Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - May 2, 2019

Industry and Association News

Key House Democrat Seeks Federal Strategy To Boost Plastics Recycling
May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), chair of the House science panel's research subcommittee, is urging EPA and other agencies to develop a national strategy to boost plastics recycling that includes improving U.S. recycling infrastructure, though experts say any nationwide plan should be flexible enough to encourage new and emerging technologies.

TSCA News

IG to Review Toxics Office's Implementation of TSCA Reform
May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA

EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced May 1 that it is kicking off a new review into the agency's implementation of the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and whether EPA's toxics office has the resources needed to perform its new responsibilities -- an area that has been of question since the law's passage.
EPA Denies Second Asbestos TSCA Reporting Petition
May 1, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The US EPA has again decided against petitioners requesting that the agency expand reporting obligations for asbestos under TSCA.
EPA New Rule Falls Short of Total Ban on Harmful Material
May 1, 2019 | iLaw Journals University News
By Thomas Channeton

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made their final ruling to tighten restrictions on the use of asbestos-containing products. The EPA makes adjustments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was highly criticized.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes 1st State to Ban Single-Use Foam Containers
May 1, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)

Maine has banned single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam, commonly known as Styrofoam, becoming the first state to do so.
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes First State to Ban Styrofoam Food Containers, Effective 2021
May 1, 2019 | USA Today
By N'dea Yancey-Bragg

Maine has become the first state to ban food containers made of polystyrene, commonly known as Styrofoam.
(ACC Mentioned) States Declare War on Styrofoam — "People Think It Breaks Down"
May 1, 2019 | CBS News
By Irina Ivanova

Maine Gov. Janet Mills has signed a ban on polystyrene food containers at restaurants and grocery stores, making it the first state in the nation to ban some types of plastic foam.
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Is First State to Ban Single-Use Plastic-Foam Containers
May 1, 2019 | Fox News
By Samuel Chamberlain

Maine Gov. Janet Mills has enacted a bill making her state the first to ban single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam.
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes the First State to Ban Single-Use Food and Drink Styrofoam Containers
May 1, 2019 | Daily Mail
By Luke Kenton

Maine has become the first state to ban single-use food and drink containers made from Styrofoam, following a bill signing by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills on Tuesday afternoon.
Senators Float Another Bipartisan PFAS Bill
May 1, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Ariana Figueroa

Senators have reintroduced a bipartisan piece of legislation that seeks to improve communications between states and the federal government when responding to toxic chemicals in drinking water.
Pentagon Denies Pressuring EPA Over Water Cleanup Standards
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz

The Pentagon’s top officials in charge of military installations denied they are interfering with the EPA’s efforts to address a group of ubiquitous perfluorinated chemicals contaminating groundwater.
Firefighters Call for Fluorine-Free Foam at International POPs Meeting
May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Ginger Hervey

A group of firefighters and fire safety experts on Wednesday called on international negotiators to ban fluorinated chemicals in firefighting foam.
'Alarming' Levels of Brominated Dioxins Found in Recycled Plastic Products
May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch

A global study of consumer products made from recycled plastic has found "alarming" levels of brominated dioxins and flame retardants in samples taken from emerging countries, as well as Canada, the EU and Japan.
US FDA Calls Preparatory Meeting for International Cosmetics Event
May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has called a public meeting to help it prepare for the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR-13) meeting in Montreal in July.
California to Hold Synthetic Turf Study Advisory Panel Meeting
May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) will hold a meeting of its synthetic turf scientific advisory panel on 31 May.
The EPA Says Glyphosate, the Main Ingredient in Roundup, Doesn't Cause Cancer. Others Aren't so Sure
May 1, 2019 | CNN
By Holly Yan

The fierce debate over whether glyphosate can cause cancer just got a big endorsement of safety from the US Environmental Protection Agency."EPA continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen," the agency said Tuesday.
Cosmetics Europe Project Tests Model for Predicting Repeat-Dose Toxicity
May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies

A Cosmetics Europe-funded project is evaluating a system for assessing repeat-dose toxicity without using animal tests.

Energy News

Republicans Push Trump to Scrap U.S. Ship Waiver Plan for Gas
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter

Republican lawmakers are discouraging President Donald Trump from waiving requirements that U.S.-flagged, -built and -crewed vessels be used to transport natural gas and other commodities among American ports.
Republicans: Trump to Leave Jones Act Intact
May 1, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey, Kelsey Brugger and Geof Koss

Republicans who huddled with President Trump at the White House today say they succeeded in convincing him to leave intact little-known shipping rules, the easing of which would have supported delivery of natural gas to places like Puerto Rico and the Northeast.
House Panel Advances Bill to Ban Arctic Oil and Gas Drilling
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee

The House Natural Resources Committee on May 1 advanced a bill to repeal the oil and gas program in the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but the legislation is unlikely to go far in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Committee Approves Bill to Block ANWR Drilling
May 1, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kellie Lunney

The House Natural Resources Committee this afternoon advanced legislation 22-14 to halt oil and gas exploration and development in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Wyden Pitches Trump on Clean Energy Tax Reform
May 2, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss

Sen. Ron Wyden took advantage of this week's infrastructure meeting with President Trump to press a longtime policy priority: a complete overhaul of the energy tax code.
Lawmakers Urged to Protect Pipelines Against Cyberthreats
May 2, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee

Congress needs to ensure that pipelines are secure against cyberattacks when it reauthorizes the federal pipeline safety program later this year, witnesses said during a House subcommittee hearing.
‘Freedom Gas’: US Opens LNG Floodgates to Europe
May 2, 2019 | EURACTIV
By Frédéric Simon

US energy secretary Rick Perry will sign two export orders for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Brussels today (2 May), in a move officials said will double America’s export capacity to Europe to 112 billion cubic meters per year as of 2020.

Chemical Security News

'Denial of Service' Attack Caused Grid Cyber Disruption: DOE
May 2, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak

A recent cyber disruption to the U.S. grid involved a "denial of service condition" at a Western utility, according to a Department of Energy official.
Democrats Press DHS Official on Cyber Budget Proposal
May 2, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak

Department of Homeland Security officials, including recently ousted Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, often stress how cyberthreats facing U.S. critical infrastructure continue to grow.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Washington Bill to Cap Bakken Crude by Rail Sets off Interstate Dispute
May 1, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Eric Wolff

Washington Governor and Democratic presidential hopeful Jay Inslee is expected to sign a bill that would cap rail shipments of crude oil from the Bakken field though the state, a move likely to set off a legal battle with North Dakota.
Democrats Seek to Elevate Climate in Talks
May 2, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Maxine Joselow

When President Trump and Democratic leadership discussed infrastructure at the White House earlier this week, climate change barely came up.
What Does Trump Support on Infrastructure? It's Anyone's Guess, as Always
May 1, 2019 | Roll Call
By John T. Bennett

President Donald Trump was talking infrastructure with senior congressional Democrats Tuesday in the Oval Office when he threw a former aide under the bus.
Why Any Infrastructure Package Must Harness Main Street
May 1, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Nydia M. Velázquez

Earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) went to the White House and made clear that fixing our nation’s infrastructure is a priority where Democrats and Republicans can find common ground.

Environment News

Green New Deal May Open Door to GOP-Backed Carbon Fee
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

The Green New Deal doesn’t have a carbon tax at its core, but that could be a blessing in disguise, a leading advocate for a Republican-led carbon pricing plan says.
House Democrats' Delay On Bipartisan CCUS Bill Draws Labor Complaints
May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

House Democrats are sending signals they are in no hurry to advance bipartisan legislation that has been gaining traction in the Senate to further encourage carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), drawing fire from an influential labor group that supports the technology.
Defenders of CO2 Expand Presence in Congress
May 2, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman

A group funded by conservative foundations to promote doubt about the effects of climate change has quietly expanded its outreach in Congress over the last few months.
D.C. Circuit Wrestles With Venue For Suit On EPA Air Permit Policy Change
May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

Appellate judges at May 1 oral argument wrestled with which circuit court has jurisdiction to hear environmentalists’ suit claiming a major Trump administration shift in Clean Air Act permitting policy barring the agency from “second guessing” states’ permit decisions is unlawful, but the judges did not indicate how they might rule.
House Republican Moves to Force Vote on Green New Deal
May 1, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Juliegrace Brufke and Miranda Green

GOP Rep. Jody Hice (Ga.) on Wednesday introduced a discharge petition aimed at circumventing Democratic leadership and forcing a vote on the progressive-backed Green New Deal.
Paris Bill Debate Revamps Old Talking Points
May 2, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk

The House yesterday rehashed old arguments about the Paris Agreement during debate on Democratic leadership's climate bill, but lawmakers gave those talking points fresh twists amid new progressive energy and fractures in both parties about how to address climate change.

Industry and Association News

Key House Democrat Seeks Federal Strategy To Boost Plastics Recycling

May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), chair of the House science panel's research subcommittee, is urging EPA and other agencies to develop a national strategy to boost plastics recycling that includes improving U.S. recycling infrastructure, though experts say any nationwide plan should be flexible enough to encourage new and emerging technologies.
In an April 29 letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, Stevens said increased recycling in the United States would improve environmental protection and create jobs. “As raw materials become scarcer and more expensive, a national recycling strategy would preserve our natural resources while driving economic growth to build American leadership in sustainable innovation,” she wrote.
“We know the enormous environmental and economic benefits of recycling, and we know that there is a great need for action at the federal level,” she added.
Stevens asked Wheeler what steps EPA is taking to boost U.S. recycling infrastructure, why agency data on recycling, composting, combustion, energy recovery and landfilling of products and materials has not been updated since 2015, and what the agency is doing to mitigate rising recycling costs resulting from China’s ban on importing plastics.
She did not set a deadline for Wheeler to reply.
On April 30, Haley chaired a hearing of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee research panel to discuss “Closing the Loop: Emerging Technologies in Plastics Recycling.”
At the hearing, Stevens, other lawmakers and public and private sector recycling experts suggested that federal efforts to boost recycling should extend beyond EPA to include other agencies. Ideas ranged from setting a universal National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard for plastics recycling to creating tax incentives to spur development of biodegradable plastics or cleanup of plastics pollution.
Researchers, as well as city and chemical industry officials, testified that only a small proportion of plastics are recycled, and that the federal government could boost recycling through a variety of steps. These measures include investing in research and development of new technologies, and crafting a universal definition of recycling that would help companies to certify to consumers that their products contain recycled materials.
Govind Menon, director of the School of Science and Technology’s Center for Materials and Manufacturing Sciences at Troy University, said the United States lacks a universal standard for plastics recycling, and that NIST would be the appropriate federal agency to set such a standard.
Tim Boven, Dow’s recycling commercial director, backed a federal role, noting that states are developing recycling policies.
But he cautioned that any definition of recycling should be sufficiently broad to not deter development of new recycling technologies. “Advanced plastics recycling and recovery facilities that deploy gasification or pyrolysis technology should be universally defined and accepted as recycling,” Boven said in written testimony. “Definitions of recycling should be broad and technology neutral, so as not to prevent the development and deployment of new technologies.”
'The Right Balance'
Boven also said Congress could help companies to certify customers that products contain recycled materials. “In order to make claims regarding or certify compliance with recycled content requirements, industry needs an accounting system in place to track substances through the manufacturing process,” according to his written testimony.
Additionally, Boven suggested that the chemical sector could partner with Congress to incentivize federal, state and local investments in new recycling infrastructure.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said federal tax incentives could spur companies to manufacture products that are as useful and cost-effective as plastic but are also biodegradable or to clean up plastics pollution.
“We need to find the right balance in the federal government” to advance recycling, Sherman said. “What is the federal role in recycling” and in promoting recycling at the state level?
Stevens, in her opening remarks, suggested a broad national strategy to build U.S. recycling infrastructure that includes standards and investment in research and development in sustainable materials.
And Stevens noted that the 1976 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act was the last comprehensive law Congress passed to improve recycling.
In her letter to Wheeler, Stevens wrote that recycling drives job creation and reduces U.S. dependence on Chinese imports of rare earth elements often used in the manufacture of electronics, automobiles and other products.
And she said that EPA data shows recycling significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution. “In many cases, U.S. cities are being forced to cut longstanding recycling programs and are instead incinerating recyclables or leaving them in landfills, releasing harmful dioxins, methane and other dangerous emissions.”
“The latest data from the EPA shows that in one year, recycling, composting, combustion with energy recovery and landfilling prevented over 181.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions, which is comparable to the annual emissions from over 38.8 million passenger vehicles,” according to the letter.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/key-house-democrat-seeks-federal-strategy-boost-plastics-recycling

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

IG to Review Toxics Office's Implementation of TSCA Reform

May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA

EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced May 1 that it is kicking off a new review into the agency's implementation of the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and whether EPA's toxics office has the resources needed to perform its new responsibilities -- an area that has been of question since the law's passage.
“The OIG’s objective is to determine whether the EPA has met Lautenberg Act deadlines, and whether the EPA has the staff, resources and management controls in place to meet future statutory deadlines,” OIG's May 1 memo states. “The anticipated benefits of this project include determining whether the EPA has the financial capacity and staff necessary to meet all the new statutory deadlines mandated by the Lautenberg Act.”
The memo, addressed to Alexandra Dunn, EPA's toxics chief, says the review was OIG self-initiated.
President Donald Trump has proposed increases to the toxics office's budget in each of his budget proposals -- rare bump ups for an EPA program in the Trump administration which has generally sought to slash EPA funding -- in recognition of the resources needed for EPA undertake the many new responsibilities the bipartisan, revised statute requires. It's successful implementation remains a top priority of the chemical industry.
Meanwhile, OPPT officials have been working for more than a year to reorganize the office to better position it to implement TSCA reform. The most recent plan required hiring new scientific and technical staff to fill a new risk assessment branch. In the meantime, EPA has sought to address its manpower problem by pulling staff from other parts of OPPT, the research office and elsewhere within the agency.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ig-review-toxics-offices-implementation-tsca-reform

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Denies Second Asbestos TSCA Reporting Petition

May 1, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The US EPA has again decided against petitioners requesting that the agency expand reporting obligations for asbestos under TSCA.
The development came in response to a 31 January petition, submitted by more than a dozen state attorneys general, who had asked that the agency develop an asbestos reporting rule under section 8 of TSCA.
In their TSCA section 21 petition, the state AGs argued that additional information was needed to support the agency’s ongoing risk evaluation of asbestos and potential subsequent risk management actions. And they requested the agency "address infirmities" in existing reporting requirements, such as by applying chemical data reporting (CDR) rule requirements to processors and eliminating certain exemptions.
But, as was the case for a similar petition submitted by a group of NGOs, the agency has denied the request.
According to a pre-publication Federal Register notice laying out its reasoning for doing so, the EPA said it does not believe that imposing the requested reporting requirements would result in the collection of "data the petitioners believe the agency lacks".
"Since asbestos was announced in December 2016 as one of the first ten chemicals for evaluation under TSCA, the agency has conducted market research, public outreach, voluntary data collection, collaborative work with other federal and state agencies, and stakeholder engagement," it said.
"EPA believes that the agency is aware of all ongoing uses of asbestos."
And it reiterated that even if it were to grant the request, the timeline for completing the rulemaking process and then collecting data would not result in the agency acquiring information in time to inform its section 6 activities under the deadlines imposed by TSCA.
The agency also pointed out that it has recently finalised a significant new use rule (Snur) that will require notification for any use of asbestos that is neither ongoing nor already prohibited under TSCA. Its risk evaluation, meanwhile, will assess whether any of the ongoing uses not covered by the Snur pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.‘Deeply disappointed’
In a statement, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) president and CEO Linda Reinstein said she was "deeply disappointed, but not at all surprised by" the EPA’s denial of the state AGs’ petition.
However, the law allows a petitioner to file a lawsuit to try to compel the agency to initiate a requested rulemaking within 60 days of a petition denial. And this was the approach taken by the ADAO and other NGOs earlier this year, after the EPA turned down their similar petition.
Meanwhile, Congress is considering a bill (HR 1603) that would amend TSCA to prohibit the manufacture, processing and distribution of asbestos and articles containing it.
"For now, litigation and legislation is our only course of action," added Ms Reinstein.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77033/epa-denies-second-asbestos-tsca-reporting-petition

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA New Rule Falls Short of Total Ban on Harmful Material

May 1, 2019 | iLaw Journals University News

By Thomas Channeton

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made their final ruling to tighten restrictions on the use of asbestos-containing products. The EPA makes adjustments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was highly criticized.
The new rules do not ban the substance, but requires prior approval from the EPA before importing specific products for commercial sale or using the products in domestic manufacturing.
Four new categories have been added to the TSCA’s scope, including a category that serves as a “catch-all” for processes that may not have already been covered. The final rule now includes 19 products that contain asbestos to be prohibited from entering the market with evaluation risks. Additional product categories include sealants, pipeline wrap, reinforced plastics, floor tile, millboard and adhesives.
Many environmentalists agree that the new rules will close loopholes, but these groups also claim that the move simply isn’t enough. The EPA claims that it doesn’t have the authority to restrict certain items from being reintroduced to the market.
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization claims that the ruling does not stop the 300 tons of raw asbestos from entering the United States annually. There’s also the concern that the ruling does little to help asbestos from entering the market.
Materials that had been previously phased out of usage, such as insulation and floor tiles that contain asbestos, now have a pathway to reenter the market. The new rule will take at least 60 days to go into effect, according to the EPA.
The EPA, according to a testimony weeks ago, was ready to implement an outright ban of the substance. The testimony, which was heard by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, was met with criticism. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) is the chairman of the committee and claimed that an outright ban would be a “complete betrayal.”
The TSCA gave the EPA the authority to regulate asbestos in the United States in 1976.
More than 60 countries have banned asbestos usage. Asbestos fibers can enter the lungs, leading to mesothelioma. Mining of the material stopped in the US in 2002. The chloralkaline industry is the only industry in the United States that manufactures products that contain asbestos. The products that the industry manufacturers are semipermeable diaphragms, which are used to make chlorine.
New uses and reintroducing older uses of asbestos in the United States is now possible under the new rule, albeit still unlikely to be allowed by the EPA.
https://www.ilawjournals.com/epa-new-rule-falls-short-of-total-ban-on-harmful-material

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes 1st State to Ban Single-Use Foam Containers

May 1, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)

Maine has banned single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam, commonly known as Styrofoam, becoming the first state to do so.
Democratic Gov. Janet Mills signed the bill, which takes effect in 2021, into law Tuesday.
Environmental groups have sought such bans amid rising public awareness of throwaway plastic that accumulates in the oceans, but the Natural Resources Council of Maine said that Maine is the first state to enact a ban.
Similar legislation passed Maryland's Legislature in April, but it's unclear whether that state's Republican governor, Larry Hogan, will sign it.
Oregon, Vermont and Connecticut are also considering banning the containers, and dozens of communities from Berkeley, California, to New York City have already passed their own bans, some of which date back to the late 1980s. Several companies such as Dunkin' and McDonald's have also pledged to or have already eliminated foam cups.
In December, European Union officials agreed to ban some single-use plastics, such as polystyrene food and beverage containers, in an effort to curb marine pollution.
"With the threats posed by plastic pollution becoming more apparent, costly, and even deadly to wildlife, we need to be doing everything possible to limit our use and better manage our single-use plastics — starting with eliminating the use of unnecessary forms like plastic foam," said Sarah Lakeman, Sustainable Maine director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Mills called it an "important step forward in protecting our environment." The governor said it creates consistency for businesses while providing time to adjust.
The law will prohibit "covered establishments" — like restaurants and grocery stores — from using polystyrene containers. Hospitals, seafood shippers and state-funded meals-on-wheels programs will be exempt.
Maine has banned foam food containers at state facilities and functions since 1993. Some communities in the state had also already banned polystyrene.
The legislation faced strong opposition from the plastics industry, food service container manufacturers and Maine business and tourism groups, which argued polystyrene is economical and a better than other materials at keeping food from spoiling.
Such industry groups argue Maine's new law doesn't mean consumers will stop littering and doesn't ensure alternatives will be better for the environment.
"It is our sincere hope that Gov. Mills and the Maine Legislature will reconsider this legislation next year after they see how it will negatively impact the environment and local businesses and consumers," said Omar Terrie, a director in the American Chemistry Council's plastics division.
The plastics industry also says they're taking voluntary steps to make plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or recoverable by 2030. The industry in January committed to spending $1.5 billion over five years to end plastic waste through a new nonprofit, The Alliance to End Plastic Waste, according to American Chemistry Council lobbyist Margaret Gorman.
"All packaging leaves an environmental footprint regardless of the material type," Gorman told Maine lawmakers in written testimony.
Maine State Chamber of Commerce lobbyist Ben Gilman said the bill would raise costs for small businesses, in particular, while sending a "chilling message" to companies in the state that manufacture food service containers.
"These types of issues are better dealt with on a regional or national basis due to unbalanced cost impact it will have on Maine businesses," he said in written testimony to lawmakers.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/05/01/us/ap-us-maine-foam-containers.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes First State to Ban Styrofoam Food Containers, Effective 2021

May 1, 2019 | USA Today

By N'dea Yancey-Bragg

Maine has become the first state to ban food containers made of polystyrene, commonly known as Styrofoam.
Democratic Gov. Janet Mills signed a bill Tuesday that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021, prohibiting businesses from selling or distributing disposable food service containers made of polystyrene.
The containers are a "significant contributor to environmental plastics pollution" because they break down into microplastics which can pollute oceans and eventually make their way into the food supply, according to a press release from the governor's office.
“Polystyrene cannot be recycled like a lot of other products, so while that cup of coffee may be finished, the Styrofoam cup it was in is not,” Mills said in a statement. “In fact, it will be around for decades to come and eventually it will break down into particles, polluting our environment, hurting our wildlife, and even detrimentally impacting our economy.”
Plastic foam food containers are among the top 10 most commonly littered items in the U.S. and cannot be recycled in Maine, according to the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM).
“With the threats posed by plastic pollution becoming more apparent, costly, and even deadly to wildlife, we need to be doing everything possible to limit our use and better manage our single-use plastics—starting with eliminating the use of unnecessary forms like plastic foam,” said Sarah Lakeman, Sustainable Maine project director.
Groups supporting the plastic industry opposed the bill, saying it wouldn't solve the littering problem and doesn’t ensure alternative packaging will be environmentally friendly.
“This legislation fails to recognize that litter and improper waste management are independent of material type," American Chemistry Council lobbyist Margaret Gorman wrote in a statement to Maine lawmakers, "All packaging leaves an environmental footprint regardless of the material type."
Although Maine is the first state to ban Styrofoam containers, some cities like New York City have enacted similar bans. In an effort to curb plastic pollution, California and Hawaii have banned plastic bags and some cities and counties across the country have banned straws.
Maryland’s Legislature passed similar legislation in April, but it’s unclear whether the Republican governor, Larry Hogan, will sign it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/01/maine-first-state-styrofoam-ban-food-containers/3646709002/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) States Declare War on Styrofoam — "People Think It Breaks Down"

May 1, 2019 | CBS News

By Irina Ivanova

Maine Gov. Janet Mills has signed a ban on polystyrene food containers at restaurants and grocery stores, making it the first state in the nation to ban some types of plastic foam. But that could be merely the first shot in a broader national campaign against a product better known as Styrofoam.
Along with Maine's action, which takes effect in 2021, the Maryland legislature passed a ban earlier this year that now awaits the governor's signature. Similar bills are in progress in Vermont, Colorado, Oregon and New Jersey.
Expanded foam has been a target of environmental groups since the 1980s. "The first polystyrene ban was in Berkeley, California, in 1987. Here we are 30-plus years later still trying to do something at the state level," said Alex Truelove, director of the zero-waste program at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy group. Today, dozens of cities around the U.S. have polystyrene bans in place, including about 16 in Maine.
Like all plastics, polystyrene stays around in the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. But it's particularly noxious, environmentalists say, because its light weight makes it liable to be carried by wind and water into the ocean. It also crumbles easily into small pieces, making it more likely that birds and fish will eat it.
"People think it breaks down, because you see it breaking in smaller and smaller pieces, but in some ways those are more harmful because they can more easily be consumed by animals and even humans," said Jacqueline Savitz, chief policy officer of North America at Oceana, an ocean conservancy nonprofit. Polystyrene is hard to recycle, especially in its popular form as a food packaging. And recent evidence indicates it may also be carcinogenic."Low-grade goop"
While very clean polystyrene can technically be recycled, that process is often laborious. When New York City banned polystyrene in 2017, it cited findings from the sanitation department that the product "cannot be recycled in a manner that is economically feasible or environmentally effective."
"Imagine if you took all the different types of polystyrene packaging out there — plates, cups, meat trays," said Martin Bourque, executive director of the Ecology Center in Berkeley. "It's going to have food stains on it, it's going to be all different colors, and it's going to be all this foam you have to densify. You're not going to get food-grade polystyrene out of that, no way. You've just got this very low-grade goop that you can use for some very limited, very low-grade applications."
Despite the material's deficits, styrene remains popular in the packaging and food industries because of its unique combination of properties — it's remarkably light and offers effective insulation, keeping hot things hot and cold things cold. There are other products, including a rigid, lightweight mushroom-based substitute, but they can cost more, which makes some small restaurant owners wary.
Maine's bill faced strong opposition from the plastics industry, food service container manufacturers and tourism groups, which argued for the low cost of polystyrene. Such industry groups argued that Maine law doesn't ensure that polystyrene is replaced with a more eco-friendly material.
"It is our sincere hope that Gov. Mills and the Maine Legislature will reconsider this legislation next year after they see how it will negatively impact the environment and local businesses and consumers," Omar Terrie, a director in the American Chemistry Council's plastics division, told The Associated Press.
While only a few New York restaurants used Styrofoam before the ban, those establishments faced higher costs for replacement materials, according to Andrew Rigie, executive director of the NYC Hospitality Alliance.
Of course, some of the items they switched to — such as hard plastic clamshell containers — may be only slightly more recyclable than polystyrene. That's why many environmental activists now favor moving away from laws banning individual items like food containers, straws or plastic bags, and toward comprehensive rules addressing all types of plastic.
"The ability to recycle it is not going to keep up," said Oceana's Savitz. "It's not OK to say, 'We're just going to make it and manage it better.' We have to reduce what we're making."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/styrofoam-ban-states-declare-war-people-think-it-breaks-down/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Is First State to Ban Single-Use Plastic-Foam Containers

May 1, 2019 | Fox News

By Samuel Chamberlain

Maine Gov. Janet Mills has enacted a bill making her state the first to ban single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam.
The legislation, which Mills signed into law Tuesday, will take effect in 2021. It prohibits so-called "covered establishments" — like restaurants and grocery stores — from using the containers. Exempted are hospitals, seafood shippers and state-funded meals-on-wheels programs.
Mills, a Democrat, called the new law an "important step forward in protecting our environment." The governor said it creates consistency for businesses while providing time to adjust.
Environmental groups have sought such bans amid rising public awareness of throwaway plastic accumulating in the oceans.
"With the threats posed by plastic pollution becoming more apparent, costly, and even deadly to wildlife, we need to be doing everything possible to limit our use and better manage our single-use plastics — starting with eliminating the use of unnecessary forms like plastic foam," said Sarah Lakeman, Sustainable Maine director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Similar legislation passed Maryland's Legislature in April, but it's unclear whether that state's Republican governor, Larry Hogan, will sign it. Oregon, Vermont and Connecticut are also considering banning the containers, and dozens of communities from Berkeley, Calif., to New York City have passed their own bans, some of which date back to the late 1980s.
Maine has banned foam food containers at state facilities and functions since 1993 and some communities in the state had already banned polystyrene.
The legislation faced strong opposition from the plastics industry, food service container manufacturers and Maine business and tourism groups, which argued that polystyrene is economical and better than other materials at keeping food from spoiling.
"It is our sincere hope that Governor Mills and the Maine Legislature will reconsider this legislation next year after they see how it will negatively impact the environment and local businesses and consumers," said Omar Terrie, a director in the American Chemistry Council's plastics division.
The plastics industry also says it's taking voluntary steps to make plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or recoverable by 2030. Several companies, such as Dunkin' and McDonald's, have eliminated foam cups or pledged to do so.
Maine State Chamber of Commerce lobbyist Ben Gilman said the bill would raise costs for small businesses while sending a "chilling message" to companies in the state that manufacture food service containers.
"These types of issues are better dealt with on a regional or national basis due to unbalanced cost impact it will have on Maine businesses," he said in written testimony.
https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/maine-is-first-state-to-ban-single-use-styrofoam-containers

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes the First State to Ban Single-Use Food and Drink Styrofoam Containers

May 1, 2019 | Daily Mail

By Luke Kenton

Maine has become the first state to ban single-use food and drink containers made from Styrofoam, following a bill signing by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills on Tuesday afternoon.
The law, which will come into effect in 2021, will now reduce the number of Styrofoam containers from being thrown away in the state by more than 256 million per year.
The Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) said the state has become the first to enact such a ban in the US.
Similar legislation did pass in Maryland in April, but it's unclear whether that state's Republican governor, Larry Hogan, will sign it.
Oregon, Vermont and Connecticut are also currently considering similar motions to ban the food and drink containers statewide.
Dozens of communities across the US - including Berkeley, Seattle and New York City - have already passed their own similar bans, some of which date back to the late 1980s.
Environmental groups have lobbied to see the bans brought into law, amid rising public awareness of throwaway plastic accumulating in the oceans and not decomposing.
Companies such as Dunkin' and McDonald's have pledged to or have already eliminated foam cups, while towns and cities around the globe are also considering bans of their own.
In December, European Union officials agreed to ban some single-use plastics, such as polystyrene food and beverage containers, in an effort to curb marine pollution.
'Maine has proven itself an environmental leader once again, this time in eliminating disposable foam containers that have become a common, costly, and deadly form of plastic pollution,' said Sarah Lakeman of the NRCM.
'With the threats posed by plastic pollution becoming more apparent, costly, and even deadly to wildlife, we need to be doing everything possible to limit our use and better manage our single-use plastics - starting with eliminating the use of unnecessary forms like plastic foam.'
Mills called it an 'important step forward in protecting our environment.' The governor said it creates consistency for businesses while providing time to adjust.
The law will prohibit 'covered establishments' like restaurants and grocery stores from using polystyrene containers. Hospitals, seafood shippers and state-funded meals-on-wheels programs will be exempt.
Maine banned foam food containers at state facilities and functions in 1993. Some communities in the state had already banned polystyrene long before Tuesday's bill signing.
The environmental legislation faced strong opposition from the plastic industry, food service container manufacturers and Maine business and tourism groups, which argued polystyrene is economical and a better way to keep food from spoiling.
Such industry groups asserted that the bill doesn't mean consumers will stop littering.
The groups said they're taking voluntary steps to make plastic package reusable, recyclable or recoverable by 2030.
The plastic industry in January committed to spending $1.5 billion over five years to end plastic waste through a new nonprofit, The Alliance to End Plastic Waste, according to American Chemistry Council lobbyist Margaret Gorman.
'All packaging leaves an environmental footprint regardless of the material type,' Gorman told Maine lawmakers in written testimony.
Maine State Chamber of Commerce lobbyist Ben Gilman said the bill would raise costs for small businesses in particular while sending a 'chilling message' to companies in the state that manufacture food service containers.
'These types of issues are better dealt with on a regional or national basis due to unbalanced cost impact it will have on Maine businesses,' he said in written testimony to lawmakers.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6980829/Maine-1st-state-ban-single-use-foam-containers.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Float Another Bipartisan PFAS Bill

May 1, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Ariana Figueroa

Senators have reintroduced a bipartisan piece of legislation that seeks to improve communications between states and the federal government when responding to toxic chemicals in drinking water.
Those chemicals, which have raised bipartisan concern, are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, and are found in nonstick household products, shoes and firefighting foam.
Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) reintroduced S. 1251 yesterday.
Between the two chambers, lawmakers have introduced more than 10 bills dealing with PFAS — including requiring EPA to set enforceable standards and creating a registry for people exposed to the chemicals because of their closeness to a military base.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) sponsored a similar bill, H.R. 2377, earlier this week along with Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee; Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Environment; and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) (E&E News PM, April 30).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/01/stories/1060253705

Return to headline | Return to top
Pentagon Denies Pressuring EPA Over Water Cleanup Standards

May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Schultz

The Pentagon’s top officials in charge of military installations denied they are interfering with the EPA’s efforts to address a group of ubiquitous perfluorinated chemicals contaminating groundwater.
“There has been tremendous discussion in the media that DoD was trying to drive to a different standard than what EPA was asking for,” Robert McMahon, assistant secretary of Defense for sustainment, said at a May 1 congressional hearing. “I will tell you categorically that DoD has not been.”
McMahon added that the Pentagon supports the numerical threshold that the Environmental Protection Agency set for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a draft guidance it released last week for public comment. The limit the agency ultimately sets may determine how costly it will be to clean up groundwater.
‘No Discussions’
PFAS are a common ingredient in firefghting foams that have been used for years during training exercises at many military bases. The chemicals, which are linked to numerous health problems, biodegrade slowly and have seeped into groundwater supplies on and near dozens of bases.
The Pentagon has estimated that it will be liable for approximately $2 billion in cleanup costs due to PFAS, but that number could grow depending on how stringent the EPA sets its standards for the substances in groundwater.
McMahon and other top Pentagon officials told a House Armed Services Committee that they are leaving the standard-setting up to the environmental experts.
“I’ve had no discussions with anyone at the EPA and I don’t intend to,” Alex Beehler, assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy, and environment, said.
Todd Mellon, the acting principal deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations, and environment, added that it’s “ultimately EPA’s call to set what those standards are. The Navy is fully on board.”
Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services’ Subcommittee on Readiness, said he accepted the officials’ answers and “didn’t have any reason to question that.”
Lamborn’s district contains Fountain and Security, two civilian towns located near a military base that recently discovered very high levels of PFAS in their drinking water supplies. He told Bloomberg Environment that he’s pleased with the Pentagon’s progress on addressing this issue, especially its work toward looking for a replacement for PFAS.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pentagon-denies-pressuring-epa-over-water-cleanup-standards

Return to headline | Return to top
Firefighters Call for Fluorine-Free Foam at International POPs Meeting

May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Ginger Hervey

A group of firefighters and fire safety experts on Wednesday called on international negotiators to ban fluorinated chemicals in firefighting foam.
Delegates from more than 180 countries are in Geneva this week for the annual meeting of the UN's Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). On the agenda are proposals to tighten controls on PFOA and PFOS, two fluorinated industrial chemicals used in a variety of manufacturing processes for their resistance to water and oil.
The EU has identified both substances as persistent, bioaccumulative and reprotoxic.
Speaking at a press conference hosted by the civil society network Ipen on the sidelines of the convention, firefighters from international and Australian trade unions, as well as experts from aviation and oil and gas companies that have stopped using fluorinated foam, urged delegates to ban PFOA and to "close loopholes" in the convention for the ban on PFOS.
"As a firefighter I can tell you our anxiety levels are high, because we know we've had to deal with exposure to this toxic chemical for over 50 years," Mick Tisbury, president of the United Firefighters Union of Australia and commander of the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade, said of PFOA. "Right now we feel like we've got a ticking time bomb in our bodies."
New data on exposure to fluorinated chemicals for Australian firefighters was included in an Ipen reportpublished last week advocating for fluorine-free firefighting foam. It found "significant elevations" of fluorinated chemicals in the blood of Australian firefighters compared to the general population of the country, according to the NGO.
All major airports in Australia have phased out the use of fluorinated firefighting foam, the report said. Tisbury said that his fire brigade has found the fluorine-free foam performs just as well.
Stockholm talks
In October, the review committee for the Stockholm Convention recommended adding PFOA to Annex A of the convention, which slates it for global elimination.
Joe DiGangi, the senior science and technical advisor of Ipen, said that discussions so far indicate this will be approved.
"It appears that there will be an agreement to enact a global ban on PFOA," Dr DiGangi said. "So the nature of the discussion is really focused on how many exemptions will be present in that global ban, and that discussion is happening now."
The Convention is considering ten exemptions, among them the use of PFOA in firefighting foam. Fluorinated firefighting foam is a leading cause of contamination of water with carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting chemicals, according to Ipen.
Dr DiGangi said discussions are ongoing about what kind of guidance governments will receive about alternatives to PFOA in firefighting foam, and he advocated for discouraging substituting the substance for another fluorinated chemical. Ipen also advocates for the class of fluorinated organic compounds to be treated as a group.
Delegates are also debating whether to tighten controls on PFOS, which was added to the annex in 2009 but with several exemptions, including one for firefighting foam.
The review committee in October recommended removing several exemptions entirely, and phasing out the one on firefighting foam over five years.
Industry cautious
Thomas Leonhardt from Eurofeu, an association representing fire protection equipment and firefighting vehicles, said that fluorine-free foams can perform as well as their fluorinated counterparts when tackling some fires, but not all of them. He cited fuel fires as an area for which fluorinated foams are more efficient.
Eurofeu does not oppose adding PFOA to the Stockholm convention, Dr Leonhardt said, but it holds that a combination of fluorinated and non-fluorinated foams should be allowed in high-risk areas, like the chemical and aviation industries.
He also said most firefighters are used to handling fluorinated foam and will need to be trained on the differences in behavior between the two types.
"There are certain aspects linked to the chemistry of the firefighting foams and of the fact that a foam is fluorine-free that we have never considered before," he said. "We have to do a much more in-depth risk analysis to be able to use a fluorine free-foam effectively.
"If we don't do that, we sacrifice fire safety."
https://chemicalwatch.com/77056/firefighters-call-for-fluorine-free-foam-at-international-pops-meeting

Return to headline | Return to top
'Alarming' Levels of Brominated Dioxins Found in Recycled Plastic Products

May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch

A global study of consumer products made from recycled plastic has found "alarming" levels of brominated dioxins and flame retardants in samples taken from emerging countries, as well as Canada, the EU and Japan.
The International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen) and Czech NGO Arnika analysed 13 samples including a hair clip, key fob and Rubik's-like cube puzzles for brominated flame retardants (PBDE), which are banned or regulated under the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
The results were published as the conference of the parties of the Stockholm, Basel and Rotterdam Conventions takes place from 29 April to 10 May to consider proposals to strengthen global policies on POPs and waste.
Dioxins measured in samples of children’s toys and hair accessories were at levels comparable to those found in hazardous wastes, including ash from waste incinerators, the study revealed.
Brominated dioxins are extremely toxic in small amounts and form unintentionally during the production of brominated flame retardants, it said.
Additionally, when plastics with brominated flame retardants are recycled and heated to reform new plastic products, more brominated and chlorinated dioxins are formed, it added.
The study found dioxin and PBDE levels in all of the items sampled, with half of the products exceeding the proposed chlorinated dioxin hazardous waste limit. More than half of the samples measured levels of PBDEs that meet current regulatory proposals of 1,000ppm.
The samples were taken from:Argentina;Brazil;Cambodia;Canada;the EU;India;Japan; andNigeria.
All of these countries, with the exception of Argentina, India and Nigeria, have received recycling exemptions from the global PBDE ban, the NGOs said.
Ipen and Arnika are calling for a 10ppm limit on decaBDE in recycled plastics, as well as a "more stringent" limit for the definition of POPs in waste. Furthermore, recycling exemptions should be removed and dioxins (PBDD/Fs) added to the Stockholm Convention, they say.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77044/alarming-levels-of-brominated-dioxins-found-in-recycled-plastic-products

Return to headline | Return to top
US FDA Calls Preparatory Meeting for International Cosmetics Event

May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has called a public meeting to help it prepare for the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR-13) meeting in Montreal in July.
The FDA says the aim of the 5 June meeting in College Park, Maryland is to "solicit input on topics that may be relevant for further discussion" at the upcoming ICCR meeting. Members of the public can submit proposals, data and opinions for the ICCR agenda.
As well as the US, the ICCR includes regulatory authorities from Brazil, Canada, the EU and Japan. The Federal Register pre-publication notice says they work together to "make decisions through consensus that will be compatible with the laws, policies, rules, regulations and directives of the respective administrations and governments."
ICCR-13 will be held on 9-11 July. The deadline for registration for the FDA event is 22 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77052/us-fda-calls-preparatory-meeting-for-international-cosmetics-event

Return to headline | Return to top
California to Hold Synthetic Turf Study Advisory Panel Meeting

May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) will hold a meeting of its synthetic turf scientific advisory panel on 31 May.
The panel is intended to provide scientific advice on the agency’s ongoing study examining the potential health impacts associated with the use of synthetic turf and playground mats made of crumb rubber.
It has had three previous meetings to advise on the study plans, data interpretation and how to report results.
The panel meeting, which will be open to the public and webcast, will include an opportunity for public comment.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, work continues on a multi-agency study on the safety of recycled rubber tyre crumbs.
The US EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) plan to release for public review later this year the first part of their report, which summarises a crumb rubber characterisation study.
Information on their ongoing biomonitoring study, as well as information collected under an exposure characterisation study, will be released at a later date.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77051/california-to-hold-synthetic-turf-study-advisory-panel-meeting

Return to headline | Return to top
The EPA Says Glyphosate, the Main Ingredient in Roundup, Doesn't Cause Cancer. Others Aren't so Sure

May 1, 2019 | CNN

By Holly Yan

The fierce debate over whether glyphosate can cause cancer just got a big endorsement of safety from the US Environmental Protection Agency."EPA continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen," the agency said Tuesday.
The announcement comes after two high-profile court cases in which cancer patients claimed Roundup, a popular weedkiller containing glyphosate, caused their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
In both cases, jurors sided with the patients and said Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, should pay them tens of millions of dollars in damages.
Fallout from those verdicts -- plus thousands of similar lawsuits against Monsanto -- have dealt a huge financial blow to Monsanto's parent company, Bayer.
Roundup cancer verdicts could cost Bayer billions
But the EPA's announcement saying glyphosate is still safe was a boon for Bayer, which has insisted the same all along."
Bayer firmly believes that the science supports the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides, which are some of the most thoroughly studied products of their kind, and is pleased that the regulators tasked with assessing this extensive body of science continue to reach favorable conclusions," the company said.
But that doesn't mean all concerns have been alleviated.
Why the debate keeps brewing
Cancer patients who used Roundup started suing Monsanto after the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer said glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans."
"For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma," IARC said in a 2015 report.But Monsanto said more than 800 studies have demonstrated glyphosate's safety, including studies conducted internationally."
In fact, since IARC classified glyphosate, regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia have publicly reaffirmed that glyphosate does not cause cancer," a spokeswoman said.
Researchers from the University of Washington conducted an analysis and found that glyphosate raises the risk of cancer to those exposed to it by 41%,
"All of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL," or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the authors wrote in a study published in the journal Mutation Research.
Timothy Litzenburg, who represented the first cancer patient to take Monsanto to trial, said the problem isn't just glyphosate, it's Roundup as a product.
"We are not alleging that our clients got cancer from glyphosate alone," he said. "Roundup contains animal fats and other ingredients that increase the carcinogenicity of the glyphosate."
He said the EPA doesn't require sufficient testing, "particularly of the formulated product," Roundup.
There also are concerns about whether Monsanto has had undue influence over regulators.
In a 2015 internal company email, a Monsanto executive wrote that an EPA official at the time offered to help stop another agency's review of glyphosate, saying "If I can kill this I should get a medal."
But a Monsanto spokeswoman said the company has never paid, given gifts to or done anything else to curry favor with anyone from the EPA.
Why glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world
Supporters say glyphosate is critical for global farming and helps minimize carbon emissions.

"Without glyphosate, farmers would need to rely on plowing (or what is known as tillage), a weed control technique that turns over the soil," Bayer said.
"Tillage typically requires the use of heavy farm machinery, which increases fuel consumption and causes soil disruption, both of which release greenhouse gases, like CO2, that contribute to climate change."
Disrupting the soil can also cause erosion, which would let vital nutrients be washed away with the soil, the company said.
"Glyphosate-based herbicides enable farmers to control weeds with little or no tillage, which dramatically reduces the carbon footprint and helps farmers maintain healthier soil," Bayer said.
US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue praised the EPA's announcement that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

"If we are going to feed 10 billion people by 2050, we are going to need all the tools at our disposal, which includes the use of glyphosate," he said.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/01/health/epa-says-glyphosate-is-safe/index.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Cosmetics Europe Project Tests Model for Predicting Repeat-Dose Toxicity

May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Emma Davies

A Cosmetics Europe-funded project is evaluating a system for assessing repeat-dose toxicity without using animal tests.
The ‘mode-of-action ontology model’ was developed by experts from industry and academe and comprises four ‘pillars’ of knowledge needed to predict the toxicity of new chemicals.
These are:kinetics;chemistry;mechanisms; andtoxicology.
"It sounds so simple but nobody explored this previously. So we tried to really go through all of the pieces of information that we think are relevant and are out there," said project partner Mathieu Vinken from Vrije University in Brussels.
The model uses existing information held in databases but also helps to identify data gaps that can be filled using in vitro tests.
Researchers are in the middle of a three-year evaluation, focusing on four types of liver toxicity and using known drug compounds. Next year, the project will also include cosmetic chemicals.
The plan is for the model to be used on a case-by-case basis, explained Professor Vinken. "You know the kind of information that you want to have but the quantity and quality and the sequence by which you find this information and put it into the ontology model – that is different every time."
The model was discussed at expert workshops organised by Cosmetics Europe in 2016 and 2017, as part of its Long Range Science Strategy (LRSS) programme.
After evaluation, the team behind it expects it will become a "tool for risk assessment, helping to predict human safety without using experimental animals," according to a report published in Toxicology in Vitro.
Cosmetics Europe established the LRSS in 2016 as a follow up to the European project Seurat-1. It also supports EU-ToxRisk.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77055/cosmetics-europe-project-tests-model-for-predicting-repeat-dose-toxicity

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Republicans Push Trump to Scrap U.S. Ship Waiver Plan for Gas

May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter

Republican lawmakers are discouraging President Donald Trump from waiving requirements that U.S.-flagged, -built and -crewed vessels be used to transport natural gas and other commodities among American ports.
The lawmakers from Alaska and the shipbuilding Gulf Coast states of Mississippi and Louisiana were set to meet with Trump on Wednesday afternoon, as the administration considers relaxing mandates under the Jones Act in order to facilitate shipments of liquefied natural gas to Massachusetts and Puerto Rico.
Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, said he planned to tell Trump that it “would be foolish” to waive requirements in the nearly 100-year-old Jones Act, which requires that goods being transported via water between U.S. ports be on ships constructed in the country and crewed by American workers.
“It’s bad policy and it would be bad politics,” Kennedy said in an interview. “And in a lot of states it would mean his electoral prospects were as dead as fried chicken.”
Top Trump administration officials are divided on the issue, but the president was said to be leaning in favor of some kind of waiver after an Oval Office meeting on the issue last week.
The idea is politically fraught, drawing scorn from U.S. shipbuilding interests and their allies on Capitol Hill, including many of the lawmakers meeting with Trump. In addition to Kennedy, they include Alaska Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan; Mississippi Republican Senators Roger Wicker and Cindy Hyde-Smith; Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and the No. 2 Republican in the House, Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana.
Waiver supporters, such as billionaire oilman Harold Hamm, have promoted the exemptions as essential to lower the cost of energy in Puerto Rico and ease the flow of American natural gas to the U.S. Northeast, where there aren’t enough pipelines to deliver the product from Pennsylvania.
However, opponents argue the Jones Act provides critical support to the U.S. shipbuilding industry, promoting domestic vessel manufacturing capabilities that are essential to national security and the country’s maritime might.
Wicker said he planned to tell Trump “the Jones Act has widespread support in both houses and both parties and that we really don’t need to touch it.”
Supporters also argue the move would be out of step with Trump’s protectionist policies.
“I don’t think the president -- when he is fully briefed -- will want to” waive the Jones Act, Wicker told reporters. “If there wasn’t already a Jones Act, Donald Trump would be inventing the Jones Act.”
The Trump administration previously considered going the other way. The Customs and Border Protection considered revoking rulings allowing foreign vessels to transport some equipment to offshore oil rigs in 2017, under a proposal first launched by the Obama administration. The agency ultimately withdrew the formal proposal after the oil industry warned it could cripple production in the Gulf of Mexico, but some Trump administration officials have urged reviving it.
Murkowski, who heads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she wasn’t planning on telling Trump anything during the meeting, but instead was “going to listen to whatever is said.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/republicans-push-trump-to-scrap-u-s-ship-waiver-plan-for-gas

Return to headline | Return to top
Republicans: Trump to Leave Jones Act Intact

May 1, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Hannah Northey, Kelsey Brugger and Geof Koss

Republicans who huddled with President Trump at the White House today say they succeeded in convincing him to leave intact little-known shipping rules, the easing of which would have supported delivery of natural gas to places like Puerto Rico and the Northeast.
Trump today met with six Republican senators and one House member to discuss possibly waiving the Jones Act, a 1920s federal law meant to promote U.S.-owned and -operated vessels.
Attending the meeting were Sens. Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Kennedy and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and Roger Wicker and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, along with Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana.
Wicker told reporters on Capitol Hill today that Trump's trade adviser Peter Navarro and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao were also in attendance.
After the meeting, Cassidy issued a press release saying that he had secured a "commitment from the president to not go forward with the proposed waivers" and warning that doing so would make the nation more dependent on other countries to transport energy and critical products within the United States.
"The Jones Act is essential to preserve our domestic shipping industry and protect our national and economic security," Cassidy said. "I thank President Trump for meeting and his support for Louisiana shipbuilders and maritime workers."
Kennedy told reporters on the Hill that the meeting was "good" and he understood Trump is unlikely to make any changes to the Jones Act.
"The president is not going to make any changes. That's what I took away from it," said Kennedy. "I listen pretty carefully, and the president is not a guy who beats around the bush a lot. He kind of tells you what he thinks, and I don't think they are going to make any changes."
The politics of waiving the law are thorny and complex. The issue has pitted critics — including free-market and small-government groups — who have called for a repeal of the statute against the nation's shipbuilding lobby and its Hill allies, who argue long-term waivers could weaken the U.S. maritime sector.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who was not at the White House meeting, agreed the Jones Act sometimes puts some Republicans in a tough spot.
"I think it divides Republicans based on where you live," he told E&E News this afternoon. "Obviously, if you live adjacent to the Atlantic or Pacific or Gulf Coast, it's a controversial issue."
He declined to take a position on whether the president should waive the law.
"I'm not sure. I'd want to study the precise details."
The White House did not immediately respond when asked about the meeting and comments from Republican lawmakers.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/01/stories/1060253889

Return to headline | Return to top
House Panel Advances Bill to Ban Arctic Oil and Gas Drilling

May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Lee

The House Natural Resources Committee on May 1 advanced a bill to repeal the oil and gas program in the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but the legislation is unlikely to go far in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The panel approved, on a 22-14 vote, the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plains Protection Act (H.R. 1146), with Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) the only member to vote against his party, submitting a “no” vote.
Prior to the vote, several GOP lawmakers including Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) scoffed at the bill’s chances of ever becoming law and accused Democrats of wasting the committee’s time on a doomed effort.
Three Republican amendments to the measure all failed. One, by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), would have required the input of the Inuit people before repealing the program.
Graves submitted two others, to ensure that ending oil and gas production wouldn’t result in a greater environmental threat as a result of importing any fuels, and to find offsets if the repeal forces the U.S. into greater dependence on renewable energy.
Two Mine Cleanup Bills
During the same markup hearing, the panel also advanced to the House floor two bills aimed at cleaning up abandoned mines.
The Revitalizing the Economy of Coal Communities by Leveraging Local Activities and Investing More (RECLAIM) Act (H.R. 2156) would speed the delivery of $1 billion in existing funds to coal states so they can clean up their abandoned mine lands.
The committee approved the legislation on a 26-10 vote. Reps. Young, Rob Bishop (R-Utah), and at-large member Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-Puerto Rico) were the only Republicans to support it. No Democrats opposed it.
But the measure’s future in the Republican-controlled Senate is also uncertain, largely because the powerful National Mining Association opposes it. The association came out against the RECLAIM Act in the last Congress, arguing that the federal Abandoned Mine Land fund should be shut down altogether.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) also questioned the bill in the last Congress. Her argument was that Wyoming pays more than half of the total program fees for mines because it’s the biggest coal-producing state, but the bill would transfer most of that money to eastern states.
An amendment by Cheney to block the disbursement of the funds if President Donald Trump’s coal moratorium is suspended failed on a 23-13 party-line vote.
A separate measure, the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act (H.R. 315) would minimize liability for outside groups that want to reclaim abandoned mine lands. The bill was approved by unanimous consent.
Other Bills
Another bill approved was the Scientific Assistance for Very Endangered (SAVE) Right Whales Act (H.R. 1568), which would fund conservation programs for the endangered right whale. It succeeded on a 23-13 party line vote.
Democrats say right whales are being sacrificed in fossil fuel companies’ hunt for deep-sea deposits of oil and gas.
The committee also advanced, by unanimous consent, the Offshore Wind for Territories Act (H.R. 1014), which would expand leasing for offshore wind energy development to the coasts of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act doesn’t allow the Interior Department to hold lease sales adjacent to U.S. territories for renewable energy.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-panel-advances-bill-to-ban-arctic-oil-and-gas-drilling

Return to headline | Return to top
Committee Approves Bill to Block ANWR Drilling

May 1, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Kellie Lunney

The House Natural Resources Committee this afternoon advanced legislation 22-14 to halt oil and gas exploration and development in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
H.R. 1146, sponsored by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), would repeal language in the 2017 tax law that opened up the 1002 area in ANWR to drilling — a longtime goal of the Alaska delegation.
The bill was one of several the committee approved in its first markup of the 116th Congress with Democrats in control.
The vote was a small victory for opponents of drilling in the refuge. Members of the Gwich'in community were in the room during debate, taking pictures of the final vote tally.
Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee and a fierce advocate against drilling on ANWR's coastal plain, was openly emotional after the measure passed.
"We know we have more work to do before this bill passes through Congress and becomes law, but our people will continue to do everything in our power to fight for our human rights and protect the sacred coastal plain," said Demientieff.
The Gwich'in live just north of the Arctic Circle and depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for subsistence. Among other things, drilling opponents fear oil and gas exploration will disrupt the animals' migration and calving patterns.
"In the face of climate change, let's not mess up one of the few good things that are still going for caribou and the people who depend on them," said Huffman.
He added: "I also want to make absolutely clear what this bill does, which is simply restore the Arctic Refuge to the status it had before the Republican tax bill of 2017. It doesn't roll back oil and gas development elsewhere in the state. It doesn't shut down activities in the neighboring National Petroleum Reserve. It does nothing to go after the existing jobs in oil and gas. It simply says you can't expand into this one special place, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
But today's vote is likely to be a short-lived victory for the legislation's supporters, several panel Republicans said.
"There's no way this [bill] is ever going to get out of the Senate," said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who called Huffman's bill "atrocious."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was instrumental in getting the ANWR language into the tax law.
House Natural Resources ranking member Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said he hadn't heard anything different about the long-standing issue of drilling in ANWR than he did 17 years ago when he first arrived in the House.
Even if it makes it out of the Senate, President Trump will veto the bill, Bishop said. "It's going nowhere; it will produce nothing. We are expending a great deal of time talking about nothing," he said.
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), the top Republican on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, said ANWR has become an "emotional issue" that is "not based on merits."
Raising his voice, Graves implored his colleagues to "look at the facts; look at the studies. You have a greater chance of trashing the environment by importing oil than you do doing domestic exploration and production and putting it in a pipe."
Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan said she gets "upset" when people debate the issue and say opponents of drilling don't have the facts.
"The fact of the matter is, the Fish and Wildlife Service calls this the only conservation system that protects in an undisturbed condition a complete spectrum of the Arctic ecosystems in North America," she said, noting that her late husband, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), liked to hunt with Young and had great respect for him but disagreed with him on drilling in the refuge. "ANWR has been called America's Serengeti for a reason."
The Interior Department has said an oil and gas lease sale in ANWR could be held by the end of the year (E&E Daily, March 25).Tribal bills
The panel also reported out two bills that affect Native American tribes, including H.R. 312 from Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.) to reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation in Massachusetts.
That bill, which passed 26-10, generated debate over gaming, with the panel rejecting an amendment from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) that would have prohibited the activity on lands in trust.
There has been significant controversy over the Mashpee's proposed billion-dollar casino in Taunton, Mass. (Greenwire, Sept. 12, 2018).
Another bill, from Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), attracted bipartisan support from the committee. H.R. 375, which would reaffirm the authority of the Interior secretary to take land into trust for American Indian tribes, advanced 29-7.Oceans
The panel voted 23-13 to approve H.R. 1568 from Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), which would increase federal spending on endangered North Atlantic right whale conservation. The bill would authorize $5 million in spending every year until 2029.
Debate has hinged on the Trump administration's approval of seismic testing by offshore oil and gas companies that critics say poses a significant threat to the whales.Coal reclamation
Lawmakers reported out 26-10 bipartisan legislation aimed at expediting the cleanup of abandoned coal mines in the United States.
H.R. 2156 from Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) did not get a hearing, but it passed the committee with bipartisan support last year.
The "Revitalizing the Economy of Coal Communities by Leveraging Local Activities and Investing More (RECLAIM) Act" would accelerate spending $1 billion already collected through the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) fee.
The AML fee pays for coal site cleanups, but the "RECLAIM Act" would require those projects to have a connection to economic growth. The coal industry has argued that the bill distracts from the AML program's intended purpose (E&E Daily, March 29).
Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney called the bill "irresponsible" in part because big coal-producing states like Wyoming help foot the bill for cleanups in other parts of the country.
Cheney offered an unsuccessful amendment that would have required no available funds for the initiative in any fiscal year when a moratorium on federal coal leasing is in effect.Other bills
The following bills were passed today by unanimous consent:H.R. 255, from Rep. Paul Cook (R-Calif.), to exchange lands with San Bernardino County, Calif., to enhance management of the San Bernardino National Forest.H.R. 434, from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), to designate the Emancipation National Historic Trail 51 miles from Galveston, Texas, to Houston.H.R. 315, a broadly supported proposal from Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) to allow states to assume reclamation liabilities for nongovernmental groups that want to help with coal reclamation.H.R. 1261, from Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), to establish a national program to identify landslide hazards and a national 3D Elevation Program.H.R. 1809, from Del. Gregorio Kilili Sablan (I-Northern Mariana Islands), to allow U.S. territories and the District of Columbia to receive annual revenues raised from the Pittman-Robertson Act.H.R. 278, from Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), which would direct the secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities, easements and rights of way to the Kennewick Irrigation District.
The panel also cleared H.R. 1014, from Rep. Jenniffer González-Colón (R-Puerto Rico), to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to apply to territories of the United States, to establish offshore wind lease sale requirements and to provide dedicated funding for coral reef conservation.
Along with companion bill S. 499, the legislation would allow Interior to lease the offshore areas adjacent to American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for renewable energy (Greenwire, Feb. 20).
The territories would also receive 37.5% of lease revenues — the same as what Gulf of Mexico states can receive from drilling in federal waters under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/01/stories/1060253871

Return to headline | Return to top
Wyden Pitches Trump on Clean Energy Tax Reform

May 2, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss

Sen. Ron Wyden took advantage of this week's infrastructure meeting with President Trump to press a longtime policy priority: a complete overhaul of the energy tax code.
"The president said he was interested," the Oregon Democrat told E&E News yesterday.
As ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, Wyden was among the Democratic attendees who huddled with Trump on Tuesday to discuss infrastructure — a key campaign pledge by the president and one of the few issues capable of bringing Trump and feuding Democrats together in a civil policy discussion that both sides described as positive.
The president and Democrats agreed to a lofty $2 trillion infrastructure goal, with both sides sketching out broad proposals to pay for the measure (E&E News PM, April 30).
During that discussion, Wyden brought up a policy plan he's been honing for several years, which would scrap the energy tax code in favor of three technology-neutral credits that apply to the power and transportation sectors, with a third break incentivizing energy efficiency.
In addition to pressing Trump to support repealing parts of the 2017 GOP tax overhaul to pay for infrastructure, Wyden said he told Trump he should pursue "21st-century solutions" rather than past funding proposals he labeled "a bunch of retreads."
"He said, 'Give me some examples,' and I said, 'We have 44 tax breaks for energy, and I propose throwing them in the trash can and substituting three for the 44,'" Wyden said. "And he's interested. He asked me actually some of the history about it."'More clean for less green'
Wyden will introduce the latest version of his energy tax overhaul — which he often refers to as "more clean for less green" — later today, with the backing of 25 of his Democratic colleagues and major renewable energy trade groups.
Its co-sponsors include three Senate Democrats running for president: Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and New Jersey's Cory Booker.
For the power sector, the "Clean Energy for America Act" would create a production tax credit (PTC) or an investment tax credit (ITC) for facilities that "are at least 35 percent cleaner than average, with a maximum of a 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour PTC or a 30 percent ITC available for facilities with zero carbon emissions," according to Wyden's office.
For transportation, the measure would create a tax credit for fuels that "are at least 25 percent cleaner than average, with the maximum credit of $1 per gallon available for fuels with zero carbon emissions."
It would also eliminate the per-manufacturer cap on the electric vehicle tax credit and extends a break for fuel cell EVs.
To encourage efficiency in homes and commercial buildings, the bill would create a "performance-based tax credit for energy efficient homes and tax deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings." The value of this credit increases as energy savings grow.
Text of the legislation was unavailable last night, and Wyden's office said they did not have an official estimate of its deficit impact.
In a statement, Wyden decried the current tax code as "woefully inadequate to address today's energy challenges."
"It's a hodgepodge of temporary credits, anchored by advantages for Big Oil, that don't effectively move us toward the goals of reducing carbon emissions or lowering electricity bills for American families," he said. "It's time to kick America's carbon habit, and that means a complete transformation of the tax code to reward clean electricity, transportation and conservation."Still waiting for extenders
Striking a deal on major energy tax reform in the 116th Congress is a heavy lift, but there is a strong appetite for taking another look at a host of energy incentives.
Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) appeared with House and Senate members from both parties yesterday to rally support for extending a key expired biodiesel incentive.
During the National Biodiesel Board event, Grassley said he is still waiting to hear from House Democrats on the fate of the credit, which is one of two dozen expired "extenders."
Grassley's extender package would simply extend the provisions for two years, but he told E&E News that the fate of a growing number of proposals to make changes to unexpired breaks, including the EV credit, would have to be decided first by the House because of the origination clause of the Constitution.
Grassley signaled he was open to additions to the extenders package but noted "a lot of my Republican colleagues don't want anything other than just a simple extension."
Further complicating the push is that any additions will need to be paid for to comply with budget rules.
"When you add new things ... you're going to have to have offsets for that," the senator said. "So it depends on what the offset is. Probably more controversial than the idea, but whatever it takes to get a bipartisan group together, I'm going to be open for."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/02/stories/1060255537

Return to headline | Return to top
Lawmakers Urged to Protect Pipelines Against Cyberthreats

May 2, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Mike Lee

Congress needs to ensure that pipelines are secure against cyberattacks when it reauthorizes the federal pipeline safety program later this year, witnesses said during a House subcommittee hearing.
The Transportation Security Administration, which oversees cybersecurity for pipelines, suffers from a shortage of qualified inspectors to handle cyberattacks and other physical threats against pipelines, according to a December report by the Government Accountability Office (Energywire, Dec. 20, 2018).
TSA had only six staffers dedicated to pipeline security, and that number has dropped to four since the report was issued, witnesses said yesterday before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy.
It's important because TSA and the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration have differing but overlapping mandates.
TSA is responsible for terrorists and other physical threats, while PHMSA is generally responsible for overseeing the physical condition of pipelines and ensuring that pipeline companies follow the rules.
"You cannot separate safety and security," PHMSA Administrator Howard "Skip" Elliott said.
Congress has been holding a series of hearings as it prepares to reauthorize PHMSA and update the nation's pipeline safety regimen.
The risk of a cyberattack isn't just theoretical. Russian state-backed hackers tried to implant surveillance malware in gas pipelines and other energy facilities in 2017, the FBI and Homeland Security Department reported last year.
In addition to the lack of inspectors, TSA relies on the pipeline industry to determine which systems are at the highest risk of attack, acting GAO Director William Russell said.
But one-third of the nation's 100 biggest pipeline operators said they don't have any such "critical" segments. The agency has made progress since the report was issued, Russell said.
TSA declined to send a witness to the subcommittee hearing, frustrating Chairman Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and other members.
"Like the Alamo, we're going to remember that," ranking member Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/02/stories/1060254901

Return to headline | Return to top
‘Freedom Gas’: US Opens LNG Floodgates to Europe

May 2, 2019 | EURACTIV

By Frédéric Simon

US energy secretary Rick Perry will sign two export orders for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Brussels today (2 May), in a move officials said will double America’s export capacity to Europe to 112 billion cubic meters per year as of 2020.
Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi Germany occupation, “the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” said Rick Perry, the US energy secretary.
“And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas,” he told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday (1 May).
“So yes, I think you may be correct in your observation,” he said in reply to EURACTIV, who asked whether “freedom gas” would be a fair way of describing US LNG exports to Europe.
Perry is in Brussels to sign an LNG export order “with a couple of companies” on the sidelines of the first EU-US high-level business forum on energy, hosted by the European Commission on Thursday (2 May).
“So that’s a big deal,” Perry told a small group of journalists invited to a briefing. “The opportunity for Europe to have a very substantial supportive alternative to Russian gas is on display here,” he said.
The LNG export orders come as a follow-up to a July 2018 joint statement by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and US President Donald Trump, in which both sides agreed to strengthen strategic energy cooperation.
“The European Union wants to import more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States to diversify its energy supply,” the statement said.
It’s only been a couple of years since the US started exporting LNG, and Japan is currently the biggest destination country. But the new export orders will allow doubling capacity to Europe, said Steven Winberg, assistant US secretary for fossil energy, who was sitting alongside Secretary Perry as part of an impressive US delegation.
“We’re expecting about 8 billion cubic meters per annum of [additional] US LNG into Europe over a 12 month period. We have about 10bcm per annum of capacity right now, so we could in effect double exports to Europe,” Winberg said.
“Perhaps even more relevant is that by 2020, we will go from 50bcm of export capacity to 112bcm per annum – more than doubling capacity in the next 18 months,” Winberg added.
LNG is significantly more expensive than pipeline gas from Russia and Norway, which are currently the two main exporters of gas to Europe. But some EU countries – chiefly Poland and the Baltic states – are ready to pay a premium in order to diversify their supplies.
Bulgaria, which is currently 100% reliant on Russian gas, said it was ready to import LNG from the US if the price was competitive, suggesting a $1 billion US fund could be used to bring the price down.
But Perry dismissed any suggestion that the US government would interfere on pricing, saying it was up to the companies involved to sign export and import deals.
“We are competing against a state actor which is heavily subsidised,” said, Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the EU, in reference to Russia’s Gazprom. “And the more volume we do, I think the price will come down naturally,” he added.
Nord Stream 2 in the firing line
According to Perry, the US move on LNG exports will undermine the economic authority of Nord Stream 2, a controversial pipeline project designed to bring Russian gas directly to Germany via the Baltic Sea.
“It makes it more and more economically unfeasible,” said the US energy secretary. “When you get a 20 year contract signed for LNG and you know that the product is going to be delivered in a timely fashion over the next 20 years, why would you want to go to another source of energy?,” he asked.
“Russia will cut off your gas in a moment’s notice if you’re not following their political direction,” Perry warned, referring to a high-profile dispute between Ukraine and Russia over transit fees, which left Europe in the cold during the winter of 2006-07.
“We are not for Nord Stream 2,” Perry said, adding it was “a bad idea to have a single source of supply” for gas in Europe. “Every day that Nord Stream 2 is not completed is another day that the EU has more options for their future natural gas supplies,” he added.
Not only is the US opposed to Nord Stream 2, it has actually threatened to impose sanctions on European firms that participate in the Russian-sponsored gas pipeline project. And those sanctions remain on the table, Perry warned.
“The idea that sanctions are available is still very much a reality,” Perry said, adding it will be up to the US President to decide” whether to apply them or not.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/freedom-gas-us-opens-lng-floodgates-to-europe/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

'Denial of Service' Attack Caused Grid Cyber Disruption: DOE

May 2, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Blake Sobczak

A recent cyber disruption to the U.S. grid involved a "denial of service condition" at a Western utility, according to a Department of Energy official.
On March 5, an unidentified power company fell victim to a "cyber event" that interfered with operations but stopped short of causing blackouts, according to a DOE filing this week.
A DOE official confirmed yesterday that the event "did not impact generation, the reliability of the grid or cause any customer outages."
But the denial-of-service attack was significant enough for the utility to file an electric disturbance report with DOE — the same forms reserved for major interruptions like storms, physical attacks or fuel shortages (Energywire, April 30).
Denial-of-service, or DOS, cyberattacks overwhelm target networks with bogus traffic, making it difficult for victim computers to operate normally. Distributed-denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks harness the power of hacked "botnets" of computers to throw at hackers' targets, while rarer telephony-denial-of-service (TDOS) events seek to block incoming and outgoing calls.
In December 2015, suspected Russian hackers used stolen login credentials and a TDOS attack to hit three distribution utilities in Ukraine, briefly cutting the lights to about a quarter-million people in a first-of-its-kind cyberattack (Energywire, July 18, 2016).
The March event doesn't appear to be part of such a coordinated hacking campaign, based on the limited information disclosed by DOE and several organizations in the anonymous utility's service area of Utah, Wyoming and Southern California. Still, a malicious cyberevent wasn't previously known to have interfered with U.S. grid operations, making the March 5 disclosure significant.
The DOS event took advantage of a known software vulnerability that required a previously published patch to fix, according to the DOE official.
In other words, with a patch in hand, it wouldn't have been difficult for power companies to identify and update any computer systems potentially at risk. DOE didn't clarify which equipment — whether routers, work stations or even phones — were affected by the denial of service.
Denial-of-service attacks frequently target internet-facing devices or services — one record-setting DDOS interrupted access to popular sites like Twitter and Grubhub in fall 2016. In order for a DOS to have triggered an electric disturbance alert, it likely would have hit something more significant, but still externally facing, industry sources speculated: perhaps firewalls or routers on the boundary of a grid network. While a cyberattack on such equipment wouldn't disrupt the flow of electricity, it could force operators to pause or redirect certain activities at affected facilities to allow for an investigation.
The Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, the electric sector's hub for getting the word out on the latest threats and vulnerabilities, issued an alert with information to mitigate the threat, according to multiple sources.
The DOS event reflects a concerning uptick in attacks — sophisticated or not — targeting critical infrastructure facilities worldwide, according to Lior Frenkel, CEO and co-founder of industrial cybersecurity firm Waterfall Security Solutions. Tools once exclusively available to nation-state hacking teams have passed into the hands of criminal organizations and the general public, he observed.
Grid cyberevents like that of March 5 "are bound to happen at an increasing rate," he warned. "Targets need to understand the world has changed."
The utility targeted in the March 5 DOS attack hasn't been identified.
State utility regulators in Wyoming, Utah and California have all declined to share additional details or failed to respond to requests for comment.
The Western Electricity Coordinating Council, the regional grid overseer for the four counties listed in the vague DOE filing, said via a spokeswoman that "we do not comment about individual entities."
Federal officials have been similarly tight-lipped. The North American Electric Reliability Corp., which manages the industry's threat information sharing center, has yet to comment on the case, while the Department of Homeland Security deferred comment to DOE. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said it was aware of the case but declined further comment.
Meanwhile, three electric sector organizations with operations spanning Utah, California and Wyoming have all denied filing the original OE-417 report on March 5.
Those organizations are Peak Reliability, which conducts real-time monitoring and control of the Western transmission grid; the Western Area Power Administration, one of four federally owned power marketing administrations that generates, transmits and sells electricity across 15 states; and Berkshire Hathaway Energy, whose subsidiaries Rocky Mountain Power and BHE Renewables LLC have significant power production and distribution footprints ranging from Los Angeles to Converse County, Wyo.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/02/stories/1060254751

Return to headline | Return to top
Democrats Press DHS Official on Cyber Budget Proposal

May 2, 2019 | E&E Energywire

By Blake Sobczak

Department of Homeland Security officials, including recently ousted Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, often stress how cyberthreats facing U.S. critical infrastructure continue to grow.
So Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee pressed DHS officials at a hearing yesterday on why it's requesting less money to fight hackers.
"It is hard to understand why the FY 2020 request once again proposes a reduction to these missions," Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairwoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) asked leaders of DHS's main cyber agency. "If we are to outpace adversaries who seek to do us harm, this reduction appears counter to what we need to do."
Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, defended his agency's handling of hacking threats while acknowledging more work remains. President Trump requested setting aside $3.2 billion for CISA in 2020, down about 6% from enacted 2018 levels (Energywire, March 20).
"There's no question that we are better than where we were several years ago," Krebs said. "The challenge that we have right now, though, is that across the civilian agencies, there are 99 different agencies that we work with to help improve cybersecurity. We've got to get to a more common, synchronized, baseline approach."
In past budget discussions, Krebs has played up the need to "streamline" his own agency's cyber strategies, while ratcheting up outreach to critical infrastructure owners like gas pipeline operators and power utilities.
"In many respects, particularly in government conversations, we're the advocate for industry within the federal government, so it is important that we have close relationships and co-location with our industry partners," he told lawmakers yesterday.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) pressed Krebs on his agency's handling of election security ahead of the 2020 presidential race. In 2016, Wasserman Schultz resigned as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee after emails hacked by Russian operatives revealed that she was privately working to advance the candidacy of presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton over her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
At one point in the hearing, she held up a bumper sticker Krebs had given her that read "#PROTECT2020."
"One would hope that the president would be briefed and would be fully aware of the risks, and be a part of directing what it is that should happen in order to protect our elections in 2020," Wasserman Schultz said. "We need more than a hashtag."
Krebs assured her that "we're all-in" to safeguard election systems in the run-up to 2020.
He added that CISA is conducting detailed risk assessments for various other critical infrastructure sectors, including the natural gas pipelines that have become increasingly important to electric power generation across the United States.
"It's not just about the grid, because if you don't have baseload generation to feed the grid, then it doesn't matter," he said. "What we're getting to is that interconnected nature of our infrastructure, and evolving that understanding: ensuring that we're aligning our investments so we can look for those gaps."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/02/stories/1060255037

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Washington Bill to Cap Bakken Crude by Rail Sets off Interstate Dispute

May 1, 2019 | Politico Pro

By Eric Wolff

Washington Governor and Democratic presidential hopeful Jay Inslee is expected to sign a bill that would cap rail shipments of crude oil from the Bakken field though the state, a move likely to set off a legal battle with North Dakota.
The bill, which passed the Legislature last week, aims to reduce the danger of shipping crude to Washington's refineries by prohibiting rail transport of oil that is deemed too volatile and poses an explosion risk in the event of a derailment.
North Dakota, which ships about 10 percent of its 1.4 million barrels a day of production to Washington, vigorously opposes the bill. Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.) , and Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) sent Inslee a letter last week asking the state to back off, though Inslee, who has sought to position himself as the most environmentally focused candidate in the large Democratic field, has not been receptive.
“It’s pretty striking that the governor of Washington is seeking to protect the people of North Dakota from oil spills, more than their members of Congress,” Inslee said in a statement, though he did not officially state whether he will sign the bill.
The Washington bill would prohibit shipments of crude oil with a vapor pressure above 9.0 pounds per square inch, a figure well below the North Dakota limit of 13.7 psi. The bill would apply to nearly any light, sweet crude passing through Washington, though it allows a substantial carve out for shippers to continue to move the same volume of crude oil as they did in 2018, plus an additional 10 percent.
“This bill is about safety,” Washington State Sen. Andy Billig, the bill's lead sponsor and Senate majority leader, said in a statement. “People and their safety must come first. Experts know that highly flammable Bakken oil poses greater risk and it’s time to take meaningful action to reduce the threat of a serious catastrophe.”
The North Dakota oil industry blasted the bill, and the state has promised a lawsuit.
“That 2018 [level] plus 10 percent, that’s another number that they drew out of the air,“ said Ron Ness, president of the trade group North Dakota Petroleum Council. “How does it make it any more safe at threshold number versus the next train load?“
The carve out limits the near term effect on refineries in Washington, but could create problems in the future.
“Setting it at 2018 levels precludes those refineries from doing any growth at all,” said Rob Benedict, senior director of transportation and infrastructure at the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a trade association of refiners.
Benedict also questioned the link between the crude's volatility and safety. The departments of Energy and Transportation are currently conducting a study required under the 2015 FAST Act on the link between volatility and safety.
North Dakota is likely to sue, according to a report in the Bismarck Tribune, though oil interests may also appeal to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which may have the authority to pre-empt state action on oil transportation.
“Our members are all for safety,” Benedict said. “We think if you really want to target improvements in rail safety, you should look at root cause, which is derailments.“
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/washington-bill-to-cap-bakken-crude-by-rail-sets-off-interstate-dispute-3182867

Return to headline | Return to top
Democrats Seek to Elevate Climate in Talks

May 2, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Maxine Joselow

When President Trump and Democratic leadership discussed infrastructure at the White House earlier this week, climate change barely came up.
But Democrats are now seeking to elevate the issue as the infrastructure talks gain steam.
The Tuesday meeting at the White House lasted 90 minutes and was cordial in tone. Both sides agreed to a $2 trillion price tag for an infrastructure deal. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) afterward sought to frame the discussion as "very productive" (E&E News PM, April 30).
House Transportation & Infrastructure Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said the discussion largely skirted the issue of global warming, which Trump has dismissed as a hoax.
"We didn't talk about climate change per se," DeFazio told reporters after the meeting. "But, you know, transit is green transportation, especially when we electrify the buses."
Yet climate change and infrastructure remain intricately linked.
Climate scientists and other experts say the impacts of a warming world — including floods, wildfires and sea-level rise — could place a big strain on the nation's aging infrastructure.
Experts caution that the country's roads, highways and bridges must be rebuilt in a resilient manner. Otherwise, they say these structures could be swept away by the next hurricane or other extreme weather event, sending billions of dollars down the drain.
These warnings have not been lost on Democratic leadership.
Prior to the meeting, Pelosi and Schumer sent Trump a letter stressing that any infrastructure deal must include climate components, such as clean energy and resilience (E&E Daily, April 30).
"A big and bold infrastructure package must be comprehensive and include clean energy and resiliency priorities," the pair wrote, adding, "We must also invest in resiliency and risk mitigation of our current infrastructure to deal with climate change."
But it appears that climate change didn't get air time at the meeting because of political calculus. Schumer and Pelosi wanted to maintain a nonconfrontational tone with the president. To that end, they also refrained from mentioning subpoenas or impeachment following special counsel Robert Mueller's report on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Outside of this week's White House meeting, Democrats' strategy on infrastructure involves talking about how droughts, flooding and more extreme weather events threaten the built environment in their districts.
That strategy was on prominent display at a T&I Committee Members' Day hearing yesterday.
The hearing was billed as an opportunity for members of the panel to share their thoughts and priorities for an infrastructure deal. No witnesses were invited. Each member had five minutes to speak.
Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria, whose district in coastal Virginia remains vulnerable to sea-level rise, wasted no time.
"I also encourage the committee to act on climate resiliency," Luria said. "For coastal Virginians and residents of all coastal communities throughout the U.S., sea-level rise and recurrent flooding aren't the basis of political talking points or challenges for the future. They're problems we face today."
Luria, a freshman lawmaker who served as an officer in the Navy for 20 years, noted that rising tides were already preventing thousands of sailors from accessing the Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia.
"As the committee develops an infrastructure package, please ensure we are providing communities the resources they need to adapt to rising sea levels," she said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) similarly pointed to flooding in Prince George's County just outside Washington, D.C.
"Communities across the country, including Prince George's County, have ... seen our nation's infrastructure pushed to its limits by more frequent and more severe weather caused by climate change," Hoyer said.
And Rep. Josh Harder (D-Calif.) highlighted severe droughts in California's Central Valley, which provides more than half of the country's fruits and vegetables.
Still, the three Democrats stopped short of endorsing specific climate provisions in an infrastructure deal, such as investments in electric vehicles, energy efficiency, transit and biking. Those ideas have gained traction among progressives and environmentalists (Climatewire, March 11).
Climate provisions remain a heavier lift with Republicans, many of whom have criticized the much-hyped Green New Deal resolution.
DeFazio has suggested that Democrats couch climate change language in general terms such as "resiliency" that have bipartisan appeal.
"I think, you know, if you put it in terms that don't say 'climate change,' that there's ways to get there," DeFazio told reporters Tuesday.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/02/stories/1060254495

Return to headline | Return to top
What Does Trump Support on Infrastructure? It's Anyone's Guess, as Always

May 1, 2019 | Roll Call

By John T. Bennett

President Donald Trump was talking infrastructure with senior congressional Democrats Tuesday in the Oval Office when he threw a former aide under the bus.
“That was a Gary bill. That bill was so stupid,” Trump said, according to a senior Democratic aide. He was referring to his former chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, and an infrastructure modernization plan that the White House rolled out last year featuring mostly private-sector and state funds that even Republican lawmakers doubted would materialize. It fell flat, never gaining a second of traction on Capitol Hill, despite Trump's GOP controlling both chambers.
Tuesday offered a rare occurrence: Some bipartisan harmony, though it essentially was about an agreement to keep talking.
“It’s clear that the White House and all of us want to get something done on infrastructure in a big and bold way. And there was good will in this meeting and that was different than some of the other meetings that we have had, and that is a very good thing,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters after the meeting.
[White House stalls on endorsing $2 trillion for public works]
But the two sides have a long way to go. Here are three things to watch from the president and his team.‘I’ll lead’
The closed-door Tuesday meeting was held at Democrats’ request, with Trump giving the floor to Speaker Nancy Pelosi when the discussion turned toward the public works package both sides say they want, according to a senior Democratic aide.
"I would like to do something. It may not be typically Republican,” the president told the Democrats, according to the aide, before adding this: “I’ll lead on this.”
But will he?
Trump delivered public remarks a few hours after Pelosi, Schumer and other Democrats left the White House. He praised 2018 NASCAR champion Joey Logano and his team during a South Lawn ceremony after he name-checked several Cabinet officials and lawmakers in attendance. One was Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. “Elaine, thank you. Transportation,” he said, but he opted against dropping in a public plug for an infrastructure bill that largely would fall under her purview.
Since the meeting ended, the president has tweeted about the economy, Cuba’s activities in Venezuela, former President Barack Obama and Russia’s 2016 election meddling, as well as other topics. But not infrastructure.How ‘clean’?
Pelosi came to the microphones outside the West Wing after the meeting and declared a few things about the kind of bill Democrats want.
“It’s about jobs, jobs, jobs. It’s about promoting commerce. It’s about clean air, clean water, so therefore a public health issue. It’s a quality of life issue, getting people out of their cars not being on the road so much,” the speaker said. “We are very excited about the conversation we had with the president to advance an agenda of that kind.”
Or not.
A White House official said the Democratic leaders “are going a little far” in suggesting the president was receptive to their demands a package include “clean” energy provisions. The official described Trump as willing to listen, but advised a few reporters during a Tuesday afternoon conversation to “wait and see on that part.”
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway earlier Tuesday advised Democrats to avoid trying to shove their “Green New Deal” into the infrastructure talks, saying only Trump might be willing to negotiate on a few clean energy ideas.Anyone’s guess
Just what the president supports is far from clear. Put another way: What would he sign into law, if both chambers - somehow amid House Democrats’ investigations of Trump and a 2020 election cycle that’s already at a broil - pass a public works bill?
It’s really anyone’s guess, as always.
The White House put out a statement following the meeting that was heavy on adjectives - but short on details. It described an “excellent and productive meeting” about “crumbling infrastructure” and using the potential legislation to expand broadband to “our great farmers.”
The words “clean” and “energy” were not in the statement, nor was any specific dollar amount after Schumer said the president agreed to a $2 trillion package.
“I like the number you’ve been using, Nancy. $2 trillion,” Trump said, according to the senior Democratic aide. “That number you can talk about.” The White House would not confirm or deny he endorsed any number.
Trump has blessed several pieces of legislation before later sinking them. And now House Democrats are investigating his business and political activities. Trump signaled in his February State of the Union speech he did not think they could work together if the probes continued.
“If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation,” Trump said then. “It just doesn’t work that way.”
Pelosi and Schumer ignored a question Tuesday about whether they believe Trump’s words about infrastructure.
“While we may have our difficulties in other areas,” Pelosi said when asked about negotiation on public works as the probes continue, “we cannot, we cannot, we cannot ignore the needs of the American people as we go forward.”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/whitehouse/trump-support-infrastructure-anyones-guess-always

Return to headline | Return to top
Why Any Infrastructure Package Must Harness Main Street

May 1, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Nydia M. Velázquez

Earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) went to the White House and made clear that fixing our nation’s infrastructure is a priority where Democrats and Republicans can find common ground.
With this new plea, Congress has the opportunity to pass a 21st century infrastructure reform package, one that could unlock thousands of new jobs by putting small firms to work. In fact, for every dollar we invest in public-sector infrastructure, the economy stands to gain up to $2.50 in economic activity.ADVERTISEMENT
As chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, I’m committed to finding ways that we can work across the aisle to promote new opportunities for America’s small-business sector. That is why any serious infrastructure proposal in Congress should take three major steps to ensure that Main Street is not left behind.
First, we must think locally. A recent survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows that 62 percent of small-business owners rated local roads and bridges as being of average, poor, or very poor quality.
When our bridges fail to receive sorely needed updates and our roads are left untended, it’s often our small businesses that pay the price. This takes a toll on everyday businesses like the family farmer who can’t safely transport his equipment across a bridge and the baker who is forced to make a late delivery because of the traffic on heavily congested roads. If we don’t act, the American Society of Civil Engineers predicts that by 2025, our failing infrastructure will cost $7 trillion in lost sales for businesses and 2.5 million lost jobs.
With most small-business owners agreeing that the federal government should bear the responsibility for funding infrastructure projects, one thing is clear. Any infrastructure proposal must first dedicate robust funding to breathe new life into neglected projects.
Second, as the buyer of more than $500 billion in goods and services each year, the U.S. government represents a major market for small firms. This means that Congress must work to ensure that the wealth of contracting opportunities spurred by an infrastructure package is offered on a level playing field, giving small firms the chance to fairly and effectively compete for contracts.
To go one step further, Congress also ought to ensure that women-, veteran-, and minority-owned businesses are given a seat at the table to compete for new opportunities.
Finally, any infrastructure package must be attuned to the reality of being an entrepreneur in today’s digitally-driven economy. In March, my committee had the privilege of hearing from rural small-business owners like Afton Stout, who runs a small crafting business in rural Iowa. Like many entrepreneurs, Ms. Stout spoke to the benefits of selling her products online but also described her experience of struggling to find a high-speed broadband connection in her area.
According to the Federal Communications Commission, 19 million Americans still lack high-speed internet access, including nearly a quarter of rural America. This translates into lost opportunities for countless entrepreneurs who may have a great idea but lack the connectivity to get it off the ground. By building out our broadband network, we can unleash innovation across our country.
America’s small businesses are responsible for creating two out of threenew private sector jobs. And they are not only found on Main Street—in fact, small businesses make up 99.9 percent of all businesses. Clearly, there is nothing “small” about these numbers.
My message to my colleagues in Congress is this: let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work on rebuilding America’s outdated and crumbling infrastructure. And, let’s do so by helping our Main Street businesses do what they do best, create jobs and opportunities in our communities. It’s time to pass meaningful, 21st-century infrastructure reform.
Velázquez is chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee and a representative from New York’s 7th District.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/lawmaker-news/441614-why-any-infrastructure-package-must-harness-main-street

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Green New Deal May Open Door to GOP-Backed Carbon Fee

May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

The Green New Deal doesn’t have a carbon tax at its core, but that could be a blessing in disguise, a leading advocate for a Republican-led carbon pricing plan says.
Keeping a carbon tax off the plate in the Green New Deal “was a brilliant political decision because it leaves that wide open for Republicans,” Robert Litterman, a founding partner and chairman of the Risk Committee at Kepos Capital, said in May 1 remarks at the American Climate Leadership Summit.
“If the Democrats were saying, ‘We need a carbon tax,’ it would be radioactive for the Republicans,” added Litterman, previously head of risk management at Goldman Sachs. Litterman serves on the board of the Climate Leadership Council, which advocates for a carbon fee and dividend plan developed by former GOP Secretaries of State James Baker and George Schultz.
Litterman’s remarks come as some Republican lawmakers have recently shifted their rhetoric on climate change. They’ve said they are open to working on bipartisan solutions, citing opportunities to increase federal support for technologies like nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage.
“We are very close to getting Republicans,” Litterman said. “They know the future is to have good policy on climate. They understand that.”
But Republicans have slammed the Green New Deal, the sweeping climate policy framework championed by progressive Democrats, as a government takeover. And few Republicans have been willing to publicly back a carbon price.
‘Hasn’t Moved the Needle’
The Green New Deal calls for a significant economic transformation to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It also incorporates a number of other progressive goals around the workforce, healthcare, and social justice.
But a price on carbon and the Green New Deal aren’t “necessarily mutually exclusive,” Evan Weber, political director for the Sunrise Movement, said at the conference. The Green New Deal is a set of solutions, not just one policy, he added.
The Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate group, has galvanized political momentum behind the Green New Deal, and its supporters are touring the country to build support for it.
“But we’ve been talking about a price on carbon, particularly in this town, for about three decades,” Weber added. “All that talk hasn’t really moved the needle much.”
Republican lawmakers yet to sign on to the Climate Leadership Council’s plan. And just two Republican lawmakers—Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.)—have so far partnered with Democrats on carbon pricing legislation. Fitzpatrick has yet to do so this Congress.
Carbon Fee and Regulation
The Climate Leadership Council’s plan would set a carbon fee of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide, increasing over time, with the proceeds going back to the public as dividends.
It would also include a border adjustment fee for imports from other countries without climate rules, and would eliminate many of the Obama administration’s climate regulations, including first-time carbon pollution standards for existing power plants.
The latter point has drawn criticism from some environmental groups, who say regulation is a critical piece of climate policy alongside carbon pricing. Others—such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Resources Institute—have backed the plan.
Litterman defended the plan’s elimination of regulation, arguing many of the Obama-era climate rules don’t create the right incentives to cut pollution.
Renewable energy mandates, for example, are “a very expensive way to drive the economy toward lower emissions,” Litterman said. “The direct way is to create the right incentives on the emissions that we’re trying to reduce.”
2020 Choice
Several energy companies—including ExxonMobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and BP Plc—as well as major corporations such as Microsoft, General Motors Co., and Unilever back the carbon fee and dividend plan.
But Weber noted the Green New Deal has the backing of nearly every major candidate vying for the Democrats’ 2020 nomination.
“The choice in 2020 will likely be between the Green New Deal and whatever Trump has been doing for the last two years,” Weber said. “That’s what’s going to be on the ballot as far as climate policy is concerned.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/green-new-deals-lack-of-tax-opens-door-to-gop-backed-carbon-fee

Return to headline | Return to top
House Democrats' Delay On Bipartisan CCUS Bill Draws Labor Complaints

May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

House Democrats are sending signals they are in no hurry to advance bipartisan legislation that has been gaining traction in the Senate to further encourage carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), drawing fire from an influential labor group that supports the technology.
The reluctance appears at least partially connected to environmentalists' lukewarm to hostile reactions to CCUS -- a dynamic that underscores the challenge of translating Democrats' broad calls for action to address climate change into support for a major policy agenda on Capitol Hill.
“If Democrats will not robustly support this, they are really not climate hawks,” argued Utility Workers Union of America official Lee Anderson in an interview with Inside EPA, expressing concern over “a series of interactions” on Capitol Hill regarding the CCUS legislation that suggest House Democrats are not eager to move the package.
The current message from Hill Democrats, he says, is “we are not going anywhere right now, we are not going to move this.”
Anderson says it is “incumbent on us to decide how to respond to that,” suggesting a response could include efforts outside the Beltway to mobilize union members.
A Hill source pushes back on Anderson's concerns, arguing that lawmakers are still in the early stages of looking at the bill and have not made any decisions on whether to advance it.
The bill, known as the USE IT Act, would amend the Clean Air Act to direct EPA to use its existing section 103 research grants authority for CCUS projects and related technology known as direct air capture. It would also ease permitting for carbon dioxide pipelines that would transport captured CO2 to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) facilities.
A Senate version of the legislation cleared that chamber's environment committee April 10, and it enjoys 14 co-sponsors from both parties, including top lawmakers on the environment panel. The bill is a follow-up effort to a February 2018 law that expanded so-called 45Q tax credits for CCUS.
Anderson's concerns come as Democrats are still in the early stage of formulating a specific climate change agenda, after nearly a decade in which Republicans controlled the House.
But his remarks illustrate the challenge of moving beyond broad calls to reduce carbon emissions to a consensus on what kind of industries and technologies deserve federal support in new legislation, how much support to offer, and which federal agencies should administer new or expanded programs.
Anderson's union is one of several energy-related unions that signed a letter last month to Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) expressing initial opposition to the lawmakers' Green New Deal climate resolution, warning that unions must be consulted on any major climate policy.
“We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families,” the letter said, while stating an openness to discussing the climate policies in a “responsible” way. “We all recognize that doing nothing is not an option.”
Center-Left Divisions
Looming over such discussions are divisions among center-left groups on the extent that coal, oil, and natural gas should be rewarded for participating in GHG reduction efforts through various CCUS technologies, including using captured CO2 for EOR or reusing it in products.
This makes the USE IT Act a near term case study on how such discussion plays out, as many climate experts argue there is no way to meet global temperature goals without CCUS.
Sources in recent months have already said the House version of the bill -- H.R. 1166, sponsored by Reps. Marc Veasey (D-TX), Scott Peters (D-CA), David McKinley (R-WV) and others -- faces hurdles because multiple committees potentially could have jurisdiction over the measure.
The bill has been referred to four committees: Energy & Commerce, Science, Natural Resources, and Transportation & Infrastructure.
In addition, the utility workers' Anderson tells Inside EPA that House committee staff or offices relevant to advancing the bill have expressed several concerns, such as whether EPA for the Energy Department should house the bill's regulatory framework.
More substantively, Anderson cites some skepticism he has encountered about the need for the bill, given the enactment of the expanded 45Q credits.
“There are people who think 'We have done enough for you,'” as a result of the tax credit legislation, Anderson says, citing reluctance to move more CCUS legislation until more projects demonstrate CO2 cuts.
He has also encountered more fundamental concerns that CCUS is just a giveaway to fossil fuels.
Anderson pushes back against such views in part by citing prior conclusions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that CCS in a range of industrial sectors is crucial to limiting GHGs. The alternative is to embrace an “ideologically driven” climate plan that picks and chooses technologies, he says.
Regarding the matter of federal agency roles, Anderson says he does not have a “dog in that fight” but argues it is a “technical” issue that should not be an existential barrier to enactment.
On the 45Q credits, Anderson acknowledges that the Treasury Department has been slow to issue implementation guidance for the credits, which has created a “chicken and egg” problem in which policymakers and the industry alike are waiting for both the guidance and projects to materialize.
But Anderson argues that the USE IT Act is not just a “nice to have measure” but rather a “must have” if CCUS is to be deployed at scale necessary to address the challenge. “We have got to build out the infrastructure . . . to capture and move out the CO2.”
He acknowledges that part of the apparent delay could be due to the still-nascent House climate agenda. “Because we don't have a fully formed progressive approach, the water is beyond muddy. People are hanging up on various technical details.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-democrats-delay-bipartisan-ccus-bill-draws-labor-complaints

Return to headline | Return to top
Defenders of CO2 Expand Presence in Congress

May 2, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Scott Waldman

A group funded by conservative foundations to promote doubt about the effects of climate change has quietly expanded its outreach in Congress over the last few months.
Yesterday, the CO2 Coalition held a briefing for congressional aides to claim that rising levels of carbon dioxide are falsely stigmatized. The group argues that more CO2 is beneficial to humans through the promotion of plant growth and crop yields.
The presenter was Craig Idso, a researcher whose work has been funded by the Mercer Family Foundation, a major Trump donor, and who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a group that discredits climate science. Idso told an audience of legislative interns and committee staffers that CO2 levels of 600 parts per million would be beneficial to humankind, a claim contradicted by NASA, NOAA and the world's major science agencies.
The event was part of the CO2 Coalition's effort to have a bigger presence on Capitol Hill, said Caleb Rossiter, the group's executive director, in an interview.
"We're trying to be up here as much as possible and take people like Craig around to talk to people who are interested. I hope you'll see us a lot more," said Rossiter, who has a doctorate in statistics.
The group's efforts come as public opinion is shifting on climate change, including among Republicans. Polls show that Democratic voters increasingly rank climate change as a top issue heading into the 2020 presidential election. And a growing number of Republicans are worried about climate change after seeing a string of extreme storms and wildfires strike states across the nation, surveys show.
The Trump administration released the latest National Climate Assessment in November, which showed that parts of the country are already experiencing the disastrous and deadly effects of rising temperatures. They include wildfires, severe storms and heat waves. The CO2 Coalition is trying to counteract that public shift and has received a friendly reception from some GOP lawmakers.
Rossiter said his group is targeting first- and second-term lawmakers who may not have hardened climate opinions, "because they're up for grabs." His group tries to help lawmakers highlight uncertainty, while avoiding an outright rejection of science.
"I just want you to look at the data and say this is how much temperature change we've seen versus this is how much is predicted, this is how many hurricanes we've had per decades versus beliefs that it has gone up, etc.," Rossiter said. "Don't go past that because it's such an uncertain system. Why make yourself look silly?"
Scientists at NASA and elsewhere have said that climate models have tracked closely to real-world observations in recent decades. The last five years have been the warmest on record, according to NASA.
The CO2 Coalition was co-founded by William Happer, an emeritus physics professor with Princeton University who has sought to discredit climate science for years. The group receives funding from the Mercer family, the Koch network and foundations that support conservative causes, E&E News has reported (Climatewire, Feb. 28). Happer was appointed to the White House National Security Council by President Trump and is now leading an effort to conduct an "adversarial" review of climate science.
The presentation yesterday could reach a wide variety of lawmakers. In attendance were staffers for Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.). Representatives for the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Senate Agriculture Committee and the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis were also there.
One legislative staffer said he was a little less concerned about the dangers of rising carbon dioxide levels after hearing the presentation.
"I'm now maybe slightly less concerned about increasing CO2 levels. I'm still not convinced that that's not an issue that something needs to be done about," said Sean Bland, a staffer in Wicker's office, who said he was speaking for himself. He said he would distill a few talking points from the presentation and submit them to his supervisor in the senator's office.
Rossiter said he plans to brief more members of Congress in the coming months. His group has already briefed at least eight lawmakers, he said, including Reps. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and James Comer (R-Ky.). The meetings can give lawmakers talking points to be used in climate hearings conducted by Democrats.
Health risks
On Tuesday, at a House Oversight Committee hearing on the public health risks of climate change, Comer had some of those talking points ready to go.
Comer, who represents coal-producing regions of Kentucky, repeated some of the talking points used by the CO2 Coalition in his opening statement. He said he wanted to talk about the "role that coal would play in helping more Americans escape poverty and maintain a higher state of health and well-being."
Rossiter, who testified at the Tuesday hearing, said increased fossil fuels would bring wealth to the world and claimed that fossil fuels had saved lives.
"So far, CO2 emissions have had a modest, positive impact on public health in the United States: They have increased plant productivity because CO2 is plant food and reduced mortality because CO2 has contributed to warming," Rossiter told lawmakers.
Later, he added: "Being wealthy saves lives."
At Tuesday's hearing, Republicans used much of their time asking Rossiter to comment on climate change, rather than the four witnesses who were public health experts. Democrats, meanwhile, spent time questioning Rossiter about funding sources for the CO2 Coalition and on misleading claims he made about climate change. Some of the health experts also devoted part of their time to correcting Rossiter.
"Let's get it back to the subject of this hearing, which is the impact of climate change on human health. We are not debating whether climate change is real, and we are not debating any of those attendant effects. We are debating and discussing the impacts on public health," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Public health experts described a number of ways that they're seeing climate change affect health.
"The allergy season is longer, the trees are flowering more, we're having more vibrant flowering of all trees, which then quickly creates more asthma and more allergies and then that causes a tremendous increase in cost," said Cheryl Holder, a physician and associate professor at Florida International University.
Aaron Bernstein, director of the Climate Change & Health Initiative at Harvard University's Global Health Institute, corrected Rossiter's claims, saying they were cherry-picked and not the entire truth about climate change.
"What you heard does not reflect the full truth as regards to what the science understands," Bernstein said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/02/stories/1060254739

Return to headline | Return to top
D.C. Circuit Wrestles With Venue For Suit On EPA Air Permit Policy Change

May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

Appellate judges at May 1 oral argument wrestled with which circuit court has jurisdiction to hear environmentalists’ suit claiming a major Trump administration shift in Clean Air Act permitting policy barring the agency from “second guessing” states’ permit decisions is unlawful, but the judges did not indicate how they might rule.
At argument in Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Judges David Tatel, Judith Rogers and Nina Pillard used all of their questions to probe whether the suit belongs in their court, as environmentalists contend because the decision sets broad national policy, or instead in the 10th Circuit, as EPA argues, because it pertains only to the specific permit at issue governing a Utah power plant.
While the judges pressed Sierra Club and EPA hard on the venue question, it was unclear what their final verdict would be.
Sierra Club filed suit in both circuits over EPA’s 2017 decision on a specific Utah air permit that they say reflects a major shift in agency air permitting policy affecting all permit applications nationwide. While the case has already been argued in the D.C. Circuit, the 10th Circuit is yet to name judges to hear that case, which is on hold pending a D.C. Circuit decision on jurisdiction.
Seeking to avoid a D.C. Circuit ruling on EPA’s air permitting policy, the agency is trying to limit the applicability of any adverse ruling, which would be nationally binding if issued by the D.C. Circuit whereas a 10th Circuit ruling would only affect the states covered by that court: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.
Both suits challenge the alleged broad policy shift contained in EPA’s 2017 denial of a petition by Sierra Club to object to the Clean Air Act Title V operating permit of Pacificorp’s Hunter coal-fired power plant in Utah. The group contends that the petition denial goes far beyond a simple, fact-specific adjudication on a single permit, and sets a nationally-binding precedent that amounts to a rulemaking.
The group says EPA’s policy unlawfully precludes the agency from objecting to states’ decisions on which permits are required for a given source, even if the state permit is deficient or the source skirts new source review (NSR) permit requirements for “major” sources. The policy is therefore nationally applicable and the suit should be heard by the D.C. Circuit, which hears challenges to national rules, Sierra Club says.
But EPA says the Hunter decision is only applicable to the Utah power plant at issue in the litigation, and as such the suit must be heard in the 10th Circuit because the decision is not national
Pacificorp is intervening in the suit to support EPA, while the state of Utah and the Air Permitting Forum (APF), an industry coalition favoring eased permitting conditions, have submitted amicus briefs in favor of the policy established by the Hunter petition denial. Utah and APF say venue is proper in the 10th Circuit.
‘Scenario Specific’
At argument, Department of Justice attorney David Kaplan, representing EPA, said “this case belongs in the 10th Circuit,” and argued that the Hunter order is “scenario specific” and is applicable only to the power plant.
Rogers asked if that is the case, “what about the first 20 pages” of the order, which explain how it alters national policy “going forward.”
Kaplan responded: “The agency has looked to the Hunter order as non-binding precedent.”
Pillard pressed Kaplan on whether since the order’s issuance, EPA has objected to any Title V permits where it “looked under the hood” at states’ fundamental permit decisions, in the manner the order bars. When Kaplan failed to give a definitive response, Pillard said “I take it the answer is no.”
Pillard and Tatel appeared to differ on whether the Hunter order is “binding,” with Tatel arguing that it is, and Pillard saying it is not.
Tatel questioned how EPA can assert it is “non-binding” in the light of the “going forward” language in the order. Rogers attempted to clarify that the order is “binding for now,” until EPA changes its policy again.
Rogers and Pillard pressed Kaplan on whether “the internal operation of EPA has changed,” another factor that might help decide whether the order is tantamount to a rule and eligible for D.C. Circuit review.
Kaplan said the order sets administrative precedent, but that is “nothing novel” in agency decision making.
In response attorney Keri Powell, representing Sierra Club, said that under D.C. Circuit precedent the order “is definitely binding."
Powell said the Hunter order is “highly unusual,” and it “makes no bones about” changing EPA’s permitting policy “going forward,” for all its regional offices. She argued the order has national implications as a result and therefore should be heard in the D.C. Circuit.
Powell said the Hunter order is “fundamentally different than any order” EPA has issued granting or denying petitions for objection to Title V permits, which are “umbrella” permits containing “all applicable” permit requirements, including underlying NSR permits
EPA’s refusal to examine whether states set permit conditions correctly -- including whether “major source” permits are required -- means the agency is violating the air law and redefining what “all applicable requirements” are that Title V permits must contain, she argued. That definition is now established by EPA rule, and the Trump EPA is overturning decades of prior agency practice, Powell said.
Major Source
Sierra Club says that Utah failed to require a tough “major source” NSR permit for the power plant in its original determination in 1997, and EPA should have remedied this in its periodical reviews of the plant’s Title V permit -- but failed to do so. The plant instead operates under a weaker minor source permit.
Under the air law, EPA has 45 days to review and, if necessary, object to Title V permits. Should the agency fail to object, petitioners can ask the agency to object, and if EPA fails to issue a decision within 60 days, petitioners can sue the agency for a response. In the instant case, Sierra Club is suing over EPA’s 2017 final response to the group, because of the negative precedent the Sierra Club says it sets.
EPA has abandoned “a very powerful oversight mechanism” provided by Congress, Powell said, claiming that the new policy is now “the law of the land."
But Tatel said that while Powell makes a good case, the court is bound by its own and Supreme Court precedent establishing that agency guidance documents, or adjudicative orders, are not binding like rules nor can they amend final regulations. That suggests a potential bar for the suit if the D.C. Circuit agrees it has jurisdiction, because it could potentially reject the case as challenging something that is not a final agency action subject to the court’s review.
Meanwhile, another case testing the doctrine established by the Hunter order is ongoing in the 5th Circuit, in Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club v. EPA. In that suit, EPA is defending its March 2018 rejection of a petition by environmentalists to object to the Title V permit granted by Texas to ExxonMobil's Baytown, TX, olefins production plant. Environmentalists say that an underlying permit included in the Title V permit is flawed and not federally enforceable, serving to circumvent tougher NSR permit requirements.
Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for June 10 in New Orleans.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-wrestles-venue-suit-epa-air-permit-policy-change

Return to headline | Return to top
House Republican Moves to Force Vote on Green New Deal

May 1, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Juliegrace Brufke and Miranda Green

GOP Rep. Jody Hice (Ga.) on Wednesday introduced a discharge petition aimed at circumventing Democratic leadership and forcing a vote on the progressive-backed Green New Deal.
Hice, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he is hoping to gain at least 20 Democratic signatures to reach the 218 needed to utilize the procedural tool.ADVERTISEMENT
"I'm not gonna put any Democrats on the spot right now, I've had some positive conversations but we'll see,” Hice told The Hill. “There are 92 Democrats that have co-sponsored the Green New Deal so hopefully some of them will come on board and call for a vote.”
The move is the latest ploy by the GOP to force Democrats to go on the record on a controversial issue — a tactic that could place swing district members on the other side of the aisle in a difficult position.
Nearly 100 Democrats in the lower chamber have signed on as co-sponsors to the Green New Deal, a resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) that aims to build a green energy-focused economy by transitioning the U.S. electric grid to 100 percent renewable energy.
The climate plan came into the spotlight with the meteoric rise of Ocasio-Cortez as a growing progressive force. Nearly every 2020 Democratic White House hopeful has embraced the tenets of the resolution in some way.
The plan has also divided Democrats, however, with some taking issue with its broadness as well as concerns over costs to implement.
Ocasio-Cortez and other backers of the House resolution have not called for a floor vote and have instead said it's messaging focused and was never meant to be passed.
She has called Republican plans a political maneuver.
“This is very similar, this is a mirroring tactic to what [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell [R-Ky.] was doing in the Senate. To not hold a single hearing just shows that they aren’t taking this problem seriously,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Hill.
McConnell forced a vote on the resolution in March, a political move meant to highlight a divide among Democrats over the issue.
Despite spearheading the efforts on the proposal, Ocasio-Cortez encouraged Democrats in the upper chamber to vote present as a show of togetherness. Progressives blasted McConnell for engaging in political theater and argued the proposal warranted a hearing. It ultimately failed to advance in the Senate.
Now Republicans are attempting to force a similar tactic in the House.
“They want to divide the caucus and they are going to try to call folks out who are co-sponsoring it and voting against the discharge but this is just a maneuver,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “It’s not substantive.”
Republicans have repeatedly hammered Democrats over the resolution while attempting to paint the party as shifting toward socialism.
“The more that you see Pelosi's new majority promoting far-left socialist policies, it's sparking a strong debate on both sides. But I think most people in this country are alarmed that there is such a move toward socialism by this new Congress,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told The Hill on Monday, ahead of its introduction. “Their policies are out of step with the American people. And frankly, everybody ought to take a position.”
Republicans will likely face an uphill battle in gaining the support across the aisle to successfully employ the parliamentary procedure.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said he would support Democrats in the House employing similar efforts as their Senate counterparts and voting present if Republicans successfully forced a Green New Deal vote.
"I think the best strategy is to call it for what it is, a ‘got you’ deal, and ignore it,” said Grijalva.
“We’re not going to fall for the trap. But we’re here and we know why you’re doing it but we’re here and we’ll vote present and then each member can explain why.”
The introduction of the discharge petition comes the same week as the House is slated to vote on a bill aimed at ensuring the United States remains committed to the Paris climate agreement.
President Trump announced that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris accord in June 2017, an act that separates the U.S. from all of its allies and most of the world.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/441657-gop-rep-introduces-green-new-deal-discharge-petition

Return to headline | Return to top
Paris Bill Debate Revamps Old Talking Points

May 2, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Nick Sobczyk

The House yesterday rehashed old arguments about the Paris Agreement during debate on Democratic leadership's climate bill, but lawmakers gave those talking points fresh twists amid new progressive energy and fractures in both parties about how to address climate change.
H.R. 9, which would aim to keep the United States in the Paris Agreement and require President Trump to come up with a plan to meet emissions targets within 120 days, isn't going anywhere in the Senate.
Even if it made it to Trump's desk, he would simply veto the legislation — as the White House has promised — since it would reverse his own policy decision.
But while Republicans yesterday claimed to want bipartisan action, rather than partisan messaging bills, they struggled to define what that would look like.
Instead, they took divergent lines of attack on H.R. 9 and the U.S. Paris targets to reduce emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
Some claimed it would wreck the American economy and give a free pass to China and India, a longtime GOP refrain, while others attempted to tie it to the Green New Deal, the progressive climate legislation that has become the subject of intense Republican ire.
After failing to force a vote on the Green New Deal on the floor yesterday, Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) filed a discharge petition, which would require 218 signatures to bring the resolution for a vote. That effort is unlikely to succeed.
But if there was a unifying message among Republicans, it was that H.R. 9 is essentially meaningless. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) called it "a virtue-signaling messaging bill" during debate on the rule for the legislation.
There's no dispute on that point. Democrats over the past week have described the bill as a "first step" and a signal to other countries and voters that part of the U.S. government still cares about climate change.
"It's not only the issue of the president's not going to rejoin the Paris accord, but I think you have to make some clear distinctions between how this House majority stands and where the Senate and where the president stand," Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told reporters this week. "Those distinctions have to be made whether it goes anywhere or not."What next?
Democrats aren't unified either about what, exactly, comes next.
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and lead sponsor of H.R. 9, said they would look to inject climate change into bipartisan infrastructure talks and to use the appropriations process to boost energy research spending.
Democrats have given little indication they will do more than that, with much of the caucus still fractured about whether and how to price carbon and how to spur on technological deployment in the energy sector.
Castor's committee — tasked with developing a plan for climate policy by March of next year — will likely help determine their ambition, House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters yesterday.
"What I'm saying is we are taking a very thoughtful, careful approach to determining what can be done, what should be done and obviously we'll have to consider also what's politically viable to do in dealing with the United States Senate," Hoyer said.
On the other side, Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) called for investments in carbon capture and advanced nuclear and reform to forest management policies.
Democrats say they're interested in those ideas, too, but beyond that, even climate believers in the GOP caucus acknowledge that it's tough sledding.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a hard-liner and ally of Trump who believes in climate change, called the Paris Agreement "a bad deal." But he also lamented the struggle to get his caucus on board with anything related to climate change.
"We have too many climate deniers in our caucus right now," Gaetz told reporters when asked if H.R. 9 has sparked discussions about a Republican climate plan.Amendments approved
The two sides bickered over the rules package for floor debate on H.R. 9, which approved 30 of more than 90 proposed amendments for debate. Of that total, 26 came from Democrats, one is bipartisan and just three came from the GOP.
"Is that really how the majority wants to operate going forward?" Cole said on the floor.
Democrats had similar complaints about process when they were in the minority. Rules Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) pointed out that Republicans had plenty of closed rules when they controlled the House.
"This is like the theater of the absurd when I listen to my Republican colleagues," he said on the floor.
But in any case, none of the amendments considered on the floor today would do much to change the bill.
Most are uncontroversial or minor additions, many of them from freshmen. The House approved several yesterday, with recorded votes on others and final passage set for today.
Amendments approved by voice vote include:An amendment from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and others to include findings that recognize the importance of addressing the impact of climate change on the refuge crisis.An amendment from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) to require the president's plan to meet emissions targets to assess how the United States may help other parties to the agreement reach their reported goals.An amendment from Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.) to require the administration produce a report on the effects of the Paris Agreement on clean energy jobs in rural communities.An amendment from Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) and others to bar the president from using the plan to stop states or cities from taking more ambitious actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.An amendment from Rep. Donna Shalala (D-Fla.) to include findings recognizing the importance of addressing sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion and flooding.An amendment from Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) to require a National Academy of Sciences report on how withdrawing from Paris would affect U.S. global economic competitiveness.An amendment from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and others to add findings that the Paris Agreement is an example of multilateral, international cooperation needed to overcome challenges facing the international community.An amendment from GOP Rep. Jenniffer Gonzáles-Colón of Puerto Rico and Democratic Del. Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands to direct the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress on the impact of the President’s plan on the U.S. territories, including the potential positive and negative impacts.An amendment from Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.) to require the president’s plan to be posted online for public comment in the Federal Register.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/02/stories/1060255783

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested