Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 3, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) McConnell Attempts to Fill Ex-Im Bank’s Empty Suit
May 3, 2019 | American Shipper
By Chris Gillis
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed cloture this week to attempt to break the political logjam against three of President Trump’s Export-Import Bank board nominees. A cloture is a procedure whereby the Senate can vote to.... -
Flexible Colored PU Foams Market Projected to Garner Significant Revenues by 2025
May 3, 2019 | Facts Week
By Abhishek Budholiya
Polyurethane foam is a diverse and large segment of global polyurethane market. Polyurethanes are said to be a part of our day to day life. Foams play a significant role in commercial and industrial sector ranging from automotive to... -
D.C. Circuit Partially Denies Petition For Review Of TSCA Inventory Rule
May 3, 2019 | JD Supra
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On April 26, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its order on the petition for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory... -
Courts Reject Challenges to EPA Policy on Science Advisory Boards
May 3, 2019 | The Heartland Institute
By Bonner R. Cohen
In two separate cases, federal courts tossed out lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) policy aimed at preventing conflicts of interest for people serving on the agency’s scientific advisory boards. -
Judges Weigh if EPA Overstepped by Not Enforcing Coolant Limits
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA might have to enforce portions of Obama-era limits on climate-warming coolants if a federal appeals court finds that the agency overstepped in deciding to forgo implementing the rules, which were already undercut by a prior... -
State to Start Testing Drinking Water Across PA. Within Weeks; Nearly 500 Public Water Systems Are Near Potential Contamination Sources
May 3, 2019 | Philly.com
By Justine McDaniel
The state is set to begin sampling drinking water across Pennsylvania later this month in a bid to determine whether PFAS contamination — which has closed drinking wells, raised water bills, and caused health concerns in Bucks and... -
EU and US Identify Priority Areas for Nanosafety Research Cooperation
May 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Maria Delaney
A recent EU-US collaborative workshop has identified a number of priority areas for nanosafety research. Participants from academia, industry and policy drafted recommendations that will be shared with the European Commission... -
JRC and Industry Develop Categorisation Scheme for Nanomaterials
May 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Maria Delaney
Scientists at the EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) have worked with industry and academia to create a nanomaterials categorisation scheme linked to the capabilities of particle-size measurement techniques. The increasing presence of... -
EPA Approves Streamlined Permitting for Utah Reservation
May 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Streamlined permitting for new oil and natural gas production will resume in a corner of northeastern Utah that's home to an Indian reservation, under a final rule signed yesterday by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. The rule, which will... -
Sources: White House Eyes FERC General Counsel for Commissioner Vacancy
May 3, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Eric Wolff
FERC General Counsel James Danly is on the White House short list to fill the vacant commissioner seat, according to two energy industry sources. One of the sources said Danly appeared to be the current frontrunner for the post... -
Greens Sue Oil and Gas Companies Over Colo. Emissions
May 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Seven oil and gas companies ignored Clean Air Act permitting requirements as they pursued drilling operations in a swath of Colorado that doesn't meet federal smog standards, a Western environmental group charged in a federal... -
The Future of Offshore Technology Is Both Simple and Complex
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
For decades, as oil exploration and production companies went farther and deeper into the world’s oceans, offshore technology meant developing, designing and building custom-made rigs and platforms that often were compared to... -
US CSB Calls for Review to Improve HF Safety
May 3, 2019 | Chemical Engineer
By Amanda Jasi
The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), has released a letter calling on the US Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) to review and update its 1993 study of hydrofluoric acid (HF) to improve safety. -
Trump Erases Offshore Drilling Rules Enacted After BP Oil Spill
May 2, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre and Eric Wolff
The Trump administration on Thursday dismantled safety rules for offshore drilling put in place by the Obama administration after the disastrous BP oil spill fouled the Gulf of Mexico nearly a decade ago. -
Trump Loosens Safety Rules for Offshore Drilling
May 2, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Tougher safety standards for offshore oil and gas drilling put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion will be loosened under a regulatory overhaul announced by the Interior Department Thursday. The Trump administration... -
ITC to Reopen After Plant Fire, Ending ‘Logistic Nightmare’ for Chemical Industry
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Six weeks after a chemical fire forced Intercontinental Terminals Co. to shutter its massive chemical storage terminal in Deer Park, the company said Thursday that it would reopen most of its docks with limited marine activity. -
Trump's Pursuit of Infrastructure Deal Hits GOP Roadblock
May 3, 2019 | The Hill
By Alexander Bolton, Juliegrace Brufke and Scott Wong
President Trump faces stiff opposition from Republicans in his desire for a massive infrastructure package. GOP lawmakers say the president’s grand proposal for a $2 trillion deal is too ambitious and warn that they will oppose any... -
N. Dakota Leaders Urge Climate-Crazy Washington Gov. to Veto Oil ‘Ban’
May 3, 2019 | Liberty Headlines
By Kaylie McGhee
North Dakota’s U.S. congressional leaders urged Washington Gov. Jay Inslee to veto a bill that would damage North Dakota’s economic commerce by placing a “de facto ban” of crude oil shipped by rail. Inslee has 20 days to take either... -
Former EPA Official Offers Road Map for Emissions Targets
May 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Mark K. Matthews
An environmental official who served under Presidents Clinton and Obama argued in a recent essay that policymakers must set "realistic goals" for the reduction of carbon emissions if they hope to effectively blunt the effects of climate... -
The Energy 202: Here's Why Democrats Pushed to Pass a Climate Bill That Isn't Going Anywhere
May 3, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
House Democrats made their first attempt on Thursday to use their power of the legislative pen to portray Republicans as obstacles to progress on climate change, passing on Thursday a bill designed to force the United States to stay in... -
Republicans Could Have a Green New Deal Problem
May 3, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Laura Barrón-López and Zack Colman
The GOP is seizing on the Green New Deal to demonize vulnerable Democrats in 2020 — but some Republicans warn it could do long-term damage to the party. Though Republicans have ignored climate change in past elections... -
Politicians Get Ready: This New Generation of Climate Activists Doesn’t Buy Fake Science
May 3, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
Young people are out of class and in the street, demanding action, and millions of them will soon be in the voting booth. In the process, they are fundamentally changing the politics of climate change. Few issues have galvanized...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) McConnell Attempts to Fill Ex-Im Bank’s Empty Suit
May 3, 2019 | American Shipper
By Chris Gillis
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed cloture this week to attempt to break the political logjam against three of President Trump’s Export-Import Bank board nominees.
A cloture is a procedure whereby the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter to overcome a filibuster. However, to pass requires about 60 senators to approve, or about two-thirds of the chamber’s members.
Industry associations have grown increasingly frustrated by the years-long failure to return the Export-Import Bank to its full loan-making authority.
Since 2015, the bank has been ensnared in a political debate whether to continue its operations, with opponents referring to the financial institution’s loans to large American companies, such as Boeing and GE, as “corporate welfare” and “crony capitalism,” while proponents say it helps U.S. companies of all sizes to receive sufficient financing to compete for export deals to developing countries against foreign competitors. Many overseas companies, including in China and across Europe, have access to financing from similar government-owned banks.
“A fully functional Ex-Im Bank is a top priority for manufacturers of all sizes, and we estimate that 80,000 jobs and $119 billion in output were lost from 2016 to 2018 because of the agency’s inability to approve major deals,” said Jay Timmons, National Association of Manufacturers president and CEO, in a statement Thursday. “That’s why we’re looking forward to the nominees’ confirmation next week to secure this victory for America’s manufacturing workers.”
Other large trade groups that have voiced support for the Ex-Im Bank in recent years include the Aerospace Industries Association, American Chemistry Council, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, National Foreign Trade Council and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Currently, Jeffrey D. Gerrish serves as acting bank president. Ex-Im Bank rules require three of the five board seats to be filled to approve financing in amounts larger than $10 million.
The three pending Ex-Im Bank board nominees are Kimberly Reed, Judith DelZoppo Pryor and Spencer Bachus. Last August, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance Reed’s nomination as Ex-Im Bank president, but her confirmation has not yet received the full Senate’s approval. Reed previously served as president of the International Food Information Council Foundation.
President Trump submitted the three Ex-Im Bank board nominations to the Senate in 2017.
The beleaguered bank was closed during the summer of 2015 while a group of Republican lawmakers opposed the reauthorization of its charter. Ex-Im Bank supporters in Congress managed to reauthorize its charter on Dec. 3, 2015, as part of a long-term transportation bill. The bill approved long-term reauthorization from Congress that will remain in effect through Sept. 30.
https://www.americanshipper.com/news/mcconnell-attempts-to-fill-ex-im-banks-empty-suit?autonumber=848179&via=sharecodev1
-
Flexible Colored PU Foams Market Projected to Garner Significant Revenues by 2025
May 3, 2019 | Facts Week
By Abhishek Budholiya
Polyurethane foam is a diverse and large segment of global polyurethane market. Polyurethanes are said to be a part of our day to day life. Foams play a significant role in commercial and industrial sector ranging from automotive to refrigeration. Based on the variants foams available in the market and increasing area of applications for flexible colored PU foams, the market is expected to experience growth in the near future. Foams are differentiated as flexible and rigid foams. The properties that rigid foam posses are hardness, resilience, compression properties, abrasion resistance, whereas flexible polyurethane foam posses properties such as dry heat resistant, water resistant, oxygen, ozone resistant and remain flexible at low temperature. Few critical characteristics for the use of polyurethane foam in the industrial sector are chemical resistant, oil and grease resistant, flame resistant, noise reduction and fungus, mildew, mould resistant.
The rigid polyurethane foams have outstanding thermal insulation properties, which makes its use as an insulator in commercial and domestic appliances such as hot water systems and refrigerators. The flexible polyurethane foam is extremely comfortable and finds wide range of applications in the furniture seating and automotive industry.
Request For Report Sample @https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sample/rep-gb-368
The factors that drive the flexible colored PU foams market include the growing demand from the automobile and construction industry coupled with the rising demand from the interior and furniture sector. The demand for colored PU foams in the packaging sectors is expected to rise in the near future. Furniture and interiors are expected to be the largest consumers of flexible colored PU foams as it is used in luxury couches, chairs mattresses and carpets on a large scale. However, the volatile raw material prices are expected to pose a challenge to the growing flexible colored PU foams market. In addition, environmental regulations are expected to hinder the market growth owing to issues related to use of diisocynate in the production process.
Liquid resin blends and isocyanates are expected to contain hazardous components that may lead to health hazards. Isocyanates are said to be skin and respiratory sensitizers. In addition, amines, glycols and phosphate that exist in the spray polyurethane foam also may hamper the health of humans to some extent. Certain regulatory and health safety information is made available in the U.S. through organization such as Polyurethane Manufacturers Association (PMA) and Centre for the Polyurethane Industry (CPI). Others information sources are the raw material manufacturers and polyurethanes systems.
The key segments included in the flexible colored PU foam industry include North America, Asia Pacific, Europe and Rest of the World (RoW). Due to high growth in the interior and furniture market, North America is expected to dominate the flexible colored PU foam market followed by Europe. Owing to the developments in the construction industry, Asia Pacific is expected to be the fastest growing market for flexible colored PU foam market. Owing to the benefits such as CFC free, HCFC free and non-Ozone Depleting Potential foams (non-ODP), a rising demand for bio based PU foams from North Africa and the Middle East is expected to open more opportunities for the flexible PU foams market.
The key market players in the flexible colored PU foam market include: BASF SE, Carpenter Company, Bayer Material Science AG, Huntsman Corporation, Recticel SA, INOAC Corporation, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, The Dow Chemical Company, Rogers Corporation Stepan Company and Era Polymers Pty Ltd among others. Era Polymers Pty Ltd is an Australian distributor which offers a full range of ozone friendly foams that are CFC and HCFC free.
This research report presents a comprehensive assessment of the market and contains thoughtful insights, facts, historical data and statistically-supported and industry-validated market data and projections with a suitable set of assumptions and methodology. It provides analysis and information by categories such as market segments, regions, product types and distribution channels.
https://www.factsweek.co.uk/2019/05/03/flexible-colored-pu-foams-market-projected-to-garner-significant-revenues-by-2025/
-
D.C. Circuit Partially Denies Petition For Review Of TSCA Inventory Rule
May 3, 2019 | JD Supra
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On April 26, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its order on the petition for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements (82 Fed. Reg. 37520 (Aug. 11, 2017)), which denied the petition for review on all but one claim. Petitioner Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) challenged five distinct features of the Inventory final rule: (i) EPA’s exclusion of substantiation questions regarding reverse engineering; (ii) the final rule’s criteria for “maintaining” a confidentiality claim; (iii) EPA’s choice not to incorporate certain regulatory requirements into the final rule; (iv) EPA’s failure to implement the Act’s “unique identifier” requirements in this rulemaking; and (v) the final rule’s exemption of exported chemicals from its notification requirements.
The D.C. Circuit’s order states that only the first claim succeeds past the standard of review required under both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and TSCA, however; specifically, EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously via its “omission of any inquiry into a chemical identity’s susceptibility to reverse engineering [which] effectively excised a statutorily required criterion from the substantiation process.” Even though EPA included several substantiation questions to address reverse engineering in the proposed rule, EPA did not include any “substantiation questions related to the requirement that a substance’s chemical identity not be susceptible to reverse engineering” and declined altogether to “‘secure answers’ substantiating a company’s ‘assertion’ that its chemical product cannot be reverse engineered.” The court states that this error was “fatal” and remands this issue back to EPA for EPA to “address its arbitrary elimination of substantiation questions regarding reverse engineering.”https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/d-c-circuit-partially-denies-petition-96688/
-
Courts Reject Challenges to EPA Policy on Science Advisory Boards
May 3, 2019 | The Heartland Institute
By Bonner R. Cohen
In two separate cases, federal courts tossed out lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) policy aimed at preventing conflicts of interest for people serving on the agency’s scientific advisory boards.
EPA’s various scientific advisory committees and boards review the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information the agency uses as the basis for regulations, including reviewing EPA research programs and recommending or issuing research grants.
Preventing Conflicts of Interest
In October 2017, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive setting strict new guidelines for those serving on the agency’s advisory panels.
To prevent even the appearance of conflicts of interest, the directive prohibited scientists serving on EPA advisory committees from receiving grants from the agency. Pruitt’s successor, Andrew Wheeler, has continued the policy. As a result, several academics who had been serving on EPA’s advisory panels were removed from them after they refused to relinquish their EPA grants.
In accordance with EPA’s changed policy, Wheeler appointed new members to EPA’s Science Advisory Board and other advisory panels in mid-February of this year. Among those appointed was prominent climate skeptic John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. In addition, to provide greater balance on EPA’s panels as required by federal rules, some scientists from regulated industries with specialized expertise replaced scientists from academia on the panels.
Advocacy groups, led by the activist organization Physicians for Social Responsibility, along with some scientists who had previously served on the advisory boards under the old policy allowing advisors on panels that make EPA grants also to be grant recipients, sued to overturn the policy. In Physicians for Social Responsibility Et Al. V. Andrew Wheeler, the plaintiffs argued EPA’s changed policy violated federal ethics guidelines.
Judge Trevor McFadden of the District Court for the District of Columbia rejected that claim, upholding the 2017 policy directive in a February 12 ruling.
‘Substantial Discretion’
EPA has a great deal of discretion under federal rules to determine who and under what conditions a person is qualified to serve on its advisory committees, said McFadden in his decision, and EPA’s policy forcing researchers to choose between serving as an advisor or receiving grants from the agency falls squarely within the agency’s discretion.
“[Laws and regulation at issue] do not dictate whom administrators must, or even should, appoint to federal advisory committees,” McFadden wrote in his ruling. “Agency heads retain substantial discretion to determine membership on federal advisory committees.”
When Pruitt unveiled the new policy, he said it was aimed at assuring the public the agency’s advisory boards were independent.
“We want to ensure that there’s integrity in the process, and that the scientists who are advising us are doing so with not any type of appearance of conflict,” Pruitt said in a press release. “And when you receive that much money, … there’s a question that arises about independence.”
McFadden determined EPA had adequately justified its change in policy based on the agency’s desire to remove any potential for conflicts of interest.
Court Tosses NRDC Lawsuit
In a separate action, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenging EPA’s advisory board policy change.
On March 22, the court ruled NRDC lacked standing to sue the agency, having failed to show it or its members were harmed by Pruitt’s directive. NRDC and the Union of Concerned Scientists had both filed lawsuits in early 2018 claiming they and their members would be injured by EPA’s new policy.
In rejecting NRDC’s lawsuit, the court ruled NRDC failed to demonstrate EPA’s changed policies would result in damage to the scientific integrity of its advisory panels. In addition, the court found NRDC had not shown it had been concretely injured by, for example, having some its members removed or barred from federal advisory committees as a result of the directive.
‘Deplorable Behavior and Attitudes’
There is widespread corruption of science throughout federal agencies, says attorney and medical doctor John Dale Dunn, an emergency physician and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, which publishes Environment & Climate News.
“I have had repeated interactions with federal advisory scientific panels over the past three decades, in which the participants exhibited deplorable behavior and attitudes on scientific issues,” said Dunn. “They pretended to be open to discussing disputed scientific issues that influence policymaking, but they were biased and closed-minded, regularly using studies based on junk science using flawed methodologies that confused correlation with causation, and accepted claims of harm based on unrealistically high assumptions about exposure levels and the dangers of exposure to miniscule amounts of chemicals.
“There is a very serious problem with the government research complex; it has been corrupted, with the scientific advisory panels not being reliable referees of either the scientific process or the government regulations they recommend or support,” Dunn said. “I am very pleased the courts have recognized the benefits of having scientific advisory panels convened with precautions taken to ensure objective and fair assessments of the scientific issues being considered.”
Considers It Common Sense
EPA’s action to prevent conflicts of interest is long overdue, say David Wojick, Ph.D., a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
“It makes sense people getting government money to study a specific issue should not be advising the government on the importance of that issue,” Wojick said. “The conflict of interest in such situations is obvious, and it’s good EPA has finally confronted it.”
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/courts-reject-challenges-to-epa-policy-on-science-advisory-boards
-
Judges Weigh if EPA Overstepped by Not Enforcing Coolant Limits
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA might have to enforce portions of Obama-era limits on climate-warming coolants if a federal appeals court finds that the agency overstepped in deciding to forgo implementing the rules, which were already undercut by a prior court decision.
Two of three judges—Judges David S. Tatel and Sri Srinivasan—on a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared skeptical of the Environmental Protection Agency’s April 2018 guidance declining to implement a pair of Obama-era rules restricting hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
Those chemicals, typically used as refrigerants, have a global warming potential hundreds to thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide.
The third judge, new D.C. Circuit Judge Neomi J. Rao, focused her questions on whether the agency’s guidance was reviewable by the court or whether it was a temporary measure while the EPA develops a new rulemaking.
The arguments were part of Rao’s first session on the bench. Rao previously served as Trump’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which reviews agency regulations, among other responsibilities.
The EPA says it issued the guidance to eliminate confusion for chemical companies and appliance makers after the D.C. Circuit in 2017 struck down in large part the first of the two HFC regulations.
The court, in an opinion written by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, argued the EPA had stretched its Clean Air Act authority by requiring companies to replace HFCs with climate-friendly alternatives.
Bound by that ruling, a separate D.C. Circuit panel in April largely struck down the second of the two HFC rules.
‘Blanket Measure’But nearly a dozen states, led by New York, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, argue the EPA still has to enforce the pieces of the HFC limits that remain.
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling bars the EPA from requiring a company to replace HFCs with climate-friendly alternatives. That is because Clean Air Act program the Obama EPA used deals with ozone-depleting substance, and HFCs, while potent greenhouse gases, don’t deplete the ozone.
The EPA is still able to, and must, require companies that never used HFCs to switch to climate-friendly chemicals instead, the states and environmentalists argued.
Tatel and Srinivasan appeared to take issue with how broad the EPA’s guidance is.
The EPA takes a “blanket measure” to halt the HFC limits entirely, Srinivasan said during a back-and-forth with Justice Department attorney Benjamin Carlisle.
“What the EPA didn’t say was we have limited resources for enforcement” and exercise enforcement discretion, Srinivasan added. “That would be a very different case.”
Without Risk of EnforcementBut the EPA and two chemical companies supporting it—Mexichem Fluor Inc., and Arkema Inc.—said the D.C. Circuit’s decision essentially rejected the entirety of the HFC limits.
The EPA argued it is too complex to separate and enforce the slim portions that remained, because the original Obama-era rule doesn’t make that distinction.
The EPA also argues the lawsuit is premature because the guidance isn’t a final agency action and doesn’t have any legal consequences.
The legal effect of the 2017 ruling “was to necessarily vacate the rule in its entirety,” Carlisle said.
Tatel, though, pushed back, asking whether the EPA’s footing changes if the court reads the 2017 ruling as only shrinking the scope of the HFC limits to users that hadn’t already switched to HFCs.
Isn’t it true that under the guidance a user of ozone-depleting substances can switch to HFCs “without the risk of enforcement action?” Tatel asked.
Carlisle maintained that the EPA’s guidance was interim and necessary to address the confusion created by the 2017 ruling, and thus not reviewable by the court.
But, “if the court finds our reading is just flat out wrong,” then the guidance would be reviewable by the court, he said.
The case is Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Wheeler, D.C. Cir., No. 18-1172, oral argument 5/3/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/judges-weigh-if-epa-overstepped-by-not-enforcing-coolant-limits
-
May 3, 2019 | Philly.com
By Justine McDaniel
The state is set to begin sampling drinking water across Pennsylvania later this month in a bid to determine whether PFAS contamination — which has closed drinking wells, raised water bills, and caused health concerns in Bucks and Montgomery Counties — is widespread.
The statewide sampling plan announced by the Department of Environmental Protection in mid-April is on track to start near the end of May, DEP officials said in a Thursday interview with The Inquirer. To date, the state has identified 493 public water systems in Pennsylvania that are located within half a mile of a potential source of PFAS contamination.RELATED STORIESPa. officials plan to regulate and test for PFAS — but residents want faster resultsNew Jersey moves to enact tougher drinking water standards for PFAS‘Is this really happening?’ Chemicals that tainted water on military bases spreading to other towns in Bucks, Montco
The state’s scientists hope to gather “enough information to be able to tell whether or not we have a problem across the entire state,” said Lisa Daniels, director of DEP’s Bureau of Safe Drinking Water.
The state will test about 360 drinking water systems statewide over the course of one year, targeting water suppliers near potential or known sources of contamination. But officials won’t release a list of systems they’re testing, saying the sites are potential and could change the list during the course of the program. The DEP will release results to water suppliers and the public as they go, however, likely rolling them out quarterly throughout the year, Daniels said.
About 320 systems will be sampled for contamination, and about 40 that are not near likely sources of pollution will be tested for comparison as baseline sources.
“As we become more aware of information, whether it’s uncovering additional contaminated sites or additional sources of PFAS contamination, we need the flexibility to adjust that list,” Daniels said.
If water systems are found to have chemicals above the current EPA health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion, the DEP will notify the water supplier, require public notification for the water customers, and require remediation or treatment of the water supply.
Over the past several years, PFAS contamination has caused drinking-water crises in communities from Michigan to New Hampshire. Federal and state lawmakers have urged the Environmental Protection Agency to create regulations mandating clean-up.
In February, the EPA said it would take the first step toward creating a drinking-water limit, known as a maximum contaminant level, for PFAS, but drew criticism for the pace and scope of its response. The agency will not issue a final determination on whether to create the level until the end of 2020; then the process to establish the level will take “several years,” an EPA official said at an April meeting in Abington.
Rather than wait for the EPA, Pennsylvania officials said, the state is moving forward with the sampling plan and creating its own maximum contaminant level. The level should be completed within two to three years, but officials hope to get it done closer to two, DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell told The Inquirer.
But for now, the DEP doesn’t have authority to require cleanup of any water testing below 70 ppt. For systems found to have PFAS at levels below 70 ppt during the sampling, the DEP will notify the water suppliers, “encourage them” to notify their customers, and publicly post the testing results, Daniels said.
To date, only 175 out of 3,300 drinking water systems in Pennsylvania have been tested for PFAS. Six were found to be highly contaminated. Those tests, conducted between 2012 and 2015, could not detect smaller amounts of PFAS.
The new sampling will expand the number of systems tested and reveal the chemical even at lower levels, officials said. The plan targets systems that draw water from sources near airports, military installations, fire training schools, landfills, or Superfund sites.
That means the state testing could reveal previously undetected contamination. Some lawmakers fighting for regulation and clean-up said they hoped it would spur their colleagues to action.
“I’m encouraged by the breadth and scope of the sampling plan,” said State Sen. Maria Collett (D., Montgomery/Bucks), who has introduced legislation to address the contamination. “I expect that the findings are going to bring greater attention to the environmental and public health crisis … and that, frankly, can only lend more voices to the cause.”
If the data shows widespread contamination — and gives the DEP enough scientific data to use in establishing a safe drinking-water limit for the chemicals — the agency doesn’t anticipate further phases of testing, Daniels said. If it shows a low occurrence rate of PFAS across the state, the agency may continue sampling past the yearlong phase.
For most of the 20th century, PFAS were commonly used in plastics, firefighting foam, and products like Scotchgard and Teflon. In 2006, the major U.S. manufacturers of the chemicals agreed to phase them out by 2015, but products containing PFAS are still imported from other countries. Contamination has been found in drinking water near manufacturing plants, airports, and military installations.
Clamor has grown among area residents who want someone, anyone, to move more quickly to outlaw the chemical’s presence in drinking water and force the military and other polluters to do cleanup.
“Unfortunately, I think many communities are going to find that they are in the same situation that my community was in several years ago,” said State Rep. Todd Stephens (R., Montgomery). “If people’s drinking water is contaminated, we need to work quickly to ensure that we are getting them safe drinking water.”
https://www.philly.com/news/pfas-water-contamination-bucks-montgomery-county-pfoa-pfos-dep-20190503.html
-
EU and US Identify Priority Areas for Nanosafety Research Cooperation
May 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Maria Delaney
A recent EU-US collaborative workshop has identified a number of priority areas for nanosafety research.
Participants from academia, industry and policy drafted recommendations that will be shared with the European Commission and appropriate US funding agencies. The workshop report says this is "in view of the upcoming Horizon Europe" programme that will replace the EU’s current Horizon 2020 framework.
The seven research priorities are:environment and human hazards;emerging nanomaterials and potential risks;social and natural science research;nanoinformatics;exposure assessment;standard methodologies; andlifecycle stewardship.
The workshop on nanosafety took place in March 2019 at Harvard University and was part of the bilateral coordination for the enhancement and development of science and technology partnerships between the EU and US (BILAT USA 4.0).
The project aims to enhance and develop science, technology, and innovation partnerships between the US and Europe and is funded by the EU. It looks at future research priorities in nanosafety and other advanced materials, and also the opportunities for EU-US cooperation in nanosafety.
A number of potential mechanisms were identified to advance this cooperation. Joint research programmes were suggested in addition to the twinning of existing projects. It was also proposed that the US participate in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe as well as fund, through US federal agencies, US participation in EU initiated nanosafety programmes.
A number of nanosafety research programs are established in both the US and EU. The report emphasises that "cooperation between these efforts has existed for years, and this ought to continue and extend".
https://chemicalwatch.com/77137/eu-and-us-identify-priority-areas-for-nanosafety-research-cooperation
-
JRC and Industry Develop Categorisation Scheme for Nanomaterials
May 3, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Maria Delaney
Scientists at the EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) have worked with industry and academia to create a nanomaterials categorisation scheme linked to the capabilities of particle-size measurement techniques.
The increasing presence of nanomaterials in commercial products has triggered the need for their regulation. In the EU, regulations on medical devices, biocidal products, novel foods and cosmetic products specifically address nanomaterials and the same is expected under REACH, once amended annexes are adopted.
There are differences in scope and implementation of legislation in this area, but all definitions of the term ‘nanomaterial’ share one common feature, the particle size.
Dozens of sizing methods are available for measuring materials. The scientists developed a matrix that includes material class, chemical composition, dimensions, size and a number of other categories. These are matched to various types of microscopy, spectrometry and other techniques.
JRC scientists felt it was "necessary to come to an agreement on which techniques can be used for which materials and for which purpose". Each particle size measurement technique has a region of applicability and none of the techniques is suitable for all materials, say the researchers.
The new scheme enables the proper identification of nanomaterials and has the potential to be accepted by regulators, industries and consumers alike, according to the researchers.
"Having such a scheme in place facilitates the regulatory assessment of nanomaterials and fosters the safe trade of nanomaterials," they say.
The scheme is published in the journal Nanoscale Advances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77133/jrc-and-industry-develop-categorisation-scheme-for-nanomaterials
-
EPA Approves Streamlined Permitting for Utah Reservation
May 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Streamlined permitting for new oil and natural gas production will resume in a corner of northeastern Utah that's home to an Indian reservation, under a final rule signed yesterday by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
The rule, which will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register, amends a 2016 federal implementation plan for Indian Country to allow expedited permitting to continue even though EPA last year designated parts of two counties in the Uinta Basin in nonattainment for its 2015 ground-level ozone standard of 70 parts per billion. The Uintah and Ouray Reservation is located in the basin.
EPA is also working on a "reservation-specific" rule that would require oil and natural gas operators to reduce ozone-forming emissions, while still allowing continued development, according to an agency summary.
The federal Indian Country plan had previously applied only to areas that are effectively in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and other pollutants. EPA had proposed the change last May, not long after making the nonattainment designation for the Utah area (E&E News PM, May 8, 2018).
It was not immediately clear why it then took EPA roughly a year to produce the final rule. The agency didn't respond to an emailed request for comment this morning.
In support was the Ute Indian Tribe, which occupies the reservation. In comments filed last June, the tribe called the proposed amendments "a reasonable step to protect development in the basin from coming to a standstill, while still protecting public health and the environment."
The streamlined permitting process had been suspended after the nonattainment designation took effect, Katie Frayler, an attorney for the tribe, said today, adding that the tribe plans to issue a news release on the final rule.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is spawned by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunshine. Oil and gas production, a major source of such compounds, is thus seen as the main culprit behind wintertime ozone problems in the heavily drilled basin. Under the system EPA uses for gauging compliance, ozone concentrations in the region ranged as high as 80 ppb from 2014 to 2016.
Initially opposed to the proposed amendments was the Environmental Defense Fund, which wanted additional pollution controls put in place first. In a February letter to EPA air chief Bill Wehrum, however, EDF officials said they were dropping their objections after discussions with the tribe. Both sides asked EPA to proceed with the "reservation-specific" proposal by the beginning of next month.
"The ball is really in EPA's court now," Jon Goldstein, EDF's director of regulatory and legislative affairs, said in an interview today. While the group has not received a response to its February letter, EPA said in the final rule signed yesterday that work on the reservation rule "remains ongoing and may be completed before the start of the 2019-2020 winter season in the Uinta Basin."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/03/stories/1060268093
-
Sources: White House Eyes FERC General Counsel for Commissioner Vacancy
May 3, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Eric Wolff
FERC General Counsel James Danly is on the White House short list to fill the vacant commissioner seat, according to two energy industry sources.
One of the sources said Danly appeared to be the current frontrunner for the post because of his experience inside the agency, though the White House was still vetting candidates.
Danly has served as the FERC general counsel since 2017. Prior to that he was an associate in the energy practice at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for three years. He graduated in 2013 from Vanderbilt University Law School, which he attended after serving two tours in Iraq for the U.S. Army.
Other names rumored for the position include Ellen Nowak, a commissioner on the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, and Art Graham, chairman of the Florida Public Service Commission.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Barry Smitherman, a former chairman of the Texas Public Utilities Commission, whose name has been circulated as a potential candidate for the position because of his relationship with Energy Secretary Rick Perry, is out of the running according to three energy industry sources.
FERC has had an open seat since the January death of Commissioner Kevin McIntrye.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/sources-white-house-eyes-ferc-general-counsel-for-commissioner-vacancy-3190791
-
Greens Sue Oil and Gas Companies Over Colo. Emissions
May 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Seven oil and gas companies ignored Clean Air Act permitting requirements as they pursued drilling operations in a swath of Colorado that doesn't meet federal smog standards, a Western environmental group charged in a federal lawsuit filed today.
WildEarth Guardians' citizen enforcement suit alleges that PDC Energy Inc. and a half-dozen other companies that have launched operations in the Front Range since 2017 are "major" sources of hazardous air pollutants and thus should have first obtained permits requiring stringent emission controls.
While in some cases, the companies have since sought what are known as "synthetic minor" permits, none has so far gotten them, the suit continues.
The alleged violations have led to "unsightly" emissions, noxious odors and "increased risk of health impacts," it says. Among other proposed remedies, WildEarth Guardians wants a judge to impose fines of up to almost $100,000 for each day of violation and halt all oil and gas production from the wells in question until the seven companies get the required permits.
Besides PDC, the companies are Extraction Oil & Gas Inc., Crestone Peak Resources LLC, Great Western Operating Co., Mallard Exploration LLC, Noble Energy Inc. and Bonanza Creek Energy Inc. To date, the cumulative value of oil and gas production from their wells totals more than $400 million, according to figures included in the suit.
The alleged violations "are propping up their bottom line," Jeremy Nichols, head of WildEarth Guardians' climate and energy program, said in an interview today.
The group had formally notified the companies in February of its plans to sue (Greenwire, Feb. 19). None responded, according to Nichols. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
The wells are located in Weld County north of Denver. The county is part of a broader area that EPA classifies as being in "moderate nonattainment" for its 2008 ozone standard. The agency could soon downgrade the region to "serious" nonattainment after Gov. Jared Polis (D) recently dropped a request for a year's extension to meet the 75-parts-per-billion limit.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Oil and gas operations are significant sources of such compounds, meaning the downgrade may lead to tougher regulation.
Last week, a business group known as Defend Colorado filed suit in state court with the ultimate goal of averting the looming downgrade (E&E News PM, April 24).
In a letter earlier this week to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the Weld County board of commissioners asked the agency to hold a public hearing on Polis' about-face on the extension request.
While committed to improving air quality through reasonable control methods, "Weld County 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," the letter said.
As of this morning, Wheeler had not replied, according to a board spokeswoman.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/03/stories/1060267857
-
The Future of Offshore Technology Is Both Simple and Complex
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
For decades, as oil exploration and production companies went farther and deeper into the world’s oceans, offshore technology meant developing, designing and building custom-made rigs and platforms that often were compared to spaceships, each unique to the particular drilling project and each costing many billions of dollars.
But today, oil and gas companies are taking a vastly different approach, focusing relentlessly on increasing efficiency and lowering the costs of offshore production. It’s a focus requiring offshore technology to simultaneously become simpler and more complex.
As the 51st edition of the Offshore Technology Conference opens Monday in Houston, the offshore energy sector is grappling with a existential crisis spurred by a shale revolution that is churning out oil and gas faster, cheaper and in ever-increasing volumes. The recent oil bust hit the offshore sector harder and for longer, with activity only now beginning to pick up, some three years after the price crash came to an end.
The increasing activity is a function not only of higher oil prices, but also efforts to lower costs through digital technologies, automation, standardized designs and smarter planning. Companies are bringing in projects at half — or even less — of initial estimates.
“The offshore sector globally has been challenged by cheap sources of oil and gas,” said Vaseem Khan, vice president of global engineering for McDermott International, the Houston engineering and construction firm. “I don’t like the phrase ‘cutting costs.’ What we’re doing is removing waste from the industry.”
That can mean adopting digital technologies that ensure all the important data — from employee shifts to detailed drilling and well results — are available in the same place so operators and contractors can access the information in real time from anywhere. They’re borrowing automation and digital technologies from the aerospace and automotive industries to enhance oil and gas operations. McDermott is focusing on keeping costs down through an offshore development’s entire life cycle, from the early design and engineering to a rig’s eventual retirement decades later.
To help achieve this, McDermott creates and maintains a “digital twin” for each project and its components, so oil and gas companies can conduct computer simulations to better understand and improve how everything works.
“We do digital project delivery. It’s not just a phrase to make an old-fashioned industry seem sexy,” Khan said. “One of the banes of the industry has been tons of information residing in all these different databases.”
Off the rack
Another way to cut costs — or remove waste, as Khan put it — is to standardize designs and components of offshore projects. Khan compared it to choosing a men’s suit. Rather than buying an exorbitantly expensive bespoke suit from London’s Savile Row, a customer can opt for a suit off the rack from Brooks Brothers. He’ll still look good, but at a much lower cost.
In offshore terms, custom-built air compressors used to power automated machinery might cost about 30 percent more than top compressors bought off the shelf. But either will do.
The industry also is also moving — albeit at a slower pace — to standardized specifications. Every oil and gas operator has its own set of specifications for almost every component of an offshore project. A BP valve is different from a Chevron valve which is different than an Exxon Mobil valve, for example. If each of these companies used the same valves, manufacturers could produce them in larger volumes and a lower costs.
“They won’t always get exactly what they want,” Khan said, “but they will get functionally close to what they want.”
The British oil major BP adopted that standardization approach for its Mad Dog Phase 2 project in the Gulf of Mexico. By downsizing — drilling fewer wells — and using existing designs and engineering, BP cut the cost by more than half from $20 billion to $9 billion. BP plans to replicate the designs of offshore platforms and underwater setups at multiple projects.
“We’re not going after every barrel of oil,” said Ahmed Hashmi, BP’s chief digital and technology officer, arguing that it’s better to be efficient than to suck every available drop of oil out of the deepwater reservoirs.
Another cost-saving approach that’s gaining popularity, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, is so-called tieback projects. Rather than build new multibillion-dollar platform projects such as Mad Dog 2 in nearby oil and gas fields, many companies are connecting new wells to existing platforms using underwater umbilicals and pipelines.
BP recently completed its Thunder Horse tieback expansion, connecting two new wells to the platform from two miles away. Next, BP will spend $1.3 billion for another Gulf tieback project, the Atlantis Phase 3 development authorized earlier this year. Both developments are about 150 miles south of New Orleans.
The project involves building a new subsea production system that will tie eight new wells into the existing Atlantis platform, which first start producing oil in 2007. BP will elect to spend just more than $1 billion for a tieback expansion every time over building a nearly $10 billion project from scratch.
But for BP, the Gulf’s largest oil producer, new technology is still king, Hashmi said. BP credits its recent breakthroughs in advanced seismic imaging that revealed an additional 400 million barrels of oil in place at the Atlantis field and made tieback projects possible and practical.
For decades, salt domes have hidden the details of oil and gas reservoirs in the Gulf, adding to the myriad challenges of drilling many thousands of feet deep underwater. BP is using ultra low-frequency sounds with a series of sensors on the ocean floor to record the data and essentially see through the salt. Previous seismic technology provided much more muddled images below the thickest layers of salt.
“We’ve been on this journey to make salt almost irrelevant to seismic,” Hashmi said.
BP and other companies also are putting more fiber-optic cables in wells to gather much more data that companies can analyze to adjust well operations to achieve peak production at any time and in any conditions, he said.
Not being there
They’re using drones for inspections to cut man hours and costs. The next step: unmanned, automated platforms remotely controlled from onshore locations.
People will still be needed, Hashmi said, “but they’ll be running the offshore fields from the office.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/The-future-of-offshore-technology-is-both-simple-13815629.php?t=7d626157ad&cmpid=ffcp
-
US CSB Calls for Review to Improve HF Safety
May 3, 2019 | Chemical Engineer
By Amanda Jasi
The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), has released a letter calling on the US Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) to review and update its 1993 study of hydrofluoric acid (HF) to improve safety.
HF is a highly toxic chemical which can cause injury or death at a concentration of 30 ppm. It is used in about 50 refineries, of which the US has approximately 150, and in other industries. In refineries, HF is used as a blending agent to produce high octane gasoline through alkylation. Alkylation is used to convert isobutane and low-molecular-weight alkenes into alkylate, a high-octane component. The process is carried out in the presence of a strong acid, such as HF.
In the past four years the CSB has investigated two petroleum refinery incidents in which explosions increased the threat of possible HF or modified HF, says the letter. The first was in 2015 when an explosion occurred at a former ExxonMobil refinery in California, US. The second occurred in 2018 when an explosion occurred at a Husky refinery in Wisconsin, US.
In the course of both investigations the CSB found that members of the communities surrounding the refineries were concerned about the use of HF in the facilities. The public’s concerns related to the adequacy of risk management strategies to protect against uncontained release of HF, and the effectiveness of community notification procedures in the event of a catastrophic release.
As a result, the CSB strongly encourages the EPA to review and update its existing study of HF in order to determine whether current refinery risk management plans are sufficient to prevent catastrophic releases. Additionally, the EPA should determine whether there are safer and commercially-available alkylation technologies which could be used in petroleum refinery, says the letter.
Kristen Kulinowski, Interim Executive of CSB, said: “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.”
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/us-csb-calls-for-review-to-improve-hf-safety/
-
Trump Erases Offshore Drilling Rules Enacted After BP Oil Spill
May 2, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre and Eric Wolff
The Trump administration on Thursday dismantled safety rules for offshore drilling put in place by the Obama administration after the disastrous BP oil spill fouled the Gulf of Mexico nearly a decade ago.
The rollbacks are a major victory for the oil and gas industry that has criticized the Obama rules as too onerous and costly to comply with, but which supporters say have helped prevent a repeat of the accident that killed 11 workers and spewed more than 200 million gallons of oil in 2010.
“Incorporating the best available science, best practices and technological innovations of the past decade, the rule eliminates unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining safety and environmental protection offshore," Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a statement.
The final version of the changes to Well Control Rules come shortly after the Interior Department said it was pushing back plans to open up vast new areas of coastline for oil and gas exploration in federal waters, a move that would delay the controversial expansion until after the 2020 election.
That new rules are designed to ease drilling in places like the Gulf of Mexico, where oil production reached a record 1.9 million barrels a day at the end of last year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days from Friday, reduces the frequency of tests to key equipment such as blowout preventers, which sit at the wellhead at the ocean floor and are the last-ditch defense against massive gushers. It also allows drillers to use third-party companies instead of government inspectors to check equipment and gives them more time between inspections, among other things.
The energy industry welcomed the new rule, and the National Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi said in statement the Obama rule "while well intentioned, was flawed with technical problems that actually detracted from the goal of safe operations.”
The revisions, he said, "leave the original rule largely intact, further manage risks and better protect workers and the environment, making drilling safer.”
Environmentalists say the rollback puts both the Gulf waters and workers' safety in jeopardy.
“The well control rule was one of the most important actions we took, as a nation, in response to the BP-style disaster at sea,” Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Wilderness Society said in a joint statement. “If the Trump administration’s final rule weakens these protections, as its proposed changes did, it will put our workers, waters and wildlife at needless risk. That’s irresponsible, reckless and wrong.”
The rollback is also opposed by Rep. Francis Rooney, a Florida Republican from a coastal district, who last year joined in a bipartisan letter with 20 other members of the state's congressional delegation calling on then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to reverse course.
Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement acknowledged in the final rule that “a large majority of the approximately 118,000 comments that BSEE received voiced significant concerns about the proposed changes.”
But it defended the changes as a way to get rid of burdensome rules that it contends wouldn’t have made rigs any safer, even though it said at times that the changes were driven by industry’s worries about costs. In one example, BSEE said it was allowing companies to test blowout preventers less often because of industry complaints about the cost of such tests.
“In recent years, the industry has raised concerns related to the benefits of pressure and function testing of subsea [blowout preventers] when compared to the costs and potential operational issues associated with such testing, including wear and tear,” the agency said in the rule.
Green groups are studying the rules and looking for flaws they can challenge with lawsuits, said Chris Eaton, an attorney for Earthjustice. He said that as with other Trump administration regulatory rollbacks that courts have blocked, the new Well Control Rule fails to show why loosening the Obama safeguards was necessary.
“You’ve got this prior rule that was promulgated on factual findings — the original rule would reduce loss of control, make things safer, and it cited tons of studies,” Eaton said. “Then you have this rollback that just says we’ll get rid of that and be just as safe, but doesn’t look at the factual findings that went before that. It’s a change of position that doesn’t actually address the evidence.”
Critics are also slamming Interior for a lack of transparency: The new rules reference standards written by the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association, that could only be read on the group's website. To download or print the standards, members of the public must register with the trade association on its website and pay a fee.
“To add insult to injury, in order to know what the final rule entails, the public is again being forced to be beholden to the regulated industry,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the group Project On Government Oversight. “If this isn't the perfect example of a government agency being captured by the industry it regulates, I don't know what is."
An API spokesperson denied the allegation, and said the group had met accessibility requirements set by the Office of Management and Budget — and that it goes beyond those rules by keeping the standards accessible beyond the public comment period.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/trump-erases-offshore-drilling-rules-enacted-after-bp-oil-spill-1404098
-
Trump Loosens Safety Rules for Offshore Drilling
May 2, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Tougher safety standards for offshore oil and gas drilling put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion will be loosened under a regulatory overhaul announced by the Interior Department Thursday.
The Trump administration has sought to rollback offshore regulations as a means to increasing production in the Gulf of Mexico and other offshore regions, estimating the changes will save the industry $824 million over the next decade.Recommended Video
"The rule eliminates unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining safety and environmental protection offshore," Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a statement. "Under President Trump's leadership, America is a leader on energy resulting in greater security and economic prosperity."
The announcement comes as a victory for oil companies, which have lobbied for changes to the Well Control Rule since it was created in 2016 following the recommendations of a bipartisan commission on offshore oil drilling safety.
"The 2016 Well Control Rule, while well-intentioned, was flawed with technical problems that actually detracted from the goal of safe operations," National Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi said in a statement. "The oil and gas industry and federal regulators share a common goal: safe, efficient and environmentally responsible development of energy resources."
Environmentalists have fought to stop the rollback since a draft proposal was released in late 2017, arguing the rule changes gave oil companies too much slack and risked a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon incident, in which 11 people were killed and more than 3 million barrels of crude spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.
Among the changes activists are objecting to is the removal of a requirement that oil and gas drillers hire a third party to test safety equipment like blow out preventers and weakening of a regulation requiring companies to maintain real-time, onshore monitoring stations to make sure wells are being drilled safely.
Also, companies would not have to report equipment failures and other operational difficulties to federal regulators as frequently.
"Gutting the far too few offshore drilling safeguards that were established in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is reckless and wrong," said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at the environmental group Oceana. "The Trump administration is putting industry cost savings ahead of safety just weeks after the anniversary of the worst oil spill in U.S. history."
The rule making comes as oil production in the Gulf of Mexico has hit record levels, with oil platforms producing 1.7 million barrels a day last year.
But after close to a century of drilling, many of the Gulf's most accessible oil and gas deposits have already been produced. And increasingly oil companies are looking to new fields in South America and West Africa for offshore investments.
"You can not ignore the success rate in Guyana and the massive discoveries in Brazil," said Imran Khan, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie. "As a basin gets more mature, you have to drill more and more wells to find resources."
In the Gulf that increasingly meant drilling in deeper and deeper waters, where the risk of a blowout is heightened and the ability to recover control of the well more difficult.
Erik Milito, a vice president at the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's largest lobbying organization, said avoiding such a scenario required constant innovation, something he argued the Trump administration's rule making encouraged over telling companies how to operate.
"We want the industry be able to innovate instead of stay static which is happens when you have highly prescriptive rules," he said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Trump-loosens-safety-rules-for-offshore-drilling-13814023.php?cmpid=ffpolitics
-
ITC to Reopen After Plant Fire, Ending ‘Logistic Nightmare’ for Chemical Industry
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Six weeks after a chemical fire forced Intercontinental Terminals Co. to shutter its massive chemical storage terminal in Deer Park, the company said Thursday that it would reopen most of its docks with limited marine activity.
The terminal is a major petrochemical hub, so its closure has created massive disruptions in supply for solvents, methanol and other chemicals across the Gulf Coast region, analysts said. The terminal has 242 tanks capable of storing 13 million barrels of products.
ITC spokeswoman Alice Richardson said Thursday that the company has received final approvals from federal and state agencies to reopen several of its docks to marine traffic. Three of 12 docks will remain closed as agencies survey the shoreline to assess the environmental status and cleanup. The Coast Guard confirmed that it had lifted an order preventing ITC from using its docks Wednesday.
Most of the docks have been ready to reopen for some time, but the company had to reestablish wastewater plant discharge needed to keep the terminal’s wastewater system running safely, Richardson said.
The terminal will reopen in stages, but it could take some time before ITC can get back up to its previous operating levels as cleanup continues. The March 17 chemical fire burned for three days, sent a thick plume of smoke over the city that elevated benzene levels, destroyed 11 storage tanks and sent chemicals spewing into the Houston Ship Channel. On Monday, the Harris County district attorney’s office charged ITC with five misdemeanor counts of water pollution arising from the accident.
The fire is under investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Logistical headaches
The terminal’s reopening would be welcomed by the region’s petrochemical industry, which is reeling from the logistical headaches spurred by the terminal’s closure.
ITC’s Deer Park site is a central hub for petrochemicals, with significance for pricing and trading akin to Henry Hub in Louisiana for natural gas or the Cushing, Okla., hub for oil. Dozens of companies ship methanol and other chemicals out of ITC’s docks every year. It is also a key storage point for companies such as the San Antonio refiner Valero Energy, the Texas oil major Exxon Mobil, the California oil major Chevron, and the Houston companies Citgo Petroleum, Phillips 66 and Tauber Petrochemical Co.
Analysts said the terminal’s closure forced chemical buyers to find supplies of chemicals elsewhere, spurring major disruptions in markets for methanol and solvents used in paints, lacquers, thinners, glues, pesticides, nail polish removers and dozens of other products.
While Houston is home to other large chemical storage terminals, said Kevin Wallman, an analyst at the global research and consulting firm IHS Markit, “there is not another centrally located hub that could load as much truck and rail cargoes as ITC.”
The terminal’s closure dramatically boosted logistics costs as many chemical buyers had to send trucks miles out of the way to pick up smaller batches of chemicals at several plants in Corpus Christi, Texas City, Port Arthur and Lake Charles, La., Wallman said.
“It’s been a logistic nightmare over the last six weeks,” Wallman said.
Outside of the Gulf Coast, many chemical suppliers that typically rely on ITC for storage were hesitant to send their products to the region without assurance they would have enough places to store their products, he added. Without the region’s main storage and trading hub for methanol at ITC, methanol trading essentially screeched to a halt, said Roel Salazar, methanol consultant with the energy research and pricing firm Argus Media.
The fire exposed how dependent many companies are on storing all their chemicals in one location, said Steven McGinn, market analyst with the petrochemical research and analysis firm ICIS.
“This really stressed the importance of not isolating your product in one terminal and not putting all your eggs in one basket,” McGinn said.
$1 billion impact
For Methanex, a Canadian company that stores and sells methanol out of ITC, the Deer Park terminal’s closure increased logistical costs because Methanex had to draw on supplies from Louisiana and Canada to fulfill customer’s contracts, CEO John Floren said last week in a first quarter earnings call. Floren said the fire caused a “big disruption” to supply chains and damaged the industry’s safety reputation.
The Coast Guard closed the ship channel for three days during the cleanup, forcing refineries to limit production and constraining shipments for nearly a month.
LyondellBasell executives said they expect that the channel’s closure couldhurt its second quarter results after it was forced to temporarily reduce oil production at its Houston refinery. Shell reportedly reduced oil production at its Deer Park refinery complex, too. And Enterprise Products Partners said the channel’s closure forced it to reduce liquid petroleum gas exports by 49,000 barrels, which cut into its margins, according to the company’s first quarter results.
Overall, the channel’s closure could potentially cost the region’s oil and petrochemical industries more than $1 billion, according to some estimates.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/ITC-to-reopen-after-plant-fire-ending-13816778.php
-
Trump's Pursuit of Infrastructure Deal Hits GOP Roadblock
May 3, 2019 | The Hill
By Alexander Bolton, Juliegrace Brufke and Scott Wong
President Trump faces stiff opposition from Republicans in his desire for a massive infrastructure package.
GOP lawmakers say the president’s grand proposal for a $2 trillion deal is too ambitious and warn that they will oppose any measure that adds to the deficit.
Many Republicans also say they are against raising taxes to pay for an infrastructure initiative, a stance that would make it extremely difficult to find money to finance a package even half the size of Trump’s desired amount.
Congressional Republicans say they are worried about passing a reprise of former President Obama’s 2009 fiscal stimulus, which was devoted to “shovel ready” infrastructure projects and “green” energy production.
That legislation added more than $800 billion to the debt and later became a focal point of GOP charges that Obama had blown up the deficit.
“If we’re going to do infrastructure, I think we ought to pay for it. I don’t think we ought to put it on the debt,” said Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate GOP leader.
But he also noted “there’s never been much appetite on either side up here, Democrat or Republican, for” raising the gas tax, a key revenue raiser for highway projects.
“I think $2 trillion is really ambitious. If you do a 35-cent increase in the gas tax, for example, indexed for inflation, it gets you only half a trillion [dollars],” Thune said.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also sounded skeptical.
“How do you pay for it? That's the biggest question — that's the hardest part,” he told The Hill.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said Congress has a much better chance of passing legislation to lower prescription drug prices than advancing an infrastructure package.
“You would have to have a gas tax to do it, and we’re not for a gas tax,” Meadows, who speaks regularly to Trump, told The Hill on Thursday. “I mean, $1 trillion you could maybe do; $2 trillion, there is no way to get the money other than raising taxes and there is not an appetite for an increase in taxes by Republicans in the House or the Senate.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate GOP leadership team, said, “I don’t think raising the gas on working men and women is a good idea — it’s pretty regressive.”
Other Republicans, such as Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.), are ruling out any tax increases to pay for an infrastructure package.
“No, I wouldn’t raise taxes,” he said, acknowledging that finding a way to pay for infrastructure is the biggest challenge to any prospective deal.
“That’s going to be the heaviest lift of all of this, is figuring out a way here from a fiscal viewpoint making this affordable on our current balance sheet,” he said.
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) said she opposes increasing the gas tax and called it “a regressive tax.”
When asked how to pay for infrastructure in lieu of tax increases, GOP lawmakers say they need more time to study the issue.
Fischer said she hasn’t traditionally favored passing a comprehensive infrastructure package and says it’s “more realistic” to pass separate bills funding roads, rail, ports, airports, broadband internet, and power transmission.
Some GOP lawmakers have since raised concerns that funding a wide array of projects ranging from roads to railroads to airports, broadband and power grids, could deplete money available for the upcoming Highway Trust Fund reauthorization, which they want to pass this year.
“The other problem that’s going to come up is we’re bumping up against highway reauthorization,” said Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.). “That’s going to take a lot of dollars. The Highway Trust Fund is depleted … it’s going to be very difficult to fund that.”
Many Republicans were caught off guard by Tuesday’s announcement that Democratic leaders reached a deal with Trump to pursue a $2 trillion infrastructure package. GOP lawmakers were not invited to the White House meeting.
Republicans pushed back immediately on some of the core elements that emerged from that meeting, particularly the price tag and that the federal government would kick in the lion’s share of funding.
Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), a candidate for the Senate in 2020, told The Hill that “$2 trillion is a lot of money.”
“I want to keep an open mind, because there could be a pay-for I can vote for, but I don’t know what it would be at $2 trillion. That’s a lot of money. It’s a big number,” he said. “And when you try to do things around here that are too big, they just don’t happen.”
The Trump administration previously floated a plan whereby the federal government would fund only 20 percent of the investment and give the private sector incentives to come up with the rest.
Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday said Trump came closer to the Democratic position of having the government pay for as much as 80 percent.
“We agreed to $2 trillion and the president was happy to push up the number a little bit,” Schumer told reporters after the meeting.
Schumer also noted that Trump didn’t rule out raising taxes to pay for the package.
Democratic leaders said they discussed with the president expanded broadband for rural areas and inner cities, along with more efficient power grids.
Schumer said Trump “agreed the old 20-80 [federal-private split in funding] was much too low” and that “he doesn’t like these private-public partnerships.”
House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (La.), however, defended private-public partnerships.
“There are public-private partnerships that have been successful. You know, we ought to look at every option to see if those kind of partnerships help us build more roads and help meet the needs of communities,” he said. “Ultimately this should be driven by local communities and they need to have skin in the game, too.”
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he also favors limiting the federal contribution to 20 percent.
“My guess is it’s probably not going to go very far,” Johnson said of the sketched-out $2 trillion proposal.
He said the president “has got to start getting support from Republicans as well.”
Trump and Democratic leaders plan to meet in another three weeks to discuss how to pay for their infrastructure plan.
Republican lawmakers have floated various ideas to fund infrastructure without raising taxes.
McCarthy, the House Republican leader, suggested selling government lands.
"Well, you know there's a bill out there that has Democrats and Republicans on it, the GAIIN Act, sell the government excess property so that's a way and then it goes to the hundred poorest districts, so that's a good place to start," he said.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said the administration could pay for infrastructure by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and other combat zones.
“We spend about $50 billion a year in Afghanistan. I think we could bring some of that home and use it,” he said. “Where they find $2 trillion is beyond me unless they end some of the wars we’re involved with.”
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/441909-trumps-infrastructure-plan-hits-gop-roadblock
-
N. Dakota Leaders Urge Climate-Crazy Washington Gov. to Veto Oil ‘Ban’
May 3, 2019 | Liberty Headlines
By Kaylie McGhee
North Dakota’s U.S. congressional leaders urged Washington Gov. Jay Inslee to veto a bill that would damage North Dakota’s economic commerce by placing a “de facto ban” of crude oil shipped by rail.
Inslee has 20 days to take either sign or veto the bill, and his spokeswoman Tara Lee told the Bismarck Tribune that she is not sure how he intends to act.
Washington state lawmakers approved the bill, which would reduce the volatility of crude oil shipped by rail by prohibiting refineries and other facilities from unloading oil in the state from a rail car unless the oil has a vapor limit of less than 9 pounds per square inch.
This limit is less than what North Dakota requires, and would thus hurt the state’s bourgeoning oil industry, prompting three U.S. Congress members representing the state to reach out to the governor.
However, their efforts may be in vain.
Inslee is among the roughly 20 Democratic candidates seeking the primary nomination and has built his platform largely around issues related to climate-change alarmism.
Rep. Kelly Armstrong and Sens. John Hoeven and Kevin Cramer, all Republicans, wrote a letter to Inslee last Friday, in which they said the bill would do little to increase the safety of rail transportations to Washington refineries. They said the ban would “effectively block the Pacific Northwest as a destination for Bakken Crude oil.”
The Bakken Formation in North Dakota has produced an oil boom in recent years.
“[The bill] relies on an unscientific understanding of crude-by-rail transportation and, according to current science, would not improve safety of workers or those along rail lines,” the letter said.
North Dakota’s current regulations require companies to extract volatile gases from crude oil before it’s shipped so that it doesn’t surpass 13.7 pounds per square inch. The national standard for stable crude oil is 14.7 pounds per square inch.
Washington’s bill would cut this standard almost in half, hurting North Dakota’s oil industry. Legislators there said the bill would protect communities from train derailments that result in environmental devastation.
The state’s Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig, D-Spokane, said the national government should adopt its own nationwide vapor pressure standard, but since it hasn’t, the states should act on their own.
“If the federal government won’t act to protect public safety and adopt a safer nationwide standard, we will adopt our own,” Billig said in a statement in March. “There is just too much to lose—for people and our environment.”
North Dakota ships about 150,000 barrels of crude oil a day by rail to Washington refineries, according to the Bismarck Tribune. Refineries that fail to meet the bill’s new standard could be fined up to $2,500 per day per rail car.
Lynn Helms, North Dakota’s top oil regulator, testified before Washington’s state legislature and argued that there is no scientific basis that reducing the standard to 9 pounds per square inch will help the environment.
North Dakota’s oil industry said they will sue Washington state if the bill moves forward.
“Ultimately, this bill is not in line with interstate commerce law, and it’s going to be litigated,” Kari Cutting, vice president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said. “We believe that litigation will prevail against the state of Washington.”
North Dakota’s congressional delegation echoed Cutting’s legal concerns and said the bill “oversteps its legal boundaries.”
“While the state of Washington does have certain authority to legislate on health and safety issues, this bill does not offer a sound basis for doing so,” they wrote.
https://www.libertyheadlines.com/washington-veto-oil-transport-ban/
-
Former EPA Official Offers Road Map for Emissions Targets
May 3, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Mark K. Matthews
An environmental official who served under Presidents Clinton and Obama argued in a recent essay that policymakers must set "realistic goals" for the reduction of carbon emissions if they hope to effectively blunt the effects of climate change.
That includes emission targets that are less ambitious than what some Democratic presidential candidates are pitching on the campaign trail, wrote Robert Sussman, a deputy EPA administrator under Clinton.
In an article published in this month's Environmental Law Reporter, Sussman suggests that economic realities and past political history would make it nearly impossible for the United States to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 — as proposed by presidential contender Beto O'Rourke in a policy paper this week (Climatewire, April 30).
Instead, Sussman wrote that the United States should use the goals it set in the Paris climate accord as a baseline.
"Given our heavy current reliance on fossil fuels and the realistic pace at which clean technologies can be deployed, a prudent but still forward-leaning approach would be to reaffirm the Paris goal of a 26%-28% emission reduction [compared to 2005 levels] but extend the implementation date to 2030," Sussman wrote. "With a strong set of policies in place to drive reductions beyond 2030, the 2040 target could reasonably be set at 45% below 2005 levels, and a 70% reduction could be the goal for 2050."
One rationale for that timeline is how the United States has approached climate policy in the past. Efforts to curb emissions have been hurt by a mix of political opposition and genuine worries about their economic effects.
"It is tempting to attribute past failures to partisanship, denial of climate science, and the undue political influence of the fossil fuel lobby. These have all been factors, but the realities have been more complex," Sussman wrote.
"At the center of the debate have been concerns about hikes in energy costs that negatively affect economic growth, jobs, and the cost of living; fear of an expansive federal bureaucracy; opposition to the government picking 'winners' and 'losers' among energy technologies; and anxiety that we will weaken our competitive position if the United States commits to ambitious climate goals but our major trading partners do not."
To assuage these concerns, and to chart a path forward, Sussman offered a multitiered solution.
He wrote that policymakers should focus on "private-sector investment" rather than "large-scale government funding of green industries," in part because massive federal programs — such as those prescribed by the Green New Deal — would be portrayed as "fiscally irresponsible, inefficient, and wasteful."
That said, Sussman wrote, there are areas where the government could prove useful — such as helping to fund the necessary charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.
Another suggestion: Put in place a new cap-and-trade system for emissions.
"Congress should create a single integrated cap-and-trade system in which both power plants and industrial emitters could participate," Sussman wrote. "This system would encompass roughly 40% of U.S. GHG emissions and the size of the resulting trading market would increase market efficiencies and expand opportunities for cost-effective emission reductions."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/03/stories/1060268095
-
The Energy 202: Here's Why Democrats Pushed to Pass a Climate Bill That Isn't Going Anywhere
May 3, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
House Democrats made their first attempt on Thursday to use their power of the legislative pen to portray Republicans as obstacles to progress on climate change, passing on Thursday a bill designed to force the United States to stay in the Paris climate accord.
Democrats know their bill, which passed 231 to 190 in a vote largely along party lines, stands little chance of being approved by the GOP-controlled Senate. And the odds that President Trump, who decided to pull out of the Paris agreement in the first place, would ever sign it are even slimmer.
But there are lots of reasons House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democrats moved forward with the Climate Action Now Act.
The measure, first and foremost, is a rebuke to Trump. It serves to reenforce the idea ahead of the 2020 election that Trump and other Republicans are undermining the nation’s commitment to rein in heat-trapping pollution. Only three Republicans — Reps. Vern Buchanan (Fla.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) — crossed over to vote with Democrats to pass the bill.
The bill would defund any effort by the federal government to withdraw from the agreement. It would also compel Trump to come up with a plan for meeting the United States’ Paris targets. Under the Paris accord, more than 190 nations voluntarily vowed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the goal of keeping the globe under 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
So Democrats also hope its passage signals to other countries party to the Paris agreement that, if the next president is a Democrat, he or she is likely to keep the U.S. in the climate agreement.
“Passing this bill is an important signal to our allies, and my expectation is that when we act, we’ll see increased ambition from them, too,” Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), lead sponsor of the legislation, told reporters a day before the vote.
Though Trump announced his intent to pull out of the Paris accord after only a few months in office, the earliest he could go forward with the withdrawal is November 2020.
“That’s an interesting date, isn’t it?” Castor said.
The Climate Action Now Act also gets Democrats on the record about what kind of tough climate measures they would support. As Democrats work to craft budget bills later this year, they could view certain elements of the bill -- such as zeroing out funding for the Paris withdrawal -- as a template for climate language to include in other must-pass bills.
Yet Democratic leaders have yet to say they will use their budget-writing power to push those provisions any further.
When asked if parts of the Climate Action Now Act would be integrated into a House funding bill at a later date, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said: "Our focus is on pressing the Senate to act."
An aide to Senate Democrats also said lawmakers would demand Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring the Climate Action Now Act for a vote. During the appropriations process, that aide said senators will be focused broadly on "addressing the climate crisis and getting clean energy wins."
Yet McConnell shut down any hope the bill would be brought up for a vote in remarks on the Senate floor Thursday.
"The futile gesture to handcuff the U.S. economy through the ill-fated Paris deal will go nowhere here in the Senate."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/05/03/the-energy-202-here-s-why-democrats-pushed-to-pass-a-climate-bill-that-isn-t-going-anywhere/5ccb5ae91ad2e506550b2f14/?utm_term=.0475779a3f9b
-
Republicans Could Have a Green New Deal Problem
May 3, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Laura Barrón-López and Zack Colman
The GOP is seizing on the Green New Deal to demonize vulnerable Democrats in 2020 — but some Republicans warn it could do long-term damage to the party.
Though Republicans have ignored climate change in past elections, it’s now a key part of their 2020 strategy, especially in House races. They’re hoping to define the Green New Deal as an expensive socialist gambit dreamed up by liberal superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that will ban cows and planes. Though mostly inaccurate, it's a portrayal they believe will scare independent voters in key districts.
But the move could come at a cost: The near- and long-term loss of millennial and Generation Z voters, a growing slice of the electorate that wants federal climate change action to a greater degree than their elders. A recent Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics survey found 74 percent of likely general election voters under 30 disapprove of President Donald Trump’s climate change performance and 50 percent call climate change “a crisis” that “demands urgent action.” Another 25 percent called it “a problem.”
The data has Republican pollsters and current and former lawmakers warning that relentless mocking of the Green New Deal — but more critically, President Donald Trump’s dismissal of climate change as a hoax — could jeopardize the GOP’s ability to capture and cement a congressional majority.
“The president’s comments on climate change are damaging because it gives an incentive for those who don’t place a high priority on the issue to go along with that,” said former Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.). “For the Republican party to be a majority party in 10 years and in 20 years there will have to be a clear set of climate solutions as policies proposed and voted on, and what that is remains to be seen.”
Costello, whose Pennsylvania district turned blue after he decided to retire last year, in part due to Trump, added that the GOP would be better off electorally presenting alternatives to Democrats’ “regulatorily-driven” policies, “which are costly.”
“Mockery doesn’t get anybody anywhere,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a top target for Democrats in 2020. “We should be offering solutions.”
But other polling conducted by the progressive firm Data for Progress revealed some weaknesses the GOP hopes to use to its advantage. Proposals to make all cars electric by 2030 and eliminate fossil fuel production by 2035 are unpopular.
Another factor in the mix of political calculations is that young voters have historically voted in lower numbers. At the same time their turnout ratio increased by 16 points in 2018, and there’s reason to believe that uptick will continue next year.
“There are a lot of areas where millennials are a bit more progressive than I wish they were,” Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson said at a January event that examined what the party could do to win back voters they lost in 2018, including suburban women. “Republicans need to do a better job of speaking to them.”
Still, House Republicans are wielding the Green New Deal, and by extension climate action, as a campaign cudgel. Vulnerable Democrats like Rep. Antonio Delgado of New York are already facing TV ads from the Congressional Leadership FundPAC, casting the freshman as engaging in a “radical Green New Deal assault on the American economy.” Delgado doesn’t support the plan.
The plan’s non-climate components — it calls for a federal basic income and jobs guarantee, for example — is where Republicans see opportunity, according to pollsters. They’re aided, in part, by Fox News, which has saturated its airwaves with coverage of the Green New Deal, incorrectly claiming that Americans wouldn’t be allowed to have cars and airplanes and that hamburgers would be “outlawed.”
The ability of Republicans to define the Green New Deal as a socialist takeover of the economy could determine whether their attacks inflict real damage on Democrats in competitive districts. But if those attacks become conflated with climate change denialism, it could make the climb back to the majority harder for Republicans.
Former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who was defeated in 2018 by a Democrat in a South Florida district dealing with rising sea levels, echoed Costello’s warning.
“The energy surrounding the Green New Deal means there are a lot of Americans that want to see Congress take bold action to lower emissions,” said Curbelo. "[Republicans] will alienate younger voters if they criticize without offering an alternative.”
Though Curbelo called the Green New Deal “disingenuous” and not a real bill, he cautioned his former colleagues that "if they want to return to the majority one day it will likely mean they must have a good answer on environmental policies — something they've been lacking for decades."
A Democratic pollster who worked on competitive House races in 2018 said climate change is “top of mind” for voters under 40, whether they live in a coastal area or not.
But even Republicans who want to offer their own vision on climate face a huge obstacle — their own president.
Trump has ignored Pentagon warnings that climate change poses some of the gravest national security risks to the country, pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords. He has dismissed the findings of 13 federal government agencies, which concluded last year that global warming “presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us."
And he’s mocked environmentalists and Democrats on Twitter when there’s unseasonably cold or snowy weather.
“I think he’s on the wrong side of the issue,” said Fitzpatrick, who was one of three Republicans who voted with Democrats Thursday to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement.
“It’s important to talk about our environment and to engage those younger voters with regards to climate change,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), a Trump ally who is being targeted by Democrats in 2020. “[But] in my district people aren’t demanding an alternative to the Green New Deal.”
Other Republicans like Oklahoma Rep. Frank Lucas, the ranking member on the House Science Committee, sidestepped questions about the potential political damage Trump’s climate change positions could inflict on Republicans down ballot.
“The president has his own unique style,” said Lucas, who disagrees with the president on the issue but bashed the Green New Deal for invoking social justice as a selling point.
“If my friends on the other side ultimately get what they want they’ll probably choke on it politically the way they did health care in 2010,” he said. Democrats lost the House after passing the Affordable Care Act, but the law is now more popular than it's ever been, supported by 50 percent of the public.
Lacking a detailed policy of their own, Republicans have called generally for boosting innovation and energy conservation. GOP moderates often cite those goals, long part of the party’s lexicon on environmental matters.
“The president is the leading policymaker for better or for worse and this is not a priority of his administration,” said Rory Cooper, a former adviser to then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), now at Purple Strategies.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), like many of his Republican colleagues, wants to elevate clean energy research rather than pursue regulations or legislation that would assess fees on carbon pollution. Last month, he introduced a “Green Real Deal” proposal that calls climate change a national security threat and recommends spending more on federal research while removing permitting roadblocks for all energy infrastructure.
“History will judge harshly my Republican colleagues who deny the science of climate change,” Gaetz, a vocal Trump surrogate, said in April. “Similarly, those Democrats who would use climate change as a basis to regulate out of existence the American experience will face the harsh reality that their ideas will fail.”
At the same time, Gaetz supports abolishing the EPA. As rising seas and temperatures endanger his Florida panhandle district, some question whether Gaetz has truly turned a corner on the issue.
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) admitted the majority of the GOP has not shifted its views on combating the impacts of climate change despite dire predictions from international scientists that the world economy must be transformed to avoid catastrophic damage to the planet by 2040.
“The reality is probably not,” Stewart said. “It’s probably about where we’ve been the past few years.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/republicans-could-have-a-green-new-deal-problem-1407805
-
Politicians Get Ready: This New Generation of Climate Activists Doesn’t Buy Fake Science
May 3, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
Young people are out of class and in the street, demanding action, and millions of them will soon be in the voting booth. In the process, they are fundamentally changing the politics of climate change.
Few issues have galvanized young voters more than climate action.73% disagree with Trump’s climate policies
A Pew Research Center survey shows that 79% of Americans ages 18 to 29 are “very or fairly worried about climate change.” The Harvard Institute of Politics reports that 50% of likely voters in that age group consider climate change “a crisis and demand urgent action.”
This political energy is not good news for the president since 73% of young voters disapprove of the approach Donald Trump has taken on climate change, the Harvard poll shows.They don’t fall as easily for lies
Consider this: Young people are probably less susceptible to misinformation by those who deny the scientific reality, which helps explain why they are now refusing to accept inaction on climate.
The signs of a changing climate have been all around young Americans their whole lives – more destructive storms in the Southeast, repeated flood devastation in the Midwest and raging wildfires in California.
If you’re under 33, you’ve never lived one month that was below average temperature.They see what new technology can do
Young voters have also seen clean energy transformed from an environmental vision to an economic reality. Someone who’s now in high school has seen solar energy costs drop nearly 90% since they were in kindergarten. Wind prices are almost 70% lower.
In many places, it’s now cheaper to build new renewables than to run existing coal-fired power plants. April was expected to be the first month in our history as an industrial nation that clean energy produced more power for the U.S. economy than coal.
Such developments are not lost on young people who see a clean energy future as both an urgent necessity and a very realistic option.Millions more will head to the polls in 2020
These young people can’t be an afterthought in politics.
Nearly a third of all eligible voters are under 35, making them the largest and most diverse voting bloc in the country. By 2020, another 15.9 million more Generation Z’ers – a 24 million-strong cohort born between 1996 and the early 2000s – become eligible to vote, Pew estimates.
And they appear to be voting in higher numbers. In the 2018 midterm elections, this group had the highest rate of turnout in at least 25 years.
Young people today know that climate change is, at its core, older generations polluting at the expense of those who will come after. Americans who are just beginning their adult lives are not willing to put up with business-as-usual if it means damaging the world they will inherit.Out with the old, in with the new
Today, a new generation of Americans is insisting on bold action from members of Congress – who, despite the infusion of youth in 2018, maintain an average age of 58 in the House and 63 in the Senate.
Even young Republicans, presumably more favorably disposed to Trump, see the reality of climate change. Pew reports that almost 60% of young Republicans agree that climate change is already having some effect on the United States.
Office holders who still deny the severity of the problem can shake their fists and yell at the protesters from their front porches, but they will be increasingly irrelevant in our political debate.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2019/05/03/politicians-get-ready-new-generation-climate-activists-doesnt-buy-fake-science
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested