Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - May 6, 2019
-
Hearing on Asbestos Ban
May 8, 2019 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
Location: 2322 Rayburn / 2:00 PM -
Hearing on Energy Dept. Budget
May 9, 2019 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) C&EN’s Top 50 US Chemical Producers for 2018
May 5, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Last year was another terrific one for the US chemical industry. According to C&EN’s latest ranking of the top 50 US chemical producers, sales and profits both surged. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Probes Plastics Recycling Challenges
May 3, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The head of a U.S. House science subcommittee is calling for a national strategy around plastics recycling. -
Trump, Citing Slow Pace of Talks, Revives Threat to Put Tariff on All Chinese Goods
May 5, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Doug Palmer
President Donald Trump on Sunday revived a threat to impose a 25 percent tariff on essentially all Chinese goods in order to prod Beijing into moving more quickly to reach a trade deal. -
Bernhardt, Perry to Headline Budget Hearings
May 6, 2019 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry are due on Capitol Hill this week to defend their budget requests. -
Committee Takes up Bill to Ban Asbestos
May 6, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Ariana Figueroa
House Energy and Commerce lawmakers will take up legislation this week to ban the making, processing and distribution of asbestos. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Corrects 200 Parts-per-billion Level Description in Technical Amendment to Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides Final Rule
May 3, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Lisa M. Campbell and Heather F. Collins
On May 3, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was making final a single correction to the data requirements for antimicrobial pesticide products codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 158, subpart W. 84 Fed. Reg. 18993. -
EDF Tells EPA It Must Modify Its Proposed CBI Claim Review Rule to Comply with Recent D.C. Circuit Decision
May 3, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Yesterday Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sent a letter to the Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in follow-up to last month’s decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EDF’s challenge to EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule (EDF v. EPA, 17-1201). -
UN Chemical Regulators Approve PFOA Ban, With Exemptions
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
International chemical regulators unanimously approved a global ban on the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a toxic chemical used to manufacture nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and other consumer and industrial products. -
Mapping the PFAS Contamination Crisis: New Data Show 610 Sites in 43 States
May 6, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Bill Walker
The known extent of contamination of American communities with the highly toxic fluorinated compounds known as PFAS continues to grow at an alarming rate, with no end in sight. -
D.C. Circuit Divided On Merits Of EPA Guidance Scrapping 2015 HFC Rule
May 3, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Appellate judges at May 3 oral argument were divided over whether to uphold a Trump EPA guidance that suspends an Obama-era rule prohibiting replacement of refrigerants with climate-warming hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), making it unclear whether the court will back environmentalists’ suit that aims to undo the guidance. -
EPA to Consider Lowering Allowed Level of Glyphosate for Oats
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The EPA will take public comment on a petition to dramatically lower the allowable concentration of the weedkiller glyphosate on oats used in cereals and snack bars. -
Trump’s Bid to Expand Offshore Drilling Slows, Amid Legal and Political Struggles
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Last year, oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico made history when they pumped out a record 1.7 million barrels a day. -
Officials Face Risk As They Weigh Appeal On Ruling Reinstating Drilling Ban
May 3, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Top Trump administration officials are debating whether to appeal a precedential federal court ruling reinstating an Obama-era ban on offshore drilling in much of the Arctic and parts of the Atlantic, a decision that could carry major legal and political risks for the administration’s deregulatory agenda and its efforts to encourage fossil fuel development. -
North Dakota Courting Petrochemical Industry with Tax Breaks
May 5, 2019 | AP
By Amy Dalrymple
North Dakota is courting the petrochemical industry with a new tax incentive aimed at adding value to the state’s abundant natural gas supply. -
Venture Global's $8.5B Plaquemines LNG Project Gets Final Environmental Study
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Venture Global's $8.5 billion liquefied natural gas project in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana got a boost Friday as federal regulators issued a key environmental study needed to secure permitting for the project. -
Tellurian Clears Another Big Hurdle for LNG Export Project
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Houston's Tellurian Inc. hit another important permitting milestone Thursday as the U.S. Department of Energy authorized it to sell liquefied natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries. -
NYC Pipeline Extension Gets Green Light
May 3, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Jeremy Dillon
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued the certificate for a major pipeline expansion that would move Pennsylvania natural gas for heating purposes to much of New York City. -
(ACC Mentioned) Cancer and Chemicals in Reserve, Louisiana: The Science Explained
May 6, 2019 | The Guardian
By Jamiles Lartey and Oliver Laughland
St John the Baptist parish sits about 20 miles from New Orleans in southern Louisiana. Home to about 45,000 people, this predominantly black parish contains the US neighborhoods most at risk of cancer due to air toxicity, according to government science. -
Experts Assess Damage After First Cyberattack on U.S. Grid
May 6, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Last week, the U.S. power sector marked a sober milestone: an anonymous Western utility became the first to report a malicious "cyber event" that disrupted grid operations. -
Site-Specific Scenarios in EPA Guidance to Smooth Air Permitting
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
State and federal permit writers have new EPA guidance intended to help determine whether industrial air pollution is causing downwind violations of standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. -
Inslee Floats Detailed Plan For Deep GHG Cuts In Power, Transport, Buildings
May 3, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) is floating a broad and ambitious climate change platform that has the most detail from any 2020 presidential contender to date, touting an array of goals and policy proposals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, vehicles and buildings. -
Climate Change Emerges as Leading Issue for 2020 Dems
May 5, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Democratic presidential hopefuls are battling to be seen as the climate change candidate. -
Beto O'Rourke Defends Climate Record, Hedges on Fracking
May 6, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke defended attacks on his climate plan at a campaign stop here Friday and suggested he doesn't want a national fracking ban like other members of his party. -
Virginia’s Bid to Join Carbon Emissions Trading Pact Blocked (1)
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Virginia won’t participate in the Northeastern carbon dioxide emissions cap-and-trade initiative anytime soon after all. -
Cap and Trade Fails in Va. Now What?
May 6, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
It was supposed to be a crowning moment for cap and trade. Instead, it became the biggest setback for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative since 2012, when then-Gov. Chris Christie (R) pulled New Jersey from the nine-state cap-and-trade program. -
EPA Backs Texas Plan to Reduce Ozone Emissions in Houston (1)
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
The EPA approved changes to the Texas’ clean-air plan for improving storage tank regulations, saying the modifications will help the Houston region achieve better air quality.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
May 8, 2019 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
-
Hearing on Energy Dept. Budget
May 9, 2019 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
-
(ACC Mentioned) C&EN’s Top 50 US Chemical Producers for 2018
May 5, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Last year was another terrific one for the US chemical industry. According to C&EN’s latest ranking of the top 50 US chemical producers, sales and profits both surged.
Chemical sales for the top 50 firms increased 17.9% to $297.2 billion in 2018, the year that forms the basis of the survey. This beat the strong increase of 9.4% that C&EN’s survey revealed last year.
Profits moved up even more aggressively. For the 42 firms that reported chemical profit figures, income rose 19.5%, to $35.4 billion. Last year’s survey found a modest 3.0% rise in profits.
Among the many factors that influenced the sharp rise in sales was an increase in production at US factories. According to the American Chemistry Council, a trade association, US production volumes rose a relatively strong 3.1% last year.
Energy prices answer for some of it, too. Most chemicals are made from oil and natural gas directly or require energy in the form of fuel or electricity. Higher oil prices normally lead to higher prices for chemicals.
Oil prices actually declined during the year, from $60 per barrel in January to $45 in December. However, those two points don’t tell the whole story. Oil prices increased steadily until October, peaking at $75 per barrel. They came crashing down on worries over increased trade barriers and an economic slowdown.
Indeed, those same concerns crushed chemical stock prices. The combined market capitalization of the 34 chemical companies in the ranking with publicly traded shares dropped 20.2%, to $322.1 billion.
The American Chemistry Council expects the industry will grow by another healthy chunk, 3.6%, in 2019. But some companies expect a slow start. Eastman Chemical is targeting job cuts because it expects sluggish business. Both Huntsman and Dow have warned about earnings declines in the first quarter of this year.
DowDuPont tops this year’s ranking because of its $86.0 billion in sales in 2018, the first and only year the company reported full-year results. This will be the second and last year it appears on the ranking.
Dow and DuPont merged in 2017 with the intention of combining their agricultural businesses, exchanging other units, and then splitting apart into three firms. All of them will rest near the top of future C&EN rankings.
Dow separated on April 1. It holds all the heavy petrochemical and polymer businesses. It is the biggest of the three firms and would have had $48.8 billion in sales had it been an independent firm in 2018, enough by itself to top the ranking.
The new DuPont, which contains all the specialties businesses, will separate on June 1. It would have had $22.6 billion in 2018 sales, enough for the third-highest spot in C&EN’s ranking.
Corteva Agriscience will inherit all the agrochemical and seed operations. It is also separating on June 1. Its businesses racked up $6.3 billion in chemical sales in 2018, enough for the 14th-highest position in the ranking.
M&A LEAVES A MARK
When companies disappear from, join, or move up and down the ranking, it generally indicates they recently conducted an acquisition or divestiture. Brisk dealmaking certainly made its mark on the ranking this year.
DuPont, of course, vanished temporarily this year into DowDuPont.
Bayer bought agrochemical giant Monsanto, number 21 last year. And Japan’s Kuraray bought last year’s number 45 US chemical maker, Calgon Carbon.
On the plus side of C&EN’s ledger, the highest-ranking addition is laboratory and fine chemical maker Avantor, at number 29. It acquired VWR in late 2017 and filed a prospectus with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for a public offering earlier this year.
Genesis Energy is an energy distribution master limited partnership (MLP). It appears on the list at number 39 because it bought, of all things, Tronox’s soda ash business. The company aims to diversify, and soda ash gets the same tax breaks as energy businesses do under MLP rules.
The other new additions are 3M, which is breaking out results for its fluoropolymer business for the first time in a long time, and Goodyear Tire & Rubber, because of its strong results in synthetic rubber.
Ongoing mergers and acquisitions will take firms out of future rankings. Last month, Merck KGaA inked an agreement to buy Versum Materials, number 37 in the ranking, in a transaction valued at $6.5 billion. Momentive is being acquired by a consortium of South Korean firms for $3.1 billion.
Likewise, the industrial gas firm Praxair merged with the German company Linde and moved its headquarters to Europe. Praxair was an independent firm for three quarters of 2018, so it lingers in this year’s ranking, albeit at number 7, down from number 5 last year.
Conversely, Mosaic jumped from number 12 to number 5 with its purchase of Brazil’s Vale Fertilizantes early last year. FMC acquired a large chunk of DuPont’s agrochemical unit to satisfy antitrust objections to the Dow-DuPont merger. As a result, FMC climbed to number 16 from number 25.
Overall, dealmaking got off to a slow start in 2019. The consulting firm PwC recorded 168 chemical deals in the first quarter of the year, down 24% from the same period the year before.
However, Craig Kocak, the firm’s US chemical deals leader, expects to see a robust number of transactions in 2019, particularly in specialty chemicals. “Given the stability of the broader economy during the first quarter of 2019, the record levels of cash available at both private equity and corporates, and the continued focus on portfolio coherence, the outlook for M&A activity continues to be upbeat,” he says.CHEMICAL STOCKS POUNDED
Mounting worries over a trade war pushed down stocks during the second half of the year, hitting the trade-sensitive chemical industry hard. The 20.2% drop in the market capitalization of the 34 publicly traded firms was broad, with 29 of them experiencing declines.
The biggest market capitalization drop, 67%, was at the coal-tar chemical maker Koppers. Kraton, which makes polymers and pine chemicals, and Kronos Worldwide, a titanium dioxide producer, both experienced drops in excess of 50%.
The three largest gainers were Mosaic, Ingevity, and Cabot Microelectronics, all of which have been making acquisitions.BASF IS STILL THE LARGEST FOREIGN CHEMICAL MAKER
Once again, BASF leads C&EN’s ranking of the US chemical sales of 25 foreign-owned companies. It posted $19.7 billion in 2018 chemical revenues in the region.
It is followed by a new name—Nutrien, the product of a merger between the Canadian fertilizer makers Agrium and Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.
The other newcomers are the Norwegian fertilizer maker Yara and the Japanese industrial gas supplier Taiyo Nippon Sanso. The Japanese firm, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings, purchased US assets that Air Liquide and Airgas needed to divest to complete Air Liquide’s purchase of Airgas.
One company dropping off is AkzoNobel. The paint maker sold its specialty chemical business, Nouryon, to the private equity firm Carlyle Group and the Singapore sovereign wealth fund GIC. AkzoNobel is out of chemicals, and Nouryon isn’t reporting regional results now that it is privately held.
Deals that might change future rankings are Saudi Aramco’s $69 billion ongoing acquisition of Sabic and LyondellBasell Industries’ deal, still being negotiated, to buy Brazil’s Braskem.HONORABLE MENTIONS
C&EN’s annual ranking of the top 50 chemical companies includes only those firms that are willing to disclose their annual sales. It captures most relevant companies, but some that would undoubtedly make the cut—about $500 million in annual sales—are excluded because their precise sales figures are unknown.
One example is companies owned by privately held Koch Industries. Two of Koch’s holdings, the nylon maker Invista and the basic chemical maker and refiner Flint Hills Resources, would certainly make the ranking, and fairly high up at that.
Other longtime privately held firms that might have made the ranking are Cargill, J.M. Huber, and Milliken.
Private equity firms control a number of companies that would likely be among the top 50 US chemical companies. SK Capital alone has three in its portfolio: nylon maker Ascend Performance Materials, specialties firm SI Group, and C4 chemical producer TPC Group.
Oleochemical maker Vantage Specialty Chemicals, water treatment chemical maker Solenis, and pyridine chemical specialist Vertellus are all backed by private equity firms, too. Solenis recently merged with BASF’s water treatment chemical business and is now a joint venture. This might make Solenis’s sales—roughly $3 billion annually—transparent in the future.
Other chemical businesses go untallied because they are buried in large companies. Procter & Gamble’s oleochemical business is a case in point. Archer Daniels Midland might make enough amino acids and other biobased chemicals to make C&EN’s cut. Chevron’s Oronite unit, which makes lubricant additives, could be large enough. PPG Industries’ business in silica and other specialty materials would likely take a place in the ranking as well.
https://cen.acs.org/business/finance/CENs-top-50-US-chemical/97/i18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Probes Plastics Recycling Challenges
May 3, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The head of a U.S. House science subcommittee is calling for a national strategy around plastics recycling.
Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., made the call to upgrade decades-old waste infrastructure and deal with new challenges like microplastics.
The April 30 hearing, titled "Closing the Loop: Emerging Technologies in Plastics Recycling," was the first U.S. House Science Committee hearing on recycling in a decade. It included calls for more federal research into chemical recycling to deal with hard-to-recycle plastics.
Lawmakers expressed concern that only 9 percent of plastics are recycled in the U.S. today, and hearing witnesses noted that even for the most widely recycled plastics like PET and high density polyethylene bottles, the rate is only 30 percent.
"Our recycling policies haven't kept pace with today's plastics use," Stevens said. "Our first response should be to reduce and reuse more. But it is not realistic to think we can give up disposable plastic altogether.
"We urgently need a national strategy to build out our country's recycling infrastructure. At the same time, we must invest in research and development of sustainable materials and processes as well as in standards," she said.
Stevens said the last major rewrite of federal waste policy was the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976, which she noted was enacted before she was born.
Lawmakers and witnesses said China's ban on imported plastic waste is raising costs for city recycling programs that had depended on export markets. But Stevens and others also said that China's ban could be an opportunity to improve domestic recycling.
Since it was a subcommittee of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, several witnesses focused on R&D and how the federal government could support technology innovation, in this case chemical recycling.
That technology, which breaks polymers back down into oils and base materials to then be rebuilt into new polymers or converted to things like fuels, is seen as next generation recycling.
Advocates tout it as a way to reclaim complex plastic products that cannot be easily handled with mechanical recycling.
"Fundamental research will be really critical for enabling a new industry in the United States, using chemical recycling," Gregg Beckham, a senior research fellow at the National Bioenergy Center in Golden, Colo., told the hearing.
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, said it was his sense from witnesses that "chemical recycling is probably ultimately how we get there," and he quizzed a Dow Inc. executive on how close those technologies are to commercialization.
Tim Boven, Dow's recycling commercial director for the Americas, packaging and specialty resins, said the technology is viable but work is needed on the economics.
He said systems are needed to collect and aggregate enough material, and industry has to then integrate finished products back into the petrochemical industry.
"We have to work on the business model side," Boven said. "We're talking about mature technologies like gasification and pyrolysis, they've been around for a long time [but] they've not been used widely for the purpose of recycling plastic."
Even with the push for chemical recycling, Boven told the lawmakers there's still a strong role for mechanical recycling.
"There is a relationship between mechanical and chemical recycling in the sense that we would suggest that if it can be mechanically recycled, it should be because there's a lower carbon footprint," Boven said. "It's not as energy intensive and it can be deployed locally."
But he noted a strong role for chemical recycling because up to 30 percent of the materials collected for recycling by cities ultimately have to be thrown out because they're too contaminated.
He said mechanical recycling has "significant limitations" handling contaminated materials and is more limited in finding end markets.
Boven urged Congress to play a role in seeing that pyrolysis and gasification technologies are defined as recycling. The American Chemistry Council is currently mounting a lobbying campaign in state governments to do that, although that push is being questioned by environmental groups and some lawmakers.
Boven said defining them as recycling would help industry certify to customers that they're using recycled content.
"We want to be able to certify what is recycled and give those to our customers so they are confident they are purchasing recycled materials, much like wind energy," he told lawmakers.
The hearing also delved into plastics pollution in the environment.
The chair of the full Science Committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, noted a recent study that found Switzerland, a country she said had high recycling rates, had 90 percent of its river flood plains "contaminated with microplastics."
"While there is little research to date, we should be very concerned about the impact on human health of all of this microplastics in our environment and our food chain," she said.
The concerns were echoed by Stevens and other lawmakers.
The panel also heard that the federal government is spending $3.2 million to set up a plastics recycling research center at Troy University's School of Science and Technology, in Troy, Ala.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190503/NEWS/190509974/congress-probes-plastics-recycling-challenges
-
Trump, Citing Slow Pace of Talks, Revives Threat to Put Tariff on All Chinese Goods
May 5, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Doug Palmer
President Donald Trump on Sunday revived a threat to impose a 25 percent tariff on essentially all Chinese goods in order to prod Beijing into moving more quickly to reach a trade deal.
“The Trade Deal with China continues, but too slowly as they attempt to renegotiate. No!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
The president has already imposed a 25 percent duty on $50 billion worth of Chinese high-tech goods, and a 10 percent duty on another $200 billion worth of Chinese products. That 10 percent had been scheduled to go to 25 percent at the end of last year, but Trump delayed that action to provide time for negotiations.
Now, Trump says he plans to raise the 10 percent duty to 25 percent on Friday because negotiations with Beijing are going too slowly. He also said he would “shortly” impose a 25 percent duty on another $350 billion worth of Chinese goods unless a deal was reached soon. U.S. imports from China last year totaled nearly $540 billion.
The new threat comes in between a set of high-level trade negotiations aimed at bringing the long-running negotiations to a close. The U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin traveled to Beijing last week for talks, and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is expected in Washington this week.
Trump, in recent months, has been upbeat about the Chinese negotiations. However, he has also held out the threat of raising tariffs if a deal between the world’s two largest economies can’t be reached.
China has responded to Trump’s tariffs by imposing duties on $110 billion worth of American products. Farmers have been hit particularly hard by that retaliation, along with seafood producers, chemical manufacturers and a number of other sectors.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/trump-china-trade-tariffs-1411269
-
Bernhardt, Perry to Headline Budget Hearings
May 6, 2019 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry are due on Capitol Hill this week to defend their budget requests.
Their appearance will come as lawmakers search for a bicameral compromise on spending levels for fiscal 2020 and as communities pressure members to ink a deal on a disaster package.
Bernhardt is making his first House appearance since being sworn in last month. He will testify before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Environment.
The hearing occurs as Bernhardt seeks to make inroads with Democrats in private meetings after former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's acrimonious relationship with them.
Bernhardt is sure to face questions about his agency's stalled offshore drilling plan, an overdue department reorganization and a lengthy National Park Service maintenance backlog.
Democrats are also unlikely to let him go without addressing several ethics concerns that have come up over his past work as an energy lobbyist.
The hearing is a prelude to an expected markup of the fiscal 2020 Interior-EPA spending bill later this month.
While the Interior-EPA title is one of the most controversial of the year, appropriators are expecting a smoother ride for the Energy and Water Development legislation.
Perry will appear before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy. While he may defend the administration's proposed cuts, he may — like times prior — defer to whatever spending levels lawmakers come up with.Markups this week
House appropriators will vote on the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education spending bill Wednesday that would boost dollars for a host of domestic agencies, among them the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
The bill's committee report, due out this week, is expected to more specifically address how the panel would direct proposed increases for more research into the health impacts of climate change.
The Labor-HHS-Education bill will be the first spending bill to advance to the House floor this year.
At the Wednesday session, House appropriators will also unveil and approve 302(b) allocations. Those are the top-line spending levels for each of the 12 fiscal 2020 spending bills.
The widely awaited figures are expected to show a sharp break with the Trump administration over cuts for EPA and the Interior and Energy departments.
Two other House spending bills — the Legislative Branch and Military Construction-Veterans Affairs measures — have cleared subcommittee and could move to the full Appropriations panel later this week.
The Legislative Branch bill would revive Capitol Hill's Office of Technology Assessment. The nonpartisan congressional policy shop did technical and scientific research for lawmakers, including on energy and environmental policies, but was eliminated by Republicans in the mid-1990s.
The Senate has yet to begin marking up its fiscal 2020 bills.Disaster deal closer
House Democrats will attempt to put more pressure on the Senate this week to pass a disaster aid package that has been stalled for weeks.
House Democrats are due to vote on a $17 billion bill, H.R. 2157, that includes about $3 billion in new funding for damage from floods and wind in the Midwest.
It's one of several disaster aid bills the House has moved in recent weeks while the Senate has been unable to resolve a dispute over aid to Puerto Rico. The inclusion of the Midwestern aid is meant to help draw bipartisan Senate support.
The Senate's top appropriators last week were trading counteroffers in an effort to end the monthslong impasse.
Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said funding for Puerto Rico remained the sticking point, with the president digging in against more funds for the island territory.
"We're trying," he said of him and ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "We're not the obstacle."
Republicans have offered hundreds of millions of dollars more in Community Development Block Grant funds for Puerto Rico.
In a nod to the White House's complaints about Puerto Rico's fiscal management, the measure includes limits on accessing the new funds until past emergency funds have been largely spent.
Leahy has signaled openness to the latest GOP plan, Shelby said. "We got to see if they agree to this language," he told reporters Friday. "If they can, we're on the right road."
Shelby said staff would work over the weekend to see if they can strike a deal that could be brought to the floor this week.
"Timing is everything right now," he said, noting growing impatience in many regions of the country.
Schedule: The House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Interior budget is Tuesday, May 7, at 3 p.m. in 2362-A Rayburn.
Witness: Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.
Schedule: The House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing on the National Science Foundation budget is Wednesday, May 8, at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
Witness: National Science Foundation Director France Córdova.
Schedule: The House Appropriations Committee markup on the Labor-HHS-Education bill is Wednesday, May 8, at 10:30 a.m. in 2359 Rayburn.
Schedule: The Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the Defense budget is Wednesday, May 8, at 10 a.m. in 192 Dirksen.
Witnesses:Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan.
Schedule: The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the Energy budget is Thursday, May 9, at 10:15 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witness: Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060281957
-
Committee Takes up Bill to Ban Asbestos
May 6, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Ariana Figueroa
House Energy and Commerce lawmakers will take up legislation this week to ban the making, processing and distribution of asbestos.
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) introduced the bill, H.R. 1603, in March. Sen. Jeff Merkley, also an Oregon Democrat, is backing a companion, S. 717, in his chamber.
The proposal would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act also to ban the distribution of products containing mixtures of asbestos.
Asbestos was once widely used in the United States for building materials because of its strength and resistance to fire.
But in 1989, EPA banned its use in new materials because of the threat to public health. When asbestos breaks down, its fibers can get stuck deep in people's lungs, which can cause scarring, inflammation and lung cancer.
Former Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) first introduced the bill in 2016. But the chloralkali industry still relies on the material, and Republicans have not been keen on joining the ban push.
The hearing comes a week after EPA rejected a petition from more than a dozen state Democratic attorneys general seeking to increase asbestos reporting requirements.
This is the second time EPA has denied a petition that would have required the agency to keep a record of manufacturers that import products made from asbestos or containing the mineral (Greenwire, May 1).
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 8, at 10 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn.
Witnesses: TBA.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/06/stories/1060268505
-
May 3, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Lisa M. Campbell and Heather F. Collins
On May 3, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was making final a single correction to the data requirements for antimicrobial pesticide products codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 158, subpart W. 84 Fed. Reg. 18993. The correction clarifies that the 200 parts-per-billion (ppb) level described in the antimicrobial pesticides data requirements regulations (40 C.F.R. § 158.2230 (d)) “is based on total estimated daily dietary intake for an individual and not on the amount of residue present on a single food,” as EPA states was incorrectly implied by the previous regulatory text.
EPA initially proposed this change on August 18, 2017, (82 Fed. Reg. 39399) because it agreed to do so in a settlement agreement with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) after ACC filed a petition for review of the 2013 final rule titled “Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides” (78 Fed. Reg. 26936 (May 8, 2013)) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Specifically, EPA agreed to make this correction to “make the language consistent” with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) policy set forth in FDA’s “Guidance for Industry, Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances: Toxicology Recommendations. Final Guidance. April 2002.” EPA states that the change is intended to “enhance understanding of the data required to support an antimicrobial pesticide registration and does not alter the burden or costs associated with these previously promulgated requirements” and that it is not establishing “any new data requirements or any other revisions (substantive or otherwise) to existing requirements.”
The final rule will become effective on July 2, 2019.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-corrects-200-parts-billion-level-description-technical-amendment-to-data
-
May 3, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Yesterday Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sent a letter to the Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in follow-up to last month’s decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EDF’s challenge to EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule (EDF v. EPA, 17-1201).
The letter identifies “immediate, time-sensitive implications [of the decision] for EPA’s ongoing rulemaking for” EPA’s proposed Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claim Review Rule, which is currently undergoing public comment. EDF noted that, in addition to addressing problems the Court identified in EPA’s regulations promulgated pursuant to its Inventory Notification Rule, EPA will need to modify the current proposed rule to ensure it is consistent with the Court’s Opinion, and accept comments on the modified proposal.
This is because the proposed rule explicitly references and applies regulatory provisions that the Court found were unlawful. Specifically, the Court found that EPA’s CBI claim substantiation questions were flawed because they failed to inquire into “a chemical identity’s susceptibility to reverse engineering” and “effectively excised a statutorily required criterion from the substantiation process.” Hence, to align the proposed rule with the Court’s ruling and the representations that EPA made to the Court in its briefing and at argument, EPA will need to revise the substantiation questions and the substantive standard that EPA plans to use when reviewing claims under the CBI Claim Review Rule.
EDFs letter also notes that the proposed rule allows persons to rely on the voluntary substantiations they submitted as part of the Inventory notification process. But the Court’s Opinion establishes that these substantiations are inadequate because they fail to address a chemical’s susceptibility to reverse engineering, and EPA will need to modify the proposed rule to require companies to provide substantiations that address this statutory factor for confidentiality claims.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/03/edf-tells-epa-it-must-modify-its-proposed-cbi-claim-review-rule-to-comply-with-recent-d-c-circuit-decision/
-
UN Chemical Regulators Approve PFOA Ban, With Exemptions
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
International chemical regulators unanimously approved a global ban on the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a toxic chemical used to manufacture nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and other consumer and industrial products.
Participating governments in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants agreed to list the chemical in Annex A of the treaty during this week’s United Nations Conference of the Parties meeting in Geneva.
“It’s probably the biggest Stockholm listing for ages,” said Charlie Avis, spokesman for the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions in Geneva.
Under Annex A of the Stockholm Convention, governments must take measures to “eliminate the production and use” of PFOA, which is linked to diseases, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
The majority of the countries that approved the May 3 decision have 12 months to fully implement the ban. Some members of the Stockholm Convention are permitted to have a longer implementation time frame to complete their domestic ratification process.
U.S. Action PendingU.S. regulators and lawmakers are already weighing new restrictions on PFOA and other per- and polyfluorinated substances, known as PFAS, which were previously manufactured in the U.S. by the 3M Co., and DowDuPont Inc. and its spinoff the Chemours Co.
Though the U.S. isn’t a party to the Stockholm Convention, the EPA announced last month that it will soon issue a proposal to list PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on its list of hazardous substances.
3M and DowDuPont also are facing multidistrict class actions from scores of U.S plaintiffs—including towns, water districts, and people with personal-injury claims.
The class of chemicals has been found in about a third of Americans’ drinking water and the Defense Department previously identified more than 400 military installations where groundwater has been contaminated by the use of military firefighting foams that include fluorinated chemicals.
Exemptions GrantedVarious international industry groups succeeded in lobbying for exemptions and extended implementation timelines for certain PFOA products including semiconductors, textiles, pharmaceuticals, and firefighting foams.
Some firefighting groups said they were disappointed that governments agreed to grant an exemption for fluorinated firefighting foams, noting there are cost-affordable fluorine-free alternatives available.
“If there’s a global ban with exemptions a mile long, you might as well not have a ban at all,” said Mick Tisbury, a firefighter from Healesville, Australia, who spoke at a press conference in Geneva earlier this week.
“Firefighters, unfortunately, have a pretty high mortality rate,” Tisbury said. “We know we have had repeated exposure to this toxic chemical for over 30 years. Right now we feel like we have a ticking time bomb in our bodies.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/un-chemical-regulators-approve-pfoa-ban-with-exemptions
-
Mapping the PFAS Contamination Crisis: New Data Show 610 Sites in 43 States
May 6, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Bill Walker
The known extent of contamination of American communities with the highly toxic fluorinated compounds known as PFAS continues to grow at an alarming rate, with no end in sight. As of March 2019, at least 610 locations in 43 states are now known to be affected, including drinking water systems serving an estimated 19 million people.
The latest update of an interactive map by EWG and the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, at Northeastern University, documents publicly known PFAS pollution in public water systems and military bases, airports, industrial plants and dumps, and firefighter training sites. The map and Northeastern’s PFAS Contamination Site Tracker are the most comprehensive resources available for tracking PFAS pollution in the U.S.
When the map was last updated, in July 2018, it showed 172 sites in 40 states. However, the data used for this latest update are not directly comparable to last year’s. We are now using more comprehensive data from the federal Safe Drinking Water Information System, which shows PFAS contamination in the tap water supplies of 446 communities. Information about other locations on the map come from the Defense Department and from news reports collected by Northeastern. (Details about our sources and methodology are here.)
PFAS compounds are a family of thousands of chemicals used in a wide array of consumer and industrial applications – nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, grease-resistant food packaging, firefighting foam and many more. The most notorious PFAS compounds are PFOA, formerly used to make DuPont’s Teflon, and PFOS, formerly an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard.
PFOA and PFOS were phased out under pressure from the Evironmental Protection Agency, after studies linked them to cancer, thyroid disease, weakened childhood immunity and other health problems. They have been replaced by PFAS compounds with a slightly different chemical structure, which were not adequately tested for safety before the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration allowed them on the market. PFAS chemicals pollute the blood of virtually all Americans, including newborn babies, and they persist forever in the environment.
Michigan is the state with the most locations on the map, with 192. The state’s PFAS contamination problem is severe, but the high number also reflects the state’s ongoing comprehensive multi-agency effort to test for PFAS. Michigan environmental officials have estimated that more than 11,000 sites in the state may be contaminated with PFAS.
California has 47 known contamination sites and New Jersey has 43.
PFOS contaminates 117 military sites, including 77 military airports, a legacy of the Pentagon’s 50-year history of using firefighting foam with PFOA and PFOS. Firefighting foam is the source of contamination in two of the three states added to the map since the last update:In New Mexico, groundwater contaminated with PFAS from firefighting foam used at Cannon Air Force Base threatens the state’s dairy industry.In Oregon, PFAS from firefighting foam used at Portland International Airport, a municipal fire and rescue training facility, and the Portland Air National Guard Base threatens to contaminate drinking water wells that supplement the city’s main supply, as well as the Columbia River.The third state added to the map is Kentucky, where the source of PFOS detected in drinking water in Pendleton County is unknown. Kentucky recently passed a law to restrict the use of PFAS-based firefighting foams.
The site in the nation with the highest known PFAS contamination is the now-closed England Air Force Base in Alexandria, La., where the Pentagon says a groundwater monitoring well had a combined level of 10.97 million parts per trillion, or ppt, of PFOA and PFOS in March 2015. The worst contamination of drinking water was in Algoma Township, Mich., where a private well had a combined level of 72,300 ppt of PFOA and PFOS in December 2018.
The drinking water for 19 million Americans is thought to be contaminated with PFAS, but that number is an estimate only, since public water systems know how many locations they serve but not necessarily how many people live or work at those locations. Evidence has emerged that the number of Americans with PFAS-contaminated tap water is much higher than 19 million. An EWG analysis of unreleased EPA test data estimated that more than 1,500 drinking water systems, serving up to 110 million Americans, may be contaminated with PFAS chemicals.
The EPA has known of PFAS’ health hazards for two decades but has failed to set an enforceable legal limit for drinking water or standards for cleanup of contaminated sites. The agency recently released a so-called PFAS action plan, but it is woefully inadequate. The EPA plan will not stop the introduction of new PFAS chemicals, end the use of PFAS in everyday products, alert Americans to the risk of PFAS pollution or clean up contaminated drinking water supplies. (See the complete list of EWG’s recommendations for federal action on PFAS.)
A bipartisan PFAS task force has been formed in Congress. Several PFAS bills have been introduced, including legislation to force the EPA to set a legal limit for all PFAS in drinking water, and to add PFAS to chemicals covered by the Superfund cleanup law.
In the absence of EPA action, states are taking the lead. A number of states have set legal limits or health-based guidelines for PFAS chemicals that are much lower than the EPA’s non-binding advisory level of 70 parts per trillion, or ppt, for PFOA, PFOS or both chemicals combined. Drawing on the best available research, EWG scientists recommend a drinking water standard of 1 ppt for any individual PFAS chemical, or the combined level of all PFAS chemicals.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/04/mapping-pfas-contamination-crisis-new-data-show-610-sites-43-states
-
D.C. Circuit Divided On Merits Of EPA Guidance Scrapping 2015 HFC Rule
May 3, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Appellate judges at May 3 oral argument were divided over whether to uphold a Trump EPA guidance that suspends an Obama-era rule prohibiting replacement of refrigerants with climate-warming hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), making it unclear whether the court will back environmentalists’ suit that aims to undo the guidance.
In Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. Andrew Wheeler, et al., environmentalists and states including California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the EPA guidance on HFCs and to force reinstatement of the 2015 HFC regulation.
Judge Neomi Rao -- a recent Trump appointee to the court who ran the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) regulatory review office when EPA issued the guidance -- appeared most likely to support EPA’s position that it has authority for the guidance and suspending the HFC rule.
Judges David Tatel and Sri Srinivasan asked tough questions of both sides, without indicating which way they might rule, but in some questions appeared more open to petitioners’ arguments.
The April 2018 guidance says that EPA believes the D.C. Circuit’s 2017 ruling in Mexichem Fluor v. EPA, known as Mexichem I, invalidates entirely a 2015 Obama EPA rule at issue in that case, and that the agency will no longer enforce the rule, pending a replacement. To date, EPA has not replaced the rule, which bars the replacement of ozone-depleting refrigerants with climate-warming HFCs.
The D.C. Circuit in the Mexichem I case ruled 2-1 to partially vacate and remand the 2015 rule. The court held that EPA may not require equipment owners who have already replaced ozone-depleting refrigerants with HFCs to again swap out the HFCs for other chemicals with lower global warming potential (GWP). But it stopped short of scrapping the entire rule.
Environmentalists and allied states argue that the Trump EPA has intentionally misconstrued the ruling as scrapping the 2015 rule in its entirety, when in fact it still bars the replacement of older refrigerants with HFCs. They further argue EPA lacks the authority to halt enforcement of a legally valid rule by a non-binding guidance.
HFC manufacturers Arkema and Mexichem are intervening to support EPA in the case.
Judges at oral argument pressed all sides on whether the guidance amounts to “final agency action” reviewable by the court, as environmentalists and states claim, or is not subject to D.C. Circuit review, as EPA claims. They also focused on the agency’s discretion to entirely suspend application of a rule -- using a guidance not subject to public notice-and-comment -- based on the claim that the rule is not “severable.”
EPA says it cannot in practice discriminate between those equipment operators replacing ozone-depleting refrigerants with HFCs and those replacing HFCs with lower GWP- chemicals. Indeed, Justice Department attorney Benjamin Carlisle said, “we think the legal effect of Mexichem I was to vacate the 2015 rule in its entirety.” He said the guidance “is not final agency action,” pointing to its temporary nature.
‘What Is The Confusion?’
Srinivasan and Tatel appeared most inclined to accept the desire of the court in Mexichem I to distinguish between the replacement of refrigerants with HFCs, still subject to a ban under the court’s decision, and the replacement of HFCs by other chemicals, now barred by the court’s ruling. The two judges pressed both sides on whether EPA has the discretion to ignore that distinction in the ruling by issuing a guidance.
Tatel questioned attorney Keith Bradley, representing intervenors Arkema and Mexichem, on why it is so hard for EPA to treat the 2015 rule as severable. “What is the confusion?” asked Tatel. He pointed to “many cases” suggesting that EPA cannot simply stop enforcing a rule that is still legally valid, if only in part.
Srinivasan said that Bradley’s position relies on “enforcement discretion” that renders Mexichem irrelevant. “The upshot of your argument is that Mexichem doesn’t even matter.” EPA can simply act as though the 2015 rule “doesn’t exist,” said Srinivasan.
Rao appeared to support EPA’s argument that the guidance is not final agency action subject to the court’s review. She said language in the guidance “doesn’t have the sense that it is unequivocal,” and hence it is not certain that a regulated entity could be sure it could install an HFC, contravening the 2015 EPA rule. She suggested the guidance is “tentative” or “interlocutory.”
NRDC’s attorney Peter DeMarco said the “temporary” nature of the guidance “does not defeat the finality” of EPA’s decision.
Rao also pressed DeMarco on whether EPA could scrap the entire 2015 rule if it proceeds by notice-and-comment rulemaking.
DeMarco said that even in that instance, EPA could not “abdicate its enforcement responsibility entirely,” given the partial nature of the court’s ruling in Mexichem I.
DeMarco said in response to questioning from Tatel on EPA’s argument that the rule is not severable that EPA “is attempting to arrogate to itself the right to determine severability” when the court’s ruling in Mexichem I has already addressed that issue, finding that EPA must continue to enforce that part of the rule not vacated.
Previously, the D.C. Circuit April 5 ruled against environmentalists and manufacturers of lower- GWP refrigerants in a related case, known as Mexichem II, finding that a second Obama-era HFC rule from 2016 must be partially vacated to the extent that it is inconsistent with the first Mexichem ruling.
The court in a brief per curiam ruling said that, “We vacate the 2016 rule only to the extent it requires manufacturers to replace HFCs that were previously and lawfully installed as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances,” the ruling says. EPA’s 2016 rule changed the status of some HFC refrigerants in different end-uses to “unacceptable," preventing their use in certain situations.
This latest ruling from the D.C. Circuit could point toward a loss for Mexichem and EPA in the NRDC suit, because it appears to accept the premise that the Mexichem I ruling was limited in scope and did not address EPA’s rules as they apply to the “direct” replacement of older non-HFCs, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), with newer chemicals that are not HFCs.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-divided-merits-epa-guidance-scrapping-2015-hfc-rule
-
EPA to Consider Lowering Allowed Level of Glyphosate for Oats
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The EPA will take public comment on a petition to dramatically lower the allowable concentration of the weedkiller glyphosate on oats used in cereals and snack bars.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient found in Bayer AG’s Roundup, the most popular weedkiller in the world.
The agency released notice on May 3 and plans to post the official notice to the Federal Register on May 6 when a 60-day comment period will begin.
The notice stems from a Sept. 27, 2018, petition from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG), Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., Happy Family Organics, MegaFood, MOM’s Organic Market, National Co+op Grocers, Nature’s Path Foods Inc., One Degree Organic Foods USA Inc., and Stonyfield Farms Inc.
The companies are requesting that the EPA reduce the tolerance level for glyphosate by a factor of 300, as well as require glyphosate-containing pesticide labels to explicitly prohibit its pre-harvest use on oats.
Breakfast Cereal StudiesIn 2018 EWG released several reports that found glyphosate residue in dozens of popular breakfast cereals, snack bars, and instant oats from companies including General Mills Inc., Kellogg Company, and Quaker, owned by PepsiCo Inc.
In a second study EWG detected glyphosate in 26 of the 28 products tested.
According to EWG, glyphosate levels were within the current legal limit in each of the samples, but roughly three-fourths of the samples contained levels “higher than what EWG considers safe for human consumption.”
In a statement released at the time, Quaker said, “we proudly stand by the safety and quality of our Quaker products.”
“Quaker does not add glyphosate during any part of the milling process. Glyphosate is commonly used by farmers across the industry who apply it preharvest. Once the oats are transported to us, we put them through our rigorous process that thoroughly cleanses them (de-hulled, cleaned, roasted and flaked).”
All told, 10 food companies have joined EWG in asking the EPA to set the glyphosate tolerance level in oat-based products at 0.1 parts per million (ppm), down from the current tolerance level of 30 ppm.
Legal Cases UnfoldingIn addition to the cereal reports, glyphosate is currently at the center of a sprawling legal battle, involving thousands of cases where plaintiffs allege that using glyphosate caused their cancer.
So far, two high-profile court cases have been decided, with juries finding that Roundup did play a role in contributing to plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Earlier this week EPA released its interim registration review of glyphosate, finding that the chemical posed no risk to public health.
“EPA continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen,” the agency said April 30.
In a separate statement from Bayer, the company said it “firmly believes that the science supports the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides, which are some of the most thoroughly studied products of their kind, and is pleased that the regulators tasked with assessing this extensive body of science continue to reach favorable conclusions.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-to-consider-lowering-allowed-level-of-glyphosate-for-oats
-
Trump’s Bid to Expand Offshore Drilling Slows, Amid Legal and Political Struggles
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Last year, oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico made history when they pumped out a record 1.7 million barrels a day. But almost a century after oil drillers first descended on the Gulf, some are wondering how long America’s great offshore oil field can continue at such a pace, with analysts predicting Gulf production will plateau over the next few years and then decline.
Looking to the future, oil companies are pushing to expand their footprint into other U.S. waters, namely the southeast Atlantic coast, the Gulf Coast of Florida, and Alaska’s Arctic coastline. And with the industry-friendly President Donald Trump in the White House, this could be their last, best hope to do so.
Now, 16 months after the administration announced plans to expand lease sales for offshore drilling into all U.S. waters, a series of legal and political obstacles have emerged casting doubt whether Trump can pull it off. The Interior Department has already blown by the deadline to get a new five-year plan in place by their intended start date of July 1. And at a Senate hearing in March ,Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said he didn’t know when a final plan would be ready, commenting “We’re at the very beginning of our process.”
“It’s not clear to us what their next steps are going to be,” said Erik Milito, a vice president at the American Petroleum Institute, the oil sector’s largest lobbying organization. “It’s hard to read the tea leaves, but politics has played a big role.”
Along the Atlantic, Republicans and Democrats alike have united in their opposition to Trump’s plans to open up offshore drilling, fearful of oil spills and the effects on the steady flow of tourists to the their coastlines. After the Trump administration began the process of issuing permits for conducting seismic testing along the Atlantic coast, attorneys general from 10 states, including Republican Alan Wilson of South Carolina, joined environmentalists in suing to block them.
That has left the Trump administration in the sticky situation of fighting leaders of its own party in states it hopes to win over in the 2020 presidential election. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican and Trump ally, signed an executive order shortly after taking office in 2018 opposing offshore drilling there.
Bipartisanship, at last
“Every single East and West coast governor is opposed to drilling off the coast. said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at the environmental group Oceana. “The president has managed to unite Democrats and Republicans.”
Trump’s plan to open drilling in the Arctic is looking similarly unlikely. In March, a federal judge in Alaska ruled Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued an executive order overturning environmental protections put in place by former President Barack Obama shortly before leaving office .
“It’s problematic. We’re in litigation and hopefully the government appeals it,” Milito said. “It’s a question of executive power and the [U.S.] Supreme Court might be interested in that.”
For now, the oil industry will have to make do with the Gulf of Mexico, where current forecasts show production plateauing over the next few years before declining in the mid-2020s, said Imran Khan, an analyst with the research firms Wood Mackenzie.
Following the crash in oil prices in 2014, many oil companies pulled back on offshore exploration in the Gulf and around the world, focusing on lower-cost onshore fields such as the Permian Basin and North Dakota’s Bakken field.
Five years later Gulf, production is still holding steady, but that lack of exploration in recent years will mean a deficit of new wells coming online and flattening production in the years ahead. The question then will be whether it’s the beginning of the end or a momentary blip as oil companies again show interest in the Gulf.
“Exploration is picking back up, and we've had some big finds recently,” Khan said. “The Gulf of Mexico is not dead by any means.”
Leaving home
But when it comes to offshore drilling, much of the excitement is focused in South America, where the world’s biggest oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP and Royal Dutch Shell are spending heavily to buy acreage off Brazil’s coast. Exxon Mobil, meanwhile, has announced a series of discoveries off the coast of Guyana, forecasting those offshore oil field could produce 750,000 barrels a day by 2025.
At the same time Exxon has tried to sell off much of its holdings in the Gulf of Mexico, Khan said, raising the prospect of America’s largest oil company maintaining only a minimal presence in the country’s premier offshore oil field.
“We see a need to get some lease sales in place for Eastern Gulf and Atlantic,” said Milito, of the American Petroleum Institute. “Right now we’re producing peak volumes in the Gulf, but without new opportunities investment will shift overseas.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Trump-s-bid-to-expand-offshore-drilling-slows-13816786.php
-
Officials Face Risk As They Weigh Appeal On Ruling Reinstating Drilling Ban
May 3, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Top Trump administration officials are debating whether to appeal a precedential federal court ruling reinstating an Obama-era ban on offshore drilling in much of the Arctic and parts of the Atlantic, a decision that could carry major legal and political risks for the administration’s deregulatory agenda and its efforts to encourage fossil fuel development.
Sources say that officials in the Interior and Justice departments are debating whether to appeal the March 29 ruling in League of Conservation Voters, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al., by Judge Sharon Gleason of the federal court in Alaska.
While the decision focused relatively narrowly on Trump’s efforts to revoke Obama-era moratoria, sources said at the time that it could also set a precedent in pending litigation over Trump’s similar efforts to scale back the size of two national monuments that Obama designated in Utah.
The debate, which sources say will ultimately be settled by DOJ’s solicitor general (SG), is pitting officials who believe Gleason’s decision is solidly reasoned and unlikely to be overturned on appeal, thus creating a risk of a higher court precedent, against others who want to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary in a bid to advance the Trump’s administration’s “energy dominance” pledge.
Gleason’s order on motions for summary judgment held that the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act prohibited President Donald Trump from withdrawing offshore drilling moratoriums for certain OCS areas that had been imposed by President Barack Obama.
Trump revoked the moratoria in a 2017 executive order.
Gleason agreed with environmentalists that the law allows presidents to withdraw land from OCS activity, but not revoke prior withdrawals. “Congress appears to have expressed one concept -- withdrawal -- and excluded the converse -- revocation,” she wrote. She added that the “wording of President Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawals indicated that he intended for them to extend indefinitely, and therefore be revocable only by an act of Congress.”
She also acknowledged that the statute allows presidents to withdraw areas “from time to time,” which “renders the text ambiguous. On the one hand, the phrase could be interpreted simply to make clear the President’s authority to make withdrawals at any time and for discrete periods of time, as well as make withdrawals that extend indefinitely into the future unless and until revoked by Congress. On the other hand, the phrase could be interpreted more broadly to account to each President the authority to revoke or modify any prior withdrawal.”
Given that ambiguity, Gleason looked to the context of the statute to discern congressional intent and concluded that the act’s “structure promotes the view that [it] did not grant revocation authority to the President.” Gleason then vacated Trump’s executive order and reinstated the drilling ban for 120 million acres of Arctic Ocean and 3.8 million acres in the Atlantic.
The ruling is expected to create major hurdles for the Trump administration’s defense of its separate effort to significantly scale back the size of two national monuments in Utah because the 1906 Antiquities Act is also silent on whether a president can reduce or revoke protections imposed by a prior president. As such, the ruling marks another in a series of legal losses for the administration as it works to repeal Obama-era decisions.
Additionally, the ruling also underscores a political tension for the administration because the oil and gas sector has been keen to expand allowable offshore drilling areas beyond the western Gulf of Mexico, while coastal lawmakers of both parties have balked at DOI’s early plans to significantly expand drilling in the Atlantic and in the Gulf of Mexico near Florida.
5-Year Drilling Plan
In response to the ruling, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt on April 25 indefinitely suspended development of the administration’s five-year offshore oil and gas drilling plan. Gleason’s order means the Arctic and Atlantic areas subject to the Obama moratorium must now be removed from the plan. One informed source says pencils are down within the department and work on the plan has completely halted.
Bernhardt indicated in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that an appeal is likely. He said continuing to develop the plan -- in which a January 2018 draft massively expanded potential drilling areas -- does not appear to be “a very satisfactory and responsible use of resources” because, “By the time the court rules, that may be discombobulating to our plan. What if you guess wrong?”
But the informed source says that a decision on appealing the case has not yet been made and will be up to SG Noel Francisco. The administration has until May 31 to file an appeal.
DOI declined to comment about its decision-making process, but one former Obama DOI official says it is “absolutely normal” for the SG to get involved in whether to appeal an adverse decision for the administration. Typically, the losing trial attorney writes an appeals memo, and that goes to the SG’s office for a review, the source explains.
Environmentalists familiar with the case say they would be surprised if the government does not appeal -- noting that even if DOI does not, intervenor Alaska and the American Petroleum Institute could still seek review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
But they also stress the strength of the judge’s ruling, arguing it would be upheld.
One source says Gleason’s holding is a neutral decision regarding separation of powers, and is not inherently pro-environmental. A second environmentalist says if DOI does appeal, it is likely to focus on the language the judge held is “ambiguous” in hopes that it can “get a judge to think it is ambiguous in the other direction.”
Also, the 9th Circuit likely is not be the friendliest venue to argue that vast swaths of ocean should be open for oil and gas drilling, but another source says that even the Supreme Court would likely uphold the district court’s interpretation, given the text of the statute at issue.
Politically, there has been strong opposition by Atlantic Coast states to offshore drilling, with many of those states -- especially Florida -- key to Trump’s re-election next year. Florida’s two GOP senators are vehemently opposed to opening any of the state’s coastal waters to energy development and have suggested they want to extend an existing statutory ban on drilling in the eastern Gulf near the Sunshine State beyond its expiration in 2022.
Even in conservative South Carolina, some Republican state lawmakers are seeking to move legislation to bar drilling off the state’s coast.
Further, this ruling is just one of a slew of court losses the administration is facing on energy and environmental issues, and thus is likely to have to prioritize the cases it will appeal.
Administration Priorities
For example, DOI faces a similar debate over whether to appeal an April 19 ruling holding that it violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued reinstated coal leasing on federal lands without considering the environmental consequences.
The court rejected DOI’s reasoning and reactivated the Obama administration’s coal lease moratorium.
One prominent conservative, Myron Ebell of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and leader of the Trump EPA transition team, said last month that the leasing issue might not be critical enough to spend finite resources on when the administration should be focusing on higher-priority items such as EPA’s effort to scale back greenhouse gas rules for vehicles and power plants.
As far as how the offshore drilling case fits into the administration’s priorities, the second environmentalist says Gleason’s ruling is “a really solid legal opinion, so if it were my resources I would probably walk away. But this administration has not shown any indication of doing the thing that is most conservative regarding preserving resources and making good fiscal decisions.”
If the administration does not seek appeal, its five-year offshore plan would be significantly curtailed and DOI could be seen as walking away from a key plank of the administration’s energy dominance agenda.
The former Obama DOI official notes that the SG historically does not generally consider “politics as much as the likelihood of success on the legal merits -- but that may have changed in this administration.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/officials-face-risk-they-weigh-appeal-ruling-reinstating-drilling-ban
-
North Dakota Courting Petrochemical Industry with Tax Breaks
May 5, 2019 | AP
By Amy Dalrymple
North Dakota is courting the petrochemical industry with a new tax incentive aimed at adding value to the state’s abundant natural gas supply.
A bill approved in the recent legislative session adds a sales tax exemption for certain natural gas processing facilities.
The goal is to produce a supply of ethane, propane and other products that could attract a plastics manufacturing plant to North Dakota.
“The jobs that this could create and the revenue it would generate is unbelievable potential,” said Sen. Dwight Cook, R-Mandan, a co-sponsor of the legislation.
North Dakota produces between 25,000 and 50,000 barrels per day of ethane at natural gas processing plants in Tioga and near Williston, said Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. The ethane is shipped by pipeline to Alberta, Canada, for plastics manufacturing, he told the Bismarck Tribune.
The Department of Commerce has been working to attract a petrochemical plant to North Dakota to create a new industry and take advantage of growing natural gas volumes, said Shawn Kessel, deputy commerce commissioner.
The state produced 2.6 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas in February, with about 20 percent burned off or flared due to inadequate processing capacity and other infrastructure.
“Some companies are having to reduce the amount of oil that they’re producing so they don’t exceed flaring regulations,” Kessel said. “If we can find a company that can then utilize this gas and create a value-added product out of it, we win on multiple levels.”
Natural gas that is produced along with Bakken oil is considered to be rich gas, which means it has a high concentration of natural gas liquids.
The new sales tax exemption approved by lawmakers aims to encourage further processing of the gas to produce ethane, propane, butane and lighter gases.
The incentive applies to so-called straddle plants, or processing plants located on or near a natural gas transmission line. The plant removes excess natural gas liquids from the processed natural gas in the pipeline.
The tax exemption also applies to a facility known as a deep cut fractionator that processes the natural gas liquids to produce ethane, propane, butane and other products. To qualify, the facility must produce at least 45,000 barrels per day of ethane.
North Dakota already had a sales tax exemption for a petrochemical plant, but it has never been used.
Sen. Jessica Unruh, R-Beulah, who advocated for the bill during the legislative session, said the state doesn’t have enough infrastructure to process, transport and store products that could be used for plastics manufacturing.
“It’s a big gap and a big obstacle to convincing petrochemical companies to locate here in the center of the United States,” Unruh said during a Senate floor session.
The sales tax exemption also applies to certain natural gas liquids pipelines, storage facilities, rail upgrades and roads developed in conjunction with a straddle plant or fractionator. The bill also extended the sales exemption for fertilizer and chemical processing plants through 2023.
Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, was among House lawmakers who opposed the bill, calling it “corporate welfare” that picks winners and losers.
“I think it’s wrong to select industries to say ‘you don’t need to pay,’” Becker said during a House debate. “If their endeavor is going to in the end be profitable, they will do it without subsidies.”
https://www.apnews.com/6985aabfd71347a794a9c7e0a167c8d9
-
Venture Global's $8.5B Plaquemines LNG Project Gets Final Environmental Study
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Venture Global's $8.5 billion liquefied natural gas project in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana got a boost Friday as federal regulators issued a key environmental study needed to secure permitting for the project.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a final environmental impact statement for Virginia-based Venture Global' s 20-million-metric ton per a year Plaquemines LNG facility and its associated Gator Express Pipeline.
The 767-page study is a key permitting milestone that includes in-depth analyses of the project's impacts and will be used by federal agencies to decide whether to grant the Venture Global the necessary permits needed to construct one of three LNG projects it has proposed for the Gulf Coast.
The FEIS found the facility would trigger adverse environmental impacts, such as permanently removing more than 368 acres of wetlands and potentially harming the habits of nesting colonies of migratory birds. However the agency said the company could take steps to compensate for environmental impacts that could make those impacts less than significant. The project would also generate more than 8.2 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions per a year, according to the FEIS.
At full build out, the proposed LNG terminal would include four 200,000 cubic meter storage tanks, three LNG loading docks, six pretreatment facilities and a liquefaction plant with 18 refrigerant blocks. The project would also include two parallel 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipelines.
Venture Global has said the project would create 250 permanent jobs with $21 million annual payroll, according to the FEIS.
"We thank FERC for their timely issuance of the final EIS, which is an important regulatory milestone for our Plaquemines project. Plaquemines LNG has a binding 20-year offtake agreement with our partner PGNiG (a Polish state-owned oil and gas company) for 1 MTPA, and we are looking forward to announcing additional commercial milestones in the near-term," Co-CEOs Bob Pender and Mike Sabel said in a joint statement.
The company plans to make a final investment decision on the project this year and start operations in 2023.
Last month Venture Global kick-started permitting on a third LNG project for the Gulf Coast. The 20 million metric ton Delta LNG project would be built south of New Orleans on the Mississippi River.
"Delta LNG will allow us to accommodate additional customer demand beyond Plaquemines while replicating the industry-changing, low-cost approach taken by our Calcasieu Pass and Plaquemines projects. We are excited to be under construction and in development on a total of 50 MPTA of liquefaction capacity, to bring North American natural gas to the world," the company said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Venture-Global-gets-final-environmental-study-for-13817492.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
Tellurian Clears Another Big Hurdle for LNG Export Project
May 3, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Houston's Tellurian Inc. hit another important permitting milestone Thursday as the U.S. Department of Energy authorized it to sell liquefied natural gas exports to non-free trade agreement countries.
Permission to export to non-free trade agreement nations such as China, Japan and South Korea is vital for U.S. LNG export terminals because Asia represents a major growing source of demand for liquefied natural gas demand.
Tellurian Inc. said the energy department gave it the green light Thursday to export LNG from its Driftwood LNG terminal, a 27-million metric ton per a year project proposed outside of Lake Charles, Louisiana.
In a statement, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Tellurian can export up to 3.88 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to non-free trade countries.
"The United States is now in its third consecutive year as a net exporter of natural gas, now exporting domestic LNG to 35 countries. I applaud the American private sector for continuing to reach new milestones and look forward to continued growth in this sector," Perry said.
The Department of Energy authorization comes at the heels of another major permitting milestone Tellurian hit on April 18 when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorized construction of Tellurian's Driftwood terminal and associated 96-mile pipeline project.
Earlier this week Tellurian began booking capacity on two proposed pipeline projects that will support its Driftwood LNG terminal.
Tellurian expects to make a final investment decision Driftwood LNG and start construction this year. The terminal will start operations in 2023.
"The U.S. will become a top three LNG exporter and Tellurian intends to do our part in creating U.S. jobs while delivering a cleaner energy supply source to the world," said Tellurian's CEO Meg Gentle in a statement, while thanking federal officials for approving the project.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Tellurian-clears-another-big-hurdle-for-LNG-13814812.php?cmpid=ffrefining
-
NYC Pipeline Extension Gets Green Light
May 3, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Jeremy Dillon
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued the certificate for a major pipeline expansion that would move Pennsylvania natural gas for heating purposes to much of New York City.
On a concurring vote of three commissioners and a dissent in part by Democrat Richard Glick, FERC enabled the expansion of the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) pipeline network with a new build-out connecting Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York through the 47-mile Northeast Supply Enhancement project.
Transco estimates the cost of the project to be about $926.5 million.
Democratic Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur joined with her Republican colleagues to grant the certificate after the company behind the project provided supplemental greenhouse gas emission information about downstream impacts — a new development in pipeline greenhouse gas considerations.
FERC staff did not include that data in the underlying environmental impact statement. It did include data for direct greenhouse gas emissions from the project's construction and operation.
"I appreciate companies proactively submitting specific information into the record to assist the Commission in quantifying and considering the downstream indirect impacts on a proposed project," LaFleur said in her concurrence.
"As I have repeatedly said, I believe it is reasonably foreseeable that the gas being transported will be burned and that downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will result from burning that gas," she added.
In this instance, LaFleur noted the gas transmitted through the pipeline would go toward heating needs in New York City, replacing No. 2 fuel oil for some 8,000 customers and displacing about 900,000 barrels of oil per year, according to National Grid, the company distributing the gas.
National Grid estimated that the switch to natural gas could help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 200,000 tons in year one.
Glick represented the lone dissent in part, citing concerns about FERC not conducting the greenhouse gas analysis itself.
"Once again, the Commission refuses to consider the consequences its actions have for climate change," Glick said in his dissent.
But while FERC may have granted its authorizations, environmental groups are rallying in New Jersey in hopes of blocking the project through Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy and the state's water quality permitting process.
In an organized protest yesterday, environmental groups delivered 10,000 signed petition letters in opposition to the project to New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection.
"This project cannot meet the [Clean Water Act Section] 401 Water Quality Certificate standards and the whole project must be denied," Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said in a statement. "With this project, Transco makes the money, Long Island gets the gas, and we get stuck with a pipeline and pollution for the compressor station."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/03/stories/1060268887
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cancer and Chemicals in Reserve, Louisiana: The Science Explained
May 6, 2019 | The Guardian
By Jamiles Lartey and Oliver Laughland
St John the Baptist parish sits about 20 miles from New Orleans in southern Louisiana. Home to about 45,000 people, this predominantly black parish contains the US neighborhoods most at risk of cancer due to air toxicity, according to government science. The parish sits at the heart of a region sometimes described as “Cancer Alley” because of the pollution from a high concentration of petrochemical plants.
Throughout the year, the Guardian will be reporting from St John and other places nearby. Here’s a rundown of the common questions on the science behind the health hazards in this corner of Louisiana.What’s in the air in St John the Baptist parish?
There are nearly 50 toxic chemicals in the air here, including known carcinogens like benzene, 1,3 butadiene and formaldehyde. But according America’s environmental regulatory agency, the EPA, the two most pressing concerns for residents in St John the Baptist are chloroprene and ethylene oxide [EtO].
The chloroprene comes from the Pontchartrain Works facility, which straddles the towns of LaPlace and Reserve in St John the Baptist. The plant was built by chemicals company DuPont and sold to the Japanese firm Denka in 2015. According to EPA data, the facility presents the greatest risk of cancer from air pollution of any factory in the US.
In the area closest to the factory, residents face a cancer risk of 50 times the national average – primarily due to chloroprene, but also EtO, which is emitted by several nearby facilities.
The agency has been monitoring chloroprene levels in St John since 2016. According to the EPA, the safest limit for chloroprene is 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). But readings throughout Reserve and LaPlace far exceed this on a regular basis.What is chloroprene and where does it come from?
Chloroprene is the primary ingredient in the production of neoprene, a synthetic rubber developed by the DuPont company in 1931. Neoprene is used in a wide variety of products from electrical insulation, belts, and gaskets, to consumer athletic and aquatic products, like wetsuits.
From 1948 t0 2008, DuPont produced the majority of its neoprene at a facility in Louisville, Kentucky. But DuPont shuttered the facility in 2008 after concerns over toxic pollution pushed the city to adopt a “toxic air reduction” Program.
When that plant closed, DuPont’s facility in St John the Baptist became the sole producer of chloroprene and neoprene in the US. In 2015, the plant was sold to the Japanese company Denka Performance Elastomers. DuPont still owns the land beneath the plant, and other facilities on the site.What is ethylene oxide (EtO) and where does it come from?
Ethylene oxide emissions are much more common than chloroprene in the US. The chemical is produced by nine different companies at 15 different facilities in the US, mostly in Texas and Louisiana.
EtO is used in the production of many plastics, household cleaners, adhesives, and detergents. It is also sometimes used directly for the sterilization of medical equipment.
In 2016, the Union Carbide facility in Hahnville, Louisiana was the No 2 emitter of EtO in the US. It sits just across the river from Reserve.
How serious a cancer risk does chloroprene present, and how do we know?
It’s substantial. The National Toxicology Program has described chloroprene as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” based on the observation of tumor formation at multiple sites in animal studies.
Quantifying those risks in humans, however, is complex, because it involves calculating the impact of exposure to relatively small amounts of the chemical over long periods of time. Currently, the most comprehensive research comes from an EPA program called the Integrated Risk Information System, or Iris.
Iris uses a peer-reviewed method that pulls together the best studies that exist on an individual chemical, and converts them into a numerical estimation of the risks of exposure over a lifespan. According to the “weight of the evidence” reviewed by Iris chloroprene is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”.What about EtO and cancer?
Ethylene oxide is characterized as “carcinogenic to humans” by the EPA, based on evidence of lymphomas and breast cancer in workers exposed to EtO, along with tumors discovered in laboratory tests on animals. EtO was subject to the same peer-reviewed Iris process as chloroprene in 2016.Are there risks from these chemicals besides cancer?
Aside from cancer, studies have found that chloroprene exposure can cause irritation to the skin, lungs and eyes; chest pains, rapid and irregular heartbeat, dizziness, insomnia, headache, and fatigue; and changes in the nervous and cardiovascular systems.
Ethylene oxide exposure has been linked to eye and upper respiratory tract irritation, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, malaise, fatigue, muscle weakness, and signs and symptoms of peripheral neuropathy. Other effects noted in some studies include dry mouth, sore throat, runny nose, shortness of breath, apnea, memory loss, and seizures.What do the manufacturers say?
In a statement to the Guardian, Denka said that the health and safety of residents and employees were “the company’s top priorities” and said it operates the facility in Saint John the Baptist within all state permits.
But the company has repeatedly criticised the EPA’s 0.2 μg/m3 guidance. Denka instead touts the conclusions of a toxicological assessment it commissioned itself, which found that the safe amount of chloroprene in the air should be 156 times greater than what the EPA has determined.
But Denka doesn’t have many options besides to dispute the science. Company officials acknowledged that the EPA’s safe air quality levels are “technologically impossible to achieve,” and that the current Iris calculations “threaten the very survival of [Denka’s] neoprene production facility,” in a 2017 letter to the EPA.
Denka also highlights the fact that it entered a voluntary agreement with the state of Louisiana to reduce emissions in 2016 after EPA data was first revealed demonstrating the risks from chloroprene.
“Despite disagreement with the report’s suggestions … DPE voluntarily designed and committed to a plan to significantly reduce its emissions beyond the emissions control technology already in place at the plant … at a total cost of over $35m,” Denka spokeperson Jim Harris said.
The industry response to the EPA’s evaluation of ethylene oxide has been similar. The American Chemical Council, a powerful lobbying group for the chemical industry, calls the EPA’s risk value for EtO “significantly flawed” due to “selective science”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/06/cancertown-chemicals-reserve-louisiana-science
-
Experts Assess Damage After First Cyberattack on U.S. Grid
May 6, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Last week, the U.S. power sector marked a sober milestone: an anonymous Western utility became the first to report a malicious "cyber event" that disrupted grid operations.
The hack itself occurred two months ago, on March 5, when a "denial-of-service" attack disabled Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance devices ringing power grid control systems in Utah, Wyoming and California, according to multiple sources and a vague summary of a Department of Energy filing.
There were no blackouts, no harm to power generation and evidently very little effect on the Western transmission grid, according to multiple sources and officials. The most direct impact was likely a temporary loss of visibility to certain parts of the utility's supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, though all major transmission operators in the regions affected denied having been hit by the denial-of-service attack.
The "cyber event that causes interruptions of electrical system operations," as the attack was categorized in the jargon of DOE electric disturbance forms, made waves in critical infrastructure security circles as a first-of-its-kind case study.
No U.S. electrical utility is known to have experienced any disruptive cyberattack in the past, a surprising fact given that utilities routinely find themselves in the crosshairs of the world's most sophisticated hackers and can face millions of more run-of-the-mill hacking attempts every day (Energywire, July 20, 2018).
Fears that a bona fide cyberattack would be blown out of proportion among the general public have fueled a culture of secrecy around anything filed under "cyber" in the electricity sector.
At the most recent GridEx security exercise in 2017, utilities practiced how word would get out about a blitz of simulated cyber and physical attacks. The exercise modeled how misinformation about the incident could spread quickly over social media.
"The grid runs everything. Forget how robust it is. How many other critical infrastructure sectors rely on electricity?" said John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at cybersecurity firm FireEye Inc.
"It's the best way to cause cascading effects across society — the public knows that. They don't know anything about how hard that would be."
Utility executives have pointed to the bulk power grid's complexity — the United States really has three separate "interconnections" linked up to thousands of utilities — as contributing to its defense against new hacking threats. Large power companies practice what it would take to run the grid in "manual mode" if hackers succeeded in blinding operations centers or hijacking digitized equipment, according to Scott Aaronson, vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute, in congressional testimony this February.
"Our companies take a 'defense-in-depth' approach with several layers of security strategies, which are designed to eliminate single points of failure," he said, less than one week before the anonymous Western grid operator was hit by the denial of service.'That's scary'
U.S. grid operators picked up on the importance of manual backstops in the wake of a December 2015 cyberattack on Ukraine's power grid. In that event, hackers briefly knocked out power to customers of three distribution utilities in western Ukraine for several hours — the first time a cyberattack is known to have caused a blackout anywhere in the world.
The three utilities targeted by the attack — Prykarpattyaoblenergo, Kyivoblenergo and Chernivtsioblenergo — were able to bring the lights back on quickly by sending workers to flip high-voltage circuit breakers by hand.
In the Ukraine hack, the utilities not only lost their visibility but also ceded control of their networks to remote attackers later linked to Russia. The hackers knew whom they were hitting and paired their grid hijacking with a flood of telephone calls to overwhelm the utilities' phone networks and hamper restoration.
The more recent "denial of service" on U.S. Cisco equipment isn't known to have involved any hostile takeover of operational networks. It's possible the hacker or hackers in that case didn't even realize they were interfering with power grid equipment, sources said, perhaps having found the Cisco firewalls exposed online via specialized internet search tools.
While the incident marked a first in the annals of DOE grid cyber events, loss of view into utilities' control systems is a frequent hazard, whether from power outages or communications glitches.
The danger "depends on how much SCADA visibility is lost," noted Patrick Miller, managing partner at Archer Energy Solutions. "The system is more like an ecosystem where you can infer what is happening in one area by the way another reacts."
DOE electric disturbance reports are littered with reports of "complete loss of monitoring or control capability" at utility control centers, the vast majority of which never led to any power outages.
It's not even clear the March 5 event led to a complete loss of visibility during its 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. duration. As Miller pointed out, many utilities maintain alternative means of control system communications in case of emergency.
The Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are both restructuring rules for utilities to report grid cyberattacks to regulators. FERC commissioners, frustrated by years of radio silence from utilities despite a stream of warnings about growing cyberthreats, moved last year to broaden the definition of what constitutes a reportable incident.
The March 5 event is listed publicly because it cleared a certain bar of severity, said Sam Feinburg, executive director of Helena, which is working on a "Shield Project" to boost U.S. grid defenses. "There are undoubtedly many more such events that don't breach that bar and therefore don't become public knowledge."
Feinburg said such events, even when carried out by unsophisticated hackers, don't get enough attention.
"[Grid] infrastructure is getting more complicated, and because of that, it's getting harder and harder to defend each part of it," he said. "The ability to conduct these attacks is only being distributed across a wider and wider set of folks."
"It does not take a sophisticated attacker to deal damage to critical electrical infrastructure, and that's scary," Feinburg said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/06/stories/1060281821
-
Site-Specific Scenarios in EPA Guidance to Smooth Air Permitting
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
State and federal permit writers have new EPA guidance intended to help determine whether industrial air pollution is causing downwind violations of standards for ozone and fine particulate matter.
The Environmental Protection Agency guidance, posted May 2, relies on existing modeling to assess the relationship between industrial emissions and downwind impacts.
It considers site-specific conditions for estimating these emissions and their impacts as called for under the agency’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting program. The goal of that program is to ensure that emissions increases resulting from expansion or construction of industrial facilities are limited.
The guidance lays out various scenarios for modeling emissions rates for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, and volatile organic compounds and their downwind impacts, which can inform Clean Air Act permitting decisions.
This guidance builds on direction EPA provided in December 2016 to agencies on what air quality models to use in making these pollution estimates.
State agencies may welcome the guidance if it offers a streamlined permitting process that was missing earlier, Miles Keogh, executive director for the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, an organization for state air regulators, told Bloomberg Environment May 3.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/site-specific-scenarios-in-epa-guidance-to-smooth-air-permitting
-
Inslee Floats Detailed Plan For Deep GHG Cuts In Power, Transport, Buildings
May 3, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) is floating a broad and ambitious climate change platform that has the most detail from any 2020 presidential contender to date, touting an array of goals and policy proposals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, vehicles and buildings.
Inslee's plan, released May 3, offers a fresh indicator of the importance Democratic voters are placing on climate policy, regardless of whether candidates that lead with the topic in early campaigning gain traction in the primary to determine who will take on President Donald Trump in 2020.
He is also pledging to release more detail in the coming weeks on GHG plans, including for agriculture and various industrial sectors, seeking to cement his status as the most climate-focused candidate in the race and underscoring his decade-long record championing the issue in Congress and his nearly two terms as Washington's governor.
“It is time to build our grid, modernize our auto industry and and invest in clean buildings to rise to the climate challenge and succeed in the coming global energy economy,” Inslee says in the document, which lays out a raft of proposals that would take a mix of executive action and new legislation to implement.
The plan comes just days after one of his primary rivals, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX), outlined his own climate change platform with similarly ambitious GHG targets for 2030 and 2050.
Inslee said he welcomes O'Rourke's focus on the issue, but told the Washington Post that his own plan has “much more specificity. It is much more robust. It is much more comprehensive. And I'll get it done.”
His is dubbing his approach the “100 Percent Clean Energy for America Plan,” outlining several goals to achieve by 2030: 100 percent “zero emissions” from new light- and medium-duty vehicles and all buses; 100 percent “zero carbon pollution” from new commercial and residential buildings; and 100 percent “carbon-neutral power” by 2030.
The strategy echoes Inslee's recent legislative package that has been largely adopted this session in the Washington legislature, following several high-profile defeats in the state of cap-and-trade or carbon tax plans. Like the state effort, Inslee's presidential climate platform largely skirts the issue of carbon pricing.
The power sector's GHG cuts would be driven in part by a Clean Energy Standard (CES) that would require 100 percent “carbon neutral” power by 2030 -- which appears to account for some emissions that would be offset from activities such as land or forest sequestration -- and a separate 2035 target for all “clean, renewable and zero-emission” electricity generation.
The electricity sector plan also envisions retirement by 2030 of the “increasingly uneconomic” domestic coal fleet, while guaranteeing support for worker and community transition -- going beyond more generic calls for clean power that are common in many campaign documents.
Some critics might question whether Inslee's pledge to retire coal plants would preclude using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology as part of the mix of strategies to reduce emissions, but the document is silent on CCS as well as specific technologies that meet its definitions of “clean” power, which could leave the door open to use of CCS including for natural gas-fired power.
Beyond a CES, the plan calls for refundable tax incentives for renewables, energy storage, and other technologies; and use of federal lands to deploy renewable power and transmission.
Vehicles & Buildings
Inslee's plan also gets detailed with respect to vehicle GHGs, calling for a “new standard for clean cars” that would require “robust annual improvements” in vehicle emissions.
The plan would require 100 percent of new light- and medium-duty vehicle sales in 2030 to be zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs), coupled with a bid to garner labor's backing through a promise that the plan will ensure ZEVs are “made in the U.S.A by union workers” and that they are “affordable for working families.”
Other vehicle policies include a Clean Fuels Standard to promote “electric and other low-carbon alternative fuels”; a new “Clean Cars for Clunkers” consumer rebate program; expansion of of business and consumer tax credits for ZEVs; new federal investments to support ZEV manufacturing; and partnering with state and local governments on a “massive investment” in vehicle charging infrastructure.
With respect to energy used to heat and cool buildings, Inslee's plan calls for boosting energy efficiency and taking advantage of clean power to electrify buildings. It calls for a national “zero carbon building standard” by 2023, in tandem with cooperation with states and cities to integrate the standard into state and local building codes.
Other promised policies for this sector include directing federal agencies in 2021 to accelerate appliance energy efficiency standards and to promote “zero emissions” appliances; new tax incentives for energy efficiency and electrification in new construction; and policies to boost private investments that include Real Estate Investment Trusts and linking energy and climate pollution standards to federally funded construction.
Climate Change Focus
With both Inslee and O'Rourke polling in the low single digits, their plans' main short-term importance may be as an indicator of interest in climate change among Democratic voters, as well as a potential pressure point on higher-profile Democratic contenders to take stronger positions on the issue.
The plans thus begin to illuminate specific policies that could be debated in a post-2020 climate agenda, should Democrats re-take the White House and potentially the Senate.
Elements of Inslee's plan -- including its ZEV language and ambitious clean energy goals -- also underscore changes in both the power and vehicle sectors that are increasing availability of cost-competitive technologies as well as helping to spur both state and global actions.
In this vein, the plan notes that “our economic competitors in China, India and Europe are setting clear targets to move to 100 percent electric and zero emissions vehicles.”
The League of Conservation Voters in a May 3 statement says Inslee “set a high bar when he launched his presidential campaign with a central focus on climate action, and he is continuing to demonstrate important leadership with this strong proposal.”
The group adds that his plan “is the kind of bold vision we need to tackle the climate crisis. . . . Any candidate who is serious about becoming our next president must put forward a plan for clean energy and climate action that is commensurate with the scale of the challenge that we face.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/inslee-floats-detailed-plan-deep-ghg-cuts-power-transport-buildings
-
Climate Change Emerges as Leading Issue for 2020 Dems
May 5, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Democratic presidential hopefuls are battling to be seen as the climate change candidate.
Four 2020 White House contenders already have offered detailed policy plans on how they'd tackle the issue of global warming, a sign the environment has become a top issue in the Democratic primary.
In the past week, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) and former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D) each released proposals to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Last month, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and Cory Booker(D-N.J.) introduced, respectively, a public lands and environmental justice proposal, with each addressing curbing emissions.ADVERTISEMENT
The plans allow the candidates to pit themselves directly against the Trump administration, which has moved to pull the U.S. from the landmark Paris climate agreement and has rolled back a number of environmental regulations that affect air pollution.
The proposals could help the candidates get an edge on the competition in the crowded primary. A CNN poll released Tuesday found that combating climate change is the No. 1 issue of concern for Democratic voters, beating out health care, gun control and action on college admissions.
“The greatest threat we face — which will test our country, our democracy, every single one of us — is climate change,” O’Rourke said in a statement when rolling out his plan.
“The Trump administration has gutted the [Environmental Protection Agency], rolled back clean air and clean water protections, and allowed polluters to go unchecked, causing immense harm and suffering by vulnerable communities," Booker said when announcing his.ADVERTISEMENT
Environmental groups see the rollout of the various climate proposals as proof that Democratic contenders are both taking global warming seriously — and realizing voters do, too.
“I think we’re seeing these proposals coming because it’s clear that Americans want leaders who will stand up to the fossil fuel industry that created this climate crisis,” said Charlie Jiang, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace.
“I think all the candidates we’re seeing in the field recognize that climate action and climate justice are top of mind for Americans in 2020.”
May Boeve, executive director of 350 Action, said the growing support for climate action also means candidates are no longer distinguishing themselves by simply believing in climate change, but by developing policies to fix it.
“Voters are making clear that climate change is a top priority issue in this presidential election, and we will support the boldest vision to transform our economy, and stop climate-wrecking fossil fuel projects,” Boeve said in a statement.
“We look forward to seeing the candidates debate their climate plans, strengthen them, and help build a sustainable vision for our future.”
All four candidates have also said they back the concept of the Green New Deal, an ambitious energy plan introduced in the House in February by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) that would transition the U.S. electric grid to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. Every Democratic White House candidate in the Senate, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have signed on as cosponsors.
Only O’Rourke and Inslee’s climate plans so far address the overall question of how to stop U.S. carbon emissions. Each proposal focuses on a duel purpose of moving the country off fossil fuels and investing in green jobs to grow the economy.
Inslee’s plan is similar to the Green New Deal in that it aims to completely transition to clean energy by 2030. But the governor also leaves open the door to using nuclear power, an energy sector to which some environmental groups are staunchly opposed.
O’Rourke’s plan, meanwhile, has generated criticism for not setting a shorter timeline to achieve emissions reductions. His proposal would invest $5 trillion to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
The Sunrise Movement, a youth action group that backs the Green New Deal, initially knocked that plan for not going far enough. Ocasio-Cortez told The Hill that it should be "more aggressive."
The Sunrise Movement later walked back the remarks, saying they came out "too hot" and support the direction of O'Rourke's plan, even if they want to see more. O'Rourke later committed to the group that he would not take campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry
The Sunrise Movement on Friday embraced Inslee’s climate plan, calling it a "spirited commitment to bold climate action that young people are looking for in our next president."
Inslee is the only Democratic candidate running his campaign entirely on climate action. Yet his relatively low name recognition as a Western state governor means he faces an uphill battle in the polls. While a focus on the leading issue of climate may work in his favor, he's not the only candidate looking for a green boost.
Inslee argues his plan is very achievable, and that his focus on climate change is more than a flash in the pan — a jab at his Democratic rivals.
“It is a plan that has shown a visceral commitment to [climate action]. Not just in the past 72 hours, but the past decade,” Inslee told The Hill in an interview.
“I’m the first and only candidate that announced this will be job No. 1,” Inslee said.
“It is the first priority, and the top priority, and my foremost obligation. It can’t be something you just do the first day. You have to do it everyday.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/442077-climate-change-emerges-as-leading-issue-for-2020-dems
-
Beto O'Rourke Defends Climate Record, Hedges on Fracking
May 6, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke defended attacks on his climate plan at a campaign stop here Friday and suggested he doesn't want a national fracking ban like other members of his party.
Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd at an outdoor bar, O'Rourke said he wants to recommit the U.S. to the Paris accord on climate change, comply with an international agreement to reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons, end fossil fuel leasing on public lands and revamp federal contracting to minimize its impact on climate change.
"All of that can happen on day one," O'Rourke said in response to an audience question. He has called for $5 trillion in spending and tax incentives over 10 years to combat climate change.
The former El Paso lawmaker has taken heat from progressives who said his plan for reducing net emissions of greenhouse gases to zero by 2050 was not aggressive enough, and should instead target 2030 (E&E Daily, May 2). Asked about that by E&E News, O'Rourke said, "No one's put out a comprehensive plan yet except our campaign."
"2050 net zero greenhouse gas emissions and getting halfway there by 2030 is as ambitious a program as we could devise," he said, adding it will require a "whole economy" approach involving transportation, buildings, farming, federal land use and pricing carbon. He'd stop new leasing on federal land for fossil fuel development and adjust existing leases, along with federal contracts for vehicles and building materials, to account for their climate impact, he said.
"It will require a herculean effort on the part of the U.S. in every sector of our economy," O'Rourke said.
O'Rourke recently pledged to stop accepting campaign contributions from fossil fuel company executives. That's on top of his long-standing refusal to take funds from political action committees (E&E Daily, May 2).
Speaking to reporters, he said he changed after learning the pledge covered donations above $200 from executives, leaving him free to accept contributions from rank-and-file energy workers.
He said he originally thought "what more do you want us to do?" when he heard about the pledge, considering his earlier vow not to accept PAC money, but was convinced after talking to youth activists who've promoted the idea.
On hydraulic fracturing, he differentiated himself from Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who have called for a national ban. He reiterated that there shouldn't be more leases on federal land for fracking, but stopped short of endorsing a ban on fracking on private land. Instead, he said local governments, landowners, farmers and ranchers should have more say in oil and gas regulation.
Similarly, O'Rourke mentioned oil and gas workers when asked about disagreements in the Democratic Party about fossil fuel contributions and greenhouse gas emission targets.
"I tried to be really clear that you aren't going to get this done, whether that's securing the nomination, winning the general election or bringing the country together, by alienating people or writing people off," he said. "Those who work in the oil and gas industry are a really important part of everything we're up against right now; I want to include them in that fight."
The setting was symbolic for O'Rourke, a former congressman who gained national recognition last year when he almost unseated Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Fort Worth is the seat of Tarrant County, which is the most Republican-leaning urban county in Texas. O'Rourke carried Tarrant in the Senate race, something no Democrat has done in more than 20 years.
When asked about the presidential run of former Vice President Joe Biden in 2020, O'Rourke said his home state is in play, and "I think I've got an advantage being a lifelong Texan."
He also said it'll be important for Democrats to unite behind the party's ultimate nominee, and acknowledged that the next president will need to work with Congress to combat climate change. The White House has some authority to set environmental regulations, but it can be blocked in court.
"Yes, I think the president can do it," he said. "It's even better if the people of this country can act through their representatives in Congress and do that, as well."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/06/stories/1060281483
-
Virginia’s Bid to Join Carbon Emissions Trading Pact Blocked (1)
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Virginia won’t participate in the Northeastern carbon dioxide emissions cap-and-trade initiative anytime soon after all.
Gov. Ralph Northam (D) signed a state budget plan May 2 without vetoing a provision that blocks the Commonwealth from joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state emissions trading program for power plants. Virginia would have been the second-largest state by carbon dioxide emissions in the program, behind New York.
Northam has previously vetoed lawmakers’ attempts to undercut Virginia’s participation in the regional pact.
Alena Yarmosky, the governor’s press secretary, told Bloomberg Law May 3 that Northam wanted to avoid “costly, drawn-out litigation.”
“The speedier remedy for these out-of-touch provisions is the election of Democratic majorities in November,” according to Yarmosky. “This language will not restrict the governor’s budget development this fall and these measures will be addressed in his introduced budget later this year,” she said.
Nate Benforado, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville, Va., told Bloomberg Law that there are different legal standards regarding veto authority over budget items linked to appropriations.
“While we understand there is some legal uncertainty, we believe there were good arguments as to why the Governor could veto this provision and are disappointed he did not even try,” Benforado said May 3.
Recent RulemakingVirginia regulators had just recently approved a plan to cap power plants’ carbon emissions and prepare the Commonwealth to join the regional pact.
Two years in the works, it would set 28 million tons as the base level of annual emissions in 2020. Power companies would then be required to lower emissions or purchase credits from other companies until the cap decreases each year, until it reaches 19.6 million tons.
In a May 2 statement, Northam said that, although lawmakers have blocked participation in the pact, “I am directing the Department of Environmental Quality to identify ways to implement the regulation and achieve our pollution reduction goals.”
The move drew the ire of environmental groups, who said the effort was important to combat the growing threats posed by climate change.
“The Governor’s inaction has set Virginia back in our collective, urgent endeavor to mitigate climate change, which disproportionately impacts Virginia’s communities of color and low-income communities,” Brennan Gilmore, Clean Virginia’s executive director, said in comments sent to Bloomberg Law May 3.
“If we are ever going to make progress on climate change, we need to start now,” SELC’s Benforado told Bloomberg Law.
“Elected officials across Virginia must come together on climate solutions,” according to Benforado. “The health of our citizens and the future of the next generation are not partisan issues,” he said.
Rayhan Daudani, a spokesman for Dominion Energy, told Bloomberg Environment that the utility has taken steps to move toward “a low carbon future,” cutting such emissions by 52 percent from its power plants since 2005.
“We will comply with the greenhouse gas rules the state adopts,” according to Daudani. However, he said that the company doesn’t think that joining the regional trading effort is the cheapest or most effective way for Virginia to meet its carbon reduction goals, nor will it promote the development of clean energy resources in the Commonwealth.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/virginias-bid-to-join-carbon-emissions-trading-pact-blocked
-
Cap and Trade Fails in Va. Now What?
May 6, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
It was supposed to be a crowning moment for cap and trade. Instead, it became the biggest setback for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative since 2012, when then-Gov. Chris Christie (R) pulled New Jersey from the nine-state cap-and-trade program.
Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam's decision last week to accept budget language barring his state from joining RGGI, as the program is commonly known, reflects the deep partisan contours on climate change.
A bill offered by Republicans to keep Virginia out of RGGI passed the General Assembly earlier this year on a party-line vote. When Northam vetoed that legislation, House Republicans inserted a rider into the budget preventing any expenditures related to the program. Northam, who made RGGI membership a priority of his tenure, ultimately decided he could not strike the language without rejecting the entire budget (Climatewire, May 3).
"This is a reflection of Republican antagonism to doing anything about climate change. We have Republicans attacking their own favorite regulatory regime," said Bill Shobe, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Virginia, noting that cap and trade was first adopted by President George H.W. Bush to combat acid rain. "The problem is it got applied to climate and the Republican mantra [is] to not do anything."
RGGI regulates carbon emissions from power plants. In joining the program, Virginia would have agreed to cap its power-sector emissions at 28 million tons in 2020. Emissions would then fall 30% over the next decade.
Former Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) issued an executive order in 2017 directing state regulators to design a rule that paved the way for Virginia to join RGGI. The effort continued under Northam. In a vote last month, the state Air Pollution Control Board approved a rule to join the program (Climatewire, April 22).
The effort had long been a bright spot for climate hawks dismayed over President Trump's dismantling of federal climate initiatives. Liberal states, struggling to fulfill their pledges to counteract Trump on climate, could point to Virginia and New Jersey, which were both moving ahead with plans to join RGGI.
Virginia was ripe with symbolism. The commonwealth is a big Southern state, home to a once-mighty coal industry. Its fleet of large, new natural gas-fired plants also offered a test of RGGI's carbon-cutting ability.
"Having Virginia in the program would have been a nice feather and could have shown whether it could continue to deliver in a state with a lot of new gas," said Karen Palmer, director of the Future of Power Initiative at Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
The script on state climate policy flipped in November. Democrats took complete control of state legislatures in Colorado, New Mexico and New York, and added to their slim majority in Washington state. Ambitious climate legislation followed. New Mexico and Washington have since passed bills to decarbonize their power sectors. On Friday, Colorado lawmakers passed bills to place greenhouse gas reduction goals in law and to codify the carbon-cutting targets of its largest utility, Xcel Energy Inc.
But where Democrats took control in those states, they fell just short in Virginia. In 2017, control of the state House came down to one tied race. State elections officials ultimately picked the name of Republican Rep. David Yancey from a bowl to break the deadlock, handing the GOP control of the House.
Another difference: Where large utilities in New Mexico and Washington supported Democrats' push to pass ambitious clean energy goals, Virginia's largest power company, Dominion Energy Inc., opposed RGGI membership.
The utility consistently told news outlets that it would support the decision of state regulators. But in filings with regulators, Dominion made clear its opposition to the program, saying it would cost Virginia consumers money while prompting an increase in carbon-generated electricity imports from states outside RGGI.
In the wake of Northam's decision, Dominion acknowledged it did not see RGGI as the best pathway for cutting carbon. The utility said in a statement it "shares the goals of customers, lawmakers and stakeholders for a low-carbon future," noting that it has cut its emissions 52% since 2005 "without RGGI." Dominion said it plans to cut carbon levels 80% in the years ahead.
"We will comply with the greenhouse gas rules the state adopts. However, we do not believe that RGGI is the least cost or most effective way for Virginia to achieve carbon-reduction goals," Rayhan Daudani, a Dominion spokesman, said in an email. "RGGI will have significant costs for Virginia customers, minimal carbon reduction benefits in Virginia, which will be offset by carbon increases in other PJM [Interconnection LLC] states where customers turn to purchase power, and it will not promote development of clean energy in Virginia."
Analysts like Shobe have consistently rejected that argument, saying the company's position fails to take into account the way the Virginia rule was structured to avoid emission leakage and incentivize in-state generation. An analysis by an environmental expert testifying on Dominion's integrated resource plan found the company's projected emissions would consistently exceed the level of RGGI's cap between 2020 and 2030.
Virginia may still join the program. In anticipation of Republican opposition, regulators included a provision in the rule that allows the state to join the system after the budget language expires.
And so attention now turns to this fall's General Assembly elections. When Northam accepted the budget, he predicted a decision to strike the RGGI language would draw a court challenge. A better strategy, he reasoned, was to press the case for cap and trade on the campaign trail this fall, when Democrats are hoping to take over the General Assembly. Whether that proves a smart strategy remains to be seen.
Democrats can point to their strong 2017 showings and Trump's deep unpopularity in the state. But both Northam and Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, a fellow Democrat, are embroiled in scandals — Northam over a racist photo on his page in his medical school yearbook, Fairfax over sexual assault allegations. Both figure to weigh on the party's chances.
As for RGGI, the stakes in the election could be summed by the governor's spokeswoman, Ofirah Yheskel.
A few hours after Northam accepted the budget, she tweeted: "Flip state legislatures blue, that's it, that's the tweet."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/06/stories/1060282005
-
EPA Backs Texas Plan to Reduce Ozone Emissions in Houston (1)
May 3, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
The EPA approved changes to the Texas’ clean-air plan for improving storage tank regulations, saying the modifications will help the Houston region achieve better air quality.
“The state of Texas has shown its commitment to reducing ozone in the greater Houston area,” acting Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator David Gray said in a May 3 release. “Improving air quality will benefit communities and families while the region continues to thrive economically.”
Set to go into effect May 30 following the final rule’s April 30 publication in the Federal Register, the revised State Implementation Plan (SIP) revises volatile organic compound (VOC) rules for the Houston area to meet the 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion over an 8-hour period.
In 2016, EPA reclassified the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area from a “marginal” to a “moderate” nonattainment status for the 2008 ozone standard.
“With this action, EPA approves the state of Texas’ modification of regulations on emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, from storage tanks,” the agency said.
The Houston area leads Texas in 2019 in spring ozone standard exceedances, with the HGB region accounting for 33 out of the 37 exceedances of 71 parts per billion, according to May 3 data posted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Increased Control RequirementsThe new SIP rules for the region require certain large storage tanks to meet 95 percent VOC controls, an increase from the 90 percent currently required, according to the final rule.
Laying out its reasoning for the approval, the federal agency said it had determined “these improved regulations work with the state’s existing VOC and nitrogen oxide (NOx) regulations to meet Clean Air Act requirements for reasonably available control technology and improve air quality.”
The volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are reactive to sunlight, forming ground-level ozone pollution contributing to harmful air quality, especially for people with asthma and the elderly, EPA said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-backs-texas-plan-to-reduce-ozone-emissions-in-houston
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested