Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - April 30, 2019
-
Chemical Plastics Recycling Supported by Global Brands
Apr 30, 2019 | Plastics in Packaging
PepsiCo, Nestlé Waters and Suntory Beverage & Food Europe have joined a consortium founded by green chemistry company, Carbios, and L’Oreal to support the development of enzymatic technology for the recycling of plastics. -
Albany Set to Pass yet Another Jobs-Killer
Apr 29, 2019 | New York Post
It seems the Legislature doesn’t think people are fleeing New York fast enough: Lawmakers are set to pass yet another jobs-killer on Tuesday. The bill aims to ban toys containing “dangerous” chemicals — via an expansive regulatory... -
Bill Passes to Require Testing for PFAs in Drinking Water
Apr 30, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Lisa Rathke
Aiming to protect public health and the state's waterways, the Vermont Legislature has passed a measure that would create a drinking water standard for a class of toxic chemicals and require by year's end that public water systems... -
California Drinking Water
Apr 30, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. and Olga Naidenko, Ph.D.
How the Combination of Multiple Contaminants Raises Cancer Risks: The array of toxic pollutants in California drinking water could in combination cause more than 15,000 excess cases of cancer, according to a peer-reviewed... -
Cancer-Causing Chemical Taints Water After California Wildfire
Apr 30, 2019 | AP (In NBC News)
The drinking water in Paradise, California, where 85 people died last year in the nation's worst wildfire in a century, is contaminated with the cancer-causing chemical benzene, officials said. Officials said they believe the contamination... -
Energy Department General Counsel Nominee Confirmed by Senate
Apr 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Senate April 30 confirmed an attorney and former House aide to serve as the Energy Department’s general counsel. William Cooper, confirmed by a vote of 68-31, was nominated by President Donald Trump in January. -
Berkshire To Make $10 Billion Investment In Occidental To Finance Anadarko Bid
Apr 30, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Nicole Friedman, Bradley Olson, and Cara Lombardo
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. agreed to inject $10 billion into Occidental Petroleum Corp.’s bid to acquire Anadarko PetroleumCorp. and fight off Chevron Corp. Last week, Houston-based Occidental offered to purchase... -
N.M. Halts Some Drilling Near Chaco Canyon
Apr 30, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard has halted further oil and natural gas development on New Mexico trust lands near the Chaco Culture National Historical Park that many Native Americans consider sacred. -
New LNG Plants Could Surpass Nameplate Capacities, Adding to Supply in Coming Years
Apr 30, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Jason Lord
LNG facilities currently under construction are able to achieve output above their nameplate capacity specification. Should this additional capacity materialize on a reliable, long-term basis, it could relieve some anticipated tightness in... -
ITC Faces Criminal Water Pollution Charges Following Fire
Apr 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Water pollution stemming from a five-day refinery tank fire that raged along the Houston Ship Channel warrants environmental criminal charges against Intercontinental Terminals Co., the Harris County District Attorney’s office said. -
Charges Filed After Fire at Texas Petrochemical Facility
Apr 30, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Juan A. Lozano
Water pollution charges were filed yesterday against a company that owns a Houston-area petrochemical storage facility where a large fire that burned for days in March caused chemicals to flow into a nearby waterway. -
Harris County DA Hits ITC With Five Environmental Charges
Apr 30, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By St. John Barned-Smith and Matt Dempsey
Responding to what it called “criminal levels” of contamination, the Harris County District Attorney’s office said Monday that it has charged Intercontinental Terminals Company with five misdemeanor counts of water pollution arising from a... -
CEI Leads Coalition Urging Surface Transportation Board to Withdraw Proposed Switching Rule
Apr 30, 2019 | Competitive Enterprise Institute
By Marc Scribner
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) led a coalition of 20 other free market organizations urging the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to withdraw a harmful proposed rule. The STB has been the U.S. economic... -
CEI Renews Call Over Stalled out State of Railroad Competitive Switching Rulemaking
Apr 30, 2019 | Logistics Management
By Jeff Berman
While the interminable debate between business interests and the freight railroad sector’s chief regulatory arm continues to linger, one thing remains certain: the state of proposed freight railroad competitive, or reciprocal... -
STB Task Force Recommends Changing Rate Review Policies
Apr 30, 2019 | Progressive Railroading
The Surface Transportation Board 's (STB) Rate Reform Task Force issued a report that recommends possible changes to the board's rate review methodologies and policies. The STB established the task force in January 2018 to... -
Amendments to H.R. 9, Paris Climate Accord Bill: BGOV Closer Look
Apr 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor
Preventing the president from blocking state actions to combat climate change is among the amendments proposed to H.R. 9, which the House could consider as soon as Wednesday. The rule for floor consideration would allow votes... -
House Preps for First Climate Vote Since Democratic Takeover
Apr 30, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman
The House will consider climate legislation this week for the first time since Democrats retook the majority. Democrats are pushing a bill that would force President Donald Trump to recommit to the Paris climate accords... -
Dems Lack Unified Plan for Pushing Paris Climate Bill
Apr 30, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The House this week is expected to pass its first major climate-focused bill in almost 10 years, but some Democrats say the party is failing to put its best foot forward on an issue they consider a top priority requiring urgent action. -
Inside California's Fight Against Pollution
Apr 30, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Mary Nichols, the woman who for more than 15 years has led the fight to improve California’s poor air quality, says she’s not a fan of a nickname she’s acquired: Queen of Green. “I actually hate the title,” Nichols told The Hill during a... -
Green Groups Launch Unity Climate Fund for Eventual Democratic Nominee
Apr 30, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna
Three major environmental organizations today launched a push to raise at least $1 million for whoever Democrats nominate to run for president. LCV Victory Fund, NRDC Action Fund PAC and NextGen America said contributions to... -
The Energy 202: New York’s Cuomo Is Pitching a Green New Deal. Climate Activists Say It’s Not Green Enough.
Apr 30, 2019 | Washington Post
By Paulina Firozi
As federal lawmakers fail to pass a Green New Deal to address climate change, blue-state politicians are seizing on the moniker popular with the national progressive base to pitch their own plans to curb climate-warming emissions.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Chemical Plastics Recycling Supported by Global Brands
Apr 30, 2019 | Plastics in Packaging
PepsiCo, Nestlé Waters and Suntory Beverage & Food Europe have joined a consortium founded by green chemistry company, Carbios, and L’Oreal to support the development of enzymatic technology for the recycling of plastics.
Carbios has designed a sustainable technology that uses highly specific enzymes that can recycle much broader PET plastics and polyester fibres feedstock than other recycling technologies. According to the company, the process creates recycled PET, equivalent to virgin PET, that can be used for making bottles and other varieties of packaging.
L’Oreal and Carbios created the consortium in October 2017 with the aim of bringing the recycling technology developed by Carbios to market on an industrial scale. Under the terms of a four year agreement, PepsiCo, Nestlé Waters and Suntory Beverage & Food Europe plan to use the technology as part of their sustainability commitments and in support of a move towards a circular economy for plastics.
The process developed by Carbios breaks down PET plastics waste into its original building blocks, which can be used to produce high-quality PET plastic. This patented technology offers the potential to recycle PET plastics repeatedly – boosting the availability of 100 per cent recycled PET content for use in new products.
According to Carbios, this biological approach can handle all forms of PET plastics (clear, coloured, opaque and multilayer) and polyester fibres. The process requires limited heat and no pressure or solvents, which improves its environmental impact.
“We are thrilled to welcome Nestlé Waters, PepsiCo and Suntory Beverage & Food Europe into the consortium we have created with L’Oréal,” said Jean-Claude Lumaret, chief executive officer of Carbios. “Their contribution will accelerate our common ambition and help to industrialize our recycling technology, which brings a breakthrough solution in the treatment of plastics waste.”
Simon Lowden, president of global foods at PepsiCo added: “PepsiCo is striving for a world where plastics need never become waste. Achieving that requires collaborative efforts to drive transformative change across the packaging lifecycle. The consortium offers us the opportunity to accelerate the development of this promising enzymatic recycling technology which, alongside mechanical and chemical recycling, can move us closer to a circular economy for plastics.”
https://plasticsinpackaging.com/online/chemical-plastics-recycling-supported-by-global-brands/
-
Albany Set to Pass yet Another Jobs-Killer
Apr 29, 2019 | New York Post
It seems the Legislature doesn’t think people are fleeing New York fast enough: Lawmakers are set to pass yet another jobs-killer on Tuesday.
The bill aims to ban toys containing “dangerous” chemicals — via an expansive regulatory scheme that gives the state Department of Environmental Conservation a broad mandate to ban chemicals with no regard for how much risk they actually pose to consumers or how much of one the product contains.
Even minuscule amounts of a substance that’s only harmful in much higher quantities would trigger a ban.
Advocates have been pushing this measure for years now, originally citing the feds’ decades-long failure to update the Toxic Substances Control Act. Yet in 2016 Congress did just that, with a bipartisan law that upped federal oversight.
Having to comply with not just federal rules but state requirements that are likely to change every year with minimal notice would be a serious hit on New York’s chemical industry — which in recent years has already dropped from fifth to eighth among the states, with shipments falling from $42 billion to $30 billion.
Lining up to oppose the bill are the state Business Council and the Farm Bureau, plus a new coalition calling itself New York Businesses United for Product Safety.
They note that the measure would impact at least 65,000 local jobs, mostly in upstate cities and towns. Naturally, the bill is sponsored by two Long Islanders, state Sen. Todd Kaminsky and Assemblyman Steve Englebright, both Democrats.
If this ill-conceived turkey passes, it’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s duty to veto it. The Empire State needs every good-paying job it has.
https://nypost.com/2019/04/29/albany-set-to-pass-yet-another-jobs-killer/
-
Bill Passes to Require Testing for PFAs in Drinking Water
Apr 30, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Lisa Rathke
Aiming to protect public health and the state's waterways, the Vermont Legislature has passed a measure that would create a drinking water standard for a class of toxic chemicals and require by year's end that public water systems monitor for the chemicals.
The Senate on Friday concurred with a House amendment to the legislation. When asked whether he would sign it, Republican Gov. Phil Scott said: "I think we're getting very close on that."
PFAS — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are used in products like nonstick cookware, carpets, firefighting foam and fast-food wrappers and have been linked to health threats ranging from cancer to decreased fertility. More than a dozen states are considering legislation related to the industrial compounds, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In Vermont, one of the chemicals has been found around two former ChemFab factories in the Bennington area.
"These substances can be toxic to humans in extremely small concentrations and unfortunately have been found in public and private water supplies in Vermont," said state Rep. Amy Sheldon (D), chairwoman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, when the bill passed the full House. "This bill establishes regulatory monitoring of Vermont drinking waters to ensure that Vermonters remain safe and manufacturers are held accountable for their waste."
The Vermont Health Department has started a pre-rulemaking process for setting maximum contamination levels for drinking water, but it will be difficult for all public water systems to test for PFAS by the end of the year, Deputy Natural Resources Secretary Peter Walke said yesterday.
"We share the sense of urgency that the Legislature has and we hope that we can get it accomplished as quickly as possible, but there are lots of public water supplies out there, and so getting them all tested is going to be a challenge," he said.
Earlier this month, state officials announced they had reached a settlement with a plastics company that would ensure hundreds of people in the Bennington area whose drinking water wells were contaminated have access to clean water. Under the settlement, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics agreed to extend municipal water lines to more homes on the east side of Bennington, bringing the total number of affected homes and businesses in the area that will be hooked up to clean water to 470.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/30/stories/1060246393
-
Apr 30, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. and Olga Naidenko, Ph.D.
How the Combination of Multiple Contaminants Raises Cancer Risks
The array of toxic pollutants in California drinking water could in combination cause more than 15,000 excess cases of cancer, according to a peer-reviewed study by scientists at Environmental Working Group – the first such study to assess the cumulative risk from carcinogenic drinking water contaminants.
For an article published today in the journal Environmental Health, EWG scientists analyzed state and federal data on carcinogens and other toxic contaminants that were detected from 2011 to 2015 in more than 2,700 California community water systems.
They developed a groundbreaking method of calculating the combined health impacts of multiple contaminants in a single water supply.
EWG found that the greatest risks tended to be in small to midsize communities, highlighting that these places are often the most in need of costly treatment systems and other infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water. The greatest risks were from arsenic, byproducts of disinfectant chemicals, and hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, the notorious “Erin Brockovich” chemical.
Drinking water rarely contains only one contaminant, yet regulators currently assess the health hazards of tap water pollutants one by one. This ignores the combined effects of multiple pollutants, which is how people ingest them in the real world. Regulators commonly use the cumulative risk approach to assess the health impacts of multiple air pollutants, but the EWG study is the first known use of this method for drinking water contaminants.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes a cumulative risk assessment of carcinogenic air pollutants, known as the National Air Toxics Assessment. The EPA has also proposed evaluating some contaminants by groups, such as volatile organic compounds to make the regulatory process more efficient. EWG’s study builds on these concepts to assess tap water contaminants.
For California water systems, we compared contaminant levels to the cancer risk benchmarks published by the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, and the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System. The benchmarks are the levels that scientists calculate pose a one-in-a-million risk of cancer – the chance that one person out of a population of one million will develop cancer if he or she drinks the water for a 70-year lifetime.
Legal doesn’t always mean safe
Most U.S. drinking water systems meet all state and federal legal limits. In California, 90 percent of systems met all federal standards for the past seven years, according to the state’s Safe Drinking Water Information System. But legal doesn’t always mean safe.
Legal limits are based on economic and political considerations that usually don’t reflect the lower levels that scientists have found pose health risks. Indeed, over 85 percent of the cancer risk calculated in the EWG study is due to contaminants that were below legal limits. Legal limits may also be based on outdated science: No new contaminants have been added to the list of nationally regulated drinking water pollutants in two decades.
The study found: About 3.1 million Californians get their tap water from 495 systems in which contaminants pose a cumulative lifetime cancer risk greater than one additional case per 1,000 people. In those communities, typically small to medium size, an estimated 4,860 people could develop cancer from drinking their tap water. The largest group of Californians – about 28.5 million – get their tap water from 1,177 systems in which contaminants pose a cancer risk of one per 1,000 to one per 10,000 people. In those communities, an estimated 10,427 cases of cancer could be due to contaminants tap water. Statewide, nearly two-thirds of drinking water systems contained at least two cancer-causing contaminants in excess of one-in-a-million risk levels.
It’s clear that existing national and state drinking water standards fail to address the health impacts of exposure to multiple pollutants that may be present simultaneously in drinking water. It’s also clear that the federal government’s approach of regulating one contaminant at a time is slow and inefficient.
Federal laws governing the quality of both drinking water and water resources overall must be strengthened to limit tap water contamination and modernize our aging water infrastructure. In the absence of federal leadership, states should take steps to set and enforce drinking water standards that are more rigorous and health-protective than those required by the EPA. Ensuring a safe water supply is a fundamental responsibility of government, and we must demand that public officials at every level step up and fix the badly broken system.
What should the state of California and community water systems do?
Future applications of the cumulative assessment framework developed by EWG would advance water treatment strategies for multiple contaminants in a drinking water supply and help protect public health. The economic benefits of removing multiple contaminants with one treatment technology will help to inform decision-making.
Since 2012, California has championed the Human Right to Water as an essential framework to help communities that lack access to safe and affordable drinking water. Using the cumulative risk approach to assess communities’ water quality will help direct resources where they are most needed.
For small and midsize communities, finding affordable resources for installation of new and improved water treatment technologies is often difficult. The new risk assessment methods used in the EWG study can help communities and water utilities better evaluate the benefits of water treatment technologies that reduce multiple contaminants simultaneously.
What can you do now?
Individuals and families can take steps to make sure they and their families are drinking the cleanest, safest water possible. Use the EWG Tap Water Database to see whether contaminants were detected in your water. If harmful contaminants were found in your water, even at levels below the federal legal limits, EWG highly recommends filtering your water.
https://www.ewg.org/research/california-drinking-water
-
Cancer-Causing Chemical Taints Water After California Wildfire
Apr 30, 2019 | AP (In NBC News)
The drinking water in Paradise, California, where 85 people died last year in the nation's worst wildfire in a century, is contaminated with the cancer-causing chemical benzene, officials said.
Officials said they believe the contamination happened after the November firestorm created a toxic combination of gases in burning homes that got sucked into the water pipes as residents and firefighters drew water heavily, the Sacramento Bee newspaper reported Thursday.
Officials say that may explain why benzene, which has been linked to anemia and leukemia, has been found in tests at various spots rather than from one source in Paradise, which was largely destroyed.
The chemical occurs naturally in fire; is part of crude oil, gasoline and cigarette smoke; and is used to make plastics, synthetic fibers and other products, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control.
Melted plastic meters and plastic pipes also may have sent benzene into the system, water officials say.
Paradise Irrigation District officials say they have taken about 500 water samples around town, and they have found benzene 30 percent of the time.
"It is jaw-dropping," said Dan Newton of the state Water Resources Control Board. "This is such a huge scale. None of us were prepared for this."
Those who have assessed the problem say the water district may be able to clean pipes to some homes later this year, but it will take two years and up to $300 million before all hillside residents can safely drink, cook or bathe in the water.
About 1,500 of the town's 27,000 residents are living in the few surviving houses. Water officials have warned them not to drink, cook, bathe or brush their teeth with tap water and to only take quick showers with warm water. Those residents are living on bottled water deliver daily and water tank deliveries.
Norman Stein, 84, drives 15 minutes each week to the water distribution center, loads his trunk with bottles and stacks them in his garage.
He and his wife, Darlene, disagree on the risk posed by their tap water in Paradise. She opened the sink tap to show how clear the water is.
"I could feel an oily substance before. But it's cleared up now," she said. "This is good water."
"Only it's got benzene in it," her husband retorted. "I won't even brush my teeth in that stuff."
Stein is thinking about buying a purifying system, which some of his friends have done. But water officials have said that they don't know how well in-home filters protect residents if there is benzene in their taps.
Water experts said what happened in Paradise has been detected only once before — during a deadly fire in Santa Rosa last year. They say California must work to ensure the water is safe in Paradise and learn what could protect drinking water in future wildfires.
"This is really just the beginning here," said Jackson Webster, a Chico State University professor and environmental engineer specializing in the effects of wildfire on water quality. "The fires in Santa Rosa caught people by surprise. Now, it has happened twice. The bells are ringing."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cancer-causing-chemical-taints-water-after-california-wildfire-n1000136
-
Energy Department General Counsel Nominee Confirmed by Senate
Apr 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Senate April 30 confirmed an attorney and former House aide to serve as the Energy Department’s general counsel.
William Cooper, confirmed by a vote of 68-31, was nominated by President Donald Trump in January. His nomination was approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on March 7.His final confirmation vote was virtually assured after the nomination easily surmounted an April 29 cloture vote, 63-32.
The nominee also was voted out of committee in the last Congress but never received a floor vote.
The Trump administration resubmitted his nomination in the new Congress, but Cooper had to overcome another hurdle in recent months after Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) put a hold on four Energy Department nominees because of her concerns over plutonium shipments to Nevada.
Cortez Masto complained in March that the Energy Department shipped half a metric ton of weapons-grade radioactive plutonium from South Carolina to Nevada without first notifying state elected officials.
Senate Republican leaders countered the delay by advancing Cooper’s nomination by seeking cloture, which brought an end to further debate on the nominee and set up the final confirmation vote.
Cooper most recently served as senior counsel and director of the McConnell Valdes LLC law firm in Washington. Prior to joining the firm, he served as staff director for the House Natural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-department-general-counsel-nominee-confirmed-by-senate
-
Berkshire To Make $10 Billion Investment In Occidental To Finance Anadarko Bid
Apr 30, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Nicole Friedman, Bradley Olson, and Cara Lombardo
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. agreed to inject $10 billion into Occidental Petroleum Corp.’s bid to acquire Anadarko PetroleumCorp. and fight off Chevron Corp.
Last week, Houston-based Occidental offered to purchase Anadarko for $38 billion, topping the $33 billion that Chevron agreed to pay for the company. The two sides are battling over prized energy assets in the heart of the U.S. oil boom in West Texas and New Mexico.
The backing by Berkshire gives Occidental more ammunition to fight the much-larger Chevron, and it signals that Occidental is prepared to match or exceed any Chevron counteroffer. Occidental now appears to be in a leading position to complete the acquisition, analysts said.
Anadarko representatives were unavailable Tuesday, but the company said Monday that it was considering Occidental’s offer.
A Chevron spokesman said Tuesday that the company believes its agreement offers Anadarko the best value and most certainty to Anadarko shareholders. Chevron’s deal entitles it to receive a $1 billion breakup fee if Anadarko walks away.
Under the Berkshire-Occidental deal, which is contingent on the Occidental completing the purchase of Anadarko, Berkshire will receive 100,000 shares of preferred stock in Occidental with a coupon of 8% a year.
Berkshire also will get a warrant to buy up to 80 million shares of Occidental common stock at a price of $62.50 a share. Shares of Occidental closed Monday at $60.13 and fell 3% to $58.34 Tuesday.
The terms of the Berkshire deal are expensive for Occidental, which cannot choose to redeem the preferred shares for at least 10 years, but Occidental Chief Executive Vicki Hollub has won a key ally in the fight for Anadarko.
“We are thrilled to have Berkshire Hathaway’s financial support of this exciting opportunity,” Ms. Hollub said in prepared remarks.
Occidental hasn’t said how it would use the cash from Berkshire Hathaway, though it could help Occidental alter its bid to avoid a shareholder vote, according to people familiar with the matter. Occidental’s current offer requires signoff from its shareholders in a vote, while Chevron’s doesn’t.
Occidental could use some of Berkshire’s investment to increase the cash portion of its offer and lower the new share issuance below the level that triggers a shareholder vote. However, if Chevron drops out, Occidental could be less likely to alter its bid to avoid such a vote, they said.
The cash also could be used to give Occidental more time to sell assets and relieve any potential debt burden, they said.
Occidental had planned to sell billions of dollars worth of assets to counter rising debt levels stemming from a deal. Berkshire’s investment could remove pressure to quickly sell assets.
Berkshire has a history of buying preferred shares from companies that need cash. During and following the financial crisis, Berkshire acted as a lender of last resort for blue-chip companies includingGoldman Sachs Group Inc., General Electric Co. and Bank of America Corp.
In addition to financing, Berkshire offers the companies a seal of approval that can shore up broader shareholder confidence.
Berkshire has struggled in recent years to find ways to invest its growing cash pile. Berkshire held almost $112 billion in cash at year-end, and Mr. Buffett said in an annual letter to shareholders released in February that “prices are sky-high for businesses possessing decent long-term prospects.”
Mr. Buffett is likely to face questions about Berkshire’s cash holdings at the company’s annual meeting in Omaha, Neb., on Saturday. Tens of thousands of shareholders are expected to attend.
Mr. Buffett didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Berkshire’s financing significantly raises the risk for Occidental, prompting concerns among the oil company’s shareholders.
“If this escalates even further, it’s hard to see how the economics really work out, especially given the leveraged position that Occidental will find itself in,” said William Arnold, a former Royal Dutch Shell PLC executive and banking official.
Anadarko shares slipped 0.7% Tuesday to $72.39, while Chevron rose 3.2% to $121.53.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/berkshire-to-make-10-billion-investment-in-occidental-to-finance-anadarko-bid-11556630611?mod=hp_lead_pos1
-
N.M. Halts Some Drilling Near Chaco Canyon
Apr 30, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard has halted further oil and natural gas development on New Mexico trust lands near the Chaco Culture National Historical Park that many Native Americans consider sacred.
Confirmed yesterday, the executive order places a drilling moratorium within a buffer zone surrounding Chaco Canyon and its ancient dwelling. The moratorium does not directly affect federal and private holdings.
Garcia Richard visited the Navajo Nation to sign the moratorium. She calls it a huge step forward in safeguarding archaeological and cultural resources.
Oil industry representatives say robust protections already are in place within the national park at Chaco Canyon and surrounding areas where archaeological surveys are required.
Garcia Richard also convened a working group to devise recommendations about future development in the area.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/30/stories/1060246349
-
New LNG Plants Could Surpass Nameplate Capacities, Adding to Supply in Coming Years
Apr 30, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Jason Lord
LNG facilities currently under construction are able to achieve output above their nameplate capacity specification. Should this additional capacity materialize on a reliable, long-term basis, it could relieve some anticipated tightness in the LNG market.
These details can be confirmed in documents and permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. S&P Global Platts Analytics has also done research on additional debottlenecking that Cheniere has considered at Sabine Pass, its liquefaction facility located in Louisiana.
While debottlenecking is one way to achieve additional production gains, there is also potential for additional incremental volumes that are not quantified until a year or two of operations is achieved at the facility and efficiency gains are realized at individual trains.
If these additional volumes are ultimately achieved, they could be marketed in new contracts as facilities come online, in the US and globally.
The case for this comes from performance and capacity guarantees by engineering procurement and construction companies – known as EPCs. These include turbine manufacturers and other liquefaction technology licensing companies. The guarantees specify a minimum stated performance, and ultimately higher liquefaction capacities to meet the obligations of these contracts.
Similar to minimum – and maximum – quantities that are specified in a sales and purchase agreement between LNG producers and LNG buyers, contracts between an LNG developer and these EPC parties ensure that the liquefaction equipment is designed to meet the specifications required, sometimes well above what has been marketed.
Freeport’s potential
An example of this could be at a Texas LNG export facility with its first train slated to come online this year. Freeport LNG could have excess production capacity over and above what is currently committed to firm contracts.
Freeport’s CEO, Michael Smith, mentioned in a recent interview at CERAWeek that the potential capacity at each respective train is expected to be over 5 million mt/year – the nameplate capacity stated by the company. Realization of any additional liquefaction capacity, which Smith said the company expects to know sometime in 2020, would allow Freeport to market these volumes once they are confirmed to be available long term.
The waiting period in demonstrating individual train performance will allow ample time for Freeport’s first three trains to come online, after running through both winter and summer seasons, providing an approximate excess liquefaction capacity of 1–2 million mt/year, suggested by Smith. These smaller-scale volumes could be sold into the market before 2023 and 2024.
This potential additional capacity is particularly significant given that 2023-2024 is expected to be a critical period in the global LNG market, when there could be a supply crunch as LNG demand continues to grow globally. Freeport’s case is just an example of a larger scenario that creates potential for higher LNG capacities than expected, at new brownfield and greenfield facilities coming online globally in the coming years.
Setting aside other economic factors dictating LNG fundamentals, extra capacity above the expected nameplate capacity could add up to meaningful additional volumes to the current outlook for first-phase US, and global, LNG production facilities.
https://blogs.platts.com/2019/04/30/new-lng-nameplate-capacities/
-
ITC Faces Criminal Water Pollution Charges Following Fire
Apr 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Water pollution stemming from a five-day refinery tank fire that raged along the Houston Ship Channel warrants environmental criminal charges against Intercontinental Terminals Co., the Harris County District Attorney’s office said.
Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg announcedthe filing of the five charges April 29 against the company in the wake of a March 17 fire that broke out at ITC’s petrochemical storage site in Deer Park, Texas.
The blaze resulted in the closure of the main route into the region following the production of a cloud of cancer-causing benzene from an onshore tank fire.
“The discharge from the ITC fire into Tucker Bayou is a clear water pollution case,” Environmental Crimes Division Chief prosecutor Alex Forrest said in a release issued by the office.
Broken Dike Prompts Toxic SpillAccording to the office, ITC’s “makeshift dike” broke following the fire, sending “xylene and benzene, highly toxic chemicals,” into Tucker Bayou. The bayou flows directly into the Galveston Bay.
Pollution in the Tucker Bayou area reached “criminal levels” from March 17 through March 21, “establishing probable cause to believe that the company should be criminally charged for each day it violated the law,” according to the district attorney’s office.
ITC could face a fine of up to $100,000 per charge, for each of the five charges filed. Requests for comment weren’t immediately returned.
The head of the county’s environmental crimes division said more charges against ITC weren’t out of the question.
“We are looking forward to reviewing the reports of other local and federal agencies, as they complete their investigations, so that we can determine if other charges will follow,” Forrest said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/itc-faces-criminal-water-pollution-charges-following-fire
-
Charges Filed After Fire at Texas Petrochemical Facility
Apr 30, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Juan A. Lozano
Water pollution charges were filed yesterday against a company that owns a Houston-area petrochemical storage facility where a large fire that burned for days in March caused chemicals to flow into a nearby waterway.
The Harris County District Attorney's Office announced it filed five environmental misdemeanor charges against Intercontinental Terminals Co.
Prosecutors allege that after the March 17 fire, a dam at the facility broke, sending large quantities of toxic chemicals, including xylene and benzene, into nearby Tucker Bayou, which flows into Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, said Tom Berg, first assistant district attorney for Harris County.
"We support the petrochemical industry. It's the lifeblood of the Houston area, and by and large, our corporate, industrial friends are responsible," Berg said. "They take great care in safety and environmental concerns. But when they're failures, those folks need to be held accountable and this company in particular has had a history of environmental violations. So we're not inclined to look the other way."
If convicted, ITC could be fined up to $100,000 for each charge.
Berg said the investigation is ongoing and additional charges could be filed.
Michael Goldberg, an attorney for ITC, said he and his client had not seen the charges. Nevertheless, "there is no question that there was a large fire and an enormous effort to extinguish it which resulted in a discharge into Tucker Bayou," he said in a statement.
The Deer Park facility, located southeast of Houston, caught fire March 17 and burned until March 20, sending waves of thick, black smoke thousands of feet into the air and forcing the closure of roads and schools. The water pollution took place through March 21, Berg said.
Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a lawsuit against ITC, saying the state must hold the company "accountable for the damage it has done to our environment."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/30/stories/1060246269
-
Harris County DA Hits ITC With Five Environmental Charges
Apr 30, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By St. John Barned-Smith and Matt Dempsey
Responding to what it called “criminal levels” of contamination, the Harris County District Attorney’s office said Monday that it has charged Intercontinental Terminals Company with five misdemeanor counts of water pollution arising from a March plant fire that sent toxic chemicals into nearby waterways and a thick plume of smoke over the Houston area for days.
“The discharge from the ITC fire into Tucker Bayou is a clear water pollution case,” said Alex Forrest, the environmental crimes division chief for the DA’s office, in a written statement. “We are looking forward to reviewing the reports of other local and federal agencies, as they complete their investigations, so that we can determine if other charges will follow.”
The charges are the most recent example of District Attorney Kim Ogg’s more aggressive approach toward chemical companies in the aftermath of environmental disasters that have outraged the public and drawn national attention.
“This is the beginning of our review, not the end,” said Dane Schiller, a spokesman for the DA’s office.
According to the DA’s Office, water pollution in Tucker Bayou was at “criminal levels” from March 17 through March 21. Prosecutors filed one count for each of the five days the company allegedly violated the law at its Deer Park plant. Each charge carries a fine of up to $100,000.
“People living in Deer Park and the other neighboring residential areas near ITC’s plant deserve protection,” Ogg said. “When public health is at risk, it’s a public safety concern.”
An attorney for ITC, which stores petrochemicals for companies including Chevron, Philips 66 and Exxon, defended its efforts.
“Although we have not seen the charges, there is no question that there was a large fire and an enormous effort to extinguish it which resulted in a discharge into Tucker Bayou,” said Michael Goldberg, an attorney for ITC, in a written statement.
The Deer Park blaze began when a leak at one of ITC’s petrochemical storage tanks caught fire on March 17. The conflagration created a thick plume of toxic smoke and chemicals that blanketed parts of greater Houston. During the days-long disaster, a containment wall breached, pouring large amounts of toxic chemicals such as xylene and benzene into Tucker Bayou. The blaze and spills led neighborhoods and schools to “shelter in place,” prompted a temporary closure of the Houston Ship Channel, and raised fears about air and water quality throughout the metro area.
More than two weeks later, one worker was killed and two others were critically wounded during a fire at KMCO’s Crosby chemical plant. State officials have filed lawsuits against ITC as well as KMCO in Crosby for pollution caused by fires at both facilities.
ITC also faces a blizzard of lawsuits filed by area residents in the aftermath of its fire, which destroyed 11 chemical tanks and is under investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Harris County officials previously estimated that its response to the disaster cost approximately $1.9 million in services, materials, supplies and labor.
Monday’s court action against ITC marks the second time Ogg has pursued criminal charges against Houston-area companies in high-profile pollution cases. After a chemical fire during Hurricane Harvey in 2017, Ogg brought a criminal case against the chemical company Arkema and two of its executives for the “reckless” release of an air contaminant.
Investigators found that the company’s emergency plan provided little direction to employees on how to handle major floods, and as a result, it couldn’t keep combustible organic peroxides cool, according to federal documents. Over the next week, nine trailers of organic peroxides erupted in flames, sending pillars of fire and thick plumes of black smoke into the air.
Prosecutors recently charged the company and a third executive with reckless assault, citing injuries sustained by two deputies who responded to the scene based on the company’s assurances. Company officials have defended their actions in both suits and accused Ogg’s office of prosecutorial overreach.
A fire also broke out at Exxon Mobil’s Baytown refinery in mid-March but was contained hours later. The investigations are ongoing.
Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, a state advocacy group, said Monday’s charges send an important message to companies.
“It really raises the bar for industrial facilities,” Metzger said.
Harris County has stepped up oversight of the petrochemical industry since Ogg took office in 2016, and the 2018 election brought in new Democratic leadership on the Commissioners Court.
Ogg’s office recently called for an additional $850,000 to fund eight new positions in the environmental crimes division, including tripling the number of prosecutors — from two to six — focused on such violations.
That’s a change, Metzger said, adding that the most that companies could previously expect for violating a permit was a a weak fine. He expects employees and companies will demand more resources to invest in prevention and safety to avoid facing future criminal charges.
In February, the Commissioners Court approved a 28 percent budget increase for the Pollution Control Department. The investment made little difference during the ITC and KMCO fires. The department was still unprepared for a multi-day response, despite experiencing one during the 2017 Arkema fire. The department told commissioners that it would take days to get air-quality test results related to the ITC fire. Five of the county’s 12 ozone monitors were broken and it had no mobile air-monitoring vehicles at its disposal.
Prosecutors have previously won convictions against ITC for water pollution, but not recently. The company paid a $500 fine for a 1975 conviction and $650 in a 1990 case.
In the decade before the March fire, ITC violated federal and local environmental rules multiple times, racking up fines of more than $65,000 since 2009.
Residents echoed Metzger’s support for more aggressive oversight.
Duncan Stewart lives a few miles from the plant. He wasn’t surprised by the decision to charge ITC. He thinks polluters will take a criminal process more seriously than a simple civil penalty.
“A fine like that is a token for a company” like ITC, Stewart said.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-County-DA-hits-ITC-with-five-environmental-13805438.php
-
CEI Leads Coalition Urging Surface Transportation Board to Withdraw Proposed Switching Rule
Apr 30, 2019 | Competitive Enterprise Institute
By Marc Scribner
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) led a coalition of 20 other free market organizations urging the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to withdraw a harmful proposed rule. The STB has been the U.S. economic regulator of railroads for more than two decades since the infamous Interstate Commerce Commission was disbanded.
While the STB has often exercised its authority in a conservative manner, in 2016 it decided to open a rulemaking proceeding to enact backdoor price controls—precisely the type of regulation Congress has repeatedly rejected. The proposed rule, referred to by the agency as “competitive switching,” most troublingly would eliminate a longstanding requirement that anticompetitive conduct on the part of rail carriers must be found before the STB could impose forced reciprocal switching arrangements on carriers.
The STB, with no economic analysis to support its proposal, ludicrously argued that the absence of anticompetitive conduct findings was itself evidence that the system was not working. Of course, as we pointed out, the absence of successful anticompetitive conduct claims could just as easily support the contention that no anticompetitive conduct exists and thus no relief was warranted.
See my 2016 blog post for more detail on this dangerous proposal. Our coalition letter can be found here. Relatedly, CEI recently submitted comments in support of a petition for rulemaking to require the benefit-cost analysis already required of most federal agencies, which aims to prevent sloppy regulatory proposals like the reciprocal switching rule from occurring in the future.
https://cei.org/blog/cei-leads-coalition-urging-surface-transportation-board-withdraw-proposed-switching-rule
-
CEI Renews Call Over Stalled out State of Railroad Competitive Switching Rulemaking
Apr 30, 2019 | Logistics Management
By Jeff Berman
While the interminable debate between business interests and the freight railroad sector’s chief regulatory arm continues to linger, one thing remains certain: the state of proposed freight railroad competitive, or reciprocal switching remains divisive and stalled out on the tracks.
That was made clear in a letter sent today to Surface Transportation Board Chairman Ann Begeman, Vice Chairman Patrick Fuchs, and Member Martin Oberman from the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit libertarian think tank.
In the letter, CEI stated that it is deeply concerned about the current status of the competitive switching rulemaking.
“The STB argued that its inability—and the inability of the Interstate Commerce Commission before it—to uncover any evidence of anticompetitive conduct on the part of the railroad industry justifies its call for eliminating the post-deregulation requirement that anticompetitive conduct be found before mandatory reciprocal switching could be imposed,” wrote CEI. “The STB provided no economic analysis to support its conclusion that the anticompetitive conduct requirement ‘effectively operated as a bar to relief rather than as a standard under which relief could be granted.’ Indeed, this absence of analysis could just as easily be used to support the opposite conclusion: that the lack of successful demonstrations by shippers of anticompetitive abuse on the part of carriers effectively shows no such abuse exists and thus no relief is warranted.”
As previously reported, the impetus for the proposed reciprocal switching regulations stems from a petition for rulemaking submitted by the National Industrial Transportation League in July 2011. The STB said the proposed regulations would augment the availability of reciprocal switching, allowing a rail shipper to gain access to another railroad if the shipper makes certain showings. And it added that these proposed regulations create an avenue for the STB to impose a reciprocal switching arrangement.
As defined by the STB, reciprocal switching is a situation in which a railroad that has physical access to a specific shipper facility switches rail traffic to the facility for another railroad that does not have physical access. And the second railroad compensates that railroad that has physical access in the form of a per car switching charge, with the shipper facility gaining access to an additional railroad.
In order for the proposed reciprocal switching to come to fruition, the STB said that a shipper must show that the arrangement is “practicable and in the public interest” or “necessary to provide competitive rail service.” STB’s findings would be based on evidence presented by the shipper and the railroad, while the existing standard that was adopted by the STB’s predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1985 requires a showing that reciprocal switching is necessary to prevent an uncompetitive act. STB added that going back to 1985 nearly no requests for reciprocal switching have been filed and none have been granted. Reciprocal switching has been viewed as a hot button topic by freight railroad industry stakeholders since its inception.
CEI went on to note in its letter to STB leadership that, in its current incarnation, the proposed competitive switching rule threatens railroads, shippers, and consumers with degraded service quality and higher prices on goods, which, it said, would naturally follow the resulting reduction in operational efficiencies and private railroad investment.
And it pulled no punches in explaining that the railroad industry—as well as other modes of freight transportation—is amid significant transformation, coupled with the competitive transportation landscape of the future and new technologies and related business practices, will look very different than it does today.
“Heavy-handed administrative action based on outdated regulatory analysis is dangerous and needlessly threatens the competitive viability of rail carriers,” CEI wrote. “Over the last 30 years, Congress has repeatedly rejected railroad re-regulation, regardless of political control. On numerous occasions, it has explicitly rejected attempts to eliminate the anticompetitive conduct requirement, recognizing that reducing private railroad investment is not in the public interest. We strongly urge the STB to withdraw the proposed competitive switching rule. The STB should take action to improve its economic analysis in rulemakings in order to avoid similar missteps in the future.”
Conversely, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) has long maintained that forced access is an ill-conceived approach that compromises the efficiency of the entire network by gumming up the system through added interchange movements, more time and increased operational complexity.
AAR officials have explained over the years that an annual revenue loss of up to $7.8 billion could result from rate reductions stemming from these proposed regulations for the benefit of a select group of shippers. And without this income, they said the freight rail industry could no longer invest the billions of private dollars needed to maintain and expand the nation’s 140,000-mile rail network. Since 2000, freight railroads have invested more than $110 billion in privately financed capital improvements to their networks.
https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/cei_renews_call_over_stalled_out_state_of_railroad_competitive_switching_ru
-
STB Task Force Recommends Changing Rate Review Policies
Apr 30, 2019 | Progressive Railroading
The Surface Transportation Board 's (STB) Rate Reform Task Force issued a report that recommends possible changes to the board's rate review methodologies and policies.
The STB established the task force in January 2018 to recommend improvements to the existing process and propose new methodologies that are more up to date with current transportation issues and trends. To complete its report, the task force met with shippers, carriers, academics, practitioners and other interested parties, according to an STB press release.
The task force report includes several key recommendations, including:
• offering proposals the STB could adopt to reduce the cost and complexity of small rate disputes;
• calling for legislation that would permit the STB to require arbitration of small rate disputes;
• simplifying the existing stand-alone cost test;
• proposing a new rate methodology that considers the cost structure of the defendant carrier instead of a hypothetical stand-alone carrier;
• defining long-term revenue adequacy and three structural remedies based on the following: a rate-increase constraint; reversing the board's long-standing 'bottleneck' decisions; and restoring certain simplifications in the existing simplified SAC process;
• increasing the accessibility of the three-benchmark comparison approach;
and
• seeking simplification of the market dominance determination.
The STB intends to solicit public input on the report in the near future.
Meanwhile, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent a letter signed by 20 "free market" groups to the STB urging it to withdraw its proposed competitive or "reciprocal" switching rule.
Competitive switching refers to a situation in which a railroad that has physical access to a specific shipper facility switches rail traffic to the facility for another railroad that does not have physical access. The second railroad pays the railroad that has physical access, typically in the form of a per-car switching charge.
In the letter, the groups urge the board to withdraw its proposed rule.
"We believe the future of freight-rail investment and quality service is at risk from unnecessary, harmful government restrictions," CEI officials said in a statement about the letter.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/STB-task-force-recommends-changing-rate-review-policies--57450
-
Amendments to H.R. 9, Paris Climate Accord Bill: BGOV Closer Look
Apr 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor
Preventing the president from blocking state actions to combat climate change is among the amendments proposed to H.R. 9, which the House could consider as soon as Wednesday.
The rule for floor consideration would allow votes on 30 amendments to the bill, the “Climate Action Now Act.” The measure would bar President Donald Trump from withdrawing the U.S. from the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement signed by nearly 200 countries. For more on the bill, see the BGOV Bill Summary.
One amendment (No. 11) from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) would strike the bill’s central provision that would bar the use of federal funds to pull out of the agreement.
Several amendments would modify the plan to achieve emissions reductions that the White House would have to submit to Congress under the bill: No. 29 from Rep. TJ Cox (D-Calif.) would require the plan to include discussion of different U.S. regions, industries, and populations that could be affected by the pledged emissions reductions or by the failure to meet them. It would have to include effects on jobs and wages, energy costs, and deployment of new, domestically-produced technologies. No. 21 from Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) would require it to include a description of how the agreement’s loss and damage provisions, which call on countries to address damage to and loss of property from events related to climate change, would affect the resiliency of U.S. infrastructure. No. 4 from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) would require that the plan include ways in which the U.S. could use additional diplomatic tools to encourage and help other nations to achieve their emissions reduction goals under the Paris agreement.No. 6 from Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) would stipulate that the bill couldn’t be interpreted to block states or cities from taking further steps to reduce greenhouse gases that aren’t included in the president’s plan. No. 22 from Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) would stipulate that the bill wouldn’t require the president’s plan to include or exclude any particular energy technologies. No. 24 from Rep. Kim Schrier (D-Wash.) would state that the bill wouldn’t require or prohibit the plan from including voluntary agricultural practices affecting carbon emissions or sequestration by farmers and ranchers. No. 25 from Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) would stipulate that the bill wouldn’t require or block the plan from including recommendations to teach about human-caused climate change in elementary and secondary schools. No. 1 from Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) would allow the House speaker and Senate majority leader to designate additional committees to receive the plan when it’s submitted. No. 13 from Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.) would require the plan and any updates to be published in the Federal Register and any public comments received to be made available online.
Amendment No. 15 from Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzales-Colon (R) would require the Government Accountability Office to report on the effects the president’s plan would have on U.S. territories, considering their unique needs and vulnerabilities.
Other amendments include: No. 5 from Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.), which would require the president to report on the climate accord’s effect on creating clean energy jobs in rural areas. No. 8 from Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), which would require the National Academy of Sciences to report on the effects of leaving the accord on U.S. global economic competitiveness and on U.S. workers.
In addition, several amendments would add new findings to the bill on: The effects of climate change. How states, local governments, and businesses are taking their own actions to address climate change.The interconnectedness of health and climate change. The development of new energy sources.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/amendments-to-h-r-9-paris-climate-accord-bill-bgov-closer-look
-
House Preps for First Climate Vote Since Democratic Takeover
Apr 30, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman
The House will consider climate legislation this week for the first time since Democrats retook the majority.
Democrats are pushing a bill that would force President Donald Trump to recommit to the Paris climate accords — which he renounced in 2017 despite objections from several energy companies, GOP lawmakers and even his own daughter. But few Republicans are expected to add their support, and some are angling to keep the focus areas of Democratic division over what to do about climate change and whether to endorse a "Green New Deal."
Republicans faulted President Barack Obama for not submitting the 2015 Paris deal to the Senate for ratification, a step Democrats at the time said was unnecessary because the pact is not legally binding. While virtually every nation on earth joined the deal, each country's commitment varied, with the largest burden falling on developed economies that put the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Obama pledged the U.S. would reduce its emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, but China said that its emissions would keep rising as late as 2030.
Scientists have said the commitments countries agreed to through the Paris agreement would not do enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change, criticisms Republicans have cited in attacking the Democrats' bill. But most GOP lawmakers continue to resist setting any competing carbon-emissions targets for the U.S. until other countries do more.
"That's one of the flaws of Paris. Paris doesn't look globally," Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), the top Republican on the House Select Climate Committee, told reporters Monday. "We can't solve this problem on the backs of the United States ... If we're sitting here reducing emissions and China's not, what's the point?"
Two Republicans offered amendments to the Paris bill that included text of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey's (D-Mass.) Green New Deal resolution, H. Res. 109 (116), which has energized the party's left flank but turned off some labor unions. But Democrats on the House Rules Committee blocked them from coming to a vote this week. A group of GOP lawmakers is also planning to file a discharge petition this week in an unlikely bid to force the resolution to a vote.
A handful of Republicans are trying to craft conservative-friendly climate policies that would promote "innovation" instead of setting specific emissions-reduction goals, such as Rep. Matt Gaetz’s (R-Fla.) Green Real Deal resolution or Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R-Tenn.) call for a Manhattan Project-style push for more spending on energy research. But those types of proposals are not expected to take center-stage this week.
“The conversation and the learning is still developing, that’s what we sense on the ground,” said Joseph Majkut, climate policy director with the libertarian Niskanen Center, which supports a carbon tax. “I think it’s possible to get there in terms of embracing robust climate action. But I will admit there is a lot of work to do.”
Proposed Republican amendments to the Paris bill, H.R. 9 (116), ran the gamut of familiar Republican complaints about a federal climate agenda: that climate action is too costly and by definition requires restraining economic growth; rival nations can continue to emit more while the U.S. tightens its belt; U.S. emissions alone can’t make much of a dent in curbing climate change; the U.S. is already cutting carbon through private sector efforts.
Democrats on the Rules Committee rejected most of those proposals Monday. The House is set to vote on 30 amendments, three of which are from Republicans, before a final vote on the Paris bill expected Thursday.
Republicans are separately filing a discharge petition Tuesday on the Green New Deal resolution, a long-shot tactic that would force a vote if they can gather 218 signatures, which would require cooperation from at least 21 Democrats.
The Republican focus on areas of Democratic disagreement comes as GOP lawmakers are less likely to question the underlying climate science and more likely to tout recent emissions reductions as evidence that government intervention is unnecessary.
In that vein, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) offered an amendment that credited the U.S. for “leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions” while noting emissions in 2017 were the lowest since 1992 “thanks to innovation and technological development.” The same amendment included text of the Green New Deal resolution.
The U.S. does lead the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions since 2000, according to International Energy Agency data. But Republicans typically omit the IEA's parallel finding that emissions ticked upward last year as Trump gutted Obama-era climate regulations. The U.S. also was the world’s leading emitter for much of the period Republicans are citing.
Climate experts contend Republicans are cherry-picking data to avoid having to grapple with increasingly urgent calls for sharp emissions reductions. Without new policies to reduce carbon emissions, global temperatures are on track to increase roughly 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century, according to the Trump administration’s own analysis.
“This is a distortion,” Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an email. “Obviously the potential for a big decrease only arises if there is a huge amount to start with.”
Flores rejected the idea that he had fudged the numbers and said GOP lawmakers simply want to pursue different policies to promote consumer choices rather than penalize carbon emissions.
“It’s really interesting to hear people try and find ways to argue over numbers,” Flores told POLITICO in a phone interview. “The bottom line is we are being successful at emissions reductions and we have a different philosophy of how to continue that progress versus where the Democrats are.”
Climate scientists say Republicans’ focus on innovation, while welcome, simply isn’t enough to bring about needed carbon reductions. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent federal statistics agency, said in January that U.S. emissions would remain basically flat through 2050 absent new policies to reduce greenhouse gases.
A United Nations report released last year said the world has 12 years to get on a pathway to neutralize global emissions by mid-century in hopes of keeping global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius, which would bake in the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
“I can’t answer the intention of every Republican that’s out there,” said Charles Hernick, policy and advocacy director with Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, who noted the Republicans his organization works with are interested in addressing emissions. “Republicans are not inclined to focus on date-certain, specific timelines for emissions reductions because then you will see a firm hand of government picking winners and losers.”
The U.S. has made less progress than Republicans suggest, noted Kelly Levin, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute. The U.S. hit peak emissions in 2007, 16 years after the United Kingdom. Since then, annual emissions have declined 1.5 percent per year, a slower rate than Russia and Australia.
On top of that, the U.S. has contributed more to the cumulative and historical emissions of any other country on the planet, accounting for 397 gigatons of carbon dioxide compared with 214 gigatons by China, according to Carbon Brief.
“The atmosphere cares about cumulative emissions," Levin said. "Temperature is directly related to the amount of emissions that we pump into the atmosphere.”
On whether Republicans are cherry-picking data, Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell LLP, said, “Some may be. Others are not.” He said opposition to Paris was "based in part on misconception," but said Republicans still see the Democrats' bill and the way they pushed it through committees without hearings as tantamount to a "messaging bill" destined to drawa flurry of partisan responses.
"There is a broader range of policies under consideration than just the Green New Deal and ‘business as usual,’" Segal said in an email. "Somewhere in there is the golden mean. I think there are folks on both side of the aisle looking for it."
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/house-preps-for-first-climate-vote-since-democratic-takeover-1393125
-
Dems Lack Unified Plan for Pushing Paris Climate Bill
Apr 30, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The House this week is expected to pass its first major climate-focused bill in almost 10 years, but some Democrats say the party is failing to put its best foot forward on an issue they consider a top priority requiring urgent action.
The measure, which the House is expected to pass Thursday along party lines, would bind the Trump administration to the carbon-cutting goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement — the international accord that the president vowed to withdraw the U.S. from almost two years ago.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said the Climate Action Now Act shows Democrats are “taking first strong steps to protect our planet and our future.”
But unlike almost every other high-profile bill, no Democratic senator has introduced a companion measure, suggesting further disunity following the divisive Green New Deal championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), the bill’s sponsor and chairwoman of the House Select Committee on Climate Crisis, told The Hill she was at a loss for why Senate Democrats haven’t been involved.
“I wish I could shed more light on the operations of the U.S. Senate — it confounds all of us on the House side,” Castor said.
Senate leaders on the environment front have not stepped forward to introduce that chamber’s version of the bill, H.R. 9.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement to The Hill he agreed it’s imperative that the U.S. commit to the Paris climate accord, but he didn’t comment on why he isn’t sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate.
“The reality is that we do not have time to wait for President Trump and other climate deniers to come to their senses, we must instead work now in Congress to realize the changes needed to protect our planet for generations to come,” he said.
The House legislation has 224 co-sponsors — all Democrats.
But some Democrats are hesitant to highlight its likely passage as a major achievement.
Lawmakers have held about 17 climate-related hearings since Democrats took control of the House in January, yet discussions over what form climate legislation should take have led to tension within the party.
Progressives have expressed their preference for comprehensive legislation that would lead to the creation of a green economy and include climate mitigation efforts, similar to the Green New Deal, while more moderate members favor smaller measures that they argue have a better chance of making it through Congress.
Critics say Castor’s bill is neither.
House Republicans plan to hit Democrats on their lack of a next step for the measure, according to a senior GOP House aide.
“This Congress, Democrats have been obsessed with scoring political points instead of solving problems. This is more of the same — a rushed messaging bill with not a prayer of becoming law,” the aide said. “You can expect our procedural positioning to draw attention to that dichotomy.”
A senior Democratic aide in the Senate said that after the House approves the climate bill, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) plans to demand Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) bring it up for a vote, “in addition to the other House-passed bills sitting in Sen. McConnell’s legislative graveyard,” such as measures addressing gun safety, health care and voting rights.
The aide said Democrats are keenly aware of the lack of GOP support for climate bills in the Republican-led Senate and are wary of wasting too much political capital there, calling the House measure a “messaging bill.”
But McConnell has at times held votes on legislation in an attempt to divide Senate Democrats, as was the case last month when the chamber voted on the Green New Deal resolution, a progressive plan to transition the U.S. electric grid to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.
Most Senate Democrats voted present on that measure in a sign of unity that also allowed Democrats with tough reelection bids, like Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.), to avoid going on the record on the climate proposal.
Holding a vote on H.R. 9 in the Senate would very well create a similar headache for Senate Democrats, especially with lawmakers like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) opposed to the Paris climate agreement.
“H.R. 9 is going to pass [the House]. That is something that is great,” the Senate aide said.
“We’re also focused on addressing climate change in a way we have leverage,” the aide added, pointing to a potential infrastructure deal.
Pelosi, Schumer and other top Democrats are scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House on Tuesday to talk infrastructure. Democratic leaders on Monday said they want any infrastructure deal to take climate change into consideration.
And while some Democrats are not enthusiastic about Castor’s bill, they say other measures are in the works.
One senior Democratic aide likened the House push behind H.R. 9 to a mutual agreement to support “the lowest common denominator success story.”
“I don’t know any Democrats who think this is the final word on Democratic climate policy for this Congress,” the House aide said.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/441261-dems-lack-unified-plan-for-pushing-paris-climate-bill
-
Inside California's Fight Against Pollution
Apr 30, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Mary Nichols, the woman who for more than 15 years has led the fight to improve California’s poor air quality, says she’s not a fan of a nickname she’s acquired: Queen of Green.
“I actually hate the title,” Nichols told The Hill during a recent phone interview.
“We live in what is intended to be a representative democracy, so queens are not our thing.”
But Nichols, who has twice headed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and more recently has led the state in its battle against the Trump administration’s rollback of key car emissions regulations, has nevertheless become a reigning environmental figure.
“I do this work because I believe in it. And over the years, I’ve become even more committed than I was when I first started to the notion that air pollution is an affront to civilization,” she said.
While Nichols’s name might have long found recognition in the Golden State, it has increased in national prominence in the past two years in conjunction with California’s forceful opposition to a Trump administration decision last summer to weaken auto emissions standards originally agreed to under former President Obama.
Nichols, along with other California leaders including former Gov. Jerry Brown (D), current Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), have warned the rule change will worsen California’s already poor air quality. And they’re fighting back in court.
“What is being proposed here is fundamentally dismantling a system that has actually been working quite well for all parties,” Nichols said. “It’s all about health and the environment — it’s not about fighting for the sake of a political fight.”
The original emissions plan for cars and light trucks first implemented by the Obama administration in 2012 aimed to curb greenhouse gases by pushing the entire auto industry toward creating greener cars.
The plan was developed after extensive talks with automakers and California, which maintains it has the right to set its own air pollution standards under the Clean Air Act. Fourteen other states have opted to adopt California’s standards.
The Trump administration, however, has argued the rule is too obtrusive to the auto industry and plays a too-heavy government hand. Their proposed alternative rule significantly weakens the emissions standard.
Since the administration announced it was revisiting the rule, Nichols has been an integral figure in the often-heated talks between California and President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It’s a role for which some would say she’s well trained as a former air pollution lawyer for the town of Riverside and former assistant administrator of air and radiation at the EPA under the Clinton administration.
But even she says she was not aware of the administration’s plan to halt all conversations with California over the rule, which it announced suddenly in February.
“We knew we weren’t getting anywhere with discussions, but to say discussions were cut off implies that they were happening, but they weren’t happening,” Nichols said of CARB’s attempts to negotiate with the EPA.
“That was fake news,” she said.
Nichols described the communication breakdown as someone who often deals with science would: “a matter of friction” due to “entropy.”
“It rapidly became clear that the position of the federal government was, ‘We are willing to talk to you, although we don’t think you have any specific standing, and we don’t think you should, but if you have any alternative proposals you want to bring forward that we might like, we could consider not taking away your position to not adopt the standards,’ ” she said of her interactions with EPA leadership.
“I’ve done a lot of negotiations in my lifetime, working on air quality issues at some federal level since the 1970s, and I’ve never seen anything like this before.”
Newly confirmed EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, testifying in front of Congress in early April, blamed the breakdown in talks on California’s unwillingness to compromise.
“We’re always open to hearing from California on this. But to be frank, they did not come back with a credible offer last fall,” Wheeler said. “There is a lot of politics going on in California over this issue.”
Nichols calls the characterization “totally inaccurate.”
“It indicates either they didn’t understand what we were proposing or chose not to understand,” she said.
She said the last communication between CARB and the EPA was a proposal her agency sent to make the emissions program simpler for auto companies to comply with. She said her office never got a response.
And then, soon after, came the announcement that the talks were over.
“We felt we had bent over backwards to show how we were willing to accommodate our rules for any concerns industry had. The government position was ideology — not just make a rule more onerous, but gut the rule and prevent California from implementing their own standards,” Nichols said.
She said CARB has since had no communications with the EPA over the rule, which the Trump administration maintains will offer nearly identical emissions reductions targets.
Asked who she thought would benefit the most from the Trump rule change, which she has argued automakers are largely opposed to, Nichols points to the fossil fuel industry.
“It has been said, and I believe it’s true, that the only entities who clearly benefit are the people who produce gasoline. The oil and gas industry as a whole, which wants to keep a hold on its market and its share of the transportation market for as long as possible,” she said.
Trump has long championed the U.S. fossil fuel industry, calling for the increased production of coal and natural gas as part of his overall energy independence agenda. Wheeler also has deep ties to the energy industry, having previously worked as a lobbyist for coal clients at the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels.
California hasn’t taken the plan sitting down. Earlier this month, the state sued the administration for failing to provide internal documents used to develop the emissions plan. The next step would be a formal lawsuit challenging the rule.
“The state of California has already been branded the anti-Trump administration. Our governor is the anti-Trump on a whole range of issues from immigration to high speed rail to health care,” Nichols said, offering a strong defense of the state’s vision.
“I know that California is looked to as the de facto representative of the United States when it comes to demonstrating that we can grow our economy, protect the health of our people and slash emissions of the gases that are poisoning the atmosphere,” Nichols said. “So we will continue on that path."
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/441263-inside-californias-fight-against-pollution
-
Green Groups Launch Unity Climate Fund for Eventual Democratic Nominee
Apr 30, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna
Three major environmental organizations today launched a push to raise at least $1 million for whoever Democrats nominate to run for president.
LCV Victory Fund, NRDC Action Fund PAC and NextGen America said contributions to the first-ever Beat Trump Presidential Climate Unity Fundwould be held in escrow until a nominee emerges and would then be treated as direct contributions for the general election battle against President Donald Trump.
“We want to help the eventual Democratic nominee hit the ground running, empowered by voters across the country to fight for our environment in the general election,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the LCV Victory Fund.
Donors can give up to $5,600 to the fund, which will be administered through the GiveGreen platform. Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Govs. John Hickenlooper (Colo.) and Jay Inslee (Wash.), and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg are the candidates initially featured on the site. Former Vice President Joe Biden, seen as the early front-runner in the race, is not mentioned on the site, but organizers said other candidates may be added later.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/green-groups-launch-unity-climate-fund-for-eventual-democratic-nominee-3161237
-
Apr 30, 2019 | Washington Post
By Paulina Firozi
As federal lawmakers fail to pass a Green New Deal to address climate change, blue-state politicians are seizing on the moniker popular with the national progressive base to pitch their own plans to curb climate-warming emissions.
But divisions on the left are emerging in one key state, New York, where environmental advocates say the Green New Deal proposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) doesn't go nearly far enough.
Cuomo’s bill aims to make the state’s electricity sector carbon-free by 2040 and to create a council that would develop a plan to transition the state's entire economy to net-zero carbon emissions. “Let's take the next step on the Green New Deal, which tackles climate change and starts building the green economy for tomorrow,” the Democratic governor told lawmakers at his state of the state address in January.
But a coalition of more than 170 environmental justice, labor and community groups is throwing its weight behind another bill, one that would go even further to mandate that all the state’s energy sectors, not just electricity, be carbon-free by 2050. The bill backed by the New York Renews coalition, the Climate and Community Protection Act, also funnels spending to disadvantaged communities bearing the brunt of climate change.
The dueling climate measures are splitting Democrats. Supporters of the CCPA, which passed the New York State Assembly three years in a row, say it may have its best chance of passing both chambers this year. Democrats seized control of the state Senate for the first time in about a decade and a majority of state senators have signed on as co-sponsors.
Democratic State Sen. Jessica Ramos, one of the CCPA’s co-sponsors, called it “much more comprehensive” than Cuomo’s plan, which she said “does not go far enough into addressing the systemic changes that we need to make.”
The clash over climate policy in New York echoes some of the political tension that has stalled climate action on the federal level. In Congress, as in New York, Democrats are united that something has to be done to reduce global warming. But the recent climate debate has pitted the left versus the lefter in terms of how ambitious these plans should be — and whether they should include other progressive priorities.
In Washington, the broad Green New Deal resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass) failed in the Senate last month. Even some moderate Democrats wavered on parts of that plan that called for providing health care and a federal jobs guarantee alongside curbing climate emissions.
In New York, social justice issues in the CCPA are also becoming a flash point: The bill would require 40 percent of the state’s energy transition funds go to environmentally vulnerable communities most affected by global warming, and it would ensure energy transition jobs meet fair labor standards.
Cuomo officials have been working with state lawmakers and representatives from NY Renews to reach a consensus measure.
“We’re proud of our record on combating climate change including the launch of Governor Cuomo’s Green New Deal and real actions toward economy-wide carbon neutrality as soon as practicable,” a Cuomo spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “We have and will continue to collaborate with the legislature on meaningful climate policy proposals to build upon this nation-leading progress.”
No one is proposing to "eliminate all planes, cows and the military." No one created "doctored" versions of the deal that included these outlandish proposals. (Joy Sharon Yi/The Washington Post)
NY Renews acknowledges the tension between the two proposals, even as there’s common ground in the state.
“Nobody at this point in New York is making the argument that we shouldn’t have a strong legislative approach to climate change,” the coalition’s steering committee member Stephan Edel told me. “The question now is how do we have the details as strong as they can be. There are reasonable technical discussions to find where that line is.”
Those who support the CCPA over Cuomo’s proposal, formally called the Climate Leadership Act, say the plan to transition all the state’s energy sectors to renewable energy would make a far greater impact in New York. According to NY Renews, only about 17 percent of the state’s carbon emissions come from electricity, whereas most emissions come from things such as the heating and cooling of buildings and transportation. But a Cuomo official said cutting emissions from the state’s power sector would work as a precursor to cutting carbon emissions in other energy sectors.
CCPA supporters have also questioned Cuomo's plan to make the state carbon neutral, insisting their aim to reduce carbon emissions overall is a more worthwhile goal. But Cuomo officials said the governor’s proposal leaves room for approaches such as carbon capture technology — a process that captures carbon dioxide from the air — that are more sustainable but not carbon free.
Democratic state Assemblyman Steve Englebright, who has been a champion of CCPA for years, challenged Cuomo’s carbon neutrality goal: “Does it mean the goal is to have the status quo? Or is the goal to put infrastructure and policies in place that would actually reduce the carbon contribution to the atmosphere? The [CCPA] envisions reduction, not limitation of further growth.”
Yet Michael Kracker, executive director of business and taxpayer advocacy coalition Unshackle Upstate, expressed concern about how much the CCPA could cost individuals and businesses in the state.
“We’re focused on trying to find ways to make our state a more affordable place to live and do business, and unfortunately the Climate and Community Protection Act makes both of those more expensive,” he told me. He called Cuomo’s bill “less burdensome” but said he has concerns about that plan, as well.
Edel, who is also a director of member organization New York Working Families Project, acknowledged all sides will need to compromise on a final version before the measure can pass the state legislature and reach the governor’s desk.
But he told me there’s been significant progress in conversations around climate policy compared to when the bill first passed the Assembly.
“We’re in a really exciting moment in New York where the governor and both houses are taking this very seriously, they’re engaged in conversation about what it can look like, and that is a really remarkable point to be at when a year ago, we were debating whether we should even have a climate policy in the legislature, and two years ago we were debating whether climate change is real,” Edel said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/04/30/the-energy-202-new-york-s-cuomo-is-pitching-a-green-new-deal-climate-activists-say-it-s-not-green-enough/5cc75afba7a0a46fd9222b9b/?utm_term=.d63fc4863db3
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested