks from executives at Google Inc., Microsoft and Amazon Web Services Inc.
The data companies see the oil industry as a promising market, Amazon Robotics General Manager Roger Barga said on the sidelines of the conference.
"Oil and gas, like finance and health care, were hesitant to move to cloud computing," he said.
Using cloud computing systems like Amazon's — or its competitors — saves oil companies money because they can pay for as much or as little computing power as they need, Barga said. Ultimately, Amazon and other tech companies hope to provide drones and robots to help perform maintenance and inspections at offshore rigs, refineries and pipeline routes.
In the meantime, putting all of a company's information in the same place can lead to a host of improvements. At Royal Dutch Shell PLC, which is one of Amazon's clients, engineers used to spend 75% of their time just searching for the right information, Barga said. Now they can spend their time working with the information.
Other, smaller tech companies are moving into the energy business, too. Cognite AS, a startup based in Norway, plans to open offices in Houston and Austin this year. The company specializes in "liberating" data by digitizing its clients' information — all the way down to paper blueprints — and making it easier to use.
"Our firm was born out of the oil and gas industry, and we speak the language of process diagrams, work orders and computer-aided design models," CEO John Markus Lervik said in a statement.
Risks abound
Some observers are skeptical that the oil companies can achieve the level of automation that they're aiming for, however.
A company's data is only as good as the sensors and control systems it installs, Mike Train, president of Emerson Automation Solutions, said at CERAWeek. Emerson has manufactured that kind of equipment for decades.
Oil companies also face the challenge of changing their culture, Train said.
"They're buying better equipment, but the work processes are the same," he said.
And there are risks to shale drilling in general and the Permian Basin in particular. Shale wells produce most of their oil in their first few months, then decline rapidly, so it takes a constant cycle of investment and drilling to keep a steady output.
In some cases, the second round of wells drilled in a shale field has produced less oil than the first, Tortoise's Thummel said.
And the Permian Basin is also plagued by other problems, including a lack of pipelines to transport the natural gas that's co-produced with oil (Energywire, April 12).
There are periodic shortages of fresh water and a looming shortage of places to store the massive amounts of wastewater that are a byproduct of drilling (Energywire, Dec. 20, 2018).
Others say that Big Oil may still face competition from the smaller operators who reopened the Permian Basin.
The small, independent producers were willing to gamble that fracking could be applied to oil-bearing shale, and they've experimented with other new technology. EOG, for instance, began experimenting with data-driven remote drilling a couple years ago — before Chevron tried it.
While the majors have more money to develop their acreage, they also have more territory to cover and a more entrenched culture, said Adam Gersting, a senior director at the consulting firm West Monroe Partners.
"Smaller organizations have the opposite of all that. They have less area to cover, they have less capital, less people or mindsets to change," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/23/stories/1060201281
-
New Mexico Governor Envisioning State as Clean Energy Model
Apr 22, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told a U.S. House subcommittee recently that she sees the leading oil and natural gas producing state also becoming the nation's leading developer of clean energy alternatives.
Lujan Grisham told the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources during a field hearing that she has found that collaboration with stakeholders including the industry has helped with her administration’s recent actions on methane emissions and produced wastewater. The subcommittee hosted the hearing to explore the cultural and environmental impacts on New Mexico’s Chaco Canyon area, which has Native American significance.
Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, has a statewide climate change task force in place to review oil and gas regulations, with a report due in August. Citing public health and environmental protection as the primary drivers, Lujan Grisham said she intends to lead New Mexico in a way that "we take our environmental destiny into our own hands. Indeed in many ways, we already have," she added.
Under the governor, New Mexico has goals to switch to 100% carbon-free energy use by the state's utilities in the coming decades. The policy comes at a time when the Permian Basin’s resurgence in the state has pushed it ahead of California and Alaska as a leading oil producer.
Through an executive order issued earlier this year, Lujan Grisham set in motion a war on methane, directing the climate change panel to come up with a "statewide, enforceable" regulatory framework. Federal researchers have in the past pinpointed New Mexico as a major source of methane emissions. Lujan Grisham estimates that at least half of those volumes can be contained by "proven, cost-effective and innovative technologies," along with better industry practices.
"The state Environment Department has begun regular inspections of the oil and natural gas industry to identify methane leaks," Lujan Grisham said.
The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA) has supported the governor’s clean energy and environmental push. Lujan Grisham’s 100% carbon-free goal pertains to electricity generation, not oil and gas production, according to NMOGA spokesman Robert McEntyre.
Regarding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park, New Mexico restricts drilling on state lands within a 10-mile radius, but most of the nearby lands are federally managed. Democratic members of the committee indicated that they would continue to try to block the Trump administration’s efforts to step up drilling on those lands.
"Trump and his allies want to steamroll tribal communities, pave over sacred land and pollute until there's nothing left to save," said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118108-new-mexico-governor-envisioning-state-as-clean-energy-model
-
Is the 'Most Popular' State Climate Policy Too Costly?
Apr 23, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Renewable portfolio standards have long prompted grumbling from economists, who would prefer a price on carbon emissions over a mandate on clean electricity sales.
The former, they argue, would enable the market to identify the least-cost form of greenhouse gas reduction, while the latter saddles businesses and consumers with costs.
Unfortunately for the economists, many Americans disagree. Where only one state today employs an economywide cap-and-trade system, 29 have some form of RPS, as the renewable energy targets are commonly known. And RPS mandates are becoming ever more ambitious.
Lawmakers in Nevada last week passed a bill to double their RPS to 50% by 2030. Maryland legislators approved a similar bill a week earlier, though it could be vetoed by Gov. Larry Hogan (R) (Climatewire, April 10).
Then there are New Mexico and Washington state, where lawmakers recently approved legislation requiring all power in future decades to come from carbon-free resources.
It was against that backdrop that researchers at the University of Chicago released a working paper yesterday showing RPS make a costly form of carbon abatement. The authors found RPS standards increase power costs, notably through increased spending on backup generation, transmission and stranded assets (the cost of shutting down fossil fuel plants early).
"RPS policies are probably the most popular climate policy that the United States have currently," said Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist and the paper's lead author. "We felt like there wasn't a lot of information on what their costs and benefits were. It seemed natural to look at what the data were trying to say."
Greenstone's data shows that power prices in RPS states increased by an average of 11%, or about $30 billion, seven years after their passage. RPS carbon reductions, meanwhile, cost more than $130 per ton and as much at $460 per ton.
That is far more than the $15 per ton of carbon California charges under its cap-and-trade program or the $5 per ton levied on Northeastern power plants by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which covers nine Northeastern states.
"It's also worth underscoring it looks like the costs are increasing with the stringency," said Greenstone, who served as the chief economist on the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama.
He added: "Before this paper, I don't think there was a clear sense of their cost and benefits. Maybe this paper can add to people's thinking."
Other academics were quick to question those conclusions, raising concerns over the way the analysis was structured. For one, it appears to gloss over differences in state RPS policies. In Pennsylvania, for instance, waste coal is classified as a renewable resource, while in Maryland trash incinerators are eligible for renewable subsidies. Touting an average price increase across states, then, might not be the best way to measure the impact of RPS policies, they contend.
"I have some concerns with it," said Noah Kaufman, a former Obama administration official who studies carbon pricing at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. "It does seem like taking policies that are different in their structure and stringency and lumping them in one bucket, the RPS, and then trying to figure out on average what these policies do to prices."
Critics also contend the Chicago researchers did not adequately account for other state policies enacted concurrently with RPS standards that might affect emissions and prices. And in analyzing historic renewable prices, the Chicago researchers may have overstated the future cost of RPS programs, critics said. Wind and solar, after all, are far more prevalent and less expensive today than they were in previous years.
"What's not controversial is the RPS is less efficient than an economywide carbon price or a sectoral price. But as a practical matter, we don't have that option," said Jesse Jenkins, an energy researcher at Harvard University. "People know that carbon prices are more cost-effective in principle, and they still regularly prefer these kinds of RPS policies. We live in a second-best world."
Short of advocating for a carbon price, economists would do well to help inform policymakers of how to make politically feasible strategies more efficient, he said.
The passage of recent bills in Washington and New Mexico represents a welcome development in that regard. While both call for significant increases in wind and solar, they also leave the door open to traditional forms of low-carbon generation, like hydro and nuclear, and new technology, like carbon capture and sequestration. A technology-neutral standard is more flexible and may ease some of the cost concerns, Jenkins said.
"Presenting an idealized carbon price as an alternative to a real-world RPS is not the type of comparison we should be making," he said.
Meanwhile, the RPS marches on. Minnesota and New York are both considering bills that would require all electricity come from carbon-free generation in future decades.
Cue more grumbling from economists.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/23/stories/1060202267
-
Dow Locks Union Workers out of Houston-Area Plant
Apr 22, 2019 |
By Erwin Seba
Dow Inc locked 226 employees out of its Houston-area chemical plant in Deer Park, Texas, on Monday afternoon after United Steelworkers union (USW) workers rejected the latest labor contract proposal, USW officials said.
“Our Deer Park site will continue to operate in the safe and reliable manner our neighbors, employees and customers have come to expect of us; but it will be without the United Steelworkers after 2 p.m. on April 22nd,” Dow spokeswoman Ashley Mendoza said on Monday.
Dow has twice made contract proposals it called “last, best and final.” The first was rejected by 96 percent of the membership and the second by 98 percent, said Lee Medley, president of Local 13-1, which represents the Dow workers.
USW District 13 Director Ruben Garza said overtime distribution as well as fatigue and safety due to understaffing were at the heart of the dispute.
“The USW is committed to making sure that we have consistent and safe staffing levels,” Garza said in a statement. “These negotiations are about more than just money. We also must consider the safety and well-being of the workers and the entire community.”
Mendoza said Dow and the USW had reached an impasse.
“Although we have made progress on many elements, we have come to an impasse on others,” she said. “Harmonization of collective bargaining agreements within Dow across North America is critical.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-labor-dow-texas/dow-locks-union-workers-out-of-houston-area-plant-idUSKCN1RZ04D
-
Trump Earth Day Message Touts Job Gains, Ignores Climate Change
Apr 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
President Donald Trump commemorated Earth Day with a message that included nods to “historic economic and job growth,” but made no mention of climate change.
“Environmental protection and economic prosperity go hand in hand,” Trump said in a statement issued Monday. “A strong market economy is essential to protecting our critical natural resources and fostering a legacy of conservation.”
Despite critics of his environmental record -- which includes a vow to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord and dismantling Obama-era rules to slash greenhouse gas emissions from power plants -- Trump said America’s air and water quality ranks among the highest in the world.
“My administration is committed to being effective stewards of our environment while encouraging opportunities for American workers and their families,” Trump said.
A report issued late last year by several federal agencies said climate change posed a serious threat to the U.S., and is quickly getting worse. A separate report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned the world only had 12 years left to limit a climate catastrophe.
“The statement is really the antithesis of environmental protection,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.“They are not mentioning the gravest existential threat facing humanity.”
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/trump-earth-day-message-touts-job-gains-ignores-climate-change
-
Senate Democrats Launch Environmental Justice Caucus
Apr 22, 2019 | Inside EPA
Three Democrats -- Sen. Cory Booker (NY), who is running for president, along with Sens. Tammy Duckworth (IL) and Tom Carper (DE) -- have launched a Senate Environmental Justice Caucus, an effort aimed at raising awareness of, and advancing legislation to address, the impact of pollution on low-income and minority communities.
The trio made the announcement April 22, which is Earth Day, via YouTube.
Duckworth told the Hill that while all Americans have the right to a clean environment “regardless of their zip code, the size of their wallet and the color of their skin . . . too often that is not the case, especially for low-income communities and people of color."
She said the caucus will raise awareness that these communities “face public health challenges at alarming rates while too many people in power look the other way.”
Booker said that these communities “disproportionately face environmental hazards and harmful pollutants on a daily basis” and that the caucus is “an important step toward raising awareness and taking action to address this injustice.”
A Yahoo news report previewed the announcement of the caucus’ formation, where Duckworth said she was motivated to start it because of how environmental hazards are addressed in Chicago. For example, when the carcinogen ethylene oxide was released in a wealthy white suburb, Willowbrook, the population managed to attract attention and EPA is addressing the situation.
But in a poor, minority suburb, Waukegan, “they’re not getting the same type of attention,” according to Duckworth.
Booker added that the caucus is not a response to the Trump administration and its efforts to roll back environmental rules, and notes that the trend of siting industrial facilities in poor communities has “been allowed to go on in our country for years and years.”
Carper, who is ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, may have difficulty getting the committee’s attention to the issue, given that Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) has been generally hostile to such efforts, the article warns.
Nonetheless Booker and Duckworth -- who are also members of the committee -- said they hope to attract Republican support and identify Sens. Richard Shelby (AL) and Thom Tillis (NC) as possible members. Duckworth hopes all 100 senators will join.
In response to the announcement, League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski said in a statement that the group is “thrilled” that the lawmakers “have launched this critical new caucus that shines a much-needed spotlight on the long history of environmental racism in the United States.” Low-income and minority populations suffer from higher rates of asthma, cancer and other diseases, “yet their voices have historically been ignored by politicians. . . . We encourage every senator to join the Environmental Justice Caucus.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-democrats-launch-environmental-justice-caucus
-
House to Consider Paris Climate Legislation Next Week
Apr 22, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Legislation barring the U.S. withdrawal from the landmark Paris climate accord and demanding the Trump administration craft a plan for hitting its emissions reduction targets will be considered on the House floor the week of April 29, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said today.
The "Climate Action Now Act" H.R. 9 (116), marks the first concrete step for the House under Democratic control toward action to address climate change. But its consideration is largely symbolic with the Republican-controlled Senate unlikely to take it up and President Donald Trump’s pledge to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement in 2020.
“Next week, House Democrats will bring to the Floor H.R. 9, legislation taking action to affirm the principles of the Paris climate agreement even after President Trump stated his intention to withdraw our country from that pact,” Hoyer said in a statement. “We recognize that climate change is a critical threat, and only a serious and sustained effort that is global in scope can succeed in slowing it and, hopefully, setting our planet back into a sustainable trajectory.”
Democrats argue the legislation is a vital signal to send to the international community that the Trump administration’s inaction on climate change does not represent the broader domestic perspective.
Amendments to the legislation are due April 25 by 11 a.m., according to a Rules Committee notice. The House Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce committees both advanced the bill on party-line votes earlier this month.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/house-to-consider-paris-climate-legislation-next-week-3118845
-
Goldman Sachs Earth Day Impact Report Shows Change Isn’t Easy
Apr 22, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is finding that it’s not easy being green.
In its annual sustainability report, released April 22, the Wall Street firm reported that dedicated impact investing and environmental, social and governance assets under management rose to $17 billion at the end of 2018, from $11.3 billion a year earlier. Goldman also became the first bank to publish its report in line with Sustainability Accounting Standards Board metrics sought by investors to highlight material environmental issues in the business.
But the report also showed that making progress is challenging. While Goldman has increased investment in green operations to $1.2 billion in 2018 from $701 million in 2017, it had more trouble gaining energy efficiency and managing carbon emissions. Employees seemed to leave their offices more often or go farther afield, with emissions from business travel rising 37 percent from two years earlier.
With workers moving to new buildings in the U.K. and India, progress on Goldman’s energy-efficiency goal backslid to just a 10 percent reduction from 2015 levels, down from 12 percent in 2017. Water-reduction progress also went backward, and the firm disposed of more e-waste. But with the new properties in London and Bengaluru designed to some of the highest green-building standards, the bank is likely to improve again this year.
Goldman has also been pushing to increase staff diversity. Women represented 38.7 percent of the company’s workforce last year. That was up slightly, from 37.8 percent in 2017. The percentage of female executives, senior officials and managers climbed to 23 percent from 21.6 percent, and black employees rose to 6.2 percent of the total staff from 5.4 percent.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/goldman-sachs-earth-day-impact-report-shows-change-isnt-easy
-
Democratic Contenders Lay out Climate Visions
Apr 23, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews and Adam Aton
The climate change primary officially began last night.
The starting gun was a marathon session of five town halls that CNN hosted with five of the big names running as Democrats for president. In most of the hourlong sessions, global warming was a major theme, and — more significantly — all five candidates started to sketch out how their visions on climate change would differ from those of their rivals.
The focus wasn't a total surprise.
Four of the five contenders on stage — Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — are co-sponsors of a congressional resolution that promotes the Green New Deal. The fifth, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, previously had voiced support for the Green New Deal and its plan of fighting climate change with a massive, government-led jobs program.
What was new last night, however, were the individual touches the candidates put on their approaches to global warming.
Warren called for a moratorium on oil drilling on federal lands. Harris emphasized the need for a comprehensive policy to deal with future water shortages. Sanders said he wants to find new jobs for workers in the fossil fuel industry. Klobuchar voiced support for some of the major climate policies of the Obama administration. And Buttigieg, who at 37 years old is the youngest of the five, framed the issue as a critical fight for his generation.
The emphasis on climate could yield some political dividends, too, at least in the Democratic primary. A recent poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa — an early 2020 bellwether state — found that nearly 3 out of 4 of them believed it was either "very important" or "somewhat important" for the eventual Democratic nominee to back the Green New Deal (Climatewire, April 12).
Here's more of what the five candidates said.
Amy Klobuchar
Klobuchar framed climate change as an issue that can win the rural Midwestern voters who helped put President Trump in the White House.
"This is what I say to my rural voters: I say look at what's in front of you, because for too long we've been talking about it, I think, as more of a coastal issue," the Minnesota Democrat said.
Hurricanes and rising sea levels are a problem, she said, "but let's talk about it from the middle of the country, where we need the political support. And I personally think someone from the heartland could do a pretty good job of that."
She recounted visiting Iowa during the heavy March flooding, standing with a woman who watched her century-old home go underwater for the first time ever.
Klobuchar mixed those kinds of personal tales with references to climate science, including a study released earlier that day on Greenland's melting ice sheet. That got her some of her biggest applause of the night from the town hall audience, mostly students and young people hosted by New Hampshire's Saint Anselm College.
"Climate change isn't happening a hundred years from now. It's happening right now," she said, adding that it would be an early priority of her administration.
On day one, Klobuchar said, she would reaffirm U.S. participation in the Paris climate agreement.
Days two and three would be for restoring the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan for the electricity sector and clean car standards for the transportation sector.
"I would bring back the gas mileage standards [the Trump administration] just left and said, 'Oh sorry, I know you car companies are ready to do it, but guess what, you don't have to.' That's what they did," Klobuchar said.
Those proposals are more modest than the Green New Deal resolution Klobuchar has co-sponsored. It calls for massive government investments in jobs programs, research, health care and other programs to decarbonize the economy and adapt to a changed climate — all through a 10-year mobilization.
Klobuchar said some parts of the plan might fall by the wayside.
"As you look at the goals in the Green New Deal — and nobody thinks we're going to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' in a short period of time — but we need those goals. We need as a nation to come behind goals," she said.
Bernie Sanders
Sanders was pressed to fill out details of the Green New Deal, but he mostly listed big-picture ideas already in the resolution.
While he made passing reference to his 2015 bill that had specific proposals — including emissions targets every decade, a carbon fee that would increase annually and a council to prioritize adaptation projects — he mentioned none of those policies.
Instead, Sanders said he would "take on" fossil fuel companies while allying with their workers to decarbonize the economy.
"All [those workers] are trying to do is feed their families," he said, so he would direct "many, many, many billions of dollars" to help them retrain for jobs that pay even better.
It's going to take a huge workforce to accomplish any piece of the Green New Deal, he said.
"There are buildings all over New England, homes all over New England, that are wasting an enormous amount of energy. We can weatherize those homes. I've been in homes in Vermont where the fuel bill went down by 50% because people got the insulation, the windows, the roofing that they needed. Millions of people can be helped in that respect," he said.
Framing climate change as a moral issue, Sanders elevated it above other policies.
"Y'know, of all my disagreements with Trump — on virtually every issue — the idea that he continues to talk about climate change as a hoax, or not real, is so dangerous and so harmful," he said.
Elizabeth Warren
The Massachusetts Democrat began the discussion on climate with a dire warning about what might happen if the United States doesn't immediately start to address global warming.
"I have an 8-year-old grandson, and I think about what the world is going to be like when he's 38. Will it be a place where our cities are underwater part of the time?" she asked. "Will it be a place where the oceans — large parts of the oceans — are dead? Will it be place where people around the world are just fighting for clean water?"
"We're running out of time to make change," she added. "We must make change, and we must make it now."
It's why Warren said she's an early backer of the Green New Deal. She said the ambitious climate plan adds a sense of urgency to the discussion while offering several ways to combat global warming, such as investments in infrastructure.
And not just green-friendly infrastructure, she said, but also pragmatic responses to the consequences of a warmer planet. "It's also about hardening our infrastructure so that we can withstand heavier storms, so that flooding is not so much a problem," she said.
Warren had other ideas, too.
To loud applause from the young crowd, she said that on her first day as president, she would place a moratorium on new drilling and new mining on federal lands.
"We should not be selling out for pennies on the dollar to mining companies and to oil companies our national treasures," Warren said.
She also discussed the idea of creating thousands of new jobs for "people who want to go spend a year in the national parks and the national forests to be able to give something back to the land and to make some repairs."
Critical, too, she said, is re-establishing the United States as a worldwide leader on climate. Warren called Trump's retreat from the issue "dangerous."
"Because it's not only what we're doing is wrong," Warren said. "It's that we're giving cover to the rest of the world [and] for everybody who doesn't want to have to step up."
Kamala Harris
Like Warren, Harris warned of a bleak future if nothing is done to address warming. The climate crisis represents an "existential threat to who we are as human beings," the California Democrat said.
"In a short matter of time, guys, we're going to be fighting wars over water," Harris added.
But she framed the climate fight — and her support of the Green New Deal — as more than just an environmental argument. She said there are potential economic benefits, too.
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics came out with a list last year of the top 20 jobs that are going to see the greatest amount of growth in our country over the next 10 years," she said, referring to the agency's outlook on the fastest-growing occupations. "No. 1 and No. 2? Installation and maintenance of wind turbines and solar panels."
Harris also tried to link climate change with the need to develop a comprehensive policy for water — "with an equal emphasis on recycling, on conservation, on capture of water, storage of water [and] desalination."
Pete Buttigieg
Of the five candidates who spoke last night, Buttigieg talked the least about climate change — though the South Bend mayor did insert a few notable comments at the end.
Principally, they had to do with the issue of why climate change is such concern for members of the millennial generation.
"In the same way that a candidate needs to be there for people of every religion or no religion, you got to be there for people of every generation," he began.
But, he added, the "longer you're planning to be here — by definition — the more you have at stake in the decisions that are going to be made, especially when climate change is largely going to dictate the economic opportunities and even physical safety of people our age and younger."
"I think having a personal stake in what the world is going to look like in 2054 — that's the year I get the current age of the current president ... helps you have standing to speak to some of these issues and concerns."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/23/stories/1060204645
-
Inslee Urges 2020 Rivals to Join Push for Debate Focused on Climate Change
Apr 22, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Michael Burke
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), a 2020 presidential candidate, is urging his rivals for the Democratic nomination to join his calls for a debate focused exclusively on climate change.
Inslee has focused his campaign on climate change and has called on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to schedule a debate on the issue. In a blog post on Monday he sought to enlist the help of other 2020 Democratic candidates.
"That’s why today — on Earth Day — I’m calling on you all to join me in requesting that the DNC host an entire debate on climate change," Inslee wrote in the post, addressed to his fellow Democratic candidates. "We have barely a decade to defeat climate change. And whether we shrink to this challenge, or rise to it, is the central question of our time — and it deserves a full DNC debate."
He added that climate change is an "urgent problem" and can't be solved "with soundbites and one-off questions." Inslee said that in the 2016 debate, "just 5 minutes and 27 seconds were devoted to discussing climate change."
"Many of you have stressed the importance of climate change in your campaigns. That is good — but we need to do more as Democrats. Let’s ensure that we have a robust debate on the massive national mobilization we need to take to decarbonize our economy, starting right now," Inslee wrote.
Inslee, earlier this month, first called on the DNC to hold a debate centered around climate change.
“Climate change is the biggest threat facing our nation. And it demands to be the sole focus of a nationally televised debate. Democrats must put this issue front and center,” he said in a statement at the time.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440061-inslee-calls-on-other-democratic-candidates-to-push-for-debate-focused-on
-
We Can Take Climate Action Now – and Create Millions of Green-Collar Jobs
Apr 22, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Grant Smith
When Congress returns, the House will consider the Climate Action Now Act, which would direct the Trump administration to honor America’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. The bill, H.R. 9, would require President Trump to draft a plan to reduce national carbon dioxide emissions by 2025 to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels.
So what does it mean to reduce carbon emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels in just six years? And how can we do it?
In 2017, the latest figures available, the U.S. emitted about 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, but in 2005 it was about 7.3 billion. To reach the goals set out in the Climate Action Now Act, we’d have to cut current emissions by more than 1 billion tons a year.
The good news: We already have the tools to get there.
The costs of wind and solar power are falling quickly and sharply, driven in part by policies that require utilities to build or purchase electricity from renewable sources and support customer-owned solar. Within the last decade, the cost of solar power dropped by nearly 90 percent and wind power by nearly 70 percent. Since 2014, the cost of developing wind power off the East Coast has dropped by 75 percent.
The cost of installing utility-scale batteries to store energy from renewables is also plummeting – down by 35 percent just since mid-2018, say the analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Cheaper batteries are in turn accelerating the growth of solar and wind. Solar Buildermagazine reports that analysts at Navigant Research say solar plus battery storage is already competitive with natural gas plants.
Electric vehicles are getting cheaper, too. In 2017, Bloomberg NEF predicted that electric cars would be cheaper to buy than gasoline models by 2026. Last year the predicted crossover point was 2024. The latest prediction is 2022, just three years away.
Over the past decade, both wind and solar capacity nearly tripled.
· Solar capacity has almost tripled in recent years, from 19,000 megawatts in 2015 to 48,000 megawatts in 2018.
· Wind production has also almost tripled since 2009, from 35,000 megawatts in 2009 to more than 90,000 megawatts in 2018.
· Together, total solar and wind potential is more than 14 million megawatts – 14 times current electric power capacity
So how do we reach the goals set required by the Climate Action Now Act?
A recent EWG analysis found that by replacing half the coal power plant fleet with renewables – essentially doubling wind and solar output – we could reduce carbon emissions by 600 million metric tons. Putting 50 million electric cars on the road – there are currently about 1 million – would put us in the ballpark.
To get there, we must invest more in wind, solar, battery storage and electric vehicles, as Reps. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Daniel Kildee (D-Mich.) and others have proposed. We must also set national standards for renewable energy production, maintain efficiency standards for our cars and homes, and fight efforts to bail out dirty sources of energy like coal.
In combination, replacing half of our coal-fired plants with wind and solar and rapidly expanding the use of electric vehicles would put us close to the carbon reduction goal. But that’s not all. Those actions would also create millions of green-collar jobs.
There are now three times as many jobs in renewable energy as in coal, nuclear and natural gas. Making a rapid transition to more wind and solar, while also expanding the production of electric vehicles, would create even more jobs, including high-paying manufacturing jobs.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/04/we-can-take-climate-action-now-and-create-millions-green-collar-jobs
-
NHL to Purchase Carbon Offsets to Counter Playoff Travel
Apr 23, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Zack Budryk
The National Hockey League (NHL) plans to purchase carbon offsets to balance its air travel for the Stanley Cup playoffs, the league announced Monday.
The NHL will purchase offsets for all four rounds of the postseason, the equivalent of roughly 2,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the league. In the first round of the postseason, when the greatest number of NHL teams will be traveling, the NHL plans to offset over 465 metric tons of emissions, which the league says is the equivalent of removing 99 cars from the road for a year.
“Last season, the NHL published its second Sustainability Report, which assesses the League's environmental impact and its commitment to ensure all levels of hockey - on frozen ponds, community rinks, or in-arena - thrive for future generations,” the NHL said. “The Report highlights results of various environmental efforts including: water restoration, landfill reduction, efficient electricity use, sustainable landscaping, and increased recycling.”
The NHL will purchase its offsets from Bonneville Environmental Foundation, an environmental nonprofit based in Portland, Ore.
The announcement comes shortly after Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) presidential campaign announced that it plans to offset all travel-related emissions.
“We are proud to lead the way in the fight against climate change by acting boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy sources,” campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/440102-nhl-to-purchase-carbon-offsets-to-counter-playoff-travel
-
Most Parents Support Teaching Climate Change — Poll
Apr 23, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Ines Kagubare
Most parents want schools to teach their kids about climate change, according to a new poll.
The poll, released yesterday by NPR, found that 84% of parents support climate change education, though the results vary by political party. While more than 90% of Democrats think climate change should be taught, only 66% of Republican parents agree.
The poll also found that teachers in the United States overwhelmingly want to teach climate change in schools but, for various reasons, fewer than half actually do.
"The results of the polls are encouraging but not surprising, confirming the results of earlier polls," Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, said in an email.
"It would be helpful in particular for teachers to understand [climate change], especially in light of the fact that the poll found that almost a third of teachers are worried about parent complaints if they teach climate change," Branch added.
Most states have adopted science standards that require schools to teach climate change — and those standards survived a handful of attempts this year by Republican state lawmakers to roll them back (Climatewire, Feb. 8).
But about 3 in 5 teachers say climate change is not related to the subject they teach, according to the poll. Twenty percent of teachers said students are too young, 17% said they don't know enough about the subject and 17% said they don't have adequate teaching materials.
"There's still a tremendous amount of work required to translate support for climate change education from the abstract to the concrete [such as] funding for new textbooks, lab equipment, statewide testing, and, crucially, professional development for pre-service and in-service teachers," Branch said.
The poll was conducted in partnership with Ipsos Group SA, a market research company. The firm surveyed 1,007 American adults and 505 teachers March 21-29. The margin of error was 3.5 percentage points for the overall sample, 7.3 points for the parents and 5 points for the teachers.
The new poll comes as students have organized school strikes and marches to call on elected officials to take immediate and bold actions on climate change (Climatewire, March 29).
It also comes after a groundbreaking study last week found that climate change could make it harder for kids in the tropics to attain an education.
The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that exposure to extreme heat and rain during prenatal and childhood years is linked to fewer years of schooling.
The study looked at census data from 29 countries across five different regions of the tropics, including West and Central Africa, Southeast Asia, Central America, and the Caribbean.
Heather Randell, lead author of the study and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, said that when children lack proper nutrients or are food-deprived, both their physical and mental development is negatively affected.
"As kids get worse nutrition in early life, they're more likely to have worse cognitive development and less likely to do well in school," Randell said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/23/stories/1060201633
-
Mayor Wants to Ban New Glass Skyscrapers to Cut Emissions
Apr 23, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to introduce a bill banning new construction of glass skyscrapers as part of his efforts to reduce citywide greenhouse emissions by 30%.
In announcing his Green New Deal on Monday, the democratic mayor said all-glass facade skyscrapers are “incredibly inefficient” because so much energy escapes through the glass. He said buildings are the No. 1 cause of greenhouse emissions in New York.
De Blasio says the bill would require existing glass buildings to be retrofitted to meet new stricter carbon-emissions guidelines.
“If a company wants to build a big skyscraper they can use a lot of glass if they do all the other things needed to reduce the emissions,” de Blasio said. “But putting up monuments to themselves that harmed our earth and threatened our future that will no longer be allowed in New York City.”
The mayor’s Green New Deal effort also includes plans to power all of the city’s operations with clean electricity sources like Canadian hydropower, mandatory organics recycling, congestion pricing, and the phasing-out of city purchases of single-use plastic food ware and processed meat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/mayor-wants-to-ban-new-glass-skyscrapers-to-cut-emissions/2019/04/22/117865bc-6554-11e9-a698-2a8f808c9cfb_story.html?utm_term=.39c31f46f1f3
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested