Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - May 21, 2019
-
(ACC Blog) Good Chemistry Lives Here Premiers on Global Stage
May 20, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
Stakeholders in the biocides industry from around the globe are coming together this week at the 10th Annual Biocides Symposium, hosted by Chemical Watch. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Plastic Resin Production in March Down From a Year Ago, ACC Says
May 20, 2019 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins
U.S. production of major plastic resins totaled 7.5 billion pounds during March 2019, a decrease of 0.3 percent compared to the same month in 2018, according to statistics released today by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). -
Environmental Issues Dog NAFTA Redo
May 21, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Last week's deal among the United States, Mexico and Canada to lift tariffs on steel and aluminum brings the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) one step closer to a vote on Capitol Hill, but top House and Senate Democrats are still angling for changes on multiple environmental aspects of the pact. -
EPA Warns Companies Not to Submit CBI on New Chemical Notices
May 20, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA is warning companies to ensure that their notices of new chemicals for review -- which the agency is poised to post on its website -- do not contain trade secret materials and that it will be manufacturers' responsibility to ensure they submit a sanitized notice for public posting. -
'Imminent Changes' to Public Availability of TSCA New Chemicals Submissions
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced it will be moving forward with plans to make more information associated with TSCA new chemicals applications publicly available. -
EPA Announces Section 5 Notices to Be Posted without EPA Review – Filers Should Be Extra Diligent about Proper CBI Redactions
May 20, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Richard E. Engler
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that on May 30, 2019, it will begin publishing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 5 notices including premanufacture notices (PMN), microbial commercial activity notices (MCAN), and significant new use notices (SNUN), their attachments, including any health and safety studies, any modifications thereto, and all other associated information in ChemView -- in the form they are received by EPA, without review by EPA. -
Massachusetts Seeks Grant Proposals for Safer Chemicals
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (Turi) at the University of Massachusetts Lowell is looking for grant proposals for projects that will reduce the use of toxic chemicals in the state. -
State Regulators Float Plan To Bolster Oversight Of Water Contaminants
May 20, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State regulators are outlining ways for state and federal agencies to better manage contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in all aspects of the water cycle, spurred in part by concerns over the time it takes to develop drinking water standards and the lack of coordination among state and federal entities, as evidenced in a patchwork of standards for perfluorinated compounds. -
Expert Focus: Will the Claire’s Recall Push the Us to Improve Cosmetics Regulation?
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Tricia Kaufman
The US retailer Claire’s announced a voluntary recall of three cosmetic products in March, but not until days after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety alert and independent test results confirmed the presence of asbestos. -
Chemicals in Consumer Goods Are Seen Escaping Safety Checks
May 21, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Andrew Marc Noel
European consumers could be at risk of exposure to hazardous chemicals in products like clothes and cosmetics because safety rules aren’t being properly enforced, according to a German environmental lobby. -
Commission Seeks Data on Potential EDCs in Cosmetics
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission is calling for data on ingredients with potential endocrine disrupting properties used in cosmetics. -
BoA Blow to Cut-Off Dates for Updating REACH Dossier Draft Decisions
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
An Echa practice of imposing cut-off dates on registrants updating their REACH dossiers following a draft decision has suffered a significant blow in front of the agency’s Board of Appeal. -
Interior Defends Use of API Standard in Revised Rules
May 21, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Dylan Brown
The Interior Department is defending how an oil and gas industry standard became part of revised federal offshore drilling rules. -
Feds Give Cameron LNG Permission to Begin Commissioning Cargoes
May 20, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
Federal regulators have given Cameron LNG permission to start exporting liquefied natural gas made during the plant's weeks-long startup process. -
A Wild Canadian River Is Being Dammed so U.S. Can Cut CO2
May 21, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The Romaine River runs 300 miles through an unbroken boreal forest in this remote expanse of northeast Canada. It winds past a series of large lakes, enters a mountain range of small, wind-scoured peaks and falls onto a stark coastal plain dotted with wetlands, where it empties into the St. Lawrence Seaway. -
Feds to Energy Companies: Beware Drones Made in China
May 21, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Homeland Security's top cyber office is warning energy companies about threats posed by drones built in China, according to a document yesterday that was reviewed by E&E News. -
White House Dismisses Gas Tax Hike Ahead of Meeting
May 21, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
The White House is throwing cold water on the idea of raising the federal gasoline tax to pay for an infrastructure package. -
Firm Tells MTA It Will Do 'Whatever It Takes' to Have Positive Train Control Done on Time
May 20, 2019 | Newsday
By Alfonso A. Castillo
The chief executive of the firm behind several of the blunders in the installation of federally required crash prevention technology on Long Island Rail Road trains has assured MTA leaders his company will do “whatever it takes” to complete the project on time, Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman Patrick Foye said. -
Two States Fighting Over Bakken Crude-By-Rail Shipments
May 21, 2019 | Kallanish Energy
It’s nearly 1,300 miles between Bismarck, North Dakota, and Olympia, Washington. -
EPA Said to Cut PM Benefits in Final ACE Rule to Reduce Premature Deaths
May 20, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves and Stuart Parker
EPA in its final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) power plant greenhouse gas rule is expected to include a controversial projection of far fewer benefits tied to reductions in particulate matter (PM), according to a news report, a decision that would significantly lower the estimated number of additional premature deaths compared to a calculation in the proposed version of the rule. -
EPA to Implement Change Reducing Number of Predicted Deaths From Air Pollution: Report
May 21, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Chris Mills Rodrigo
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to change how it calculates the health risks of air pollution resulting in far fewer predicted deaths from pollution, The New York Times reported Monday. -
How Dems Use Spending to Secure Environmental Goals
May 21, 2019 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
When a House Appropriations subcommittee marked up the fiscal 2020 energy and water legislation, there was a message displayed on the digital screens and printed atop a stack of papers handed out to all 11 appropriators. -
Warren Backs Calls for Climate Focused Debate
May 20, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Presidential contender Elizabeth Warren is adding her voice to a chorus of candidates and environmental groups asking for a Democratic primary debate focused on climate. -
Carbon Capture Project Is Testing Ground for Tax Credits
May 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A developing carbon capture project from Occidental Petroleum Corp. and biofuel producer White Energy is already capturing the interest of some financial backers as a first mover to take advantage of major new bipartisan tax credits for the technology. -
Experts: Turn Methane Into CO2 to Fight Climate Change
May 21, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
Most plans to tackle climate change revolve around cutting down on carbon dioxide, usually by reducing human emissions. -
Whole Foods to Stop Offering Plastic Straws
May 20, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
Whole Foods is preparing to stop offering plastic straws at any of its 500 stores.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Good Chemistry Lives Here Premiers on Global Stage
May 20, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
Stakeholders in the biocides industry from around the globe are coming together this week at the 10th Annual Biocides Symposium, hosted by Chemical Watch. This year’s event boasts over 30 speakers discussing the dynamic issues and ongoing debates revolving around biocides, including authorization procedures, the latest efficacy developments, and innovative and the sustainable uses of biocides. Garnering particular interest at this year’s event is the presentation by the Center for Biocide Chemistries (CBC): The “Good Chemistry” of Biocides.
Over two years ago, the CBC began a journey of creating a public-facing resource for U.S. consumers, industry professionals and regulators to learn more about biocides and combat misperceptions about our chemistry. From understanding what people know about biocides, to developing a unique language for the public to hear what was being said, to launching an advanced educational resource, the CBC has come a long way to ensure that when people have a question or want to learn more about biocides, they’ll arrive at GoodChemistryLivesHere.com and find answers.
We sat down with Komal K. Jain, Executive Director of the CBC and Sarah Jane Scruggs, Director of Product Communications, American Chemistry Council, to give us a sneak peek of their presentation and discuss the journey from understanding today’s perceptions of biocides, to how best to communicate to the public-at-large, and lessons learned along the way.
Q: What made you take on what seemed like a monumental challenge?
Komal Jain: In 2017, I had just taken over management of what was then known as the Biocides Panel, and realized we, as an industry, had a problem. Questions and misinformation were beginning to circulate about biocides, but there was no clear voice representing the interests of the industry.
While we wanted to shout from the rooftops the great benefits and safety information of biocides, everyone – from consumers, to industry professionals, to regulators and policymakers – was being bombarded with information and we needed to find a way to cut through the clutter, and make sure we’re communicating in the right way.
We needed a thoughtful strategy on how to respond to the questions and correct the misinformation.
Sarah Jane Scruggs: What we also realized is that the perception of biocides was at a critical moment in time. We recognized that although there was chatter and coverage, and some contentious points here and there among stakeholders, our “issue” had not risen to a crisis level. We had a hunch that many people didn’t truly understand biocides – what they are, what their benefits are, how they are used in our day-to-day lives, and how they are extensively regulated and help keep the general public safe.
And although many people will tell you today, especially in the world of chemistry, that if you’re not the problem, don’t make yourself the problem; stay below the radar; don’t draw attention to yourself; answer only when asked directly, we saw an opportunity to come out from the shadows. We recognized that this was an ideal time for us to tell our story and shape what people think about biocides, before we reached a tipping point that would be beyond our control.
Q: You conducted a significant amount of research. Any particular “aha” moments you would like to share?
Komal Jain: We actually conducted nearly 2 years of research – surveying a targeted range of educated consumers, healthcare practitioners and members of the building and construction industry.
Our first “aha” moment came with understanding the familiarity the general public had with certain terminology. We truly had no idea if the public knew of biocides or antimicrobials or if these terms escaped their general vocabulary entirely. Of the terms surveyed, both antimicrobials and biocides were at the bottom.
Sarah Jane Scruggs: Here’s another “aha” moment – While those surveyed believe that manufacturing companies need to be transparent, particularly on what ingredients are in their products, they do not generally trust the product manufacturers and the information we share.
What is concerning is that despite product manufacturers’ efforts to be transparent and provide, for example, scientific studies proving the safety of their products, nearly 50% will not believe the studies. In short, they want us to be transparent, and we are being transparent; but yet they do not trust our transparency.
Q: You mentioned people need to “hear what you are saying.” What do you mean by this?
Komal Jain: So here is another “aha” moment… As we mentioned before, behavioral science shows us that how we interpret communications and make decisions is fundamentally emotional – not rational. And when this comes to emotionally charged, controversial, and especially misunderstood topics such as chemicals or biocides – this principle had to be at the heart of the messaging we developed.
It’s not what you say to people that matters, it’s what they hear.
Sarah Jane Scruggs: Wanting to make sure people were hearing what we were saying, we developed a messaging strategy that literally outlined for us “say this – don’t say that.” And we did this word-for-word throughout any messaging we developed. It was critical for us – thinking all the way back to where we started this journey – that we say the right thing to allow us to educate people, but not inflame the public and become the next big story.
Q: So what did you do with all of this research and messaging?
Komal Jain: Three years into this process, we now understand what people think about biocides, what they want to know more about, how we should talk to them so they hear us, and be proactive in doing so. We took all of this and accomplished two major milestones.
The first was rebranding the Biocides Panel. For 30 plus years, our group was known as the ACC Biocides Panel but this name did little to explain the breadth of our membership and the level of our advocacy, science and education programs. We thus researched, in our journey, what name or terms would inspire trust and appropriately reflect who we are.“Center” because this represents the multi-faceted work of our association.“Chemistry” because we are science-based and are rooted in the business of chemistry.And “Biocides” because this term is more broadly used and recognized in the global, regulatory world.
We gave ourselves a unique brand, a unique voice, and became the Center for Biocide Chemistries.
Sarah Jane Scruggs: Our second milestone was the launch of the Good Chemistry Lives Here brand. This brand is not just a website – but a voice, a resource, an interactive platform, that consumers can engage with and better understand “what is an antimicrobial?” We created a brand that helps the public feel safe and trust that using antimicrobials is not a bad thing, and that truly, great families have good chemistry.
Q: What comes next?
Komal Jain: The CBC has taken advantage of the considerable consumer interest in biocides, and making sure we are combating the misperceptions that fuel scrutiny, mistrust and misinformation. We not only have created a global brand that is recognized for our important advocacy and scientific research, but also developed a consumer-facing program that provides balanced, easy-to-understand information about our important chemistry.
We are supporting the positive benefits of biocides and dispelling untruths. We have officially transformed from being just an industry-centric brand to an engaging, consumer-friendly brand. Our evolution is just beginning and we look forward to sharing more with you in the future.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/05/good-chemistry-lives-here-premiers-on-global-stage/
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Plastic Resin Production in March Down From a Year Ago, ACC Says
May 20, 2019 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins
U.S. production of major plastic resins totaled 7.5 billion pounds during March 2019, a decrease of 0.3 percent compared to the same month in 2018, according to statistics released today by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). Year-to-date production was 21.5 billion pounds, a 4.9 percent increase as compared to the same period in 2018.
Sales and captive (internal) use of major plastic resins totaled 7.3 billion pounds during March 2019, an increase of 5.1 percent from the same month one year earlier. Year-to-date sales and captive use was 21.5 billion pounds, a 5.3 percent increase as compared to the same period in 2018.
https://www.chemengonline.com/u-s-plastic-resin-production-in-march-down-from-a-year-ago-acc-says/?printmode=1
-
Environmental Issues Dog NAFTA Redo
May 21, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Last week's deal among the United States, Mexico and Canada to lift tariffs on steel and aluminum brings the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) one step closer to a vote on Capitol Hill, but top House and Senate Democrats are still angling for changes on multiple environmental aspects of the pact.
Friday's announcement by President Trump that he will terminate the steel and aluminum tariffs on Mexico and Canada that were imposed last year was welcomed on Capitol Hill, where the administration's hard-line trade policies have frustrated both parties (E&E News PM, May 17).
Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who last month penned an op-ed declaring the deal dead unless Trump ended the steel and aluminum tariffs, said Friday the "biggest hurdle" to congressional passage of the deal had been lifted.
"Lifting these tariffs clears the path to passage in all three countries," Grassley said in a statement. "I'm optimistic that this renewed sense of momentum will carry USMCA across the finish line. This will also allow us to work with our Canadian and Mexican allies on the real source of the problem when it comes to overcapacity of steel and aluminum: China."
Top Democrats echoed both Grassley's applause for the end of the tariffs and Trump's willingness to take on China, whose trade policies have annoyed members of both parties for years.
"I have always said that we should be focusing our efforts on China, not on Mexico, Canada or Europe," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
"It is a good thing these tariffs will be lifted, and we should urge our allies to join us in preventing China's predatory practices. There are still many other issues that are outstanding before Democrats would support the USMCA."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) added that her caucus will work with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to make sure Democratic priorities are met in the USMCA on jobs standards, wages, prescription drug prices, environmental protections and the central issue of strong enforcement, she said in her own statement.
House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), one of a number of House Democrats who met with Lighthizer last week, said Trump's top trade negotiator had tried to address outstanding concerns of Democrats, included on the environment, but "we think that there's some ways to go on it."
Neal did not specify which environmental issues are still in play, but Democrats spelled out a laundry list of concerns over the USMCA in a letter to Lighthizer last month (E&E News PM, April 17).
Neal also indicated that Democrats are pushing for changes in the trade agreement itself before it is submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote, rather than see changes made in "side agreements" with the participating nations — as was done when the North American Free Trade Agreement was ratified in 1994.
"We all have the experience of what some of the side agreements have meant over the decades, and the side agreements are really hard to enforce," Neal said.
Of Democrats wanting changes to the pact itself, Grassley said in February that he would urge Trump to withdraw from NAFTA rather than try to reopen the underlying deal struck with Mexico and Canada last year (E&E Daily, Feb. 25).
On Friday, Grassley pledged to work with Democrats to see the USMCA ratified. "I hope Democrats won't stand in the way of a win for the country," he said in a statement. "USMCA is better for American workers, farmers, manufacturers and service providers than its predecessor NAFTA. I'm eager to work with Democrats to help deliver much-needed certainty to our country."Tariff angst persists
Trump's deal with Mexico and Canada may be seen as a vindication of his enthusiasm for wielding tariffs in negotiations, but bipartisan discontent continues after the president upped the ante in his trade war with China earlier this month (E&E Daily, May 15).
Already caught up in the tariffs fight with China are natural gas exports, subject to 25% import fees under retaliatory measures imposed by Beijing last week (Energywire, May 14).
And in a sign of the reach of products caught up in the tariff tit-for-tat, outdoor retailers last week laid out their fears about how the Chinese spat could affect their industry in the United States (Greenwire, May 16).
Tomorrow, House Small Business Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and other committee members will hold an event with small-business owners to highlight the consequences of a growing trade war.
Trump last week also retreated somewhat on another tariff fight that is prompting widespread concern among both parties: his threat to slap tariffs on automobile imports and auto parts.
Friday's announcement, in which the president said he would delay tariffs for six months while he negotiates deals with Japan and Europe, came just before a weekend deadline the administration had set earlier.
The threat of auto tariffs is a major concern for members with manufacturing facilities in their states, including many Republicans.
Trump's power to set tariffs for autos comes from Section 232 of a 1963 trade law, which allows the president to apply such fees based on national security concerns. Those are the same authorities Trump relied on to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, slammed the logic behind Friday's announcement.
"Today, Donald Trump says that foreign-manufactured cars and car parts somehow threaten America's national security, which flies in the face of common sense," Wyden said in a statement.
"Many of these foreign-branded cars are actually manufactured in the United States by skilled American workers. I am in the corner of autoworkers and made-in-America cars, but this is not a strategy to help U.S. workers. It will invite even more retaliation that will hurt our farmers, our ranchers, our manufacturers, while further isolating the United States."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/21/stories/1060368773
-
EPA Warns Companies Not to Submit CBI on New Chemical Notices
May 20, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA is warning companies to ensure that their notices of new chemicals for review -- which the agency is poised to post on its website -- do not contain trade secret materials and that it will be manufacturers' responsibility to ensure they submit a sanitized notice for public posting.
EPA's toxics office sent a notice to its listserv May 20 warning of the upcoming change, will take effect May 30. On that date, EPA will begin publishing the premanufacture notices (PMNs), Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCANs) and Significant New Use Notices (SNUNs) that it receives as required by section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directly on its ChemView website.
Companies are required to inform EPA of any “new chemicals,” those not already listed on the TSCA inventory, before they enter the market to allow EPA to review the chemicals' potential health and environmental risks.
EPA explains that it will post the “notices, their attachments, including any health and safety studies, any modifications thereto, and all other associated information in ChemView -- in the form they are received by EPA. EPA will not be reviewing [confidential business information (CBI)]-sanitized filings before publishing.”
Congress' 2016 reform of the original 1976 TSCA made significant changes to section 14 of the statute, which governs CBI and disclosure of information. Among those changes is TSCA section 14(c)(1)(A), which requires that all CBI claims be made at the time of submission to EPA.
“Submitters are solely responsible for properly redacting or CBI-sanitizing these notices, as appropriate, in accordance with EPA regulations,” the notice says.
As a result, EPA urges submitters to verify the asserted CBI claims are correct and consistent and verify that the sanitized versions of the form, attachments, and file names “are checked for proper and consistent CBI redactions and that watermarks or stamps indicating CBI are removed."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-warns-companies-not-submit-cbi-new-chemical-notices
-
'Imminent Changes' to Public Availability of TSCA New Chemicals Submissions
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced it will be moving forward with plans to make more information associated with TSCA new chemicals applications publicly available.
In a notice to stakeholders, the agency said that from 30 May it will begin publishing more information related to TSCA section 5 submissions in the ChemView online portal. This will include pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) and significant new use notifications (Snuns).
This supporting documentation will include health and safety studies, modifications to the notifications, and "all other associated information".
The agency specified in its emailed notification that documents will be published "in the form they are received by EPA", and that it will not be reviewing filings that have been sanitised for confidential business information (CBI) before publishing.
"Submitters are solely responsible for properly redacting or CBI-sanitising these notices, as appropriate, in accordance with EPA regulations," it said.
The agency therefore recommended that before submitting PMNs and Snuns, regulated parties verify that:asserted CBI claims are "correct and consistent"; andsanitised versions of forms, attachments and file names are checked for proper and consistent redactions, and that watermarks or stamps indicating CBI are removed.
The policy is consistent with commitments made by EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler late last year in a letter to Congress to improve the transparency of the new chemicals programme.
And it follows a recent separate EPA announcement concerning expanded information being available on a webpage of statistics on the TSCA new chemicals programme.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77723/imminent-changes-to-public-availability-of-tsca-new-chemicals-submissions
-
May 20, 2019 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Richard E. Engler
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that on May 30, 2019, it will begin publishing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 5 notices including premanufacture notices (PMN), microbial commercial activity notices (MCAN), and significant new use notices (SNUN), their attachments, including any health and safety studies, any modifications thereto, and all other associated information in ChemView -- in the form they are received by EPA, without review by EPA. EPA states that it will not be reviewing confidential business information (CBI)-sanitized filings before publishing. EPA states that this announcement will be the first of several reminders that EPA sends and, in addition, EPA has incorporated a reminder to check accompanying sanitized submissions as part of the CDX reporting module for TSCA Section 5 notices.
EPA’s announcement states the following as guidance for submitters to take heed of before submitting their TSCA Section 5 notices:Verify the asserted CBI claims are correct and consistent; andVerify the sanitized versions of the form, attachments, and file names are checked for proper and consistent CBI redactions and that watermarks or stamps indicating CBI are removed.
Commentary
EPA does not specify how long after submission the documents may be posted, but submitters should expect a very short turn-around. When completing a PMN, a submitter must take care to ensure that all information that must be protected as CBI is marked as such. A submitter cannot expect EPA to extrapolate a claim for CBI in one part of a form to the rest of the document and its attachments. B&C strongly suggests that a submitter review the sanitized form of an entire document (e.g., a PMN and its attachments) to ensure that all sensitive information is redacted before submitting the document to EPA.
Do not wait until May 30. Begin developing and practicing good CBI practices today.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-announces-section-5-notices-to-be-posted-without-epa-review-filers-should-be
-
Massachusetts Seeks Grant Proposals for Safer Chemicals
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (Turi) at the University of Massachusetts Lowell is looking for grant proposals for projects that will reduce the use of toxic chemicals in the state.
Turi’s types of potential grants include:
industry grants of up to $30,000, intended for manufacturing facilities to improve processes to install technology to reduce toxics use;
small business grants of up to $10,000, intended for businesses that provide services directly to consumers and are willing to replace toxics with safer alternatives;
community grants of up to $20,000 for regional or statewide projects and $10,000 for local projects; and
academic research grants of up to $25,000, intended for UMass faculty and graduate students to partner with Massachusetts companies to research safer alternatives.
The deadline for applications is 21 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77725/massachusetts-seeks-grant-proposals-for-safer-chemicals
-
State Regulators Float Plan To Bolster Oversight Of Water Contaminants
May 20, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State regulators are outlining ways for state and federal agencies to better manage contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in all aspects of the water cycle, spurred in part by concerns over the time it takes to develop drinking water standards and the lack of coordination among state and federal entities, as evidenced in a patchwork of standards for perfluorinated compounds.
A new report from the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) calls for addressing CECs through all federal statutes, not just those specific to water; exploring legislative or regulatory changes to increase access to chemical manufacturers' toxicity information; development of a shared comprehensive dataset to facilitate better information sharing across states; development of a communications playbook to assist states with risk communication; and increased funding to federal programs that are charged with reviewing substances.
CECs are defined as newly discovered contaminants or known contaminants that have gained public attention due to new scientific discovery about them, and can include both manufactured contaminants and naturally occurring ones.
While the report does not address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exclusively, it highlights broad concerns that states and others have raised over EPA's slow pace in regulating chemical substances in the class under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as well as other emerging contaminants.
A state source says the recommendations are intended to serve as potential actions that could be further discussed and undertaken to further reduce the risks from these contaminants, as states are expending lots of time and resources to address them now.
In a joint statement May 20 announcing the release of the report, ASDWA and ACWA's executive directors note the challenges states are already facing in dealing with CECs and say the challenges are only expected to grow in future years.
ASDWA Executive Director Alan Roberson said developing a federal regulation for a new contaminant can take more than 10 years and it has been 18 years since EPA last promulgated a drinking water standard for a new contaminant.
“With some 40,000 new chemicals estimated to be used in commerce and many more introduced each year, states are challenged to meet public expectations for response to new contaminants with definitive guidance, and this gap will only continue to grow,” Roberson said, adding that states hope EPA and other federal agencies will work them to implement needed changes.
“States must be proactive in making adjustments to the policy and programmatic environment that address these contaminants,” ACWA Executive Director Julia Anastasio added.
The report's recommendations are presented in the context of a four-step CEC lifecycle of prevention, identification, assessment, and management intervention, with the idea that actions can be taken to better address the contaminants at each of the stages.
“The recommendations presented in this report seek to help states and other water resource management partners--including federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, and chemical manufacturers--more effectively coordinate and utilize the resources we do have (data, models, research and monitoring efforts, etc.), alter programs and procedures to streamline the advancement of CEC understanding and decision-making in a more timely manner, and, in certain instances, reform the current regulatory and policy context to improve prevention of or response to CECs in the water cycle,” the report says.
Priority CECs
The recommendations are grouped into five action areas plus two supplemental actions intended to reduce political barriers in which the suite of recommendations will be implemented.
The first supplemental action recommends increasing funding to federal programs charged with reviewing substances to reduce backlogs and evaluate substances at a rate that matches the pace at which new substances are submitted for evaluation; conducting a funding gap analysis to ensure states are provided with adequate resources to address monitoring, developing human health and aquatic life criteria, risk assessments, and standards development for CECs; and identifying non-federal sources of funding for states to expand state resourcing options.
The other supplemental action recommends establishing an independent body to oversee federal efforts to assess and derive risk management responses to CECs and pursuing federal recognition and acceptance of state-specific CEC standards, noting that when states have taken independent action to address CECs, federal facilities within their jurisdictions have, at times, questioned the obligation to meet the states' set limits.
Under the first action area, the states say EPA should work with them to generate a national list of priority CECs, and then develop a holistic research agenda for priority setting, including identifying Clean Water Act and SDWA authority gaps that prevent regulators from responding quickly to CECs.
The second action area seeks to engage industry to develop and improve access to comprehensive chemical data, which could include amending rules governing the regulation of new chemicals to require a suite of information to be made available to state and non-governmental researchers at the time of introduction.
The third action area calls for coordinated monitoring across water resource management programs, perhaps through linking the Water Quality Portal, a cooperative service sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, EPA and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council, with other federal databases, such as the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) and the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The integration could facilitate the evaluation of CECs that occur in matrices such as discharge sources, ambient waters, groundwater, drinking source waters, finished drinking water, sediment, and fish tissue, the report says.
Additionally, the report calls for a threshold or framework, taking into account state, regional or national CEC occurrence, distribution and toxicity, that could be applied to prioritize action on CECs. EPA, “in consultation with the states, should develop a framework that can be applied at the national level to articulate specific thresholds that, once reached, mobilize programs at the state, regional, or national level to move a CEC or group of CECs from Monitoring and Impact Surveillance to a Formal Risk Assessment process.”
The fourth action area seeks to expedite risk assessment and response by using federal monitoring data to more rapidly identify chemicals for future regulator considerations.
For example, first-year data results collected under the SDWA unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR) have been found to be fairly consistent with overall results from the three-year monitoring period for each UCMR and should be used to speed up the process for the development of guidance for interim actions and analysis of cost of treatment and remediation for early consideration, the states say. This is especially true if the first-year data from the UCMR is geographically representative across the country and combined with ambient water quality data or other environmental impacts for the contaminants.
Other recommendations under this action area include developing a state cooperative model to enhance coordination as federal agencies develop toxicity values and other response actions, such as the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers Water Supply Committee, and engaging states in the development of SDWA health advisory levels (HALs).
“In the past, the publication of HALs has been siloed at the federal level with an inconsistent level of engagement with states. This process fails to capitalize on insights from risk assessors and state resource managers already implementing response processes within their communities. This lack of coordinated action erodes trust in the ability of the state and water systems to adequately safeguard human and ecological health,” the report says, echoing concerns raised at a 2017 National Drinking Water Advisory Council meeting.
The states also call on EPA to provide technical assistance to states to facility the development of water quality standards for CECs.
The fifth area of recommendations improved risk communication, suggesting the need for a communications “playbook” outlining common scenarios and calling on federal agencies such as EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to more proactively collaborate to understand and support health-based values from other agencies. This could reduce confusion surrounding different health and ecological impact numbers, such as water quality criteria and maximum contaminant levels.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/state-regulators-float-plan-bolster-oversight-water-contaminants
-
Expert Focus: Will the Claire’s Recall Push the Us to Improve Cosmetics Regulation?
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Tricia Kaufman
The US retailer Claire’s announced a voluntary recall of three cosmetic products in March, but not until days after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety alert and independent test results confirmed the presence of asbestos.
Claire’s disputed the results, saying the FDA tests showed "significant errors" and mischaracterised fibres in the products as asbestos. Nevertheless, the retailer withdrew the products out of an "abundance of caution".The asbestos claim and subsequent standoff between the FDA and Claire’s drew renewed attention to the lack of regulatory oversight that the FDA has over the US cosmetics industry, coming against the backdrop of more than 11,000 ongoing civil cases over Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder.
Currently, with some limited exceptions such as color additives, the FDA does not require a pre-market review of cosmetic products prior to commercialisation, and US law generally permits manufacturers to determine their own safety testing or, indeed, whether to test cosmetic products at all.
'The FDA has no power to force a recall of a cosmetic'
Essentially, the FDA monitors cosmetics safety by reacting to product complaints, reviewing scientific literature or evaluating after-the-fact safety testing. As demonstrated by the Claire’s incident, even for a suspect product, the FDA has no power to force a recall of a cosmetic.
The FDA said in its 5 March announcement that it plans to work with Congress to update the regulatory framework for cosmetics that has been in operation for more than 80 years and, as discussed further below, the agency recently announced plans to gather information from manufacturers to inform its next steps.FDA cosmetics regulation
The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) defines cosmetics as "articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body ... for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance ... "
The category includes not only make-up (lipstick, eye shadow, etc) but also "personal care products" used by men, women and children (including those for hair care, skin care, nail care, perfumes and shampoo), so long as their intended uses are limited as noted above. Any additional therapeutic use could subject a product to another set of regulations, typically the drug requirements.
For instance, the FDA regulates cleansing shampoo as a cosmetic, but anti-dandruff shampoo is both a cosmetic and a drug because it also is intended to cure, mitigate, treat or prevent a disease of the body. Similarly, deodorants are cosmetics, but antiperspirants are drugs.
Claims on product labeling and even consumer perception can establish a product's intended use and, therefore, how the FDA regulates that product, which can make a tremendous difference. For example, drugs need to obtain FDA approval prior to commercialisation or need to conform, for certain over-the-counter (OTC) products, to OTC drug monographs which, loosely speaking, are like recipe books that set forth dosage form, strength and other conditions under which certain active ingredients are generally recognised as safe and effective (Grase).
Although unsafe cosmetics would be considered adulterated under the FFDCA, the FDA regulatory framework for products that are categorised only as cosmetics is minimal, especially compared to the regulation of products in the EU and other countries. The table below contrasts the regulation of cosmetics in the EU vs. the US, including and especially the 2013 EU Cosmetics Regulation vs. the FFDCA:
All three of these bills would require cosmetic manufacturers to register with the FDA, manufacture products in accordance with good manufacturing practices (GMPs), report adverse events, and would require FDA to review for safety certain ingredients used in cosmetic products.
Two of the bills also would give the FDA recall authority over cosmetic manufacturers and require them to submit cosmetic ingredient statements to the FDA for each of their cosmetic products. In addition to these comprehensive reform bills, 2018 also saw the introduction of the Children’s Product Warning Label Act, which would require manufacturers of cosmetics marketed to children to demonstrate that they are free of asbestos or carry a warning label that the product has not been evaluated for asbestos contamination. Reinvigorated Interest
The Claire’s incident seems to have reinvigorated interest in cosmetics legislation. In the subsequent days after the recall, US Senator Dianne Feinstein reintroduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act, and US Representatives Debbie Dingell and Jan Schakowsky reintroduced the Children's Product Warning Label Act.
Also in March, California lawmakers introduced the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, which would ban the sale in California of makeup that uses 20 highly toxic chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, including asbestos, lead and formaldehyde. This renewed focus on the cosmetics industry, together with calls for change from industry players including Johnson & Johnson and the Personal Care Products Council, could be the catalyst to change the US regulatory framework for cosmetics.
Indeed, on 24 April, despite the departure of FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, the FDA announced that it has randomly selected 900 manufacturing establishments to participate in a voluntary survey, approved last July, regarding current quality management and safety practices used in the cosmetics industry.
The survey will explore topics such as written procedures and records, buildings and equipment, materials and manufacturing, and quality control/product testing. It is unclear, however, to what extent the new commissioner will push for cosmetics regulatory reform.That said, manufacturers and retailers may want to consider staking out their positions now on proposed actions that may affect their products, before their products become the center of unplanned attention as a result of an emergent event.
This means that manufacturers should keep current on the latest FDA developments and may want to consider providing input or comments when the opportunity arises, for instance, at the FDA's 5 June public meeting to receive input on cosmetics regulation in preparation for its meeting with the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation, an international group of cosmetics regulatory authorities.
In addition, cosmetics manufacturers who sell products in the US and who are operating without a formal quality system should at least familiarise themselves with the fundamentals of quality controls, if not implement the basic elements of a quality system with documented procedures designed to ensure a consistent process and control over changes.
Those that already have a system should make sure their systems are sufficiently robust to maintain quality control and produce products fit for their intended use. A helpful place to start regarding FDA expectations is the FDA draft guidance, Cosmetic Good Manufacturing Practices (2013), although information from the voluntary survey may lead to further revisions.
'Robust safety testing of formulae prior to commercialisation, as well as testing of incoming raw materials and finished products prior to release, are essential'
As noted earlier, an unsafe cosmetic product would be considered adulterated under the FFDCA. As such, robust safety testing of formulae prior to commercialisation, as well as testing of incoming raw materials and finished products prior to release, are essential to confirm that components and finished products meet internal standards and customer expectations.
Even if the FDA does not heighten US cosmetic regulation in the immediate future, a robust quality system makes good business sense by:
instilling trust in customers and maintaining a company's reputation;
mitigating unexpected, negative and costly outcomes; and
minimising business impact when problems do occur through traceability of affected products and identification of the root cause.
Good business practices take a proactive approach to quality, and any future legislative or regulatory changes, which may be more likely due to events like the Claire's incident, may make such practices mandatory.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77221/expert-focus-will-the-claires-recall-push-the-us-to-improve-cosmetics-regulation
-
Chemicals in Consumer Goods Are Seen Escaping Safety Checks
May 21, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Andrew Marc Noel
European consumers could be at risk of exposure to hazardous chemicals in products like clothes and cosmetics because safety rules aren’t being properly enforced, according to a German environmental lobby.
Potentially harmful chemicals including dibutyl phthalate found in toys and methyl acetate used in footwear are widely sold to manufacturers of household goods without having been properly vetted, BUND said in a studypublished Tuesday.
“Chemical companies have been breaking the law for years and getting away with it,” Manuel Fernandez, a chemicals policy officer at BUND, said in a statement. “We don’t know if products on sale today are safe. What we do know is the very foundation of European chemical safety rules are being ignored.”
Chemicals in consumer items could cause a range of health problems including hormonal cancers and brain disorders, according to Fernandez. The allegations come at a time of heightened concern about the danger of some products. Germany’s Bayer AG has been ordered to pay more than $2 billion in damages to a California couple that claimed they got cancer as a result of using its Roundup weedkiller. The company is under pressure to settle thousands of similar lawsuits.Short on Data
The BUND report is based on information dating back to 2014 obtained using freedom of information requests from the European Chemicals Agency, the region’s regulator. The study named some top global chemical makers as among those failing to provide enough safety data. An industry lobby acknowledged shortfalls in some studies.
The European chemical industry underwent a regulatory overhaul in 2008 when the region introduced new safety rules under a framework called REACH. While companies initially scrambled to register and test chemicals, BUND said some haven’t completed safety reports a decade after the system was introduced. It named BASF SE, Saudi Basic Industries Corp. and Ineosamong those.
The European Chemicals Agency said in an emailed statement it’s planning to increase the number of compliance checks to address the shortfall in safety data, adding that most companies provide the missing information upon request.
The quality of data in some REACH dossiers needs to be “seriously” reviewed, industry lobby group, the European Chemical Industry Council, said by email. Ineos is working with the European trade association to address issues on REACH, the company said by email. Representatives of BASF and Saudi Basic Industries Corp. had no immediate comment.
When the REACH program was first introduced, the testing requirements weren’t spelled out, according to Jari Rosendal, chief executive officer of Kemira Oyj, a Finnish company making chemicals to treat water.
“No one really told you how to do it,” he said. “I’m sure companies have things to improve but it’s not like anyone wants to go under the radar. Everybody is doing the best they can.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-21/chemicals-in-consumer-goods-escaping-safety-checks-study-says
-
Commission Seeks Data on Potential EDCs in Cosmetics
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission is calling for data on ingredients with potential endocrine disrupting properties used in cosmetics.
The 14 substances are:
benzophenone-3;kojic acid;
4-methylbenzylidene camphor;
propylparaben;
triclosan;
resorcinol;
octocrylene;
triclocarban;
butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT);
benzophenone;
homosalate;
benzyl salicylate; and
genistein.
Interested parties are invited to submit relevant scientific information including data regarding all physicochemical properties, toxicokinetics and toxicological end-points, assessment of exposure through consumer products and/or an indication of the suggested safe concentration limits.
This is for those substances that should be treated with higher priority for assessment as they are undergoing substance evaluation under REACH for ED concerns or those for which the evaluation has already confirmed ED concerns.
The consultation is open from 16 May to 15 October.
The EU has delayed publication of its priority list of potential endocrine disruptors in cosmetics products until after the new European Commission takes office at the end of the year.
At the end of 2018, the Commission announced that it will launch a comprehensive screening of existing legislation related to endocrine disrupting chemicals, as part of a long-overdue strategy that targets harmonised identification criteria and coherent policies.
MEPs have criticised the strategy and have pressured the EU executive to take concrete action on EDCs in toys, cosmetics and FCM sectors by June 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77731/commission-seeks-data-on-potential-edcs-in-cosmetics
-
BoA Blow to Cut-Off Dates for Updating REACH Dossier Draft Decisions
May 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
An Echa practice of imposing cut-off dates on registrants updating their REACH dossiers following a draft decision has suffered a significant blow in front of the agency’s Board of Appeal.
The law firm acting in the case says the BoA decision, published in April, demonstrates Echa’s approach has been "unlawful" and in need of a critical review.
Case A-001-2018 arose after German manufacturer Brüggemann received a draft decision demanding more testing for its dossier on sodium hydroxymethanesulphinate.
The case, which comes at a time when there are continuing demands on registrants to keep their dossiersup to date, revolved around two 2015 Echa announcements. Both were designed to tighten up the agency’s practices and shorten the time involved in processing draft decisions on compliance checks.
In January 2015 the agency announced it would no longer take into account dossier updates after it had sent its draft decision on compliance checks to registrants for comment.
Six months later, in July 2015, it published a practical guide on communicating with the agency on dossier evaluation. This advised that "after the draft decision has been notified to the registrant for comments no update received will normally be taken into account".
However, in its decision on the Brüggemann case, the BoA found that not only were cut-off dates not foreseen in the REACH Regulation, but the two announcements introduced uncertainty and ambiguity into the compliance checking procedure. In particular, the phrase "no update received will normally be taken into account" implied there would be occasions on which they could be taken into account.
As a result of this determination, the BoA found that, in adopting the approach to compliance check draft decisions "for reasons of administrative efficiency", Echa was breaching the principle of legal certainty, had failed in its duty to be clear and precise with the registrant, and hadn’t let Brüggemann "know without ambiguity its rights and obligations".Case A-001-2018
On 14 December 2015 Echa sent Brüggemann a draft decision on its dossier, which the company had last updated the previous January. In it the agency demanded further information, including:a carcinogenicity study on rats;a prenatal developmental toxicity (PNDT) study on rabbits; andan extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (Eorgts) on rats.
The cover note that accompanied the draft decision said Echa would not take into account any updates after the notification of the draft decision.
This meant that the company had received the draft decision at the same time as the cut off point by which it was allowed to submit any update to its dossier.
Nevertheless, within 30 days Brüggemann made comments on the draft, including that some of the uses supported in the dossier were now obsolete – particularly in relation to the carcinogenicity endpoint.
However, almost two years later, on 10 November 2017 – with the draft compliance check decision having been passed to the member state competent authorities – Echa adopted its decision on the substance. This demanded all of the originally requested extra tests. It also came with a cover note advising that the decision had been adopted without considering any dossier updates submitted after the draft was originally notified to the company.
In February 2018 the company lodged the appeal. The BoA has now found in its favour "in its entirety".
Among its findings the board pointed to a central flaw in the agency’s approach: if a registrant believed, in registering its dossier, it had satisfied all the information requirements placed upon it, it was possible it did not know there was information missing until it received Echa’s draft decision. The registrant, therefore, could not make updates until that moment, which was counterintuitively the last moment it was allowed to do so.
In finding for Brüggemann the BoA:annulled the requirements for a carcinogenicity study and a PNDT study and remitted the case for them to the competent body of the agency for further action;restarted the clock on the information Eorgts, which must now be submitted by 9 April 2021; andordered the refund of the company’s appeal fee.
Munich-based Martin Ahlhaus, associated partner with international law firm Noerr, which acted on behalf of Brüggemann, said of the BoA decision that it clearly shows that Echa’s approach not to take any dossier updates into account after the draft decision was notified to a registrant is "unlawful".
Mr Ahlhaus expects Echa to reconsider its communication routine and amend the instructions for dossier evaluation processes. "It is, thus, likely that the decision will have fundamental consequences for future dossier evaluation procedures," he said.
"The BoA decision emphasises that registrants, on the one hand, must ensure they are aware of the obligations applicable to them. On the other, however, Echa needs to adhere to its own procedural rules as communicated to those concerned for reasons of legal certainty," he added.
And, in a statement to Chemical Watch, Echa said the BoA had found that it "had not clearly, precisely and timely informed whether dossier updates after a draft decision on compliance check would be considered during the decision-making process".
It added that Echa "is currently still analysing the implications of the decision and its potential impact on how the agency currently treats updates of registration dossiers submitted during the evaluation decision making process".Compliance checking
Echa can examine any registration dossier to verify if the information submitted by registrants is compliant with legal requirements. Compliance checks evaluate the substance identity description and the safety information in the dossier, including the chemical safety report or specific parts of the dossier, for example the information related to the protection of human health.
According to REACH, the agency must check at least 5% of registration dossiers in each tonnage band. Dossier selection for compliance check is either random or targeted.
Compliance checks focus on eight key endpoints:genotoxicity;repeated-dose toxicity;prenatal developmental toxicity;reproduction toxicity;carcinogenicity;long-term aquatic toxicity;biodegradation; andbioaccumulation.
There are two possible outcomes:dossier compliant – no further action towards the registrant; anda request for additional information or testing.Requesting further information
Where additional information is needed Echa drafts a decision to request further information from registrants.
Once a draft decision is submitted, registrants can make comments within 30 days.
The evaluating member state or Echa will take the comments into account and may amend the draft decision accordingly.
The other member states then review the updated draft decision and the registrants' comments and may propose further amendments on which the registrant is allowed to air its views.
After this, the Member State Committee (MSC) will examine the draft decision and any proposals for amendments. It will then try to reach an agreement on the final decision.
Registrants can appeal against a decision to the BoA within three months of receiving the notification of the decision.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77726/boa-blow-to-cut-off-dates-for-updating-reach-dossier-draft-decisions
-
Interior Defends Use of API Standard in Revised Rules
May 21, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Dylan Brown
The Interior Department is defending how an oil and gas industry standard became part of revised federal offshore drilling rules.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement adopted an American Petroleum Institute standard for drilling margin in the final rule on offshore well control systems.
Drilling margin is the pressure range that must be maintained inside a well to avoid a repeat of the deadly 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout that spewed 3.2 million barrels' worth of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
BSEE said the rule changes came in response to technical commentary and are within legal bounds.
The revised rule replaced the margin set by the Obama administration in response to that Gulf blowout with API Bulletin 92L, the trade group's "case-by-case" measure that allows drilling to continue in certain circumstances where pressure is lost.
"It shows that, on a major issue of public safety, the federal regulator is dependent on and deferring to a lobbying organization for the very industry it is regulating," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight.
But government turning to industry to write its own rules is not unique to the Trump administration.
Federal agencies must seek out standards developed by "voluntary consensus" organizations under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and guidance from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Many well-control rule changes brought federal regulations in line with another API standard for blowout preventers — fail-safes that cut off the flow of oil and gas in a well during an emergency (Energywire, May 3).
Some legal experts see BSEE as vulnerable to a legal challenge because it failed to mention API 92L by name in the proposed rule (Energywire, May 15).
"I would not expect them to incorporate something as technical as this without providing an opportunity to comment on this specific standard," said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program.
BSEE contends it "expressly" asked for input on allowing continued drilling in the event of lost pressure.
"Commenters noted that drilling ahead through a lost circulation zone is often a safer option for restoring well integrity than suspending operations in the midst of a lost circulation event and that Bulletin 92L establishes safe and responsible guidelines for when and how to do so," BSEE spokeswoman Tiffany Gray wrote in an email yesterday.
BSEE said incorporating API 92L "by reference" — unwritten in the final rule — is "permissible and appropriate."
API says its "consensus standard" focuses on "safe drilling operations."
Vizcarra noted that any challenge would be purely procedural but called BSEE's lack of explanation "weak and par for the course with what we are seeing in many rules issued by this administration."
"Courts do not look kindly on 'catch-all notices' that don't provide the specificity needed to provide adequate notice of a policy shift," she said.
For a rule saving the industry an estimated $1.5 billion, POGO's Brian added: "It speaks volumes [Interior] can't or won't explain how this industry standard was developed and what evidence, if any, the government considered before giving it the force of law."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/21/stories/1060369643
-
Feds Give Cameron LNG Permission to Begin Commissioning Cargoes
May 20, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
Federal regulators have given Cameron LNG permission to start exporting liquefied natural gas made during the plant's weeks-long startup process.
In a Monday morning letter, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave the Sempra Energy-owned plant permission to begin commissioning cargoes from the Hackberry, La. facility.
Developed by San Diego utility company Sempra Energy, construction crews began the final stages of a startup process known as commissioning at Cameron LNG's first production unit in April.
Although production from the plant will be dedicated toward fulfilling long-term contracts with customers in Europe and Asia, the liquefied natural gas made during the weeks-long startup process can be sold on the global spot market through shipments known as commissioning cargoes.
The commissioning cargo order comes less than week after President Donald Trump visited the facility to talk about how the LNG industry is creating jobs and boosting exports.
In the final step of the startup process, LNG tankers need to arrive at the Louisiana plant to load the commissioning cargo and deliver the export shipment to its destination.
Once all three production units at the facility are in operation, Cameron LNG will be able to make nearly 12 million metric tons of LNG per year.
Those production figures translate roughly to about 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, enough energy to power 8.5 million U.S. homes in a single day.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Feds-give-Cameron-LNG-permission-to-begin-13861873.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
A Wild Canadian River Is Being Dammed so U.S. Can Cut CO2
May 21, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The Romaine River runs 300 miles through an unbroken boreal forest in this remote expanse of northeast Canada. It winds past a series of large lakes, enters a mountain range of small, wind-scoured peaks and falls onto a stark coastal plain dotted with wetlands, where it empties into the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Today, around 1,000 people are laboring to build a dam on the Romaine. They have shorn the black spruce from the river's climbing shores to make way for a 54-square-mile reservoir. The river runs through an ashen landscape of dirt and rock as it waits for the day a 290-foot-high earthen dike is complete and water fills the valley.
On the western bank, workers have chiseled a gaping three-story chasm in the rock. It will serve as the intake, a tunnel basically, where water will fall several hundred feet to a power house on the opposite side of the hill, turning two great turbines to make electricity.
Remote as it may be, the Romaine will play a crucial role in shaping the energy future of the northeastern United States. Hydro-Québec, the provincially owned utility, has built three dams here since 2009 and will complete its fourth and final dam by 2021.
The Romaine dams represent the culmination of almost 20 years of work to bolster Hydro-Québec's export capacity to the United States. Together, they will be able to generate 1,550 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 1.5 million homes.
Only now the utility faces a different sort of challenge: It can't get the power there.
"Today we're sitting on what is probably an overbuilt system for our needs and what is constraining the generation side of this is the transmission side," said Gary Sutherland, a company spokesman, in Montreal recently. "So when you look at all of our recent initiatives with respect to Northeast markets, it always involves enhancing transmission because the last transmission line that we built into those markets was 30 years ago."
Hydro-Québec is aggressively marketing its power in the United States as renewable energy, capable of cutting emissions by displacing natural gas generation that now serves as the backbone of the Northeast's electric grid.
Its push comes as those states look to rapidly slash carbon emissions. The region boasts some of the most ambitious climate targets in America. New York and all six New England states have pledged by law or executive order to reduce carbon emissions 80% by midcentury.
But whether Canadian hydro has a greater role to play in meeting those targets is a matter of debate.
Massachusetts regulators are reviewing a 20-year contract for 1,200 MW of Canadian hydro as part of wider effort to green the commonwealth's economy. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio's proposed Green New Deal calls for buying 1,000 MW of hydro from Quebec, enough to power all city government operations and then some.
"It's zero-emission electricity coming to us from Canada," de Blasio told reporters last month. "And we're not taking advantage of it. We're going to take the actions working with our partners to make sure that our city government doesn't need to get its electricity from fossil fuels."
The future of both contracts is uncertain. Both are contingent on building two new transmission lines: a 145-mile line through Maine, linking Quebec with Massachusetts, and a 330-mile line under Lake Champlain and the Hudson River to New York City.
[+] Claudine Hellmuth/E&E News
Both projects have inspired intense resistance in New England and New York, often scrambling traditional political alliances.
Natural gas and renewable interests argue that a large injection of hydropower from Quebec could hamper domestic energy development and erode the region's competitive wholesale electricity markets. State officials are split between those who believe the projects can reduce emissions and enhance grid reliability and those who worry they could saddle consumers with additional costs while failing to produce the promised climate benefits.
But perhaps the fiercest fight has been among environmentalists. Greens for decades have opposed hydropower for its impacts on land and wildlife. That has begun to change in recent years, as the need to curtail carbon emissions has reshaped their priorities.
Some argue that additional imports of Canadian hydro can replace retiring nuclear plants, complement domestic renewables and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. It also comes at a key moment, just as climate hawks begin to look for additional sources of low carbon power to electrify the transportation and building sectors. Those are now the first- and second-largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the Northeast.
"Given the urgency of where we are and the need to make steep [emissions] reductions as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, it makes sense for hydro to be part of the menu of solutions," said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "We have to be open to a wide array of solutions even if they are not our personal favorites."
Others are worried that a rush to meet climate goals could represent a grave setback for traditional environmental priorities, which have long focused on the ecological impact of damming rivers to generate electricity. A recent United Nations study found that 1 million species face extinction worldwide in the coming decades. It listed habitat loss — not climate change — as the leading threat to wildlife, noted Eve Vogel, a geography professor at the University of Massachusetts.
"I have these gut concerns that climate change is justifying things that are deeply problematic," said Vogel, who is studying the impacts of regional electricity markets on river health. "None of our choices are impact-free. Maybe we do need Canadian hydro. In the range of things to do, there are certainly worse options. That doesn't mean we should pat ourselves on the back and feel like we're absolved of any sort of moral responsibility because we're investing in renewable power."Workers' camp
Construction crews cleared black spruce trees from a future reservoir spanning 54 square miles at Romaine 4, the fourth and final dam to be built by Hydro-Québec on the Romaine River. Benjamin Storrow/E&E News
Hydro-Québec has long exported power to the United States, but as the turn of the century rolled around it sensed a new opportunity. New England and New York had just deregulated their electricity markets, swapping monopolies for competitive wholesale markets, and concern about climate change was on the rise. In a few years, seven Northeast states would create the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program for power plants.
Hydro-Québec set about boosting its generating capacity in an effort to send more electricity south. The company embarked on an initiative in 2003 to add 5,000 MW of new generating capacity. Roughly 3,500 MW of that would come from refurbishments to existing dams. The rest would come from new dams on the Romaine.
To reach its new facilities along the river, the utility built a paved road into the forest. It exits a two-lane highway known as the Whale Route (La Route des Baleines) overlooking the Atlantic Ocean east of Havre-Saint-Pierre and heads north, climbing 90 miles into a forest of white birch and black spruce.
At mile 17, it passes the first dam, where a dike has corralled a whitewater rapid once known as the Grande Chute. The old rapid once served as a natural barrier for the salmon that spawn in the shallows nearby.
Dam construction created considerable concern about the future of the fish among members of the local Innu community. Hydro-Québec eventually signed mitigation agreements worth a combined $118 million Canadian dollars ($87.88 million) with two local Innu tribes. Included in those agreements is a partnership to release 200,000 salmon fry into the river annually.
The road begins to climb steeply after Grande Chute. At mile 70, it arrives at Camp Mista, a workers' camp in the wilderness complete with cafeteria, convenience store, bar, gym and sleeping quarters for up to 1,400 people. Workers are ferried up the last 20 miles of road to the construction site, a steep river valley adorned with sharp, protruding peaks.
Dump trucks and excavators work the river banks. A coffer dam diverts the Romaine through a temporary tunnel that has been blasted through a hillside. Farther up the river bank, construction crews have cut a channel through the rock to serve as a spillway in times of high water. It looks like a giant's stairway.
This will be the newest in a network of 63 dams operated by Hydro-Québec. Together, the dams boast a combined generating capacity of 37,000 MW, giving the company a vast supply of low carbon power. Utility and provincial officials are quick to highlight the potential climate benefits.
They estimate that exports to New England have displaced 108 million tons of carbon dioxide over the last 11 years. Another 3 million tons could be annually displaced if the proposed transmission line through Maine is built.
Quebec Premier François Legault frequently talks of making Hydro-Québec "the green battery of northeastern America," capable of storing surplus renewable power from the Northeast in its reservoirs and returning it south when there is a dearth of wind and solar generation.
"For us it's a vision of having our neighboring markets benefit from this vast system," said Lynn St-Laurent, a Hydro-Québec spokeswoman. "We suffer from impacts of climate change, as well. It's to our benefit, as well, on an environmental perspective to have less GHG emissions in neighboring markets."
There are financial incentives, too. Where Quebec boasts of having some of the lowest electricity rates in North America, New England and New York pay some of the highest prices for power.
In 2003, Hydro-Québec reported exports of 4 terawatt-hours. Last year, that figure reached a record 36 TWh. Sales outside the province in 2018 represented CA$1.6 billion worth of electricity, nearly a quarter of the company's net income.
Much of that went to the Northeast. New England and New York accounted for 47% and 24% of Hydro-Québec's exports, respectively. Louis Vezina, a trading manager at the company's headquarters in Montreal, described the company's exports in pure financial terms.
"Our mission here is just to maximize the value of HQ generating assets through commercial transactions in the wholesale market," he said.Rivers are not renewable
Construction crews working on a spillway at Romaine 4 in late April. Benjamin Storrow/E&E News
Hydropower is not completely carbon free. Emissions can spike in the years after a reservoir is flooded, as trees and vegetation rot. Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, can rise from reservoirs during large algal blooms. In 2016, a Washington State University study found 267 hydroelectric reservoirs accounted for 1.3% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
Hydro-Québec contends such concerns are less pressing in the case of its reservoirs. Cool temperatures, a lack of vegetative growth and fast stream flow help mitigate methane emissions.
In 2017, carbon emissions associated with Quebec's power sector were roughly 264,000 metric tons, according to Canada's national greenhouse gas inventory. By comparison, New England's grid operator reported power plant emissions of nearly 35 million metric tons that year.
The prospects of importing more hydro from Canada has prompted internal hand-wringing among American environmental groups. Most oppose new dams on the grounds that they can cause emissions to spike. But an increasing number of greens are open to refurbishing existing dams in an attempt to ring additional low carbon megawatts out of the electric grid.
The Conservation Law Foundation, one of New England's most influential environmental organizations, is a case in point. CLF opposed a proposed transmission route linking Quebec and Massachusetts via New Hampshire. When that project failed, the group endorsed a plan to build a $950 million line through Maine. Its support was based on a number of stipulations. The line's developer, Central Maine Power Co., agreed to make investments in EV charging stations, electric heat pumps and bolster its mitigation measures along the corridor.
"We've long said water is renewable, but rivers are not," said David Ismay, a CLF attorney. "Dams irreparably change the ecosystem. But the threat of climate change is clear and present, and there may have to be tradeoffs between losing an entire ecosystem to climate change to losing a riverine ecosystem."
Yet even in the case of upgrades to existing dams, the cost-benefit analysis can be tricky. In Maine, the proposal for a $950 million transmission line linking Massachusetts and Quebec calls for cutting a new 53-mile power line corridor through the state's northern woods. The region represents one of the largest contiguous forests in the eastern United States.
That has left groups like the Nature Conservancy in a bind. The organization is committed to carbon reductions, but it fears that splintering the forest could harm wildlife. It has led to an uneasy compromise. The Nature Conservancy hasn't endorsed or opposed the project, instead choosing to push for enhanced mitigation measures.
But the experience has pushed the group to adopt a new approach, advocating for policymakers to identify areas for renewable energy development and transmission before it is proposed as a way to mitigate wildlife and land-use impacts.
"We do take the emission reduction of the projects seriously, but the siting and impacts do matter," said Rob Wood, an energy project adviser for the Nature Conservancy's Maine chapter. "This region of Maine is also significant, in that it is one of the biggest remaining chunks of connected and resilient habitat."
He added: "We know we need substantially more renewable energy, but we believe it can be done compatibility with land-use protection."
Guillaume Tellier, an environmental manager, stood on a hillside overlooking the Romaine on a recent morning and pointed to scenes unfolding across the landscape: a truck dumping till cut from the hillside to be used for construction of the dam; a wash station straddling the road to clean trucks and minimize dust; an excavator working along the riverbank running on biodiesel to reduce the risk in the event of a spill.
All the measures are designed to mitigate the impact of the development. "You want to bring the land back as much as possible," he said.
Back in Montreal, Hydro-Québec officials are contemplating where to go after the dam is complete. There is some talk of developing the province's wind resources. Discussions are also underway about whether more dams are warranted. The company estimates it could double its generating capacity, but with all the best dam sites already developed, much will depend on demand for new electricity.
In many ways, the decision will hinge on the Northeast.
Demand from the region could spur more construction, but only if more transmission lines are built to connect Quebec with New England and New York. Hydro-Québec's reservoirs have already reached record levels in recent years, prompting it to spill excess water. Last year, Hydro-Québec reported spilling 10 TWh worth of water, essentially wasting the same amount of power it has proposed selling to Massachusetts.
"We just can't get the energy out," Sutherland said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/21/stories/1060369347
-
Feds to Energy Companies: Beware Drones Made in China
May 21, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Homeland Security's top cyber office is warning energy companies about threats posed by drones built in China, according to a document yesterday that was reviewed by E&E News.
The alert to industry on "Chinese Manufactured Unmanned Aircraft Systems" does not single out specific companies or share concrete examples of past data theft by Chinese drone providers. Instead, it warns that China-based companies "could be persuaded or compelled" to access sensitive data collected from U.S. sites, given Beijing's "unusually stringent obligations" on its citizens and domestic companies.
"Organizations that conduct operations impacting national security or the nation's critical functions must remain especially vigilant as they may be at greater risk of espionage and theft of proprietary information," the alert states.
DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency included tips for mitigating risks posed by Chinese-built drones, such as disabling the devices' internet connections and wiping data contained on memory cards after every flight.
The warning comes as U.S. energy firms have increasingly turned to drones for inspecting infrastructure and scouting hard-to-access terrain. Foreign electric utilities, for example, have used drones for things such as burning away trash from power lines. Recently, there also have been heightened tensions between the United States and China over trade and technology.
The Trump administration has amplified potential security flaws in Chinese products, from telecommunications equipment to the large power transformers that form the backbone of the U.S. power grid (Energywire, April 25). American intelligence officials worry their Chinese counterparts could bake in back doors for spying or sabotage in such sensitive devices, though cybersecurity experts remain conflicted about the severity of the risk.
SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd., one of the biggest U.S. commercial drone suppliers, has vehemently denied past DHS allegations that its products could redirect data to Chinese spies. DJI's headquarters are in Shenzhen, China, and it has offices in Los Angeles; Tokyo; and Frankfurt, Germany, among other cities.
"We give customers full and complete control over how their data is collected, stored, and transmitted," DJI spokesman Adam Lisberg said in a statement yesterday on the DHS alert. "For government and critical infrastructure customers that require additional assurances, we provide drones that do not transfer data to DJI or via the internet, and our customers can enable all the precautions DHS recommends."
DJI's assurances, paired with independent testing, have enabled the company to snag several high-profile customers in sensitive industries, including the New York Police Department. NYPD officials recently unveiled a drone program for mapping, search, rescue and tactical operations featuring 14 DJI models. Police officials did not respond to requests for comment on the risks highlighted by DHS.
Still, the Department of Defense bans use of DJI products over Army, Navy and Air Force installations, according to multiple sources. Yuneec International, another major Chinese drone manufacturer, is similarly disfavored in certain U.S. markets.
"If you're just a hobbyist and you're taking wedding pictures or something of that nature, you're likely fine," said Lanier Watkins, senior cyber research scientist at Johns Hopkins University's Information Security Institute. "But if you're in a location that's sensitive — like near some military facility — I wouldn't use any of the Chinese drones. You wouldn't know where your information could wind up."
Watkins has researched technical vulnerabilities in several commercial drones, including DJI's popular Phantom 4 model from 2016. Although he found several flaws that hackers could exploit, Watkins noted that DJI has a "bug bounty" program aimed at fixing cybersecurity weaknesses, and he credited the company for keeping pace with peers like Yuneec and France-based Parrot SA.
"From a functionality perspective, they make some really good drones," he said of DJI. Watkins added that the company offered his team $1,000 for the three vulnerabilities it uncovered in the Phantom 4 more than two years ago. "We didn't take the money," he said.'A growing risk'
Along with inspecting terrain, drones are being tapped for a variety of uses in the energy sector.
DJI advertises rugged models for use over solar power arrays or to add eyes in the sky above oil and gas facilities.
Drones that "perform inspections, pipeline right of way work, and surveillance keep our industry on the cutting edge — and save companies time, effort, and the risks of working at height," refining industry trade group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers said in a tweetyesterday. AFPM member companies received the DHS warning, which was marked "For Official Use Only" but shared widely with critical infrastructure companies.
Several large U.S. railroads and electricity companies have used DJI drones in the past, including Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. AEP spokeswoman Tammy Ridout said the company "does own a few DJI drones that we use for very limited purposes."
"We have been aware of the concerns about DJI drones since the information was made public a couple years ago and have taken steps to minimize any potential risk associated with drone use on our system," she said in an email response to questions, noting that AEP provides guidance to drone pilots on connectivity of drones and downloading of imagery.
Along with assessing power lines and other equipment, drones at AEP may take footage for the company's promotional materials, she said. "Footage taken by drones is downloaded to a stand-alone computer. Drones are not connected to the AEP network."
In its alert, DHS acknowledges that unmanned aircraft systems "can serve as a beneficial tool for businesses" but warns companies to "be cautious" when buying technology from Chinese manufacturers.
A Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency spokesperson said the agency "recently released an industry alert providing organizations with information related to the inherit risks associated with using [unmanned aircraft system] technology manufactured in China and measures to reduce such risk."
The North American Electric Reliability Corp., which sets and enforces cyber and physical security standards for large U.S. utilities, got the word out about the DHS alert through the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, according to a spokesperson.
The nonprofit grid overseer said in a statement that "the threat of drones is a growing risk that has been recognized by industry for years," adding that the electric power industry has incorporated drones in a biennial security exercise dating back to 2013. "By sharing previously classified information on adversary activity, this DHS report helps further our knowledge, information sharing with industry, and mitigation techniques," NERC said.A trade 'battleground'
The last major U.S. drone manufacturer, 3D Robotics, shifted its operations away from building unmanned aircraft systems toward providing software for optimizing drone fleets.
Two years ago, the company announced a partnership with DJI, merging its Site Scan software platform with the Chinese manufacturer's products to make the two compatible. "With this integration, now our customers can get the best of both worlds: DJI's drones, and 3DR's software for managing and analyzing the data that these drones collect," the company said.
3DR didn't respond to requests for comment on DJI's security or the latest DHS alert. But the company's shift has left U.S. companies wanting to buy drones in America with scant options.
So do Chinese drones' promise outweigh their peril?
"The C-suites for any utility — water, gas or pipeline — they'll really want to consider this and take pause," said Harry Wingo, former chairman of the cybersecurity department at National Defense University's College of Information and Cyberspace. "If you're a CEO or [chief information security officer], you should be prepared to understand the full range of risks, technical, legal and political, that come from relying on equipment, software and networks created and maintained in China — a nation with a known track record of espionage and intellectual property theft."
Wingo said he personally has not bought DJI drones, and he described the ongoing debate over their security as a "battleground for what will happen between the U.S. and China" on other trade fronts, like U.S. government bans on telecommunications equipment from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and ZTE Corp.
John Villasenor, a UCLA professor and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, pointed out in an email that where a drone is manufactured "is often less of a concern than how and by whom it might be used." He added that a capable nation-state interested in mapping out U.S. grid or gas networks "could presumably do so using advanced reconnaissance satellite technology instead of a drone."
"While country of manufacture may in certain circumstances be an issue of concern in relation to drones, that concern is one of many in relation to imagery of sensitive U.S. infrastructure," he said in an email.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/21/stories/1060369689
-
White House Dismisses Gas Tax Hike Ahead of Meeting
May 21, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
The White House is throwing cold water on the idea of raising the federal gasoline tax to pay for an infrastructure package.
Senior administration officials have sought to reassure fiscal conservatives that a gas tax hike is off the table in recent closed-door meetings.
Those officials include White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Russ Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget. Bloomberg was first to report on the private meetings.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, was spotted leaving the White House on Friday. He confirmed in an interview that he has discussed the matter with administration officials in recent days and that he met with Vought on Friday to discuss unrelated spending issues.
"It's my understanding that the White House is not going to agree to a gasoline tax increase," Norquist told E&E News.
Currently, drivers pay a tax of 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline. The money goes into the Highway Trust Fund, which helps pay for road and bridge repairs. But the tax has not been increased since 1993, threatening the solvency of the fund.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) views a gas tax hike as a short-term funding solution. Other Democrats have also endorsed that approach.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), however, has raised concern that a gas tax hike would disproportionately burden the working class.
A source close to Schumer said last month that the New York lawmaker would not consider a gas tax hike unless President Trump rolls back part of the 2017 tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations (E&E Daily, April 30).
Schumer's sentiment was widely panned by fiscal conservatives, who see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a major win that will help Trump secure reelection.
"The Democrats have announced that they will only do the gas tax increase if they get a [partial rollback of] the tax bill," Norquist said.
"The president's argument for his reelection is that he cut taxes and it grew the economy," he said. "And if you begin to raise corporate rates, all of that growth dries up."
Norquist said Americans for Tax Reform and other like-minded groups are supporting a bipartisan bill that would partially pay for an infrastructure package without raising taxes.
H.R. 6104, the "Generating American Income and Infrastructure Now Act," would direct the Department of Agriculture to sell its distressed assets and redirect that money toward infrastructure projects.
The bill was introduced last year by Reps. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) and Ted Budd (R-N.C.). The trio plans to reintroduce the measure in the 116th Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately assured Clay, who is up for reelection next year, that she would bring the bill to the floor for a vote, Norquist said.Tomorrow at the White House
The brouhaha over the gas tax comes as Trump is scheduled to meet tomorrow with Pelosi, Schumer and other Democrats about paying for an infrastructure package.
White House spokesman Judd Deere said in an emailed statement to E&E News: "On Wednesday, the President will welcome Congressional Democrats to the White House to continue the discussion on rebuilding our Nation's crumbling infrastructure." He declined to comment further.
In a Fox News interview that aired Sunday, Trump said he remains committed to passing a historic infrastructure deal, but he worries about "being played by Democrats" who are trying to goad him into raising the gas tax.
"I think what they want me to do is say, 'Well, what we'll do is raise taxes and we'll do this and this and this,'" Trump said. "And then they'll have a news conference, 'See? Trump wants to raise taxes.' So it's little bit of a game."
At their last meeting, Trump and Democrats struck a conciliatory tone and agreed to spend $2 trillion on an infrastructure package, although they did not discuss funding options (E&E News PM, April 30).
D.J. Gribbin, who served as Trump's infrastructure adviser before exiting the White House last year, said congressional negotiators may be getting ahead of themselves by pinpointing the $2 trillion price tag.
"I would urge the negotiators to come up with a plan for spending before discussing a number. The last time we came up with a chunk of funds for infrastructure without a plan (the Recovery Act), it did not end well," Gribbin said in an email, referring to President Obama's 2009 stimulus package.Partisan battles
It ultimately remains to be seen whether the White House and Democrats will reach a consensus on infrastructure, despite their partisan bickering over other issues.
House Democrats have been busy conducting oversight of the Trump administration. They remain wary of handing Trump a "win" on infrastructure, even as his administration stonewalls their subpoenas and requests for information.
One lawmaker encapsulating this dynamic is House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.). As the leader of the tax-writing panel, Neal serves as a key intermediary between Democrats and the White House in the ongoing infrastructure talks.
Yet he's also battling the administration after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Friday refused to comply with a subpoena for Trump's tax returns.
Neal told reporters Friday that he sees little point in trying to hold Mnuchin in contempt of Congress, The New York Times reported.
Asked whether his panel would take up a gas tax, Neal declined to speculate. "I'm in favor of coming to an agreement with the administration as to how to finance it," Neal told reporters last week. "Let's see what the administration has got to say."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/21/stories/1060368723
-
Firm Tells MTA It Will Do 'Whatever It Takes' to Have Positive Train Control Done on Time
May 20, 2019 | Newsday
By Alfonso A. Castillo
The chief executive of the firm behind several of the blunders in the installation of federally required crash prevention technology on Long Island Rail Road trains has assured MTA leaders his company will do “whatever it takes” to complete the project on time, Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman Patrick Foye said.
Addressing members of the MTA Board’s Railroad Committee during a Manhattan meeting Monday morning, Foye said he and other members of the MTA leadership team met with Siemens chief executive Joe Kaeser on Friday and “made it crystal clear” that his company’s recent performance on the positive train control installation project has been unacceptable “and that Siemens was putting its company’s future business with the MTA at great risk.”
Foye said Kaeser gave him and the other MTA representatives his “full commitment” that the project would be completed by the federal government’s December 2020 deadline.
“This was not an assurance. This was a full commitment by Siemens to do whatever it takes,” said Foye, who noted that Siemens officials accepted “full responsibility” for recent failures in the project “and do not seek to shift the blame.”
"I think they understand that we're deadly serious about this," Foye said.
Siemens said in a statement that Kaeser "met with MTA leadership last week to express our unwavering commitment to supporting MTA’s planned schedule for revenue service demonstration and PTC certification."
"We will continue to work closely with the railroads to contribute to their success," the company added.
The $1 billion project to install positive train control, or PTC, throughout the LIRR and Metro-North has been marred by complications and delays on the part of the contractor, a joint venture of Siemens and Bombardier Transportation. PTC works by having the antennas on trains communicate with radio transponders installed along tracks to automatically slow down or stop a train that goes too fast or violates a signal.
In the most recent hiccup, the contractor, while in the process of addressing a calibration error that resulted in the recall of about 1,000 "undercar scanner antennas" needed for PTC, realized it had made another mistake in how it was installing a related electrical component — soldering them onto circuit boards rather than bolting them, as specified by the manufacturer. The mistake required making additional repairs to the recalled antennas.
The original recall stemmed from the discovery that equipment used to test the antennas had not been calibrated in three years. Siemens officials said they also found out that the employee responsible for tuning one of the components of the recalled devices was only following proper protocols when he knew he was being observed during quality control audits.
MTA officials last month demanded that Kaeser appear and answer questions about problems and offer assurances about the project. MTA officials said they would consider excluding Siemens from future consideration for MTA contracts if Kaeser did not show.
MTA officials said the contractor has taken several steps to address its recent problems, including through “several leadership changes” and a reorganization of the project team, and by bringing in a third-party monitor to review its work at the contractor’s cost.
MTA board member Neal Zuckerman, who chairs the board's PTC working group, expressed skepticism over Siemens' promises, and said the MTA "must be ever-vigilant" in making sure the firm makes good on its word.
"I, at least, . . . do not have as much confidence as the global CEO at Siemens has at this point,” Zuckerman said.
Foye assured the board that the MTA will "hold Siemens, Bombardier and the consortium’s feet to the fire on behalf of our customers."
Under the U.S. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which stemmed from a Chatsworth, California, commuter train crash that killed 25 people, railroads were required to have PTC in place by the end of 2015. When it became apparent that most railroads could not meet the deadline, federal lawmakers agreed to push it to 2018. Having encountered various delays, the LIRR last year sought and was granted another extension, until 2020, to complete the project. Missing the deadline could result in fines as high as $27,904 a day.
LIRR president Phillip Eng said several "positive steps" have been taken in advancing PTC in recent weeks. He said LIRR trains have completed 135 test runs this year using the technology on the Port Washington branch, and recently began similar tests between Babylon and Patchogue.
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/mta-overtime-positive-train-control-1.31346602
-
Two States Fighting Over Bakken Crude-By-Rail Shipments
May 21, 2019 | Kallanish Energy
It’s nearly 1,300 miles between Bismarck, North Dakota, and Olympia, Washington.
But a major legal fight is brewing between the two state capitals – with potentially huge ramifications for oil producers in the Bakken Shale, Kallanish Energy reports.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has signed legislation establishing new requirements for the highly flammable crude oil shipments by rail from the Bakken Shale of North Dakota and Montana to refineries in his state.
Feds have ‘failed’
The rules would require the volatility of the Bakken crude oil be reduced by removing explosive gases.
“As the federal government continues to fail to exercise its full powers to ensure the safe transport of oil by rail, Washington needs to remain vigilant in protecting our communities from the very real risk of derailments,” Inslee said, in a statement.
The new rules would only kick in two years after Washington state sees a 10% increase in rail shipments or new facilities are built.
North Dakota is prepared to challenge those new rules in court in the coming weeks. The new rules pose a threat to North Dakota producers and the North Dakota economy, it says.
10% of Bakken crude goes to Washington state
The state ships roughly 150,000 barrels per day of crude, or about 10% of its daily Bakken crude production by rail to Washington state.
There are currently 17 unit trains per week that carry Bakken crude to Washington refineries. A unit train is roughly 100 cars.
North Dakota is the No. 2 oil producer in the U.S., behind only Texas.
Supporters say Washington’s Senate Bill 5579 that Inslee signed last week is designed to reduce the risk of fiery train derailments.
Opponents say no scientific backing
Opponents say that fear is not backed up by science, and the new rules violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
North Dakota is preparing to file a lawsuit against Washington’s new rules in federal court to protect its Bakken producers.
North Dakota’s congressional delegation had urged Inslee to veto the bill, describing it as a de facto ban of crude-by-rail shipments from the Bakken. North Dakota is seeking other states to support it in its court fight.
The Washington bill, sponsored by Sen. Andy Billig, Democrat-Spokane, requires Washington refineries or other facilities that offload or load crude oil from rail cars to meet lower vapor pressure standards.
A ‘serious risk’
He said the Bakken crude oil trains “pose a serious risk” to communities, including Spokane along the rail route. The bill, he said, is “about safety.”
He has criticized the federal government for not adopting a nationwide vapor pressure limit for crude oil shipped by rail.
The federal government has adopted so-called packing rules for high-hazard flammable trains, but it has not adopted a nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude shipped by rail and has not responded to petitions from multiple states, including Washington, supporting such rules.
The Trump administration last September also rolled back oil train safety regulations.
“While we know there is more to do to reduce the risk of a catastrophic event, this bill puts in place protections if we see an increase in oil train traffic travelling through our state,” Billig said, in statement.
Reduced vapor pressure
The Washington legislation requires crude oil to have a vapor pressure limit of less than 9 pounds per square inch. Existing facilities that expand crude oil volumes would have to adhere to the new limits within two years of the expansion. Failing to meet the standard could lead to fines of up to $2,500 per day per rail car.
North Dakota requires oil to have a vapor pressure of no more than 13.7 pounds per square inch. That requirement was added in 2015 to lower the volatility of Bakken crude that was then being shipped by rail to refineries across the country.
What is considered the national standard for stable crude oil is 14.7 pounds per square inch.
Wait for long-delayed study
North Dakota’s top oil regulator, Lynn Helms, told local media there is no scientific basis for the limit of 9 pounds per square inch. Helms had urged Washington lawmakers to wait for the results of a long-delayed study on the Bakken’s high volatility by the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.
Lowering North Dakota crude to a vapor pressure below 9 pounds per square inch would require the removal of butane, which is needed as an additive for winter gasoline blends so vehicles start in cold weather, the North Dakota Petroleum Council told The Associated Press.
That would devalue the Bakken crude, the trade group said. Propane in the Bakken crude oil could also be removed.
In 2015, about 75% of Bakken crude oil was moved by rail, much of it to East Coast refineries. That later dropped to roughly 30%.
Lac-Megantic a painful reminder
The volatility of the Bakken crude drew widespread attention following 14 explosive derailments in 2013-2015, including one in 2013, that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
The only rail car that did not explode at Lac-Megantic had 9 pounds per square inch of pressure, Washington state said in defending its new rules.
Inslee, a Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, has made climate change and clean energy the key issues in his campaign. He also signed a bill last week that bans hydraulic fracturing or fracking in Washington state.
Inslee told local media he no longer supports a liquefied natural gas plant in Tacoma or a methanol production facility in Kalama. Those projects will get fair and objective reviews by state regulatory agencies, despite the governor’s reversal, he said.
Washington needs to move totally away from fossil fuels and to develop clean energy, he said.
https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2019/05/21/two-states-in-fight-over-bakken-crude-by-rail-shipments/
-
EPA Said to Cut PM Benefits in Final ACE Rule to Reduce Premature Deaths
May 20, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves and Stuart Parker
EPA in its final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) power plant greenhouse gas rule is expected to include a controversial projection of far fewer benefits tied to reductions in particulate matter (PM), according to a news report, a decision that would significantly lower the estimated number of additional premature deaths compared to a calculation in the proposed version of the rule.
The report, published May 20 by the New York Times, included an interview with EPA air chief Bill Wehrum who “acknowledged . . . the new method would be part of the agency’s final analysis of the rule.”
The Times says the agency plans to “adopt a new method for projecting the future health risks of air pollution, one that experts said that has never been peer reviewed and is not scientifically sound.” It attributed the plans to “five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.”
However, EPA in a May 20 statement is disputing that Wehrum confirmed such a change, saying there will be “no new methodology” related to PM emissions in the final rule’s cost-benefit analysis -- even though it says it is “considering changes” to how it handles the issue.
Specifically, the Times report said EPA would not count benefits from PM reductions that are below the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the pollutant. Wehrum noted the NAAQS is set to protect health with an adequate margin of safety, arguing it makes no sense for reductions below that level to deliver massive benefits.
Wehrum also said it was “unfortunate” that so much public attention had focused on EPA’s projection in the ACE proposal that the rule could cause up to 1,400 additional premature deaths per year compared to the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) it is intended to replace, largely due to increases in PM emissions.
The EPA statement says, “To be clear, there is no new methodology related to [PM] included in the cost-benefit analysis accompanying the final [ACE] rule. EPA sets [NAAQS] at a level that protects public health within a margin of safety. A longstanding and important question is how much benefit is derived by further reducing ambient levels below the national standards. We are considering changes to how such benefits are calculated. No changes to this scientific method will be made unless and until the new approach has been peer reviewed.”
But EPA in a separate October 2017 proposal to repeal the CPP did include in its draft regulatory impact analysis (RIA) an analysis that omitted PM benefits below the NAAQS.
That change was not included in the ACE proposal, but the two rulemakings are closely tied together since ACE would replace the CPP. EPA’s draft final ACE rule is undergoing Office of Management & Budget interagency review and is expected to be finalized in late June. It is unclear whether EPA will finalize the CPP repeal at the same time. The Obama-era remains stayed by the Supreme Court.
‘Illuminate The Issue’
If EPA does drop from its benefits calculation any emissions cuts below the NAAQS, that would allow it to better justify repealing the CPP and replacing it with ACE even though the replacement would achieve significantly fewer greenhouse gas cuts beyond a business-as-usual scenario and could result in increases of PM and other criteria pollutants.
The approach “discards more than a decade of peer-reviewed EPA methods and relies on unfounded medical assumptions,” the Times report adds. Scientists say there are no safe levels of PM, which causes cardiovascular and respiratory disease, so the conclusion that there are no benefits to reductions below the NAAQS is questionable.
The CPP relied on significant “co-benefits” from PM reductions that burning less coal would achieve.
Wehrum in the interview noted that rule included a high-end projection of $40 billion in health benefits, tied to PM reductions. “How in the world can you get $30 [billion] or $40 billion of benefit to public health when most of that is attributable to reductions in areas that already meet a health-based standard? That doesn’t make any sense,” he said.
He added that the final ACE rule would have a variety of analyses, including one that would not recognize any health benefits below the PM NAAQS, according to the Times article. He said that would result in a significant reduction in the 1,400 premature deaths predicted in the proposal.
Wehrum said the analyses will “illuminate the issue” of the appropriate estimates of health benefits from PM cuts, and that the agency would allow for public debate. Any new method would be subject to peer review if it becomes EPA’s “primary tool for measuring health risks.”
New York University law professor Richard Revesz says EPA is “apparently planning to pretend that there are no benefits to reducing concentrations of criteria pollutants under the level of the [NAAQS]. Such a move would be inconsistent with the practice of every administration, of both political parties, since the Reagan administration, and is wholly inconsistent with well-established science. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that the Trump administration’s approach would survive judicial scrutiny.”
In the RIA that EPA issued alongside its proposed CPP repeal in October 2017, the agency also used a much stricter test for counting co-benefits of reducing pollutants other than those targeted by the rulemaking. That prompted Obama EPA air chief Janet McCabe to say it was “a signal about how they are thinking about those issues.”
The RIA significantly downgraded the benefits and co-benefits of the original CPP and offered an alternative analysis of the co-benefits that discounted many of the monetized benefits the Obama EPA projected. McCabe noted that the change in methodology would have to withstand judicial review and would have to be supported by “a reasonable, rational basis” for why the prior method “is no longer appropriate.”
The CPP repeal has not yet been finalized, though its new approach to PM-related co-benefits attracted a wide range of criticism when it was floated in the RIA. For example, a former agency official said, “It seems like . . . the administration is not liking the numbers [from repealing rules] so they are trying to redo the methodologies to get numbers more acceptable to them.” The agency also showed “no sign at all that [it] has gone through the kind of peer-reviewed process that previous methodologies have undergone.”
The Trump EPA called the Obama EPA assumptions “highly uncertain and/or controversial” in an Oct. 10, 2017, statement on the proposed CPP repeal.
But economists at Resources for the Future issued a series of critiques of the agency’s co-benefits approach, including one where senior fellow Alan Krupnick called EPA’s criticism of the Obama approach “flat out wrong.”
MATS Changes
The power plant GHG rules are not the first time the Trump EPA has sought to lower the benefits of air rules. For example, when it proposed last month to eliminate the legal underpinning of the Obama administration’s mercury & air toxics standards (MATS) for the utility sector, it relied on the 2011 RIA for the rule but eliminated all non-hazardous air pollutant benefits. PM “co-benefits” were a key aspect of the MATS rule, but they were reduced to zero.
That allowed EPA to show that the costs of complying with MATS dwarfed the benefits and helped the agency justify the change, but the agency is taking on significant criticism for not conducting a new RIA for its proposal to scrap the legal underpinning for MATS, an issue that is likely to be included in litigation over the final rule.
In the debate over MATS, even some industry sources argued for counting co-benefits. One source, acknowledging they were “treading in some dangerous waters” by opposing the administration’s policy preferences on co-benefits, says counting such benefits “does make sense,” given that the cost for the emission controls is the same and the reductions in co-benefits such as PM and sulfur dioxide are real. “If you have a multiple pollutant rule where the [hazardous air pollutants] have surrogates that are criteria pollutants, why not quantify the health benefits of reducing those as well?” the source said ahead of the proposal.
But others in industry have long argued that it is improper for EPA to count benefits of any pollution reduction below the NAAQS, though at the same time EPA is facing pressure to tighten the PM NAAQS because of new evidence on additional harms that exposure can cause beyond cardio and respiratory issues. A stricter NAAQS would raise the level of co-benefits EPA would have to calculate under its new approach.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-said-cut-pm-benefits-final-ace-rule-reduce-premature-deaths
-
EPA to Implement Change Reducing Number of Predicted Deaths From Air Pollution: Report
May 21, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Chris Mills Rodrigo
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to change how it calculates the health risks of air pollution resulting in far fewer predicted deaths from pollution, The New York Times reported Monday.
The shift will reportedly make it easier to roll back the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.ADVERTISEMENT
The EPA's had initially calculated that repealing and replacing the climate policy would have resulted in an additional 1,400 premature deaths per year.
The new analytical model would significantly reduce that number, making it easier for the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks, according to the Times.
Five people familiar with the plan told the Times that the new modeling method would appear in the agency’s analysis of the final version of the replacement regulation, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, expected to be rolled out in June.
The EPA disputed that a new methodology would be used in the Affordable Clean Energy rule, but acknowledged that changes to the calculation are being considered.
“To be clear, there is no new methodology related to particulate matter included in the cost-benefit analysis accompanying the final Affordable Clean Energy rule,” the agency said in a statement to The Hill.
“We are considering changes to how such benefits are calculated. No change to this scientific method will be made unless and until the new approach has been peer reviewed. EPA is constantly evaluating approaches to improve transparency and communicate uncertainty regarding costs and benefits of its regulatory actions.”
The Clean Power Plan sought to push utilities to switch away from coal and instead use natural gas or renewable energy to generate electricity, which would reduce particulate matter.
The Affordable Clean Energy rule will reportedly keep many coal plants open, increasing particulate matter that can cause health hazards.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/444677-epa-to-implement-change-reducing-number-of-predicted-deaths-from
-
How Dems Use Spending to Secure Environmental Goals
May 21, 2019 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
When a House Appropriations subcommittee marked up the fiscal 2020 energy and water legislation, there was a message displayed on the digital screens and printed atop a stack of papers handed out to all 11 appropriators.
"Sustaining Life on Earth," the slogan read, with an image of the planet replacing the letter O.
The green theme might seem unusual for a bill that has long been associated with Energy Department nuclear weapons labs and Army Corps of Engineers dams and levees.
But it sought to highlight the importance of environmental issues, a priority that Democrats have repeatedly returned to as they have rolled out more than a half-dozen annual spending bills during the past two weeks.
"At its heart, the energy and water appropriations bill is an infrastructure and climate bill that ensures the continued strength of the American economy in a changing world," Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), chairwoman of the Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee, explained.
She noted the bill would increase the Army Corps' project funding by more than $2 billion and add hundreds of millions of dollars more for renewable energy research.
Out of power for nearly a decade, House Democrats are using the fiscal 2020 bills to both emphasize their commitment to the environment and find a path to get those priorities signed into law.
It's a sea change from Republicans, who for the past eight years rarely emphasized those matters outside of the Interior-EPA bill and instead were often trying to block or reverse Obama-era environment regulations.
"Democrats care about the environment, they care about climate change," said Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), who noted in early drafting sessions that appropriators agreed to put environmental issues in whatever relevant fiscal 2020 spending bills they could find.
"There are opportunities to advance our priorities," Lowey said, a reference to the 12 spending bills often being viewed as must-pass legislation because they keep the federal government open.'It's time to deliver'
Environmental groups, which donated tens of millions of dollars this past election cycle to help Democrats win back the House, have noticed the approach.
"Climate change touches every part of our economy and needs to be addressed in nearly every piece of legislation," said Elizabeth Gore, senior vice president for political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund. "We applaud the House for being proactive in including important pro-climate provisions to several bills."
From more spending on climate research to a ban on plastic straws, the emphasis on the environment has been hard to miss.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), chairwoman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, whose bill would increase EPA funding by $700 million, was quick to point out several increases in other spending legislation, as well.
She noted the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill contained millions more in funding for cleanup of the PFAS containment at military bases, while the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill would triple funding for climate research at the National Institutes of Health.
"It's appropriate to discuss environmental factors in a health care bill," she said.
In the proposed Commerce-Justice-Science bill, appropriators are emphasizing that a nearly $10 billion top-line increase would benefit climate research, in part by reversing an 18% cut proposed for NOAA by the Trump administration and increasing National Science Foundation funding.
Even the largest and smallest annual spending bills, the Defense and Legislative Branch bills respectively, which are not normally known for emphasizing the environment, have provisions favorable to greens.
Defense directs more money for PFAS cleanup at military bases and would provide nearly $200 million more than the White House request for other environmental remediation work at military facilities.
The spending bill that covers the legislative branch seeks to revive Congress' in-house science think tank, the Office of Technology Assessment, which did respected, nonpartisan research on climate change, acid rain and oil spills in the past. The bill also would seek a ban on plastic straws in House cafeterias.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, said the appropriators' approach makes sense as there is "a lot of work to be done" after what he said are years of the GOP shortchanging environmental and climate issues.
Attaching the provisions to a must-pass spending bill could make them easier to get enacted, he said, rather than addressing them in stand-alone policy bills that the Senate would have no reason to take up.
Tonko authored the most significant climate bill to thus far pass the House this Congress, to block the Trump administration from spending any money to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. But the Senate GOP has said it will not be taken up.
House Democrats have now put the same language from Tonko's bill into the House's proposed fiscal 2020 State-Foreign Operations bill.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a senior House Natural Resources Committee member, said Democratic appropriators have been open to adding environmental language to spending bills.
For example, Huffman got a provision attached to the Interior-EPA spending bill that would make it difficult to move ahead with drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge without first earning significant revenue from drilling lease auctions.
Environmental issues were a "big part of what Democrats ran on in the 2018 midterms, when bills like this start moving. It's time to deliver," Huffman added.Legislative reality of the Senate
Democratic appropriators are eager to tout their spending but often sidestep questions about what provisions might survive negotiations with a GOP-controlled Senate.
They say at least they'll bring those issues to the negotiating table, and that's further than they have gotten in recent years with Republicans controlling both chambers.
"You just want to do everything you can" to try to get some of those provisions into law, said Tonko, who is not an appropriator.
Senior GOP appropriator Tom Cole of Oklahoma said he believes Democrats are pursuing a two-tracked strategy to get their environmental agenda enacted.
"You can either try to get the Green New Deal all in one bill, or you can try to get in piece by piece in each little bill," said Cole, adding that the approach lacks bipartisan support.
Cole and other Republicans dismiss the chances of the Democrats' strategy having much success.
"These are right now I think destined for the ash can of legislative history," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee. "They are going to run into legislative reality in the Senate."
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the ranking member of Natural Resources, called the proposed spending bills an "amalgamation of crap."
He said Democrats have avoided attaching add-on policy riders to the spending bills and instead promoted their environmental priorities by adding more funding for those programs.
"It's a better way of hiding stuff," said Bishop, who added, "You can't hide stuff forever with a Republican Senate."
The Senate has yet to take up any spending bills and may not unveil any until next month. In recent years, the Senate has been a moderating force on some of the more extreme environmental cuts and riders sought by House Republicans.
It could play a similar role this year — but on Democratic proposals. Regardless, greens still see gain in the House's effort.
"We think this is good politics to be pushing issues. If Mitch McConnell continues to make the Senate a legislative graveyard, I think he and his members will suffer politically," said Alex Taurel, the director of conservation programs at the League of Conservation Voters.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/21/stories/1060370169
-
Warren Backs Calls for Climate Focused Debate
May 20, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Presidential contender Elizabeth Warren is adding her voice to a chorus of candidates and environmental groups asking for a Democratic primary debate focused on climate.
The Massachusetts senator tweeted Monday that she is in support of the idea.
“During selfie lines, people often press notes into my hands to explain why they’re in this fight. Last week in VA, I got a note asking if I support a climate debate,” Warren tweeted. “Yes! We need to do everything we can to save our planet.”
Warren joins Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) in asking for a debate focused entirely on the issues of global warming, climate action and environmental policies.
Inslee, a candidate who is tying his entire platform to climate, penned a letter on Medium in April to his fellow 2020 Democrats asking them to call on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to hold a climate debate.
“We have barely a decade to defeat climate change. And whether we shrink to this challenge, or rise to it, is the central question of our time — and it deserves a full DNC debate,” Inslee wrote.
The Sierra Club, Credo, MoveOn.Org and other environmental groups have also called for a debate with the singular focus.
Climate change has risen to the top as a major issue for likely Democratic voters. A poll last week also found the issue has risen to prominence amongst all voters.
Warren has championed an ambitious plan to attack global warming. She’s backed the progressive climate action plan The Green New Deal in the Senate and has also introduced two of her own policy plans that touch on curbing carbon emissions.
The first Democratic debate will be held at the end of June in Miami.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/444627-warren-backs-calls-for-climate-focused-debate
-
Carbon Capture Project Is Testing Ground for Tax Credits
May 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A developing carbon capture project from Occidental Petroleum Corp. and biofuel producer White Energy is already capturing the interest of some financial backers as a first mover to take advantage of major new bipartisan tax credits for the technology.
The companies have completed the first phase of the project, which would install carbon capture at two of White Energy’s Texas-based ethanol facilities. That phase assessed the engineering design for the carbon capture systems and associated carbon dioxide pipelines, representatives of the companies announced May 20 at a conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo.
Occidental and White Energy announced their partnership in June 2018. And their project offers a testing ground for other companies, as well as investors, who are eyeing ways to take advantage of major bipartisan tax credits for carbon capture technology enacted in February 2018.
The companies are already working closely with some financial players to ensure the project best uses the tax credits, Greg Thompson, White Energy’s president and CEO, told Bloomberg Environment in an interview.
Financial players are interested in learning more about the project, and carbon capture in general, particularly as the wind and solar tax credits begin to phase out, Thompson said.
“There’s a lot of excitement we’ve seen from financial players wanting to learn more and participate,” he added.
The production tax credit for wind energy is slated to completely phase out in 2020. The investment tax credit for solar begins to wind down in 2020 and reaches zero for residential projects in 2023.
Carbon capture separates the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the emissions of power plants and other industrial facilities so it can be stored or used, rather than released into the atmosphere where it drives global warming. The technology has been slow to commercialize because it is expensive.
Next StepsThe next step for the project is to finalize the commercial terms between Occidental and White Energy. Houston-based Occidental aims to use the captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery, a process in which carbon dioxide is injected into oil reservoirs to extract additional oil.
But in the meantime, the companies are working with federal and state regulators to shape how policies like the bipartisan tax credits and California’s updated low-carbon fuel standard are implemented, Thompson said.
Supporters of carbon capture say the federal incentives could offer the technology a huge boost by helping to break down some of the financial barriers to projects, particularly those paired with power plants or large industrial facilities that would require large upfront cost.
The credit is poised to expand the pool of investors and companies that can work on carbon capture and see return on their investment.
But at the moment, Occidental and White Energy are the lone companies publicly moving forward with a project aimed to take advantage of the new federal tax incentives, known as the 45Q tax credit.
Other companies and investors have been waiting on the sidelines for federal tax regulators to set guidelines for how to claim the credit.
The Internal Revenue Service—after months of increasing pressure from carbon capture backers, including coal producers, oil companies, labor unions, and environmental groups—began taking comment May 20 about how to structure those guidelines.
‘High Confidence’Occidental and White Energy, though, have “high confidence” in their project, even without seeing the final IRS guidelines, Thompson said.
Revisions to the 45Q tax credit increased the value of the incentive from $10 to $35 per ton of carbon dioxide used for enhanced oil recovery. It also reduced the minimum threshold for capture, allowing ethanol companies such as White Energy to access the credits.
Being a first mover after the tax credits took effect could give the companies’ project an advantage in attracting investment and paving the way for more projects down the road.
Thompson said generally financial institutions are aware of carbon capture and exploring investment opportunities, but they’re hoping to cut through broader conversations about the technology to determine which projects offer the best return on investment.
“Financial institutions are trying to figure out which partner or which project is going to make the most sense,” Thompson said. “The good thing for us is having a partner like Occidental we think definitely reduces the level of risk in such a project,” he added.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/carbon-capture-project-is-testing-ground-for-tax-credits
-
Experts: Turn Methane Into CO2 to Fight Climate Change
May 21, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
Most plans to tackle climate change revolve around cutting down on carbon dioxide, usually by reducing human emissions.
But an unconventional new idea could actually slow the progress of global warming by putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — while removing a more potent planet-warming gas in the process.
In a comment published Monday in the journal Nature Sustainability, a group of climate and chemistry experts said methane should be focused on more in the fight against climate change. Methane persists for a much shorter time in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide but is a much more powerful climate-warming gas while it lasts.
Capturing atmospheric methane and converting it into less potent carbon dioxide, using special materials and chemical catalysts, may be one way to reduce the warming potential of greenhouse gases in the air, the authors say.
The idea is not intended to be a replacement for cutting emissions, noted the comment's lead author Rob Jackson, a climate and environmental scientist at Stanford University.
"The smartest thing to do is to keep methane and carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere," he said. "It's just that emissions are still rising, and we need to think about other tools and approaches to fight climate change."
Taking greenhouse gases back out of the atmosphere, in addition to reducing the emissions going into it, is a long-discussed idea among climate scientists and activists. But it has mostly centered on carbon dioxide up to this point.
The idea has typically focused on ways to suck CO2 out of the air and then store it away so it doesn't leak back into the atmosphere — a process broadly known as "negative emissions." The net result would be a lower total concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Scientists have proposed a variety of ways to pull it off, from huge forests full of carbon-guzzling trees, which naturally soak up carbon dioxide, to special machines that would suck CO2 directly out of the air. In the latter scenario, the captured carbon dioxide would then have to be permanently stored away somewhere, likely by injecting it deep into the Earth.
There's been much less focus on capturing methane, likely in part because the process is more technically difficult than capturing carbon dioxide. But scientists have some ideas about how it could be done.
The new comment proposes a promising method that involves the use of porous minerals called zeolites. Scientists already use zeolites to capture methane and convert it into methanol, an alcohol that can be used in chemical feedstocks or other industrial applications.
It's not much more chemically complicated to convert the methane to carbon dioxide instead, Jackson pointed out. Once the conversion has taken place, the most cost-effective action would be to simply release the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. It does mean that more CO2 ends up in the air, but because it's taking the place of a more potent greenhouse gas, the immediate effect is to lessen the progress of global warming.
Currently, the concentration of methane in the Earth's atmosphere is hovering around 1,866 parts per billion. Before the industrial era, when human emissions of greenhouse gases began to skyrocket, methane levels were closer to 750 ppb.
Restoring the atmosphere to its preindustrial methane concentrations would produce about 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the conversion process, Jackson and colleagues note. That's the equivalent of a few months' worth of present-day global carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, the world emits about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year.
"It's not trivial, but it's not a deal breaker," Jackson said.
Because the concept is almost entirely hypothetical for the moment, it's difficult to outline all the conditions that would be required to develop it and bring it up to scale.
When it comes to direct air capture of carbon dioxide — its closest existing analog — the costs of deploying the technology and the challenges to developing a market for it are some of the biggest hurdles. Experts have pointed out that federal incentives may be necessary for corporations to consider it worthwhile to invest in the technology. That could mean anything from a tax on carbon emissions to a subsidy for carbon removal.
The same is likely to be true for methane conversion, the authors of the new comment suggest, noting that "a price on carbon emissions or a policy mandate would be required" for the process to become economically attractive. Under such a scenario, though, they note that methane capture could become even more attractive than carbon dioxide capture — the price on methane would likely be higher because it's a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Those are all details that remain to be debated. For now, the idea is just a concept — but it's one that some experts say could potentially add a new tool to the arsenal of weapons against climate change.
"We should be looking at the options for removal of all the major greenhouse gases," David Victor, a climate and energy policy expert at the University of California, San Diego, said in an emailed comment to E&E News. "After CO2, methane is the next leading candidate."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/21/stories/1060369151
-
Whole Foods to Stop Offering Plastic Straws
May 20, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
Whole Foods is preparing to stop offering plastic straws at any of its 500 stores.
The company, which is owned by Amazon, announced on Monday that by July it would no longer sell plastic straws in its stores in the U.S., Canada and United Kingdom, according to CNN.
The move marks the first time a national grocery chain has taken the step to ditch plastic straws. It also comes more than 10 years after the company stopped offering disposable plastic bags for customers.
Whole Foods will offer paper straws at its juice and coffee bars starting in July, though CNN noted that plastic straws will be available upon request for customers with disabilities.
In addition, Whole Foods will start selling smaller plastic bags in its produce department. And the company said it would replace hard plastic cases for rotisserie chickens with bags that use 70 percent less plastic. "We recognize that single-use plastics are a concern for many of our customers, Team Members and suppliers, and we're proud of these packaging changes, which will eliminate an estimated 800,000 pounds of plastics annually," Whole Foods's chief merchandising officer, AC Gallo, said in a statement to CNN. Whole Foods's decision to stop offering plastic bags comes as businesses and cities around the globe make a more concerted push to be environmentally conscious. Miami Beach, Fla., and Seattle have enacted bans on plastic straws over concerns about ocean pollution. Ikea announced last year that it would stop selling selling single-use plastic in its locations and that the products would be completely phased out by 2020.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/444630-whole-foods-to-stop-offering-plastic-straws-at-all-stores
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested