Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - May 3, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Libya's Government Hires Mercury
May 2, 2019 | Politico - Politico Influence
By Theodoric Meyer
...Spotted: former Rep. Cal Dooley (D-Calif.) of the American Chemistry Council... -
Chemical Firms Struggle in First Quarter
May 3, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
First-quarter earnings from the chemical industry show that economists’ predictions were correct: industrial growth slowed early in the year. -
Industry Deletions in PV29 Study Summaries Should Raise Alarm Bells on Both Sides of the Atlantic
May 2, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Well, I certainly wasn’t expecting to find this when I started working on EDF’s comments on supplemental materials the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently made available on Pigment Violet 29 (PV29), the first of 10 chemicals undergoing risk evaluations under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Attorneys Warn Firms On California Bill To Tighten Green Chemistry Program
May 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
Industry attorneys are warning companies across the country that make, distribute and sell consumer products about pending California legislation that would accelerate and expand the state’s green chemistry program, saying it will result in restrictions or bans on numerous chemicals and impose costly and onerous new compliance requirements. -
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Enacts First Statewide EPS Food Packaging Ban
May 2, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Maine has become the first state to ban expanded polystyrene food containers, after Gov. Janet Mills signed legislation April 30 that prohibits selling or distributing them in the state. -
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes First State In America To Ban Single-Use Styrofoam Containers
May 2, 2019 | Huff Post
By Nick Visser
Maine became the first U.S. state to ban single-use foam containers this week, a major legislative victory meant to curb the flow of plastic pollution. -
Preparing For PFAS Scrutiny: Part 1
May 2, 2019 | Law 360
By William Tarantino and Megan Ault
They are all around us — and may be inside virtually everyone you know. But not everyone has heard of them, and not everyone is prepared for their regulation. -
EPA’s Justice Advisers Seek Quick Action on Sterilizing Chemical
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA must take immediate action to restrict the use of the chemical ethylene oxide and its harmful effects on poor and minority communities, according to a group of advisers assembled by the agency itself. -
Better IT Tools Needed to Improve 'Burdensome' SDSs
May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
New IT tools need to be explored to distribute basic, essential information in safety data sheets across the supply chains, EU member states and industry bodies have said. -
Oil Drillers Get More Leeway as Interior Eases Post-Spill Rules
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is giving oil companies more flexibility when drilling offshore, by easing Obama-era mandates imposed in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 workers and unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history. -
Interior Overhauls Blowout Prevention Rule
May 2, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Dylan Brown
The Trump administration today cemented revisions to offshore drilling regulations crafted in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 people and oil-slicked the Gulf of Mexico. -
Trump Rolls Back Obama-Era Safety Regs to Fanfare, Furor
May 3, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Dylan Brown
The Trump administration says it wrote a "safer, smarter improved rule" to prevent another Deepwater Horizon disaster. But critics aren't buying a word of it. -
EPA Considers Severing Permit Program Changes from Power Plant Rule
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA is considering separating major air permitting program changes from its rewrite of the Obama-era carbon dioxide limits for existing power plants, according to sources familiar with the rulemaking. -
NRG Energy to Restart Texas Gas Plant to Help Meet Record Demand
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
NRG Energy Inc. will restart an inactive natural gas power plant in Texas to help meet what is expected to be record summer demand for power, driven in part by oil and gas drilling activities. -
Exxon to Invest $2B into Baytown Petrochemical Expansion
May 2, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Exxon Mobil will pour $2 billion into expanding its Baytown chemical complex, creating 2,000 construction jobs and further cementing the region's role as a petrochemical hub. -
ExxonMobil Launches $2B Expansion of Petrochemical Complex East of Houston
May 2, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
ExxonMobil Corp. on Thursday launched a $2 billion investment to expand its already massive chemical complex in Baytown east of Houston. -
U.S. Boosts Natural-Gas Exports to EU, Aiming to Dent Russian Sales
May 3, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Emre Peker
The U.S. has nearly tripled its natural-gas exports to the European Union since July and signed new licenses Thursday seeking to establish American energy as an EU mainstay. -
Can Father of Fracking's Legacy Save Texas' Last Frontier?
May 3, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Fracking pioneer George Mitchell might just protect Texas' last wild place from the industry he helped revitalize. -
Is Climate a Blind Spot for Oil and Gas Investors?
May 3, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Investors need more information about oil and gas companies' exploration and development plans in order to understand how their stocks could perform in a carbon-constrained world, according to a think tank that has developed a model for what such financial disclosures could look like. -
CSB Asks EPA to Review 1993 HF Study
May 3, 2019 | Occupational Health and Safety
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, known as CSB, recently sent a letter to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency asking that EPA review its 1993 hydrofluoric acid (HF) study to determine whether refineries exiting risk management plans are sufficient to prevent catastrophic releases of the chemical, as well as whether there are commercially viable, inherently safer alkylation technologies for use in petroleum refineries. -
Trump Signs Order Aimed at Boosting Cyber Readiness
May 2, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump signed an executive order aimed at filling the deficit of cybersecurity professionals in the federal workforce, including specialists with knowledge of cyber-physical systems like power grids and gas pipelines. -
Republicans Renew Push for Permit Streamlining
May 3, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
As the idea of an infrastructure bill gains steam on Capitol Hill, Republicans and their conservative allies are repeating calls for streamlining the permitting process for large projects. -
Va. Won't Cap CO2 with 9 Other States — for Now
May 3, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Gov. Ralph Northam signed a budget yesterday barring Virginia from participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program encompassing power plants in nine Northeastern states. -
After a Year, IRS Starts Carbon-Capture Tax Credit Rules
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Federal tax regulators have started in earnest to craft rules to implement a major bipartisan tax incentive for carbon-capture technologies. -
GOP Rejects Climate Bill. 'We've Got Too Many ... Deniers'
May 3, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
In a direct rebuke to President Trump, a bill that would keep the United States in the Paris climate accord sailed through the Democratic-controlled House yesterday by a 231-190 vote. -
House Democrats Look to Bridge Divides on Climate Policy
May 3, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Andrew Duehren
House Democrats, seeking to move beyond internal divisions over how best to combat climate change, passed legislation Thursday aimed at preventing President Trump from exiting the Paris Agreement. -
House Sends Climate Signal to Foreign Audience
May 3, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Yesterday's House vote in support of the Paris Agreement played to two audiences. -
Colorado County Asks EPA to Delay Decision on Ozone Delay Withdrawal
May 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
The Weld County Board of Commissioners in Colorado is asking EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to delay acting on a request by Gov. Jared Polis (D) to withdraw a pending bid for more time to comply with the agency’s 2008 ozone standard, and is also urging the agency chief to take public comment on Polis’ request. -
Can Any Democrat Run as 'the Climate Candidate'?
May 3, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Timothy Cama
Democratic presidential hopefuls are getting competitive with one another over plans to fight climate change. -
EPA Urged To Foster Use Of New Technologies But Funding Poses Hurdle
May 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Companies and other supporters of new technologies that could revolutionize environmental protection by dramatically cutting pollution at lower costs are urging EPA to play a central role fostering the technologies’ use, but some experts warn that dwindling agency research funding could inhibit new technological advancement.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Libya's Government Hires Mercury
May 2, 2019 | Politico - Politico Influence
By Theodoric Meyer
MERCURY WILL LOBBY FOR LIBYAN GOVERNMENT: The United Nations-backed government of Libya hired Mercury to lobby on its behalf in Washington just days after President Donald Trump unexpectedly endorsed the militia leader who’s trying to overthrow the government. Mercury will lobby Congress and the Trump administration on behalf of the government of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a Justice Department filing. Mercury lobbyists will also work to identify interest groups allied with the government and handle media relations and unspecified international affairs work.
— More than a dozen Mercury staffers based in the firm’s London, New York and Washington offices have registered to work on Libya’s behalf, including former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Bryan Lanza, who worked on the Trump campaign and transition. The one-year contract is worth $150,000 a month, with $500,000 due upfront. The contract includes an additional $200,000 a year for expenses. Morris Reid, a Mercury partner leading the work, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
— Mercury isn’t the first Washington lobbying firm to get involved in the conflict in Libya, in which various factions have been competing for power since the American-backed overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. An aide to Khalifa Haftar, the militia leader whom Trump endorsed last month, hired Ari Mittleman, a former aide to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), in 2017 to help win friends in Washington and paid his firm, Keystone Strategic Advisers, a $450,000 fee upfront, according to disclosure filings.
— But it’s unclear how much good the contract did for Hafter. Mittleman and his partner, Vladimir Petrovic, secured only three meetings on Haftar’s behalf, according to a Justice Department filing: one with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who later lost reelection; one with an aide to Rohrabacher; and one with an aide to Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), who didn’t run for reelection last year. Keystone stopped working for Haftar two months into the yearlong contract.
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. Tips: tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow me on Twitter: @theodoricmeyer.
** A message from the Household & Commercial Products Association: The household and commercial products industry employs 200,000 workers and boasts a 20-year U.S. trade surplus, a trend that’s on track to be repeated this year and for the foreseeable future. Our industry also generates, both directly and indirectly, $180 billion in annual sales and production. READ MORE HERE. **
VAN SCOYOC ADDS A LOBBYIST: Van Scoyoc Associates has hired Susie Gorden as an associate vice president, working with the firm’s philanthropy practice. She’ll lobby for clients such as the Community Foundations Public Awareness Initiative, according to the firm. She was previously a vice president at the Congressional Management Foundation and before that worked for Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).
TODAY’S TOP READ: A month before Trump’s inauguration, Stanton Anderson, an adviser to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “stood in the clubhouse of Mr. Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla., and extended his hand to the president-elect,” The Wall Street Journal’s Brody Mullins and Alex Leary report. “Mr. Trump refused it. ‘You guys did everything to stop me,’ Mr. Trump said, his face reddening, according to two people who were there. ‘I haven’t forgotten.’ In the two years since, relations between Mr. Trump and Washington’s biggest lobbying organization haven’t much improved.”
— “The chill has hurt the U.S. Chamber, which for decades was the unmatched voice of industry. Its revenue has dipped, spending on lobbying and elections has fallen, and its large-donor pool has shrunk. … ‘I feel they are not much of a force anymore,” said U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.), a conservative Republican who has been at odds with the chamber. ‘I believe in free markets and am against cronyism and corporate welfare, and they support those things.’”
— "The chamber said in a statement: ‘Today, we are stronger than ever with the influence, expertise, partnerships, and long-term vision to drive our members’ agenda in every political environment and well into the future.’ The group has found little refuge across the aisle. ‘The chamber dug themselves into a deep, deep hole when they decided to become an arm of the Republican Party and even oppose moderate Democrats,’ said” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Full story.
Are you a young lawyer or law student? Join POLITICO Editor Carrie Budoff Brown for an exciting conversation about 2020, politics and media at the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Spring Conference, May 2-4, in Washington, D.C. Registration is available on-site.
LAWMAKERS-TURNED-LOBBYISTS TELL CONGRESS HOW TO RUN THE PLACE: Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) of Holland & Knight and other former lawmakers who are now on K Street testified before the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. Among their suggestions: Pay congressional “staffers more money to better hold their own with experts from K Street and the executive branch,” Roll Call’s Kate Ackley reports. “They also called for more civility on Capitol Hill, less emphasis on fundraising, and to invest more in technology and technological savvy within the legislative branch. … ‘Lobbyists play an important role’ in crafting legislation, Davis said, but noted that staff with long-term expertise would be better able to ‘second guess’ the legislative language lobbyists provide.”
— Other former lawmakers turned lobbyists who showed up included former Reps. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), both of whom are now at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Full story.
ANNALS OF EMOLUMENTS: The State Department “allowed at least seven foreign governments to rent luxury condominiums in New York’s Trump World Tower in 2017 without approval from Congress, according to documents and people familiar with the leases, a potential violation of the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause,” Reuters’ Julia Harte reports. The tower “had housed diplomats and foreign officials before the property developer became president. But now that he is in the White House, such transactions must pass muster with federal lawmakers, some legal experts say.” Full story.
O’ROURKE SWEARS OFF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FOSSIL-FUEL EXECUTIVES: “Beto O’Rourke on Wednesday pledged not to accept campaign contributions of more than $200 from fossil fuel company executives, announcing that he had returned donations to his presidential campaign that don’t conform to that pledge’s requirements,” POLITICO’s David Siders reports. “O’Rourke’s action does not exclude him from taking money from rank-and-file employees of the oil industry. The former Texas congressman had been criticized for taking donations from such employees during his” Senate campaign last year. He’s not accepting money from corporate PACs or lobbyists, either. Full story.
RUNNING THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOOR TO THE DRIVERLESS CAR INDUSTRY: Driverless car companies “are swallowing up some of government’s most sophisticated experts on the emerging technology, playing up their commitment to safety but stoking fears of brain drain inside agencies that regulate the industry and raising concerns about a revolving door that gives industry the upper hand with regulators,” POLITICO’s Tanya Snyder reports. Full story.
JOBS REPORT
— Subject Matter has hired Sarah Kennedy Hillmann as creative director. She most recently was senior copywriter at Weber Shandwick.
— Fifth Third Bank has hired Joan Gregory Saenz as co-head of government affairs in the bank’s Washington office. She previously was senior vice president of congressional relations at the American Bankers Association.
— Caleb Randall-Bodman has joined the House Armed Services Committee as deputy communications director. He was previously a director at Forbes Tate Partners.
— Johnson & Johnson has promoted Anne Oswalt Bruce to senior director of federal affairs for pharmaceuticals. She was previously a director of federal affairs for medical devices.
SPOTTED
At the Bryce Harlow Foundation’s awards dinner on Wednesday evening at the Marriott Marquis: House Minority Whip Jim Clyburn and Donna Harmanof the American Forest & Paper Association, who both received awards; Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio); Mignon Clyburn of T-Mobile; Rich Gold of Holland & Knight; former Rep. Cal Dooley (D-Calif.) of the American Chemistry Council; Loren Monroe and Jeff Birnbaum of BGR Group; Matt Haller of the International Franchise Association; Brian Wild of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck; and Joyce Brayboy of Goldman Sachs.
— Dooley also spoke on a panel today at the Mayflower Hotel moderated by Steve Caldeira of the Household and Commercial Products Association, which also featured Heidi Brock of the Aluminum Association and Geoff Freeman of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS
There’s a new POLITICO newsletter in town. Authored by Cristiano Lima and Zack Stanton, POLITICO’s Westeros Playbook is the must-read guide to what’s happening in the final season of Game of Thrones. Sign up to receive POLITICO Westeros Playbook every Monday for the duration of the final season.
RoseDelgado Victory Fund (Reps. Max Rose, Antonio Delgado)
Sherill-Houlahan Victory Fund (Reps. Mikie Sherrill, Chrissy Houlahan)
United for a US Senate Majority (Sens. Martha McSally and Cory Gardner, Project West Political Action Committee, Thunderbolt PAC)NEW PACS
Progressive Campaign Committee (PAC)
Sterling Construction Company, Inc. Federal PAC (PAC)NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS
Atcitty & Van Norman Law, LLC: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Capitol Core Group, Inc.: Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority
Compass Strategies, LLC: SAS Institute, Inc.
Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs: City of Bend
Groom Law Group, Chartered: NAPEO
McHugh LeMay Assoc., LLC: AQYR Technologies, Inc.
The Cormac Group, LLC: City of SunriseNEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS
Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting: American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry
Marshall Brachman: Dun and Bradstreet, Inc.
Nathanson+Hauck: Cigna Corporation
Paul Marcone & Associates, LLC: Pregnancy Choices
UCB, Inc.: UCB, Inc.https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2019/05/02/libyas-government-hires-mercury-607647
-
Chemical Firms Struggle in First Quarter
May 3, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
First-quarter earnings from the chemical industry show that economists’ predictions were correct: industrial growth slowed early in the year. The resulting decline in chemical demand was stark compared to last year’s first quarter, when sales were on fire and companies raised prices.First-quarter resultsWidespread dip in demand sank earnings at chemical firms. Sources: Companies.
That pricing power is now gone. The change in fortunes was most notable in certain specialty chemicals and geographies. For example, Ashland, DowDuPont, and Eastman Chemical reported weaker North American sales of coatings and adhesives.
Ashland CEO William A. Wulfsohn explained steps the company is taking to be resilient while markets gyrate. “We saw lower-than-expected demand in some of our higher-margin end markets,” he told investors. “To reduce that impact, the team increased sales in the construction, energy, and nutrition markets.”
Germany’s Covestro saw no change in sales volumes for coatings and adhesives and was even able to increase prices. But weak demand from automakers for its polyurethanes took a bite out of the firm’s earnings.
The challenging environment will last throughout the year, Covestro chief financial officer Thomas Toepfer told investors. In response, the company is refurbishing plants, investing in specialty films, and planning to cut costs by nearly $400 million in the next few years.
DowDuPont and Huntsman also complained of sluggish auto market conditions. At DowDuPont, sales were down across most of its business segments, with the exceptions of nutrition and health and safety and construction. Safety and construction did well thanks to demand for water treatment products and Tyvek and Kevlar protective materials.
This will be the last time DowDuPont releases earnings as a combined company. The materials science–focused Dow split off on April 1. On June 1, Corteva Agriscience and the new DuPont, with its specialties businesses, will also spin off into separate companies.
Celanese also saw weaker demand. Its engineered materials sales sank in the first quarter compared with the year-ago period. But Celanese and other chemical firms pointed out that performance was strong on a sequential basis—that is, compared with the fourth quarter of 2018. That comparison pleased stock analysts, who had expected worse first-quarter results at several major companies.
And there are signs that industrial activity is already picking up. LyondellBasell Industries reported that April has brought volume improvement and strong seasonal demand for olefins and polyolefins. Air Products, which saw a modest increase in demand for industrial gases, has upped its earnings expectations for 2019.
Celanese and Covestro are maintaining their earnings growth expectations for the year. But Ashland, Eastman, and Huntsman told investors they expect a few more difficult quarters. “Given the continued strengthening of the US dollar and lack of visibility as to the timing of market recovery, we have revised downward our full-year outlook,” Ashland’s Wulfsohn said.
https://cen.acs.org/business/finance/Chemical-firms-struggle-first-quarter/97/i18
-
Industry Deletions in PV29 Study Summaries Should Raise Alarm Bells on Both Sides of the Atlantic
May 2, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Well, I certainly wasn’t expecting to find this when I started working on EDF’s comments on supplemental materials the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently made available on Pigment Violet 29 (PV29), the first of 10 chemicals undergoing risk evaluations under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). What I discovered – almost by chance – strongly reinforces EDF’s and others’ view that the public’s ability to independently assess and trust EPA chemical assessments falls flat without access to full and unredacted copies of the health and safety information EPA cites in support of its risk evaluation.
When EPA first released a draft of its PV29 risk evaluation for comment, it refused to make public the underlying health and safety studies. Instead, it only provided copies of and links to brief summaries – misleadingly called “robust summaries” – of the studies, which were prepared by companies that make PV29. The companies had submitted the summaries to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) when they registered PV29 under the European Union’s REACH Regulation.
EPA first claimed the studies had to be withheld because they were protected as confidential business information (CBI) under TSCA – a position that is flatly contradicted by the plain text of the law. In response to the outcry that ensued, EPA recently made public more of the content of these health and safety studies. Unfortunately, EPA is still withholding key parts of that body of information under a different, equally flawed theory it has advanced to allow companies to hide health and safety information that TSCA requires be made public. For more detail, see this recent letter sent to EPA by groups, including EDF, who sought to obtain the studies through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that EPA now has denied with respect to the full release of these studies. Stay tuned on that.
Meanwhile, EPA has reopened the comment period for the PV29 risk evaluation to allow stakeholders to comment anew on the additional, but still partial, information it released. As I was reviewing EDF’s prior comments in preparing our new ones, I discovered that some of the “robust summaries” EPA placed in its PV29 docket back in Novemberhave changed: The current versions of at least two of those summaries now posted on ECHA’s REACH registration website show deletions of certain information that was in the versions EPA first made available.
I noticed the changes because the deleted information is the same information EDF had cited in our earlier comments as undermining a key conclusion EPA had drawn about PV29. When I went to ECHA’s website to refresh my memory of those summaries, I sensed something had changed and, sure enough, by comparing the original and current versions of two of the summaries, I soon detected that someone has made small but significant deletions.
Below I describe and document the changes I found. But before dragging you through that, consider what this means.
Implications for public trust in EPA assessments
The Trump EPA and the chemical industry have been arguing that the public can and should make do with the “robust summaries” rather than have access to the full study reports that TSCA requires be made public. In its draft risk evaluation, EPA emphasized that the summaries could be trusted because EPA had verified that they accurately reflected the underlying studies; in short, we were told we could and should take their word for it.
Now with this new development, we have learned two new things:First, these summaries can be altered at will, without any apparent notice or explanation; in this case, we suspect the changes were made in direct reaction to EDF’s comments citing the now-deleted information.Second, because of these changes, the full study reports are NOT, as EPA claimed in its draft risk evaluation, “consistent with the physical and chemical characteristics … as presented in the ECHA robust summaries.”
As explained below, values for a key physical-chemical characteristic of PV29 have vanished from the study summaries now posted on ECHA’s website. We know of this inconsistency because EPA, as part of its recent release, has finally made public the full study reports (one of them with some redactions) that correspond to the two altered summaries. The values for that key PV29 characteristic deleted from the summaries are still in the full study reports (see below); presumably, those full reports (which date back to 1988 and 1999) would be much more difficult to alter without drawing attention.
Add this to the long list of reasons why it is wholly unacceptable to expect the public to rely on summaries prepared by the companies making a chemical under review, or to trust EPA’s assertion that the summaries accurately reflect the underlying studies.
Implications for REACH
A sidebar here seems warranted. Someone appears to have entered the ECHA registration data system and made these changes without leaving any public trace of having done so. The altered summaries display no date or other indication that they have been altered.
This begs some questions of ECHA and the EU member state authorities that implement the EU’s REACH Regulation:Do the authorities have any way of knowing when alterations are made to registration information submitted by a company?Can they tell what changes were made and who made the changes?Can a change be made without any explanation or justification for the change being provided?Can companies simply exclude from or later alter information in its “robust summaries”at will? Given that this summary information is public but the underlying studies are not made public under REACH, shouldn’t the alteration of this information at least be flagged to the public?If changes are made to REACH registration information after various checks have been performed on the information, shouldn’t those later alterations raise red flags?Do checks of summaries ensure that they faithfully report the information contained in the underlying study, or do the companies get to pick-and-choose what information to include in a summary?Doesn’t this situation indicate the need for full studies to be available to other governments that seek to rely on data submitted under REACH, as well as the public?
Here’s what was altered
In EDF’s earlier comments on PV29, we questioned EPA’s reliance on a single value – 0.01 milligrams per liter (mg/L) – to assert that PV29’s water solubility is very low, and then its repeated reliance on that property to dismiss a host of other concerns. Among our arguments was that the summaries of two other studies EPA cited indicated much higher values for PV29’s water solubility:Study 1: The summary of a 1988 study that reported testing of PV29’s acute toxicity to freshwater fish, which used OECD Test Guideline #203 and indicated it complied with Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), listed the chemical’s water solubility as 670 mg/L – 67,000 times higher than the value EPA relies on.Study 2: The summary of a 1999 study measuring PV29’s biodegradability, which used OECD Test Guideline #301F and was GLP-compliant, reported the chemical’s water solubility as “<500 mg/L,” or up to 50,000 times higher than the value EPA relies on.
These two summaries have now been selectively altered: The only change made to each is to simply delete the water solubility values of 670 mg/L and <500 mg/L that we had cited.
The summary of Study 1 that EPA printed from the ECHA website on November 13, 2018, and posted to its PV29 docket is available here. And here is a screen shot of the relevant section of that summary where I have circled the water solubility value:
The summary of Study 1 that I printed from the ECHA website today is available here. And here is a screen shot of the relevant section of that current summary where I have circled where the water solubility value has been deleted:
The summary of Study 2 that EPA printed from the ECHA website on November 13, 2018, and posted to its PV29 docket is available here. And here is a screen shot of the relevant section of that summary where I have circled the water solubility value:
The summary of Study 2 that I printed from the ECHA website today is available here. And here is a screen shot of the relevant section of that current summary where I have circled where the water solubility value has been deleted:
I noted above that EPA has now made full study reports (one with some redactions) publicly available. As I also noted, the values now missing from the current study summaries are in the full study reports.
Study 1 is available here. And here is a screen shot from page 8 of that study report showing the value that was in the original summary but has now been deleted from the currently posted summary:
Study 2 is available here. And here is a screen shot from page 7 of that study report showing the value that was in the original summary but has now been deleted from the currently posted summary:
Conclusion
Despite the clear expression of Congressional intent in TSCA – dating back to the original law enacted in 1976 – that health and safety studies and associated information on chemicals should be public, the chemical industry and its allies now embedded within EPA continue to seek ways to circumvent that intent. The case of PV29 is Exhibit A, illustrating ongoing efforts to withhold such studies or provide versions with critical data redacted, and a continuing insistence that the public should make do with industry-prepared summaries of the studies. The intentional alteration of those summaries that I report here should raise major alarms on both sides of the Atlantic and illustrates why public access to full studies on chemicals to which we are or may be exposed must be paramount. I only hope it does.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/02/industry-deletions-in-pv29-study-summaries-should-raise-alarm-bells-on-both-sides-of-the-atlantic/#more-8750
-
(ACC Mentioned) Attorneys Warn Firms On California Bill To Tighten Green Chemistry Program
May 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
Industry attorneys are warning companies across the country that make, distribute and sell consumer products about pending California legislation that would accelerate and expand the state’s green chemistry program, saying it will result in restrictions or bans on numerous chemicals and impose costly and onerous new compliance requirements.
The pending bill, SB 392, “should it be signed into law in its current form, would significantly impact consumer product companies throughout the supply chain,” Arnold & Porter attorneys write in an April 23 blog post.
The lawyers urge companies in the supply chain to assess their products to determine whether chemical ingredients could be subject to review and regulation and take a series of other precautionary steps.
Authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), the bill recently cleared two Senate policy committees and now awaits consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The measure faces a May 17 deadline for policy bills to clear fiscal committees.
The bill is intended to address concerns from some lawmakers and public health groups who have criticized the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) current Safer Consumer Products (SCP) green chemistry program as taking too long to prioritize chemical products, require companies to conduct safer chemical alternatives analyses and potentially restrict or ban certain products.
SB 392, which is sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Clean Water Action, in part authorizes DTSC to set up a fast-track option under its SCP program to restrict or ban certain chemical-containing consumer products.
Industry representatives are currently working with Allen’s office and the bill sponsors “on potential amendments to ensure that SB 392 proposes changes that are consistent with the underlying statute and based on sound scientific principles,” says one industry lawyer.
Numerous state and national industry groups are opposing SB 392, including the California Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council, California Manufacturers & Technology Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association and The Carpet & Rug Institute.
Meanwhile, an NRDC source says supporters of SB 392 “are optimistic about the chances for the bill” to pass the state legislature. “These reforms are important, achievable and straightforward.”
The source adds that, if enacted, SB 392 could eventually influence EPA’s new national chemical review program under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). “Depending on the chemicals and products addressed and the actions the state takes under the authority of the bill, those actions might affect EPA evaluations of risks from the chemicals under TSCA.”
Although the bill is facing amendment, as currently written it includes a host of measures to strengthen the state’s existing green chemistry program, which generally allows DTSC to require manufacturers to study whether replacing chemicals of concern with safer alternatives is feasible and to ban certain chemicals found in products if it deems that action necessary.
Current Provisions
For example, the bill allows DTSC -- rather than requiring a new analysis of safer alternatives to chemicals of concern -- to instead rely on “all or part of” publicly available analysis and “to proceed directly to a regulatory response,” the bill says.
It also places a priority on “timely administrative and legislative action on consumer products and chemicals of concern in those products, particularly those products that may have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations.”
Further, SB 392 would require DTSC by 2021 to revise the SCP regulation to include additional lists of chemicals subject to review, including fragrances, endocrine-disrupting compounds and others identified by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
SB 392 would also strengthen DTSC’s data call-in authority by requiring a manufacturer to provide information about the “ingredients and use” of consumer products to DTSC upon request and within the timeframe provided by DTSC, the Arnold & Porter attorneys say.
DTSC would be authorized to request new categories of information, including: ingredient chemical identity, concentration and functional use data; information about the use of consumer products by sensitive subpopulations; and sales data.
If a product manufacturer does not have the requested ingredient information, and cannot obtain the information from the chemical manufacturer, the product manufacturer must certify so in writing to DTSC and provide DTSC with contact information for the chemical manufacturer, according to the blog post. DTSC may then require the chemical manufacturer to provide this information.
The bill would also impose a civil penalty of up to $70,000 on a company that fails to provide DTSC-requested information on a chemical.
Negative Ramifications
But the industry attorneys say the bill has a slew of potential negative ramifications for companies that make and sell consumer products and are warning them to take precautions.
For example, they say that because the bill requires DTSC to expand its list of candidate chemicals to include previously unregulated fragrance allergens, asthmagens and endocrine disruptors, businesses should “assess their product inventory to determine whether any product ingredients are included on these new lists.”
They also write that because SB 392 would allow DTSC to use "all or part of one or more publicly available" alternatives analysis in lieu of going through SCP’s existing alternatives analysis process, “businesses should keep apprised of alternatives analyses processes at government agencies or credible institutions with relevant expertise, as DTSC may rely on those analyses -- rather than those prepared by manufacturers of priority products -- to determine what regulatory response it will issue, if any.”
In addition, businesses “should pay close attention to DTSC's Priority Product Work Plans, as the new plans under SB 392 would be required to include timelines for the completion of at least five categories of consumer products. These timelines may inform manufacturers of products within the scope of a work plan regarding whether engagement with DTSC may be appropriate,” the lawyers write.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/attorneys-warn-firms-california-bill-tighten-green-chemistry-program
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Enacts First Statewide EPS Food Packaging Ban
May 2, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Maine has become the first state to ban expanded polystyrene food containers, after Gov. Janet Mills signed legislation April 30 that prohibits selling or distributing them in the state.
Mills said 14 cities and towns in the state have already passed local bans on disposable EPS food packaging, and she and other ban supporters argued Maine should restrict them because they're not economically viable to recycle, and they break down into microplastics that get into the food chain
"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."
Maine's action comes a few weeks after Maryland's Legislature passed an EPS foam packaging ban in that state. It would have been the first, but it has yet to be signed by that state's governor, Larry Hogan.
Plastics industry officials argued to Maine government leaders that banning EPS food containers was based on the "false assumption" that the alternatives were environmentally better.
The American Chemistry Council's Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group said alternatives could increase solid waste, energy and water use and greenhouse gas emissions.
"We support efforts made by states and businesses to reduce the amount of waste that can litter our nation's beaches, streets, and water ways," said PFPG Director Omar Terrie. "Unfortunately, Maine's recently-passed legislation banning the use of polystyrene foam foodservice packaging will do little to actually help keep the state clean."
ACC said a study in New York City after EPS foodservice packaging was banned there showed restaurants nearly doubled what they spent on alternative packaging.
But supporters of the ban like the Natural Resources Council of Maine argued that EPS foam is already costing cities and towns tax dollars in cleanup costs because it's so difficult to recycle.
It said the ban is part of what Maine needs to do to reduce pollution from plastic.
"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, director of the sustainable Maine program at NRCM.
Maine House member Stanley Zeigler, D-Montville, who sponsored the legislation, said the law would help the state's tourism industry by controlling litter and aid local seafood industries by keeping plastic out of food chains.
As well he said it would support Maine businesses making alternative packaging from more locally sourced materials like paper.
"Polystyrene is made of petrochemicals, which are not found in Maine but rather are imported," Zeigler said. "Presently wood products are being used as a substitute at just a few cents difference. If we vote to prohibit polystyrene, we would be aiding a nascent industry using a resource that Maine is struggling to support."
Noting Maryland's recently passed statewide ban, Zeigler predicted other states would follow Maine's lead.
"If we pass this bill, we would be the first of many states doing this," Zeigler told his colleagues in an April debate before the Legislature voted.
But other legislators questioned the environmental claims of the law's supporters.
State Rep. Richard Campbell, R-Orrington, said EPS containers can be recycled and questioned the environmental footprint of alternatives like paper cups, which he said are made with plastic linings and can have a bigger ecological impact in manufacturing.
He advocated that Maine pursue stronger recycling policies and establish a state task force to study plastics.
"We have a plastic problem but rather than banning them, why don't we talk about how to reuse them, talk about how to recycle them," Campbell said. "The root of the problem is our culture. We're a throwaway culture."
ACC also argued to Maine lawmakers that some alternatives being touted as compostable and more environmentally friendly would only degrade in an industrial composting facility where temperatures exceed 140° F. It said Maine does not have any such facilities.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190502/NEWS/190509983/maine-enacts-first-statewide-eps-food-packaging-ban
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes First State In America To Ban Single-Use Styrofoam Containers
May 2, 2019 | Huff Post
By Nick Visser
Maine became the first U.S. state to ban single-use foam containers this week, a major legislative victory meant to curb the flow of plastic pollution.
Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed a bill banning products made completely or partially of polystyrene on Tuesday. The products are often used just once before they’re thrown away, but they can survive in the environment for generations.
“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.”
The legislation will take effect on Jan. 1, 2021, providing businesses “ample time” to adapt, the governor said. Violators could face up to $100 in fines.
Some businesses will be exempt, including hospitals, seafood companies and state-funded Meals-on-Wheels programs, according to The Associated Press.
Environmental groups hailed the measure, saying it solidified the state’s reputation as a leader on green causes. Mills has taken a hard line on climate change as well, proposing a 27-member panel of experts this week to help the state dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Maine has proven itself as an environmental leader once again, this time in eliminating disposable foam containers that have become a common, costly, and deadly form of plastic pollution,” Sarah Lakeman, a sustainability director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said in a statement. “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 foams like plastic foam.”
Many states have made strides in tackling plastic pollution. Maryland’s legislature passed a similar measure earlier this month, although it’s currently on the desk of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who has not said yet if he would sign it. Other states, including New York, have set their sights on banning plastic bags, and Hawaii has proposed a sweeping measure that would prohibit most plastic in restaurants.
CBS notes that Vermont, Colorado, Oregon and New Jersey have also eyed Styrofoam containers.
The Maine bill was met with fierce resistance from those in the plastics industry. Omar Terrie, a director of the American Chemistry Council, a plastics advocacy group, told the AP he hoped the governor would reconsider the measure after she sees “how it will negatively impact the environment and local businesses and consumers.”
This story is part of a series on plastic waste, funded by SC Johnson. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the company.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/maine-bans-styrofoam-containers_n_5cca8d1ce4b0d123954e23c6
-
Preparing For PFAS Scrutiny: Part 1
May 2, 2019 | Law 360
By William Tarantino and Megan Ault
They are all around us — and may be inside virtually everyone you know. But not everyone has heard of them, and not everyone is prepared for their regulation.
PFAS — or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — have been detected just about everywhere, from airports to paper mills. Scientists have reported finding PFAS in nearly 99% of all participants in a representative study based on the U.S. population.
Though once a common constituent of everything from medical devices to fast-food containers, PFAS are increasingly gaining the attention of state and federal regulators — and plaintiffs lawyers. That could spell big changes (or a big headache) for businesses across the country.
PFAS — Friend or Foe?
Right now, there is a good chance a PFAS-containing product is within arm’s reach. PFAS have long been used in everyday objects, including carpets, nonstick pans and pizza boxes. The chemicals show up across industries and geographies, having been used at military bases and textile mills across the country.
Of the 4,000 or so PFAS varieties, the best known might be perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS, for its presence in Scotchgard, and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, for its use in Teflon. Though PFOS and PFOA have previously been phased out of those iconic products, various PFAS remain widely used in thousands of other products.
In addition, because the molecular bonds found in PFAS are among the strongest and most stable known to scientists, even based on their previous historic uses, PFAS chemicals are expected to persist in the environment for years. PFAS came to be used in so many consumer products and industrial applications because of the chemicals’ resistance to heat, oil and water.
Firefighting foam has become one of the more widely known — and more intensely scrutinized — uses of PFAS, largely due to perceived risks of groundwater contamination. But PFAS may be found in items much closer to home, including in stain-resistant fabrics, outdoor gear, shoes and microwave popcorn bags, as well as personal care products like certain sunscreens, shampoos and cosmetics.
Though PFAS assuredly are ubiquitous, debate remains about their environmental and health effects. Animal studies suggest that PFAS disrupt cellular communication, and research on human health effects has raised questions about links to cancer, lowered fertility and high cholesterol, among other conditions.
At the same time, chemical and product manufacturers have tried to distinguish between older, “long-chain” PFAS and the newer, “short-chain” PFAS intended to replace them, largely because evaluations have tended to show that short-chain PFAS have a reduced risk of bioaccumulation.
On the whole, uncertainty about health effects from PFAS has led to a patchwork of regulatory responses across the country, with state and federal agencies continuing to develop their own analyses of risks and possible harms. An overarching federal policy is potentially in the works, but, in the interim, states have been leading the charge to control the uses and releases of PFAS.
Beyond such near- and longer-term regulation, a significant threat of litigation and costly settlements looms on the horizon. We provide more detail below.
Federal Focus
In the first quarter of 2019, several U.S. senators revealed their plans for potential legislation meant to address PFAS in drinking water. This proposed legislative action is just the latest in a surge of heightened scrutiny at the federal level aimed at PFAS. PFAS are also commanding new attention in terms of the following previously enacted federal statutes.
Safe Drinking Water Act
In May 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set a lifetime health advisory, or LHA, level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water at 70 parts per trillion. This action was taken by the EPA under the authority provided under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, or SDWA.
The 70 ppt LHA is not directly enforceable, but was established to educate the public and its most sensitive members on an appropriate level of protection for a lifetime of exposure to the identified chemicals. As such, it could easily result in state regulation or potential litigated claims.
Still, in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on April 3, 2019, EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler touted that the agency has been “enforcing” the 70 ppt health advisory in eight enforcement actions in cooperation with states. Several states have used this 70 ppt level to guide investigations and enforcement actions under their authorities.
The SDWA also requires the EPA to publish a “contaminant candidate list” for chemicals that may require regulation, and are known or expected to occur in public water systems. The EPA included PFOA and PFOS on its contaminant candidate list in 2016.
Under SDWA regulations, the EPA has also collected data for six PFAS (PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, PFHpA and PFBS) by analyzing drinking water samples from nearly 5,000 public water systems across the country. About 4% of the water systems monitored had detectable levels of PFAS; in several of water systems, the levels detected exceeded the LHA.
In response, the EPA has used its emergency authority under the SDWA to issue administrative orders to address the PFAS contamination. The EPA also plans to use its monitoring data going forward to inform future PFAS regulation under the SDWA, potentially including the establishment of maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs.
Toxic Substances Control Act
Even before taking action under the SDWA, the EPA had worked with 3M Co. to implement a voluntary phase-out of PFOS production and application. Since first collaborating with 3M, the EPA has also engaged with eight PFOA manufacturers to eliminate their use of this other well-known PFAS.
Each of these phase-outs were pursued under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, which authorizes the EPA to regulate chemical testing and use, including the issuance of significant new use rules, or SNURs, that require companies to give notice to the EPA before starting or renewing use of a chemical.
To date, the EPA has applied SNURs to over 250 PFAS; these actions have greatly limited applications of PFAS to existing uses. The EPA is currently considering public comments on a proposed PFAS SNUR from 2015, and is planning to issue a supplemental SNUR for certain long-chain PFAS chemicals.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA — sometimes referred to as the Superfund law — authorizes EPA investigations to determine whether and where hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants have been or may be released at a given site. If releases are identified, the EPA can order cleanup by responsible parties, or require them to foot the bill for the costs of addressing releases.
PFOA and PFOS are “pollutants” or “contaminants” under CERCLA, giving the EPA the potential authority to mandate their cleanup. In addition, the EPA has recently initiated the process to have PFOA and PFOS listed as CERCLA “hazardous substances.” If this listing occurs, in addition to becoming more likely to be evaluated in site investigations and the subject of cleanup orders, legacy uses of PFOA and PFOS will become even more likely to become the focus of litigation.
By contrast, PFAS are not currently regulated as listed hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. RCRA allows citizen suits to be initiated in situations of knowing and substantial endangerment, which most courts have defined extremely liberally. The designation of PFAS as RCRA hazardous waste, either due to listing or on characteristic grounds, could result in EPA corrective action orders and other forms of regulation under RCRA, its state equivalents and other statutes.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA, established the Toxic Release Inventory, or TRI, program for tracking releases of particular chemicals and imposing reporting requirements on businesses using those chemicals. A “release” for TRI purposes is an emission to air or water, or placement of a chemical in land disposal.
Facilities are required to report how much of a given chemical is released annually and/or managed through recycling, recovery and treatment. Currently, there are no PFAS chemicals on the list for TRI reporting, but a designation of PFAS as a CERCLA hazardous substance would make this automatic, and the EPA is otherwise considering whether to add them as TRI-specific requirements.
Additional Congressional Action
In the 2018 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act passed last October, Congress directed the FAA to allow airports to use PFAS-free firefighting foam. FAA regulations historically have required airports to use foams meeting certain standards that effectively required the use of foams containing PFAS.
Section 332 of the Reauthorization Act gives the FAA three years from the law’s enactment to update the agency’s regulations to not require the use of fluorinated chemicals to meet performance standards. The FAA will have until October 2021 to promulgate the necessary regulations, and has not yet issued a draft.
In late April 2019, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the possible cleanup liabilities of federal agencies related to PFAS contamination. The GAO’s 2019 “High Risk List” identifies the U.S. government’s environmental liability as a key concern for GAO to better understand, with particular concern about the responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Defense. Senators asked the GAO to examine potential PFAS-associated liabilities, emphasizing that the Department of Defense alone has identified 401 active or closed military installations with known or suspected releases of PFOA and PFOS.
Next Steps
Many of the EPA’s contemplated actions are set forth in the agency’s PFAS action plan unveiled in February 2019.
Among many other items, the action plan notes that the EPA initiated the process for listing PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances. As discussed above, this process, begun in 2018, raises the prospect of new liability at sites where cleanup was previously considered complete.
In the action plan, the EPA also highlighted a plan to develop interim cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS in groundwater. On April 25, 2019, the EPA issued its draft interim guidance for these cleanups. The guidance recommends screening levels to be used in determining whether further investigation at a site is warranted, and preliminary remediation goals, or PRGs, to serve as initial cleanup targets.
The EPA has proposed a 40 ppt screening level each for PFOA and PFAS, and a 70 ppt PRG for either chemical or the chemicals in combination. States can continue to enforce their own more stringent standards, but the guidance recommends use of the 70 ppt PRG where a state has not yet set cleanup goals.
The draft interim guidance on groundwater cleanup will be available for public comment until June 10, 2019. Industry leaders, environmental organizations and state agencies can all be expected to weigh in, as the EPA’s recommendations could eventually be used in CERCLA cleanups, RCRA corrective action programs and state-run investigations.
Additionally, the EPA used its action plan to set a timeframe for finalized toxicity assessments for two next‑generation PFAS (GenX and PFBS) for 2019, and articulated the goal of preparing toxicity values for five additional PFAS (PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA and PFDA) in 2020. These assessments will help experts characterize public health risks from exposure to these particular chemicals.
The action plan also discussed the EPA’s intention to propose a national drinking water regulatory standard for PFOA and PFOS. Environmental advocates have been long pushing for the EPA to set MCLs for these chemicals under the SDWA. The first step to establishing an MCL involves an SDWA regulatory determination, which the action plan called for by the end of this year.
Setting an MCL for drinking water could prove to be controversial. A 2018 study by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR, has found health effects from PFOA and PFOS at levels seven to 10 times lower than the LHA. From this research, some experts have concluded that the 70 parts per trillion (ppt) federal LHA should be lowered to 11 ppt for PFOA and 7 ppt for PFOS.
Despite the EPA’s recent commitment to addressing PFAS, frustrations with the agency’s pace have triggered legislative action in both bodies of Congress and on both sides of the aisle. In the past year, bipartisan groups of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at getting the EPA to list different PFAS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA, an action the agency currently says it is undertaking for PFAS and PFAO.
The most recent legislative proposal, highlighted at a March 28 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, promises to target PFAS in drinking water. During the hearing, bill proponents Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Shelley Moore Capito each expressed concerns about the perceived risks yet unaddressed by the EPA. Other legislative proposals have focused on contamination of U.S. Department of Defense properties and empowerment of the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct additional testing for PFAS pollution.
The second part of this article will examine state-level regulatory action on PFAS, and consider trends in PFAS litigation.
https://www.law360.com/california/articles/1155111/preparing-for-pfas-scrutiny-part-1
-
EPA’s Justice Advisers Seek Quick Action on Sterilizing Chemical
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA must take immediate action to restrict the use of the chemical ethylene oxide and its harmful effects on poor and minority communities, according to a group of advisers assembled by the agency itself.
The toxic gas is used in factories often located in areas populated by people with low incomes or people of color, the advisers wrote in a May 2 letter to the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has no reason to “kick the can down the road when environmental justice communities are being disproportionately affected today,” they said.
Ethylene oxide is a gas that is often used to disinfect medical devices, and is also used in a number of other industrial processes. It’s also a potent carcinogen. State officials in Illinois effectively shut down a facility in the town of Willowbrook earlier this year after air monitoring devices showed levels of ethylene oxide spiking near the facility.
But the Willowbrook facility isn’t the only place where ethylene oxide is a concern, the advisers wrote. They cite other facilities using the gas in Delaware, Louisiana, and elsewhere that are located in poor or minority communities.
The advisers are with the EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, a group of 30 activists, academics, business representatives, and municipal officials. Jill Witkowski Heaps, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School and the vice-chair of the council, said the EPA needs to stick to the guidance it received on ethylene oxide from its own scientists.
“We’ve got the science on it,” Heaps told Bloomberg Environment. “Use the science.”
John Konkus, an EPA spokesman, said the agency appreciates the work of the council and “will carefully consider its comments and recommendations.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epas-justice-advisers-seek-quick-action-on-sterilizing-chemical
-
Better IT Tools Needed to Improve 'Burdensome' SDSs
May 2, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
New IT tools need to be explored to distribute basic, essential information in safety data sheets across the supply chains, EU member states and industry bodies have said.
The comments come in response to the European Commission's REACH Review action which calls for improving their workability and quality.
The remarks, together with the Commission's responses, were circulated in a paper submitted ahead of the meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 19-20 March.
Exposure scenarios distributed through extended safety data sheets under REACH aim to ensure safe handling and adequate control of risks through the whole lifecycle of substances.
But their increased complexity has become a cause for concern, especially for downstream recipients who struggle to apply instructions to their specific needs. In their comments, stakeholders say the SDSs are "lengthy, burdensome and not practical" and call for more concise documents.
Trade body SMEUnited suggests a two-page basic SDS (bSDS). This should include only the most essential facts with hyperlinks to more detailed information.
Tools developed by Echa's Exchange Network on Exposure Scenarios (Enes) to simplify SDSs are "very helpful", member states and some industry associations add, but these are not being used to the full extent.
The purpose of the network is to share knowledge, techniques and approaches to building and applying (REACH) exposure scenarios.
The Commission and the Member State Competent Authority (MSCA) should be more involved in the promotion of Enes tools and templates, according to the downstream users of chemicals co-ordination group (Ducc).
It mentions ESCom, an IT communication standard to harmonise ES data exchange between computer systems in the supply chain, as a "good example" of a tool to support electronic distribution downstream and facilitate translations.
Elsewhere, several member states say they "strongly encourage" harmonised minimum requirements for exposure scenarios and more clarity on the methodology for preparing SDSs for mixtures. Risk management measures should be more realistic and reflect end users’ needs, they add.
Finland, the Netherlands and Slovakia also urge improvements to the guidance for registrants on the requirements for exposure scenarios.
But Finland says new IT tools, methodologies and awareness raising campaigns alone cannot solve the challenges with SDSs and "further development of REACH regulation is needed in future".Modular approach
In its response, the Commission says it will consider in future discussions a "modular approach" to eSDSs with information adapted to what is relevant to a specific recipient.
However, it adds, "it seems not possible" to fully develop the proposed 'basic SDS' idea within the current legal framework.
Once consensus is reached with member states and stakeholders on the changes needed for SDSs, it will decide whether to amend REACH Annex II, as well as other annexes and the main text of the regulation. Annex II sets out requirements for the compilation of SDSs.
A workshop was held in Brussels on 18 March with around 50 representatives from the Commission, Echa, industry organisations and member states. Discussion topics included user-targeted safe use information, potential minimum requirements for exposure scenarios and SDSs for mixtures.
The outcomes of the workshop and the next steps will be available in the coming months. The workshop will be followed by a consultation period, which may include a broad survey, and a second workshop, the Commission says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77081/better-it-tools-needed-to-improve-burdensome-sdss
-
Oil Drillers Get More Leeway as Interior Eases Post-Spill Rules
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is giving oil companies more flexibility when drilling offshore, by easing Obama-era mandates imposed in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 workers and unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
The Interior Department measure rewrites some provisions of a 2016 well-control rule, following industry complaints it imposed rigid and arbitrary requirements that ignore unique characteristics at offshore drilling sites, including their varying geological conditions, pressures and temperatures.
Interior officials were touting the measure Thursday at Port Fourchon in Louisiana, one of the major supply hubs for drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. They have cast the changes as modest modifications that would preserve the safety of drilling operations while giving oil companies more leeway to manage their operations offshore.
The original rule prescribed strict mandates for the design of offshore wells, including how much pressure must be maintained inside them.
The revision alters requirements for real-time monitoring of offshore operations and third-party certifications of emergency equipment that can be summoned as a last resort to block explosive surges of oil and gas flowing up from wells. Many of the final changes -- affecting about a fifth of the original rule -- were already outlined in a proposal released last year.
The underlying requirements were finalized by the Obama administration in April 2016 in response to recommendations from investigators who probed BP Plc’s Macondo well failure. The 2010 disaster, caused when flammable gas surged out of the well and ignited, killed 11 workers on Transocean Ltd.’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and unleashed a massive oil spill in the Gulf.
Conservationists and safety advocates warned the planned rollbacks in the agency’s proposed version imperil the environment, the economy and workers’ lives.
“The Trump administration is rolling back mechanisms and technology designed to protect rig workers and prevent another disaster offshore,” said Chris Eaton, an oceans attorney with Earthjustice. “These rollbacks are a handout to oil company CEOs at the cost of endangering the lives of their workers and heightening the risk for another environmental catastrophe off America’s coastlines.”
Oil industry leaders stress that the incident prompted a suite of critical reforms that will not be undone by the Trump administration’s rule changes. Oil companies will still be governed by federal requirements to holistically assess and manage their offshore facilities. Drilling standards imposed with months of the spill also will be untouched, as will voluntary industry efforts to promote safety.
Supporters argue the rewrite will better align federal requirements with voluntary industry standards, decrease downtime on rigs and lead to more than $900 million in oil industry savings over the next decade. The changes will provide flexibility for oil companies to adapt to various offshore conditions and foster innovations, the American Petroleum Institute said.
Tyler Gray, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, cheered the move, crediting the Trump administration with replacing a flawed and “one-size-fits-all approach” with requirements that better “recognize the variability of operations and engineering specific to each well.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oil-drillers-get-more-leeway-as-interior-eases-post-spill-rules
-
Interior Overhauls Blowout Prevention Rule
May 2, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Dylan Brown
The Trump administration today cemented revisions to offshore drilling regulations crafted in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 people and oil-slicked the Gulf of Mexico.
At a news conference in Port Fourchon, La., the Interior Department rolled out a final rulechanging 68 out of 342 provisions in the 2016 Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Rule and adding 33 more.
Blowout preventers are a series of safety valves that encase oil and gas pipes drilled into the ocean floor and seal off the well during an emergency event.
The Obama administration spent six years crafting a strict set of rules based on what happened inside the five-story Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer, causing the worst oil spill in American history.
The oil and gas industry condemned the rule as being "one-size-fits-all," and President Trump swiftly issued an executive order requiring revisions.
"Riddled with issues and controversy and provisions that many believed would make development less safe, the original regulation required an entire web page to answer more than 100 complex engineering questions to explain how the rule was supposed to work," Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Director Scott Angelle, a former oil company board member, wrote in an op-ed published before today's ceremony in his home state.
Most of the tweaks will align federal regulations with the American Petroleum Institute's blowout prevention standards.
"The changes in the new rule allow for producers to be nimbler, with more adaptive guidelines based on the most up-to-date insights and innovative technology," said Independent Petroleum Association of America President Barry Russell.
But environmentalists chastised BSEE for sidelining itself in the oversight of that technology.
Under the new rule, BSEE no longer must approve the contractors that oil and gas companies pick to evaluate their well equipment. The list of equipment that must be on hand at rigs would become nonbinding. And real-time monitoring requirements, including onshore storage of well data available to BSEE upon request, would be replaced with "company-specific approaches."
"Another catastrophic offshore oil spill just became far more likely," said Kristen Monsell, ocean legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "This reckless administration is ignoring Deepwater Horizon's lessons and putting oil-industry profits before public safety."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/02/stories/1060261005
-
Trump Rolls Back Obama-Era Safety Regs to Fanfare, Furor
May 3, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Dylan Brown
The Trump administration says it wrote a "safer, smarter improved rule" to prevent another Deepwater Horizon disaster. But critics aren't buying a word of it.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) released a final rule yesterday, rewriting Obama-era standards for blowout preventers — the series of safety valves that failed during the worst oil spill in American history, which killed 11 offshore rig workers (E&E News PM, May 2).
The revisions focus on putting oil and gas companies back in charge of determining what works at their wells. The changes bring federal regulations in line with industry standards, namely the American Petroleum Institute's API Standard 53, "Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells."
The Interior Department estimated the new well control rule will save oil and gas companies more than $1 billion over the next decade.
BSEE Director Scott Angelle said the savings would not come at the expense of safety.
"Many have perpetuated the false narrative that this administration is decreasing safety as we work to reduce bureaucratic red tape," the former Louisiana lieutenant governor and oil company board member wrote in an op-ed in his hometown newspaper, The Advocate.
"This line of thinking ignores the simple fact that there are always different pathways that can achieve and even improve upon the same end result."
Former Obama Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes called the changes "disheartening," recalling his front-row seat to 200 million gallons of oil that slicked the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
"The final rule that the Interior Department promulgated in 2016 came after a six-year-long process of careful analysis and review," he said, "and properly balanced the cost of industry compliance against the imperative of worker safety and environmental protection."
But oil industry players said changes were due.
"President Obama used the Deepwater Horizon tragedy as an excuse to go beyond the necessary and responsible precautions and instead imposed draconian regulations in an effort to stop offshore production altogether," American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle said in a statement.
"The green lobby is predictably trying to mislead the public about the efficacy of this rule."
Interior noted that it left most of the 2016 rule untouched, rewriting 68 of 342 provisions and adding 33 more.
But critics say it's the quality of the changes that matters.
Under the Obama rule, a company had to have a real-time monitoring system in place onshore, storing data that could be provided to BSEE. At Deepwater Horizon, the crew was unaware of its plight until it was too late.
Now, Interior will allow "company-specific approaches," rather than the previous exacting requirements.
BSEE will also no longer certify the third parties that test whether blowout preventers are working. Interior called them "duplicative certification requirements that add no value."
In his investigative report, the Project on Government Oversight's David Hilzenrath noted rig workers have previously pleaded guilty to criminal charges of falsifying blowout preventer test results.
"BSEE-approved inspectors might be more reliable than inspectors not vetted by the Bureau," he wrote.
The new rule also loosens requirements for the types of rams used inside a blowout preventer. Companies will now pick their preferred devices for cutting off the flow of oil and gas up a well pipe.
BSEE also reduced the required amount and intensity of blowout preventer testing, citing industry concerns about costs outweighing benefits. The agency said it also had concerns that testing for the most extreme conditions could lead to "unnecessary wear and tear" on the devices.
"It could also increase the odds that the equipment wouldn't work when needed," Hilzenrath wrote.
"We should be implementing new safety reforms, not rolling back the too few safety measures currently in place," Oceana Campaign Director Diane Hoskins said.
Environmental groups have challenged President Trump's offshore energy policies at every turn, and litigation is all but inevitable for the well control rule.
"We will use every tool we have to prevent these rollbacks," Earthjustice attorney Chris Eaton said in a statement.
The nonprofit environmental law firm already got a federal judge to halt Interior's five-year offshore leasing plan, challenged Gulf of Mexico lease sales and sued over the approval of the first Arctic offshore oil project (E&E News PM, April 25; Energywire, March 14; Energywire, Dec. 18, 2018).
And yesterday in Congress, Senate Democrats introduced legislation to ban offshore drilling and exploration in the Atlantic Ocean (see related story).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/03/stories/1060263187
-
EPA Considers Severing Permit Program Changes from Power Plant Rule
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA is considering separating major air permitting program changes from its rewrite of the Obama-era carbon dioxide limits for existing power plants, according to sources familiar with the rulemaking.
Such a move would likely strengthen the agency’s hand in courts when it has to defend the final version of the rewrite, known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which could be issued as early as June.
The Environmental Protection Agency has prioritized changing the Clean Air Act’s pollution permitting program, known as New Source Review. It wants to allow power plants and other industrial plants to improve their efficiency without having to install costly controls when they expand or add new units that increase nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide pollution.
The agency tucked changes to the pollution permitting program in its broader August 2018 proposal to rewrite the Obama-era climate rule.
In that plan, the EPA proposed changing the way emissions increases are calculated when deciding whether power plant efficiency projects trigger additional pollution controls under New Source Review.
But at the time, it also considered severing the permitting changes from the broader plan to protect it legally. This is the option sources say the EPA is considering.
“Nothing is set in stone, but there is a very good chance that the New Source Review provision will be severed and treated separately,” Thomas Lorenzen, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring LLP, told Bloomberg Environment.
Lorenzen, a former Justice Department attorney, said the EPA action “certainly would simplify defense of the ACE rule, review of which would then be limited to what is the ‘best system of emission reduction’ for existing power plants.”
For instance, the EPA is seeking to allow utilities to calculate emission increases on an hourly rate rather than an annual basis. This particular change has been challenged by environmental groups because an hourly rate calculation allows more pollution to be released.
Rule Under ReviewAt least one more source who confers with EPA officials on a regular basis also confirmed the EPA will likely separate the air permitting changes from the broader rule. This source spoke on condition of anonymity.
The EPA didn’t respond to a request for comment on what action it is taking. The agency sent the Affordable Clean Energy rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review April 26, which is the last step before it is released to the public.In February, EPA’s top air official, Bill Wehrum, told reporters that the agency hadn’t yet decided whether to split the two regulatory efforts or to keep them together.
“We wanted to give ourselves the flexibility that if, for whatever reason one piece of the package slowed down, we’d be able to split them apart and do them in pieces rather than one big clump,” Wehrum said Feb. 12 on the sidelines of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners winter policy meeting in Washington, D.C.
Environmental groups and several states have sharply criticized the proposed New Source Review changes, arguing they will lead to higher air pollution. But utilities and other industry groups have largely backed the permitting provisions as necessary for them to be able to take full advantage of the efficiency upgrades that the EPA’s proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule encourages.
“I would expect that EPA will separate these proposals consistent with the comments the agency has received,” said Lorenzen, whose last post at the Justice Department was assistant chief for the environmental defense section until his departure in 2013.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-considers-severing-permit-program-changes-from-power-plant-rule
-
NRG Energy to Restart Texas Gas Plant to Help Meet Record Demand
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
NRG Energy Inc. will restart an inactive natural gas power plant in Texas to help meet what is expected to be record summer demand for power, driven in part by oil and gas drilling activities.
The 385-megawatt Gregory gas plant in Corpus Christi will return to service in June, the company said May 2 in a regulatory filing. The facility ceased operations in late 2016.
Oil and gas development in West Texas is expected to boost peak power demand in the region by 8 percent annually through 2023, compared with just 2 percent statewide, according to the grid operator, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Inc. or Ercot.
Electrical demand is forecast to reach a record 74.9 gigawatts this summer, topping the previous high set in July 2018. Prices are apt to spike and Ercot has warned of possible shortfalls.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/nrg-energy-to-restart-texas-gas-plant-to-help-meet-record-demand-1
-
Exxon to Invest $2B into Baytown Petrochemical Expansion
May 2, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Exxon Mobil will pour $2 billion into expanding its Baytown chemical complex, creating 2,000 construction jobs and further cementing the region's role as a petrochemical hub.
The Baytown expansion will allow Exxon to play off its rising oil and gas production in the Permian Basin to capture growing global demand for petrochemicals. Now it appears that at least a part of that increased gas production will go to 3,400-acre Baytown complex to be turned into chemicals that go into plastics.
The flood of natural gas — the feedstock for many chemicals and plastics — from the Permian and other Texas shale formations has driven the petrochemical boom along the Gulf Coast.
"Our Baytown chemical expansion will put us in a solid position to maximize the value of increased Permian Basin production and will deliver higher-demand, higher-value products produced at our Gulf Coast refining and chemical facilities," said Darren W. Woods, ExxonMobil chairman and chief executive officer, in a statement. "Global demand for chemicals is expected to be greater than energy demand growth and GDP growth over the next 20 years."
Petrochemicals – or chemicals made from oil and gas used in plastics, fertilizers, packaging, clothing, and thousands of consumer products – are quickly becoming one of the main drivers of global oil demand, surpassing cars, planes and trucks, according to a 2018 study by the International Energy Agency. The Paris-based international energy information agency estimates that petrochemical will account for more than a third of the growth in world oil demand by 2030, and nearly half the growth by 2050.
Exxon said Thursday the Baytown capital investment is on top of its $20 billion Growing the Gulf initiative announced in 2017 to expand its manufacturing and refinery presence on the Gulf Coast over the next decade. The oil major is also already building a huge $8 billion petrochemical complex near Corpus Christi in a joint venture with the Saudi Arabian petrochemical company SABIC.
The Baytown expansion will create 25 permanent jobs when the new units start up in 2022, a company spokesman said.
The project will add a 400,000-to-per-a-year polymers unit that will produce a type of plastic branded as Vistamaxx that the company says is more flexible, soft and elastic and allows everyday products to be made with less plastic.
Exxon will also be entering a new chemical market by adding a 350,000-ton-per-a-year linear alpha olefins unit to the Baytown complex. Linear alpha olefins are used in high-performing engine and industrial oils, waxes and building blocks for surfactants, polyethylene plastic for packaging and other specialty chemicals.
Located about 25 miles from Houston along the Houston Ship Channel, Exxon's Baytown plant is the largest integrated petrochemical complex in the U.S., according to the company. The 100-year-old complex includes a refinery, chemical plant, olefins plant, plastics plant and global technology center.
Also Thursday Exxon touted the results of a new economic impact study that concludes that Exxon contributed more than $43 billion the U.S. economy in 2017 and supports more than 177,000 jobs nationwide.
Exxon commissioned the global consulting and accounting firm Ernst & Young to conduct the study in 2017, the year the Growing the Gulf initiative was launched.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-to-invest-2B-into-Baytown-petrochemical-13813195.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
ExxonMobil Launches $2B Expansion of Petrochemical Complex East of Houston
May 2, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
ExxonMobil Corp. on Thursday launched a $2 billion investment to expand its already massive chemical complex in Baytown east of Houston.
The Baytown facility is the largest integrated petrochemical complex in the United States, situated on 3,400 acres along the Houston Ship Channel, about 25 miles east of Houston. The facility includes a refinery, chemical plant, olefins plant, plastics plant and global technology center.
The expansion would be in addition to the supermajor’s Growing the Gulf initiative, a $20 billion effort launched two years ago. The initiative was created to build and expand manufacturing facilities along the Gulf Coast to take advantage of Lower 48 natural gas and oil reserves, particularly from the Permian Basin, ExxonMobil’s No. 1 onshore target, where it has at least 10 billion boe.
“Through the billions of dollars that we’re investing in the Permian Basin to increase oil production and the expansion at our operations along the Gulf Coast, our company is making significant, lasting contributions to the U.S. economy and the many communities where we operate,” CEO Darren W. Woods said.
EY (Ernst & Young) was commissioned to examine the contributions ExxonMobil made to the U.S. economy in 2017, when the Growing the Gulf initiative was launched. The research also issued on Thursday concluded that ExxonMobil contributed more than $43 billion to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and direct, indirect and induced economic activity supported nearly 177,000 jobs across the country.
“This research, focused on a single year, is a powerful snapshot of how our business in the United States directly benefits the American economy,” Woods said. “It underscores the many ways that the company and our employees are contributing to prosperity across the country.”
The research also found that in 2017, the U.S. operations supported nearly $6.7 billion of direct labor income, averaging $208,000/worker in total annual compensation, including wages and benefits. The impact of operations and investments included more than $7 billion of tax and royalty payments, with capital investments in 20 states.
“Our Baytown chemical expansion will put us in a solid position to maximize the value of increased Permian Basin production and will deliver higher demand, higher value products produced at our Gulf Coast refining and chemical facilities,” Woods said. “Global demand for chemicals is expected to be greater than energy demand growth and GDP growth over the next 20 years.”
The Baytown expansion, expected to start up in 2022, is to include a Vistamaxx performance polymer unit that could produce about 400,000 tons of polymers a year. The project also would enable ExxonMobil to enter the linear alpha olefins market as the new unit would produce about 350,000 tons/year.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118251-exxonmobil-launches-2b-expansion-of-petrochemical-complex-east-of-houston
-
U.S. Boosts Natural-Gas Exports to EU, Aiming to Dent Russian Sales
May 3, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Emre Peker
The U.S. has nearly tripled its natural-gas exports to the European Union since July and signed new licenses Thursday seeking to establish American energy as an EU mainstay.
Washington’s liquefied natural-gas push comes as the EU seeks to preserve a trade truce with President Trump and avoid potential U.S. tariffs on cars. It also aims to break Russia’s grip on European energy markets.
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry hailed the burgeoning trade as “the tip of the iceberg” during a visit to Brussels, where he signed two new export licenses. The permits allow Texas-based Tellurian Inc. and California-based Sempra Energy to eventually export a combined 60 billion cubic meters of gas annually, or six times the total volume the EU imported since it started buying U.S. LNG in 2016.
The rise in American gas exports to Europe marks a bright spot in trans-Atlantic relations, marred by disagreements on issues ranging from trade to Iran’s nuclear deal.
European officials said they hope LNG purchases will provide some breathing room as the EU scrambles to deliver on a July accord between Mr. Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. At their White House meeting, the leaders agreed to bolster trans-Atlantic commerce by removing barriers to trade in industrial goods, services, pharceuticals, chemicals, medical products and soybeans. They also pledged energy cooperation to facilitate more U.S. LNG sales to Europe.
EU and U.S. negotiators have been struggling since July to slash tariffs on goods—a main pillar of the Trump-Juncker deal. Booming energy trade, EU and U.S. officials said, could serve as a blueprint for aligning market forces and political support to boost trans-Atlantic commerce.
“We’re here to talk about LNG, and that’s probably the biggest opportunity we have,” Mr. Perry said at the first EU-U.S. high-level business-to-business energy forum, urging companies to strike deals. “The bottom line is the United States has what Europe wants—an incredible abundance of clean and affordable natural gas.”
U.S. LNG exports to the EU still represent only a fraction of the bloc’s energy needs. Since 2016, Europe imported just over 10 billion cubic meters of American gas, compared with about 160 billion cubic meters from Russia last year alone, according to EU data. While the U.S. LNG shipments accounted for about 2% of total EU imports in 2018, Russian pipelines delivered 40% of European purchases.
Germany and some EU members have also clashed with the U.S. over Russia’s Nord Stream 2 project. The U.S. has threatened sanctions against the Baltic Sea link, which would double the capacity of an existing pipeline. Nord Stream 2 would enable Moscow to ship almost 70% of its EU gas sales directly to Germany, cutting Russia’s reliance on Ukrainian transit routes in a geopolitical victory.
Washington’s longstanding policy to curb Russian energy sales is squeezing Europe, the world’s top energy importer. In recent years, the EU provided €656 million ($733 million) in financing for new LNG links and terminals across the bloc, to diversify its supply sources.
The U.S. is also bolstering its export capacity, which is projected to double by next year, according to the Energy Department. As U.S. LNG prices become more competitive, the EU is emerging as an attractive market.
The EU was America’s top gas customer in the final quarter of last year and first quarter of this year, Mr. Perry said. According to the EU, 35% of U.S. LNG landed in Europe during the first four months of 2019, up from 11% last year.
“European-U.S. cooperation on LNG is an obvious match,” EU Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete said Thursday. “This makes business sense.”
American officials insisted on including LNG in the Trump-Juncker agreement last year, according to an EU official. Rising American gas exports could address some outstanding issues—such as the widening U.S. trade deficit with the EU—and forestall a White House decision to slap duties on U.S. auto imports.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that without a deal to rebalance EU-U.S. trade, he would impose car tariffs. That could hit $60 billion in annual EU car and auto-parts sales to the U.S. and trigger retaliation on €20 billion worth of American exports.
EU-U.S. talks to improve regulatory cooperation will resume next week in Washington, a European Commission official said. The negotiators are also expected to lay the groundwork for discussions on an industrial-goods trade pact. The following week, EU and U.S. experts will take up other elements of the July deal, including the pledge to boost European purchases of U.S. gas.
“I don’t think LNG exports will solve the problem in its entirety,” said Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. “It will solve some aspects of the problem.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-boosts-natural-gas-exports-to-eu-aiming-to-dent-russian-sales-11556827197?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=4
-
Can Father of Fracking's Legacy Save Texas' Last Frontier?
May 3, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Fracking pioneer George Mitchell might just protect Texas' last wild place from the industry he helped revitalize.
A nonprofit group that bears Mitchell's name is starting a multiyear push to preserve the landscape in the Big Bend region as energy development edges toward one of Texas' last unspoiled areas.
The effort by the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, known as the Respect Big Bend Coalition, is significant because George Mitchell developed the combination of technologies commonly known as fracking that helped revive the state's oil boom (Energywire, July 29, 2013).
Texas is now producing record amounts of oil from the Permian Basin, which has revived the region's economy. But oil and gas production is moving south toward the loosely defined Big Bend.
The region plays an outsized role in Texans' sense of self-identity. It's the home of Big Bend National Park and sprawling ranches, and it's been the setting for several movies, including "Giant" in 1956 with James Dean and Elizabeth Taylor.
"When you think about the last wild places in this country, this is one of them," said Marilu Hastings, a vice president at the Mitchell Foundation. "It is one of the last vestiges of, certainly, Texas culture and Western culture in this country."
George Mitchell famously spent about a decade trying to find a way to revive gas production in a field outside Fort Worth. His engineers turned to hydraulic fracturing — a high-pressure mixture of water and sand — to break up a layer of gas-bearing shale thousands of feet below his existing wells.
Mitchell sold his gas production company for more than $3 billion. And while Mitchell has been blamed indirectly for many of the downsides of fracking — including water and air pollution — he also called for government regulation of the industry. His family foundation has spent the last six years researching ways to mitigate the industry's impact (Energywire, Oct. 28, 2013).
The Big Bend coalition wants to address all kinds of energy development, including wind turbines and large-scale solar farms, although oil and gas drilling is the major challenge happening now.
Polling funded by the foundation shows broad support for protecting the region. More than half of respondents said preserving communities, land and water outweighs the value of energy development. And 72% of people statewide said it's important to preserve those assets in far-west Texas, even if it means limiting energy production.
The effort started about two years ago when Apache Corp. announced its "Alpine High" discovery in Reeves County. The new oil and gas field extended the potential for drilling farther south than previous rounds of drilling, and Apache has said it could drill 2,000 to 3,000 wells on 307,000 acres.
While the field is outside the three main counties that make up the Big Bend Region — Presidio, Brewster and Jeff Davis — Apache has drilled around the picturesque town of Balmorhea.
Apache recognized early that people in the region were concerned about the new field's impact. The company has worked with the state Parks and Wildlife Department to raise money for repairs at a state park in Balmorhea and has helped fund research on the region's water quality, among other efforts.
"We are deeply committed to the safe and responsible development of Alpine High and have been exceedingly deliberate and thorough with our planning and community engagement approach to ensure our presence has a positive and lasting impact," Apache Vice President Castlen Kennedy said in an email.
Residents have raised concerns that drilling could dry up the natural springs that provide much of the area's water (Energywire, Nov. 4, 2016).
And officials at the University of Texas' McDonald Observatory, about 30 miles away, are worried that natural gas flaring and industrial lights could hamper their ability to conduct space research with telescopes (Energywire, Jan. 4, 2017).
The Mitchell Foundation's research shows that residents in towns like Balmorhea, Alpine, Marfa and Fort Davis are starting to worry about the same side effects that are showing up in the Permian Basin — traffic, higher housing costs, and damage to roads and other infrastructure.
"What they'd like to see is better planning for this scale" of development, said David Iannelli, a partner in the opinion firm Hudson Pacific. "These small-town communities are not ready for the influx of people. They want to see the infrastructure not only protected but repaired."
The Mitchell Foundation has pledged $1.5 million this year to the Respect Big Bend Coalition. Most of the funding will go toward long-term planning with local governments, landowners and energy companies. The group has also hired former state Sen. Kip Averitt (R) to coordinate with the state government.
So far, only a relative handful of wells have been drilled in the region around Balmorhea, so there's time to work with the oil industry on mitigating its impacts, foundation Director Melinda Taylor said.
"There's still a lot of maneuverability, I would argue, on Apache and the other operators' part," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/03/stories/1060262677
-
Is Climate a Blind Spot for Oil and Gas Investors?
May 3, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Investors need more information about oil and gas companies' exploration and development plans in order to understand how their stocks could perform in a carbon-constrained world, according to a think tank that has developed a model for what such financial disclosures could look like.
A study published yesterday by the Carbon Tracker Initiative suggests that companies be pushed to reveal more detailed information about the oil and gas reserves into which they plan to sink project dollars. The group also called for publication of companies' forecasts for product demand, the commodity prices used in their strategic long-range planning, and other data points that would give investors more insight into companies' incorporation of climate risk.
"Oil and gas firms are not disclosing anywhere near enough information for investors to weigh up growing climate concerns that may impact a company's future production and the long-term viability of its business," Carbon Tracker said in launching a template for what it sees as appropriate disclosure of that information.
Carbon Tracker is the U.K.-based think tank that introduced the term "carbon bubble" for the idea that oil and gas firms carry on their books more fossil fuel resources than can be safely burned without pushing the global climate past a tipping point. That "unburnable carbon," the group says, creates a major risk of stranded assets among fossil fuel producers (Climatewire, Dec. 11, 2018).
Pressure in recent years from environmentally focused investor groups has led major oil and gas companies including BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp. to increase their reporting on climate issues. London-based CDP, formerly called the Carbon Disclosure Project, says votes for climate shareholder resolutions at companies' annual general meetings more than doubled from 2014 to 2018.
Carbon Tracker North American Director Rob Schuwerk said his group's model disclosure goes beyond the information that oil and gas companies share today. The blueprint puts a special focus on expected spending for projects where significant further expenses would be required before hydrocarbon production begins, judging those projects as the most likely to become "stranded assets" if climate constraints alter the equation before profits are fully realized.
Restrictions could come in various forms, such as new policies or carbon pricing, that could lead to abandonment of higher-cost fossil fuel production in favor of the cheapest projects that fit within a global carbon budget.
Schuwerk said companies with portfolios stacked with higher-cost resources like those found in the Arctic or in ultra-deepwater formations would have the most to lose from this sort of climate disclosure because it could throw into question their viability. Shale resources could fall into a middle, marginal territory depending on specific project profiles, while conventional resources like those found in much of the Middle East are typically lower-cost and would be among the most attractive in a carbon-constrained framework.
"Being able to see that is key, because it lets you make allocation decisions, as an investor," he said. "I would not wager on the [Securities and Exchange Commission] endorsing anything like this in the near term," he added, but the work could feed into work being done in European jurisdictions and by international financial groups looking at what information companies should or must disclose.
Last month, President Trump signed an executive order that pushed federal officials to look at how federally regulated retirement funds, including popular 401(k) and 403(b) plans, invest in the energy sector and whether managers of those plans can legally apply environmental criteria (Energywire, April 11).
The guidance was widely seen as intended to have a chilling effect on pension and other funds that use environment and social governance metrics in assessing investment targets. Schuwerk said many of the funds that are most active in pressing climate-related shareholder campaigns are not governed by the federal program targeted by the executive order. Making a conclusive statement that climate risk is not an investment risk would be difficult, he added.
But Schuwerk is adamant that climate exposure is significant to companies not just in the future, but now. "Every year, companies spend a significant amount of money on developing these resources, but there's very little discussion of the cost of these projects and the risks that they might face as they come into production," he said, adding, "Many misconceive this as a risk that's in the future, but the dollars are being spent today."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/03/stories/1060262171
-
CSB Asks EPA to Review 1993 HF Study
May 3, 2019 | Occupational Health and Safety
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, known as CSB, recently sent a letter to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency asking that EPA review its 1993 hydrofluoric acid (HF) study to determine whether refineries exiting risk management plans are sufficient to prevent catastrophic releases of the chemical, as well as whether there are commercially viable, inherently safer alkylation technologies for use in petroleum refineries.
Addressed to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the letter was stamped April 23 and was posted to CSB's website the following day.
"In the last four years, the CSB has investigated two refinery incidents where an explosion elevated the threat of a release of HF. Refinery workers and surrounding community residents are rightly concerned about the adequacy of the risk management for the use of hazardous chemicals like HF. The EPA should review its 1993 HF study to ensure the health and safety of communities near petroleum refineries utilizing HF," CSB Interim Executive Kristen Kulinowski said.
The agency's letter said the two refinery incidents were the Feb. 18, 2015, explosion at the former ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, Calif., when an electrostatic precipitator in the fluid catalytic cracking unit exploded during maintenance activities; and the April 26, 2018, explosion and fire at the Superior Refinery Company LLC refinery in Superior, Wis., known as the Husky Refinery.
The safety board noted that HF is a highly toxic chemical that can seriously injure or kill someone exposed at a concentration of 30 parts per million and is used in about 50 of the approximately 150 refineries in the United States, as well as many other industries. In a refinery, the chemical is used as a catalyst in the creation of a blending agent for high-octane gasoline.
In both of the investigations, CSB conducted a public hearing in which members of the surrounding communities expressed their concerns about the adequacy of the risk management strategies for the use of HF and the effectiveness of community notification procedures in the event of a catastrophic release. "The EPA is the appropriate agency to assess the adequacy of risk management for the use of chemicals like HF. Refiners, their workforce, and communities that surround the refineries need assurances that the risk plans are adequate to prevent a catastrophic release," Kulinowski said.
The letter states that the safety board understands that new alkylation technologies are being developed that may have inherent safety advantages over the use of HF at U.S. refineries. "These include a solid-state technology and an ionic liquid technology, both of which are currently being planned to replace existing HF alkylation units in at least two U.S. refineries," it states.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2019/05/03/csb-asks-epa-to-review-hf-study.aspx?admgarea=news&m=1
-
Trump Signs Order Aimed at Boosting Cyber Readiness
May 2, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump signed an executive order aimed at filling the deficit of cybersecurity professionals in the federal workforce, including specialists with knowledge of cyber-physical systems like power grids and gas pipelines.
"The Nation is experiencing a shortage of cybersecurity talent and capability, and innovative approaches are required to improve access to training that maximizes individuals' cybersecurity knowledge, skills, and abilities," said today's "Executive Order on America's Cybersecurity Workforce."
The order directs the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget to develop a rotational assignment program for federal cybersecurity specialists, allowing them to share their experience among the nation's 99 civilian agencies.
The goal is to "facilitate the seamless movement" of security practitioners between public and private sectors, offering exposure to technical fields including critical infrastructure cybersecurity.
The White House is also directing the departments of Homeland Security and Commerce to search for any skill gaps in "specific critical infrastructure sectors," including defense systems at the Pentagon.
The executive action requires the secretaries of Defense, Energy, Transportation and Homeland Security to circle back with a report detailing any training deficiencies in those areas, "particularly cyber-physical systems for which safety and reliability depend on secure control systems." An administration official said the White House would be launching a "consultative process" with private-sector critical infrastructure providers alongside the order.
The order kicks off plans to test federal workers for their cyber aptitude and lays the groundwork for an annual "President's Cup" cybersecurity competition hosted by DHS.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle welcomed news that Trump is looking to beef up the nation's cybersecurity workforce, including the emphasis on supporting existing programs through the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
"We have a serious deficit in the number of skilled cyber defenders to protect our critical assets in cyberspace, a deficit compounded by the growing threats we face," Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), co-founder of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, said in a statement. "I give full credit to the Trump Administration for recognizing this gap and taking steps to close it, both within the federal government and across the private sector."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/02/stories/1060261037
-
Republicans Renew Push for Permit Streamlining
May 3, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
As the idea of an infrastructure bill gains steam on Capitol Hill, Republicans and their conservative allies are repeating calls for streamlining the permitting process for large projects.
That dynamic was on full display at yesterday's Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee hearing.
The hearing was focused on oversight of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, an interagency body tasked with improving coordination on large projects.
GOP lawmakers and witnesses from right-leaning organizations took the opportunity to call for trimming unnecessary red tape that can cause delays.
"One of the reasons we're having so much trouble is this outdated process we have for granting permits for large projects," said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
"It takes so long and it's so costly to permit a project here in the United States. We can do better than this," he said.
As an example, Portman cited the 10-year delay in permitting a small hydropower project on the Ohio River. The steering council was involved in speeding things up.
Michael Knisley, secretary and treasurer of the Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council, said he shares concerns about the project's delay.
"When communities wait for years and years for a major project to break ground, local businesses and the organizations funded by the tax revenues from these developments suffer," Knisley said in his prepared testimony.
The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council was without an executive director until four months ago, when former Council on Environmental Quality official Alexander Herrgott assumed the role.
Herrgott testified that "in the last four months since I became the executive director, we have focused on leveraging this interagency body to bring about a new era of transparency, efficiency and accountability. We are actively reducing unnecessary red tape, costs and delays."
Still, Democrats and witnesses from progressive groups said speeding up the permitting process should not come at the expense of environmental protections.
"I've made it clear previously, but it bears repeating: I will not support further weakening of environmental protections in the name of accelerating project delivery," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the subcommittee, in his opening remarks.
Raul Garcia, senior legislative counsel with Earthjustice, agreed that permitting reform should not undermine the National Environmental Policy Act.
"NEPA is a tool that gives communities a voice in the development of our national infrastructure," Garcia said, adding, "NEPA stands for the commonsense principle that we all learn as children: Look both ways before you cross the street."In the shadow
The hearing fell in the shadow of two significant infrastructure events earlier this week.
On Tuesday, President Trump discussed infrastructure with Democrats at the White House. The two parties settled on a $2 trillion price tag for an infrastructure deal, although they didn't address funding options (E&E News PM, April 30).
Carper quipped that the president and Democrats "talked about everything except how to pay for it."
Also Tuesday, the steering council held its first "Stakeholder Engagement Forum." The event was closed to the press, and an E&E News reporter was barred from the room and later escorted from the building (Greenwire, April 30).
Garcia, who attended the event, raised concern that the council appeared to be shirking its duty to engage with communities.
"Last Tuesday, the council held its only stakeholder hearing so far," Garcia said. "In panel after panel, we heard how the council worked for project sponsors. But there was almost no discussion of how community stakeholders can reach the council."
He added, "Overall, there is a particular lack of engagement with communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. Crucially, most projects with negative impacts are usually built within these communities. So it is alarming to see their input is excluded by the council."
Herrgott didn't directly respond to these allegations, although he noted that the public could email the council as well as visit an online permitting dashboard.
If a broad infrastructure bill doesn't end up materializing in the 116th Congress, permitting reform could ultimately hitch a ride on the reauthorization of a surface transportation bill. The 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is set to expire in September 2020.
"In the last decade, we passed 35 short-term fixes for transportation before we were able to pass the FAST Act, which was the first long-term bill in a decade," said Carper.
"However, the FAST Act expires in September of 2020," he said. "We have a responsibility to avoid another series of short-term fixes, which waste money, create uncertainty and force us to put off needed investments."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/03/stories/1060261093
-
Va. Won't Cap CO2 with 9 Other States — for Now
May 3, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Gov. Ralph Northam signed a budget yesterday barring Virginia from participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program encompassing power plants in nine Northeastern states.
The move amounted to a stunning reversal for Northam, a Democrat who has made RGGI membership the signature environmental issue of his tenure. The governor campaigned on the issue, featured it in his inaugural speech to the General Assembly and vetoed two bills that would have prohibited the state from joining the program.
State regulators, in a vote last month, approved a regulation that would have paved the way for Virginia to link with the program (Climatewire, April 22).
Now, Virginia's participation in RGGI will have to wait at least a year, if not longer.
Republican lawmakers inserted language into the budget prohibiting the state from making expenditures related to the program. In the weeks leading up to his decision, political insiders around Richmond, Va., debated whether Northam could use his line item veto to strike the RGGI language without rejecting the entire budget. Environmentalists pushed the governor to neutralize the language, but the governor ultimately declined.
In a statement, Northam lamented the "disappointing and out-of-touch provisions that will harm Virginians with respect to fighting climate change."
He called RGGI "a critical avenue for reducing carbon emissions in the Commonwealth and addressing the negative effects of climate change, which is impacting the health and safety of people who live, work, and vacation in our great state."
Ofirah Yheskel, a spokeswoman for the governor, said the language in this year's budget does not restrict the governor when he proposes a new budget to the Legislature in 2020. And she said work on other efforts to address climate change would continue, including the development of a rule to reduce methane emissions, a regional cap-and-trade program for the transportation sector and efforts to address sea-level rise.
"At this time, we do not see the need for costly, drawn-out litigation," Yheskel said in an email. "The speedier remedy for these out-of-touch provisions is the election of Democratic majorities in November."
Virginia will hold elections in the fall. Democrats were emboldened after nearly taking the General Assembly from Republicans in 2017, but their prospects have been clouded after Northam and Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) became embroiled in personal scandals. Northam has faced calls to resign for a racist photo in his medical school yearbook, while Fairfax is battling allegations of sexual assault.
At least one prominent Virginia Democrat seemed to hope Northam would veto the RGGI language in the budget. Former Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) initially proposed the idea of joining RGGI.
"On 5/16/17, I signed Executive Directive 11, paving the way for VA to be 1st southern state to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative," McAuliffe wrote in a tweet posted hours prior to Northam's announcement. "The GOP has snuck language into VA budget to reverse that historic action. This attack on the environment must be stopped."
The decision threatened to expand a gulf between Northam and environmentalists. Many greens criticized Northam's decision to remove two members of the state Air Pollution Control Board after it delayed a vote last year on Dominion Energy Inc.'s permit for a compressor station along a proposed natural gas pipeline. And many called on him to resign over the racist photo in his medical school yearbook.
Walton Shepherd, policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, labeled the move "a disastrous retreat. In choosing not to veto the measure, Gov. Northam is showing his subservience to big polluters and climate deniers."
Others worried the governor opened the door for lawmakers to use the budget as a vehicle to block a range of gubernatorial priorities.
"If the General Assembly wants to impose or prevent a regulatory action, the way to do that is through legislation and not the budget," said Will Cleveland, an attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. "The governor had an opportunity to keep this from happening. Who knows how it would have played out, but the General Assembly will ultimately bear the blame. This should never have been in there in the first place."
Republican lawmakers, for their part, hailed the decision, saying it represented an acknowledgement of the constitutional limits of Northam's office.
State regulators designed the program to avoid legislative involvement.
Power companies operating in RGGI participate in regular auctions where they buy and sell carbon credits. Those auction generate revenue that RGGI states require be spent on programs like energy efficiency. But the Republicans who control the General Assembly were never likely to approve any expenditures resulting from the program. So Virginia regulators designed a system to allocate carbon allowances to utilities and direct the use of any revenues toward emission reduction programs.
"I hope the governor's deference today will make future governors think twice before attempting to trespass on legislative prerogatives," House Speaker Kirk Cox (R) told the Virginia Mercury, a news website.
For RGGI, Northam's decision represents a setback that could dampen enthusiasm to grow the program. Pennsylvania regulators recently recommended that Gov. Tom Wolf (D) follow Virginia's lead and implement a RGGI-like program (Climatewire, April 30). Pennsylvania, like Virginia, has a Democratic governor and Republican Legislature.
A RGGI spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
New Jersey, an original member that left under former Gov. Chris Christie (R), is in the process of rejoining the cap-and-trade system. That looks likely to continue, given that the program has the backing of the Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, and Democratic majorities in the state Legislature.
But Virginia represented a far greater prize. It would have been the first state to join the program since its inception in 2009 and the first Southern state to adopt cap and trade. It also represented a large pool of emissions. The 33.6 million tons of carbon emissions reported by Virginia power plants in 2016 was more than any other RGGI state, including New York.
And where emissions from power plants in RGGI states decreased in recent years, Virginia's power plants have pumped out more CO2. The 33.6 million tons of carbon posted in 2016 marked a 33% increase over 2012 and the fourth consecutive year of rising emissions, according to the most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration data. A series of old coal and natural gas plants have since been retired.
In joining RGGI, Virginia would have agreed to cap emissions at 28 million tons in 2020 and reduce carbon levels by 30% over the next decade.
Dominion Energy, the state's largest utility and a powerful political force in Richmond, adopted a quiet public posture on the proposal but opposed it in regulatory filings with the state.
The Richmond-based utility did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/03/stories/1060263689
-
After a Year, IRS Starts Carbon-Capture Tax Credit Rules
May 2, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Federal tax regulators have started in earnest to craft rules to implement a major bipartisan tax incentive for carbon-capture technologies.
The Internal Revenue Service released May 2 a long-awaited notice seeking input on how it should oversee the so-called “45Q” tax credits for carbon capture technology. Congress extended and expanded those tax incentives in a bipartisan budget bill in February 2018, but companies and investors have been hesitant to commit dollars to new projects without knowing how to claim the credits.
Carbon capture separates the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from emissions of power plants and other industrial facilities to be permanently stored or used, rather than released into the atmosphere.
“This is an important first step towards clarifying the criteria to access the credit based on input from a wide array of stakeholders,” Christopher Romans, executive director of the Energy Advance Center, said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment. The center is a coalition of oil majors and power companies, including ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Southern Company, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc.
The 45Q tax credits could offer a huge boost to the technology—which has struggled to commercialize, particularly in the power sector, because the projects are expensive.
A February report from the Clean Air Task Force found the 45Q credits could lead to the capture and storage of nearly 50 million metric tons of carbon per year by 2030 in the power sector alone.
‘Heart’ of the IssuesSupporters of carbon capture technologies—which includes major coal producers, oil companies, labor unions, and some environmental groups—have been ramping up pressure on the IRS in recent months to get to work on the tax-credit guidance.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry had also asked the Treasury Department to prioritize developing the rules of the road for the incentives.
But carbon capture backers welcomed the detailed queries in the IRS notice as evidence the agency, while slower to the table than they’d have liked, has been doing its homework.“The questions the IRS has posed in the Notice go to the heart of many key tax credit issues,” N. Hunter Johnston, a partner with Steptoe & Johnson LLP who has worked closely on the carbon capture tax credits, said in an email.
Johnston said he hopes the IRS can continue working on drafting guidance even while taking comment from stakeholders.
Regulatory CertaintyThe issues the IRS raises include how and whether the credit can be transferred among different parties, how to structure tax equity partnerships, and the rules around when the government can take away the incentive if a project falls short of expectations.
The rules around those questions “need to be well understood to ensure regulatory certainty for project developers and are necessary to attract investment” into carbon capture, utilization, and storage projects, said Shannon Angielski, executive director of the Carbon Utilization Research Council, comprised of coal companies, oil and gas producers, labor unions, utilities, and other organizations.
Carbon capture supporters have already offered suggestions on many of the questions the IRS is posing.
For example, a broad coalition of more than 50 companies and groups supporting carbon capture offered model guidance in late 2018.
“Clearly in what’s laid out, they have been paying attention to the feedback they’ve already gotten,” said Brad Crabtree, vice president for carbon management at the Great Plains Institute,, which helps coordinate the Carbon Capture Coalition. “That’s encouraging.”
‘Work Its Magic’The IRS will take comment for 45 days beginning May 20, according to the notice.
Angielski welcomed the 45 days as a “quick turnaround.”
Timing concerns remain, though, because projects must commence construction by the end of 2023 to be eligible to claim the credit. Thus, supporters are hoping the IRS will move quickly after it receives comment to complete its guidelines.
The sooner the guidance is final and public, the sooner “project developers and investors will have the clarity they need to move forward with projects being considered,” Crabtree said.
Then, “the tax credit can start to do its work, work its magic,” he added.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/after-year-long-wait-irs-starts-carbon-capture-tax-credit-rules
-
GOP Rejects Climate Bill. 'We've Got Too Many ... Deniers'
May 3, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
In a direct rebuke to President Trump, a bill that would keep the United States in the Paris climate accord sailed through the Democratic-controlled House yesterday by a 231-190 vote.
It was a victory for the Democratic majority and marked the first time in a decade that a major piece of climate legislation passed in the House.
"This is exactly the sort of collaboration we need to address the climate crisis," said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who sponsored the bill and leads a new House panel focused on global warming.
But the celebration likely will be short-lived.
The bill has little chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Senate, and even if it did, Trump almost certainly would veto it. The measure seeks to reverse his decision in 2017 to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement in November 2020 (Climatewire, June 2, 2017).
By itself, the bill would do little to combat global warming — especially when set against more ambitious proposals such as the Green New Deal. For that reason, it's been described as the bare minimum that could earn broad support from House Democrats.
Even at that low bar, the measure received sparse Republican support.
Just three Republicans voted in favor of the bill: Reps. Vern Buchanan of Florida, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Elise Stefanik of New York. "Global warming is a serious threat — especially to a state like #Florida with two coastlines vulnerable to rising waters," Buchanan wrote in a Twitter post after the vote.
The lack of bipartisanship doesn't bode well for future climate legislation, despite the fact that a handful of congressional Republicans — in a reversal of the last several years — have started to talk more about the threat of a warmer planet.
"We should have a serious, solutions-oriented discussion about how to address climate change risks through American innovation, American conservation and preparation," Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said in a floor speech Wednesday opposing the measure.
To that end, yesterday's vote underscores what could be one of the most important questions in U.S. climate politics today: Is there a policy out there that could simultaneously earn the support of congressional Republicans and do enough to adequately address global warming?
One conservative advocate for clean energy said Republicans still are searching for an answer.
"The competition of ideas on the right hasn't happened in the same way it has happened on the left," said Heather Reams, executive director of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.
"But that," she said, "is changing."
Reams, whose group promotes clean energy alternatives in GOP circles, said there's been increased interest among Republicans for options like wind and hydropower.
She said that GOP lawmakers are paying more attention to technological fixes such as carbon capture — an emerging technology that would remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or prevent them from getting there in the first place.
That said, Reams acknowledged that Republican lawmakers still haven't reached consensus on a plan that addresses the full scale of the climate crisis.
"I don't think we have that yet," Reams said. "I don't think we're there yet."
What was clear after yesterday, however, is that there is little appetite among Republicans for reengaging in the Paris accord, a global agreement backed by former President Obama that aims to limit atmospheric warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
GOP lawmakers long have been skeptical of the Paris accord, and Trump's opposition to it has solidified Republican resistance to the measure. About 195 countries are participating in the agreement.
"This bill is a political bill," said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.).
For that reason, he said House Republicans haven't discussed it much.
"If [Democrats] want to get serious about talking about climate change, there's a number of us willing to have serious conversations," Meadows said. "This is not serious."
Asked to characterize the tenor of intra-Republican talk on climate, Meadows said simply: "I would prefer not to."
There are signs, however, that some kind of discussion is going on. Several Republican lawmakers in recent months have broadly discussed the possibility of engaging on climate change.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in late April that Republicans must do more on global warming. "Let's, as a party, say the Green New Deal sucks but climate change is real," he said (Energywire, April 26).
In January, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) co-sponsored legislation that would put a tax on carbon emissions. It would start at $15 per metric ton and increase annually. Three other House Republicans — Walden, Fred Upton of Michigan and John Shimkus of Illinois — wrote an op-ed in February that called for action on climate change through ideas such as hydropower and carbon capture.
Yet none of those four House Republicans backed yesterday's Paris bill. A Rooney aide said the Florida lawmaker missed the vote because of health reasons. All three op-ed writers voted no.
"It's just too broad," Upton said Wednesday.
Walden was more critical in his floor speech.
"Instead of spending a week of precious legislative time talking about a bill that frankly has little teeth, will never move in the Senate [and] would get vetoed by the president if it ever got to his desk, we could be legislating on how to ease the overly burdensome hydropower licensing process," he said.
The criticism, not surprisingly, didn't go unnoticed by congressional Democrats.
"After years of denial, outright lies and inaction on the climate crisis under Republican leadership in the House, we are finally taking meaningful steps to protect our planet for future generations," Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said in a floor speech before the vote.
All of which is to say that ambitious climate legislation is unlikely to advance until at least after the 2020 elections — other than marginal efforts to deal with it through infrastructure spending or add-ons to federal spending bills.
Still, Greg Bertelsen, senior vice president for the Climate Leadership Council, said there are reasons to be optimistic. Specifically, he pointed to the increasing open-mindedness of Republicans to debate climate solutions — rather than climate change itself — in committee hearings.
"A much clearer indication of where this discussion is going — and where Republicans have moved especially — is in what we have heard in committee hearings [and] the acknowledgement there is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed," said Bertelsen, whose organization supports the idea of imposing a fee on carbon emissions to help curb global warming.
But that optimism isn't universal. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is a Trump ally who has raised concerns about climate change. He said Wednesday there remains a major barrier to global warming legislation inside the Republican caucus.
"We've got too many climate deniers in our caucus right now," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/03/stories/1060261935
-
House Democrats Look to Bridge Divides on Climate Policy
May 3, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Andrew Duehren
House Democrats, seeking to move beyond internal divisions over how best to combat climate change, passed legislation Thursday aimed at preventing President Trump from exiting the Paris Agreement.
The bill, which passed in a 231-190 vote, would require the Trump administration to submit an annual plan to Congress for meeting the U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement, which the U.S. joined under President Obama and which seeks to limit average global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius. Mr. Trump has moved to leave the accord by November 2020, arguing that it unfairly punishes the U.S. economy.
The House bill passed with the support of 228 Democrats and three Republicans—Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Vern Buchanan of Florida and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
The largely symbolic Democratic proposal includes no plan to meet the agreement’s targets for reducing carbon emissions, and the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to even consider the legislation. But Democrats say it is an opportunity for the party to stake out an initial position on climate change as it grapples with more wide-ranging alternatives like the Green New Deal, a sweeping bid to wean the U.S. economy off fossil fuels by 2030.
“You have to make some clear distinctions between how this House majority stands and where the Senate and where the president stands,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D., Ariz.), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and a supporter of the Green New Deal. He said the party is still split on how quickly to act on climate change and whether to pursue a tax on carbon emissions, among other issues.
“Those still remain the questions and...I think it’s getting closer to consensus but I’m not sure we’re there yet. In fact, I know we’re not there yet,” he said.
The introduction earlier this year of the Green New Deal, which also aims to provide every American with a job and health care, created a minor fault line in the party on climate change.
Along with dozens of House members, many senators running for president quickly endorsed the idea, which was championed by progressive members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.). But party leadership didn’t endorse the proposal, and some moderate Democrats criticized it as unrealistic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has praised those pushing the Green New Deal for bringing attention to climate change, though she has not embraced all of its aspects.
“There is total consensus within the party that this is the existential challenge of our time,” Rep. Sean Casten (D., Ill.), who doesn’t support the Green New Deal. “What we do going forward will really be a balancing act between making sure that we recognize both the urgency of the problem and the complexity of our energy system.”
Republicans have seized on the Green New Deal to paint Democrats as socialistic and out-of-touch. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to expose division among Senate Democrats when he put the Green New Deal on the floor for a vote in March, but Democrats largely voted “present” on the bill. House Republicans are taking a series of procedural moves this week to attempt to force the chamber to vote on the Green New Deal.
While most Republicans are set to oppose the Democratic bill on Thursday, the GOP faces its own divisions on the issue. Mr. Trump has questioned the existence of man-made climate change, as other Republicans set forth their own alternative ideas on the topic, largely focused on technological innovation.
“I’m supporting what the president’s done with pulling out of the Paris accord, which to me penalizes the United States and to me did very little to deal with the issues of climate change,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Some progressive activists dismissed the Thursday vote as insufficient, and many House Democrats maintained that it was simply a first step.
“We strongly opposed Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, but rejoining it is not enough on its own,” said Varshini Prakash, the co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, one of the main activist groups behind the Green New Deal.
But to House Democrats who flipped conservative or moderate districts, supporting the Paris Agreement is a politically safe opportunity to go on record calling for the importance of fighting climate change.
“I think this is an easy one for us to just reaffirm the commitment,” said Rep. Ben McAdams (D., Utah), who defeated a Republican incumbent in 2018. “I think we should honor that commitment and then we can move forward and debate what other steps we might take.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-democrats-look-to-bridge-divides-on-climate-policy-11556805997?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=11
-
House Sends Climate Signal to Foreign Audience
May 3, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Yesterday's House vote in support of the Paris Agreement played to two audiences.
The bill, H.R. 9, was never expected to become law. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared minutes after it passed the House that he'd never bring it to the Senate floor.
But House Democrats' first foray into climate legislation in a decade told foreign onlookers that America's time outside the globally popular climate agreement could be brief — a point that's reinforced by unanimous support for Paris in the 2020 Democratic presidential field.
And U.S. voters, who polls show are wary of President Trump's decision to withdraw from Paris, were told the deal has a mechanism that lets the U.S. government ensure America doesn't bear the burden of climate action alone.
"It's a marker bill," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "And I think the main headline for the rest of the world is that at least one body of Congress thinks the president withdrawing from Paris is crazy."
The bill that cleared the House generally along party lines would bar the Trump administration from following through on plans to depart Paris by November 2020. Instead, it would require a report to Congress on how the United States will meet the Obama-era emissions targets — a promised 26 to 28% cut from 2005 levels by 2025 — that Trump has abandoned.
It also requests a plan on "how the United States will use the Paris Agreement's transparency provisions to confirm that other parties to the agreement with major economies are fulfilling their announced contributions to the agreement."
The view from abroad was positive but muted.
"Is this a useful signal to the world in 2019? Yes, I believe it is," a European diplomat told E&E News.
The diplomat noted that the House leadership-backed Paris bill skirts persistent disagreements among Democrats about the scope of domestic climate policy (Climatewire, May 1). Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has floated a resolution that would tie ambitious climate and low-carbon energy goals to a redesign of the American welfare state. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and many other established Democrats have kept the Green New Deal at arm's length.
But the diplomat noted that Ocasio-Cortez's plan, backed in the Senate by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), is silent on U.S. Paris membership or international engagement in general.
"I was somewhat surprised — [given that] at least one of the co-authors has sufficient expertise in international climate policy — that that piece, international cooperation, did not appear on their radar when they were drafting this resolution," he said.
Meyer said foreign observers took note of the Paris bill but are waiting to see whether this Congress makes progress on domestic proposals like Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) new bid to revamp energy tax policy as part of an upcoming infrastructure bill. And they took heart, he said, that many Republican lawmakers seem to have abandoned denial of climate science.
But yesterday's largely symbolic vote also aimed to stifle a perennial GOP talking point — that Paris gives major developing emitters like China and India license to pollute. At recent hearings, Republican Paris opponents have also questioned whether the European Union will make good on its 2030 targets, despite evidence that the bloc as a whole is on track to meet or exceed its promise to slash emissions 40% from 1990 levels by that year (Climatewire, March 4).
The bill's line asking how the Trump administration plans to use Paris' transparency provisions to hold "major economies" accountable tells an American audience that it won't foot the bill for climate action alone. Parties, including the United States, negotiated rules that require countries to provide information about their nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, on an ongoing basis. Paris participants have the opportunity to review them and ask questions.
"This is an essential reminder of what the president and his supporters in Congress are giving up when we leave Paris," said Andrew Light, a former State Department climate negotiator under President Obama and a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute.
Fear that the United States would take lonely action to combat climate change while other countries grew rich off fossil fuels has cast a shadow over U.S. climate diplomacy since at least 1997. That year, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution by former Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) demanding that developing countries be bound equally under any climate agreement of which the United States is a part. It showed the Senate wouldn't approve the Kyoto Protocol, and the United States never joined.
But Paris effectively succeeds Kyoto next year.
"The international system has labored for a decade under a bifurcated system with different rules for different parties based on the development status, regardless of the size of their emissions, resulting in inconsistent information even with full compliance," Light said. "With Paris, we finally overcame that to move toward a unified system, but it's new and will only work if all major emitters participate in it."
Paul Bodnar, a White House adviser during the Paris summit who is now at the Rocky Mountain Institute, said the Paris Agreement was "arguably built around the messages of the Byrd-Hagel resolution."
"It's difficult I think to maintain a coherent set of arguments if, on the one hand, you're saying the U.S. shouldn't do anything about climate change unless other major economies do it," Bodnar said, "and on the other hand, you're walking away from the only major agreed international mechanism that allows the United States to use its considerable power to hold other major economies accountable."
Fuqiang Yang, senior adviser on energy and climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council's Beijing office, shrugged off a question about the provision.
"The transparency requirement is already mentioned in the Paris Agreement," he wrote in an email to E&E News. "The history has told us that the Chinese government always proactively seeks to fulfill its commitment. The issue of climate change is no exception."
China is expected to deliver early on its Paris pledge to stop growing emissions by 2030, but its plans to cap coal use have been delayed. And its sprawling Belt and Road Initiative has come under fire for spreading fossil fuel infrastructure throughout the developing world.
Fuqiang said the country is "actively working" with countries that host projects backed by Belt and Road on "how best to achieve the Paris Agreement."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/03/stories/1060261983
-
Colorado County Asks EPA to Delay Decision on Ozone Delay Withdrawal
May 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
The Weld County Board of Commissioners in Colorado is asking EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to delay acting on a request by Gov. Jared Polis (D) to withdraw a pending bid for more time to comply with the agency’s 2008 ozone standard, and is also urging the agency chief to take public comment on Polis’ request.
The county is located on the North Front Range, a hub of drilling activity in the state, and would likely need to impose much stricter pollution controls on operations and lower permitting thresholds without winning more time to comply with the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion.
Without the extension, the county will be placed in a more severe category of nonattainment, shifting from its current “moderate” nonattainment to “serious” nonattainment. This in turn would impose major new costs on ozone sources, the county says in an April 30 letter to Wheeler.
The letter says “Polis’ efforts will significantly harm Weld County, its citizens, its agriculture community and the oil and gas industry that operates in the county by forcing the North Front Range Area into ‘serious’ nonattainment designation that will impose unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on all activities within Weld County.”
Polis on March 26 asked to withdraw a request filed last year with EPA by his predecessor Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) seeking an extension to the county’ deadline for attaining ozone NAAQS. The agency proposed to approve the extension, and some sources claim the agency has no authority to deny the withdrawal.
But the county now wants EPA to not only delay a decision on Polis’ request but also take comment on it.
The county also asks Wheeler to delay action on the withdrawal until litigation filed late last month challenging the action in state court is “fully resolved.” The suit claims Polis interfered in the state air quality commission’s statutory authority and wants a court order requiring the commission to develop a “complete” inventory of ozone contributions including international emissions and forest fires.
The letter argues that Polis’ withdrawal would ignore Clean Air Act requirements for accounting “all sources of pollutants” that contribute to ambient ozone in the state including international emissions and forest fires.
The letter stresses that Weld County is home to “a significant and valued oil and gas industry” whose “citizens make up a large portion of that industry’s work force. Weld County therefore knows the value of a responsible oil and gas industry, the significance of the tax revenue it generates to America’s infrastructure and appreciates the national security this county enjoys because of locally produced oil and gas.”
It adds that the county “values the revenue the industry provides to its families, enabling them to enjoy financial stability.”
Polis dropped pursuit of the deadline extension in March because the “vital importance of meeting the ozone standard” means “that the interests of our citizens are best served by moving aggressively forward without delay in our efforts to reduce ground level ozone concentrations.”
The county board calls that a “unilateral decision to ignore the best science and data by arbitrarily withdrawing” the extension request, including by allowing for public comment on the withdrawal letter. It says it supports reasonable air pollution control methods and “opposes efforts to artificially force Colorado into a stringent one-size-fits-all federal emission control regime that is not supported by the reality of ambient air quality conditions in Colorado.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/colorado-county-asks-epa-delay-decision-ozone-delay-withdrawal
-
Can Any Democrat Run as 'the Climate Candidate'?
May 3, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Timothy Cama
Democratic presidential hopefuls are getting competitive with one another over plans to fight climate change.
In recent weeks, numerous candidates in the crowded, 22-person field have put out competing climate policy proposals that go beyond the Green New Deal. They differ in timing, ambition and the role of various fuel sources, each arguing his or her ideas are the best.
The debating is pushing climate closer to the political forefront, while challenging candidates to talk more about the issue and come up with better ideas.
And it's happening despite congressional Democrats' reluctance to take bold climate action, preferring instead to take on small-ball legislation such as the bill to stop President Trump from removing the United States from the Paris climate accord.
"I think a primary season where we see the candidates get on stage and try to out-climate each other is an amazing world to live through. And I think that there's a good chance, judging by the last few months, that that's the situation we're headed into," Julian NoiseCat, policy analyst at 350 Action, told E&E News.
350 Action is the advocacy arm of 350.org, an outspoken activist climate group. "In the history of climate as a political issue, that is historic," NoiseCat said.
Among the climate proposals is a public lands agenda Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts rolled out last month that would put an immediate ban on all new fossil fuel leases on federal land.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent running for the Democratic nomination, has similarly endorsed halting new fossil fuel leases, as well as stopping oil, natural gas and coal exports.
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey called last week for a significant boost to enforcement resources and fees at EPA as part of an environmental justice mission.
And former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas came out with a wide-ranging, $5 trillion climate proposal this week that includes an international climate pact more stringent than the Paris Agreement and a ban on federal land leasing.
The climate competition has at times bordered on combative. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee took O'Rourke to task this week over his climate plan and his record on the matter, saying O'Rourke "will need to answer why he did not lead on climate change in Congress and why he voted on the side of oil companies to open up offshore drilling."
O'Rourke took in more than $500,000 in contributions from oil and natural gas industry workers in his unsuccessful 2018 Senate run. It made him the No. 2 recipient nationally for oil and gas contributions, behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), his opponent.
But O'Rourke flipped on fossil fuel donations this week, signing the "No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge," under which he promised not to take donations of more than $200 from industry executives or lobbyists (E&E Daily, May 2).
"Climate change needs to be the top priority of the next president. And we will not defeat climate change with empty rhetoric, borrowed rhetoric, or by taking fossil fuel money," Inslee said in a statement, made before O'Rourke's change of heart, that pointed to accusations against O'Rourke.
Inslee has not yet rolled out specific green policy proposals beyond general statements of priorities but is expected to roll out the first of many parts of his climate plan today.
Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee is running for president on a climate platform. Inslee/Flickr
He has promised a plan that "will give us 100% clean electricity and a transportation system that is clean, and a building sector that does what we're doing in our state, which will be very concrete and specific proposals."'Center stage'
The fierce competition over climate policy is new in presidential politics. It comes amid reports from places such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the federal government that outline increasing urgency to fight climate change.
There is also increased political attention to the issue, including the Green New Deal, an ambitious proposal for a rapid move away from fossil fuels that all of the senators in the race have endorsed and others have cheered.
"In terms of the salience of climate politics in the presidential election, I don't think we've seen this level in the last 20 or 30 years, which is certainly very important from the climate front," Aseem Prakash, director of the Center for Environmental Politics at the University of Washington, told E&E News.
"To a certain extent, the credit goes to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, because she has put climate issues on the center stage, especially through the Green New Deal," he said, referring to the freshman Democratic congresswoman from New York who has made climate change one of her signature issues. She is a lead co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, along with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
Trump's actions are also fueling the climate competitiveness. He has worked to roll back nearly all of the federal government's climate policies and has continued to express doubt that climate change is being caused by human activity.
It comes as climate is reaching a level in the national consciousness that hasn't been seen before. In a poll released by CNN this week, Democratic voters ranked "taking aggressive action to slow the effects of climate change" as the most important issue for a presidential candidate to support, with 96% of respondents ranking it "very" or "somewhat" important.
The League of Conservation Voters is relishing the increased attention. The group thinks it will help ensure that the Democratic nominee is progressive on climate change and that voters in both the primary and general elections make their choices based on climate policy — which LCV thinks will lead to Trump losing.
"It's great to see that candidates are competing with each other over who has the most ambitious, most effective, biggest, best plan to combat the climate crisis," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president for government affairs at LCV.
"It's exactly what we need to see, because it could not be more important that the eventual nominee both runs on climate change, talks about it and prioritizes it on the campaign trail. Have it be one of the reasons that he or she defeats Trump, and then be ready to go on Day One in the Oval Office."Everyone is 'pro-climate'
But despite the talk, the Democratic candidates still have work to do if they think they can beat one another on climate, Prakash said. Everybody supports fighting climate change and denounces Trump.
"Part of the problem is that everybody is pro-climate. I don't see how they can differentiate one from the other," he said.
Given that, Prakash predicted issues such as expanding health care coverage, gun safety and immigration will be the bigger differentiators as the Democratic campaign goes forward.
"I don't really think Democrats will be able to run on the climate ticket at the primary stage," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/03/stories/1060263407
-
EPA Urged To Foster Use Of New Technologies But Funding Poses Hurdle
May 2, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Companies and other supporters of new technologies that could revolutionize environmental protection by dramatically cutting pollution at lower costs are urging EPA to play a central role fostering the technologies’ use, but some experts warn that dwindling agency research funding could inhibit new technological advancement.
EPA’s potential to act effectively as a clearinghouse for innovative environmental protection measures was among the issues debated at American University’s recent conference on “EPA and the Future of Environmental Protection” in Washington, D.C., focusing on next year’s 50th anniversary of the agency and its potential future. Options for boosting use of new technologies included allowing them as alternative compliance measures.
In remarks at the event, several water sector experts said that already-existing technologies could cut costs and
greenhouse gas emissions associated with water management, and that EPA could better drive use of new technologies in the sector -- suggesting a core role for the agency in encouraging their use.
Patrick Decker, president and CEO of the water technology company Xylem, Inc. told the conference that existing technologies could cut in half the GHGs emitted from water management without increasing costs.
To foster use of new technologies, Decker suggested that EPA allow alternative methods of compliance, by focusing on outcomes rather than requiring use of specific technologies as it has done in Clean Water Act rules.
For example, EPA often mandates certain treatment or overflow technologies in settlements resolving ongoing sewer overflow problems.
And Decker said that EPA could provide greater clarity on the range of technologies that may be used to meet compliance obligations. “The biggest inhibitor for a utility to adopt new technology is whether they can meet the regulatory requirement. Is it worth the risk?” he said.
“Rather than EPA focusing more on specific tools, focus more on outcomes,” he added. “What is the outcome we are trying to achieve . . . and how can a technology at a pilot scale demonstrate” that it can achieve compliance?
George Hawkins, a former general manager at DC Water who now teaches at AU, said that environmental permitting programs have always sought to encourage use of best available technologies, but he suggested that EPA could do more to encourage technological advancements. DC Water is a regional drinking and wastewater utility.
“Should EPA be driving these technologies?” Hawkins asked. As an example, he suggested that EPA and states could opt to make consideration of new technologies a requirement for Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans and grants that provide communities with low-cost financing for water quality infrastructure projects.
Technological Advancements
Kirsten Schroeder, global business services partner at IBM, told the conference that advances in data technology could speed regulators’ permitting processes and better inform EPA risk assessments.
“Emerging technologies can help EPA redefine processes and reimagine how one delivers services,” she said.
Biju George, DC Water’s executive vice president of operations and engineering, said that regulators could also use improving technology to provide more frequent, up-to-date data to consumers to better inform purchasing decisions.
And while he and others argued that better use of existing technologies could bring cost savings, George noted that recent advancements stem from EPA tools for monitoring and other uses and that cuts to the agency could inhibit federal research and have a ripple effect on future technological advancements.
“Where we are as a water sector, we owe to the investment that EPA made in the 1980s and 1990s in the development of new tools,” he said. “EPA is not investing anymore in taking those monitoring tools to the next level.”
The water sector officials’ push for better use of new technologies comes as a host of environmental policy experts, including EPA alumni, nonprofit groups and academics are considering the role of EPA in future decades.
The discussion has been prompted in part by the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda pushing greater responsibility for environmental oversight to states, and by rapidly improving monitoring technologies that are boosting industry compliance and public involvement.
These developments are likely to lead to a new approach in how the agency operates as it nears its 50th year in 2020.
‘Alternative Compliance’
Meanwhile, a state regulators’ coalition and environmentalists are urging EPA and state governments to bolster use of “alternative compliance” provisions in rules limiting methane releases from oil and gas operations, a step they argue could ease industry costs while still delivering equivalent emissions cuts.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) April 4 issued a joint report calling for federal and state regulators to develop bolstered requirements in their oil and gas methane rules allowing use of new leak detection and repair methods, which could include continuous monitoring or emerging technologies like laser-based emissions detection.
“There is uncommonly strong agreement among environmentalists, regulators, innovators, and operators that alternative compliance pathways are needed,” the report argues, noting the potential for improved technology that can achieve regulatory goals quicker and at lower cost.
The report comes as the Trump administration is proposing to weaken nationwide new source performance standards for the oil and gas sector that EPA issued in 2016, and the agency has been expected to issue a follow-on proposal that would float dropping direct methane requirements altogether in favor of an approach that regulates only smog-forming pollutants and achieves methane cuts indirectly.
The current standards are based on semi-annual inspections using either an optical gas imaging camera or so-called Method 21 device -- though the Trump proposal would require less frequent inspections, among other provisions.
By contrast, EDF and ECOS cite emerging technologies such as lasers or mobile equipment, which could be deployed continuously at one location or frequently across a broad area.
However, the report adds, it is difficult to compare the expected methane cuts “from very different types of technologies and leak detection methods.”
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/epa-urged-foster-use-new-technologies-funding-poses-hurdle
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested