Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Musk's Battery Plan Spurs Producers to Weigh New Plants
Jun 3, 2015 | The Detroit News
By Jack Kaskey
Elon Musk's plan to put batteries into millions of homes and cars is pushing two of the leading lithium producers to consider new factories to meet an expected surge in demand. -
(ACC Mentioned) Strong Outlook for U.S. Chemical Industry
Jun 3, 2015 | Powder Bulk Solids
Following a first quarter softened by transitory extreme weather as well as port disruption, the U.S. economy is growing below its potential as high taxes, debt, and regulatory burdens continue to take a toll on business and consumer confidence, causing businesses to cut-back on capital spending in the first quarter of 2015, according to the American Chemistry Council's (ACC), Mid-Year 2015 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook released today. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Advocates Outline Legal Arguments In EPA DSW Rule Litigation
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Industry proponents and environmental groups in separate court filings are laying out issues they will raise in challenging EPA's recently finalized definition of solid waste (DSW) rule in court, with industry questioning whether EPA is illegally regulating hazardous secondary materials that have not been "discarded," and environmentalists questioning the agency's exclusions from hazardous waste regulation under the rule. -
(ACC Mentioned) Tests of Canned Food Brands Reveal Most Have Controversial Chemical in Can Lining
Jun 3, 2015 | Food Safety News
By James Andrews
Bisphenol-A, or BPA, a chemical component found in plastic bottles and canned food liners, has long courted controversy over its alleged health risks. -
House Panel Approves Toxic Chemical Safety Bill
Jun 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced a toxic chemical safety bill on a nearly unanimous vote on Wednesday, clearing the bill to hit the House floor by the end of the month. -
House Panel Gives Broad Approval to TSCA Update
Jun 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bipartisan update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, but it could undergo some tinkering to allow more leeway for state regulations. -
TSCA Bill Sails Through Committee to Full House
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning easily approved a bipartisan bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, though rifts emerged among some pushing for additional provisions. -
Actress Builds Billion-Dollar Company on Peace of Mind
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Jessica Alba, the co-founder of the Honest Company, has built a $200 million fortune selling parents products meant to give them peace of mind. -
EWG Report Urges Consumers to Shun Companies Using BPA in Cans
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Working Group today increased its efforts to target companies that use the controversial chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA, in the linings of cans. -
EPA Reviewing PCP Registration After International POPs Treaty Decision
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
An ongoing EPA review of its registration of the antimicrobial pentachlorophenol (PCP) -- which the agency began as an international ban on the wood preservative was pending -- could affect the chemical's use in this country even though the United States is not bound by the recent international decision to prohibit use of the chemical. -
Ex-Im Bank is Critical to US Role in Energy Exports
Jun 3, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Former Amb. Ron Kirk
The world's growing electricity market needs America's proven expertise, but the opportunity for American industry to supply that capability is at risk. -
Enviros Jump into Fracking Rule Litigation -- On Government's Side
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
After two months of public speculation over how environmental groups would respond to the Obama administration's new regulations for hydraulic fracturing, a coalition of conservation groups has come out on the government's side -- seeking to defend the rule in federal court. -
Barrasso, Doc Spar Over Ozone Costs
Jun 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
It was doc versus doc at a Senate ozone hearing on Wednesday. -
One Senator's Crusade to Combat a McConnell Anti-EPA Onslaught
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Joel Kirkland
When Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse started his 95th Senate floor speech on global warming, the discerning cable viewer witnessed a shift from his bully pulpit admonition that often begins, "We are sleepwalking our way to a climate catastrophe." -
Obama's Pitch for Clean Power Plan Hinges on Health Research
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
In its push for cutting greenhouse gases in the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration has leaned hard on the health argument for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Musk's Battery Plan Spurs Producers to Weigh New Plants
Jun 3, 2015 | The Detroit News
By Jack Kaskey
Elon Musk's plan to put batteries into millions of homes and cars is pushing two of the leading lithium producers to consider new factories to meet an expected surge in demand.
Albemarle Corp. is considering a new plant to make lithium hydroxide, the form of the metal used in electric vehicle batteries, Chief Executive Officer Luke Kissam said. FMC Corp. will decide within a year whether to build a new hydroxide plant, said CEO Pierre Brondeau. Both expect their projects will be built in Asia or the U.S.
Musk, the founder and chief executive officer of Tesla Motors Inc., expects to open next year a so-called gigafactory outside Reno, Nevada, to make batteries that power cars and store renewable energy for homes and businesses. Musk has called demand for stationary batteries "staggering" as states led by California seek ways to integrate solar and wind power into the electric grid.
"I expect over time we should get 50 percent of the growth in lithium derivatives," Kissam said in an interview at the American Chemistry Council's annual meeting in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
FMC, which controls half the world's lithium hydroxide output, and Albemarle, the biggest lithium products producer, are vying for market share in the expanding sector. Philadelphia-based FMC will decide by mid-2016 whether to add capacity in the U.S. or Asia to meet demand from companies such as Tesla, Brondeau said.
Albemarle, based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is designing a plant to convert spodumene directly into lithium hydroxide. The idea is to skip a step in order to make the company the lowest- cost producer, Kissam said. Spodumene is typically made into lithium chloride and then converted to hydroxide.
Musk reassured investors last month that Tesla will meet its projected 55,000 car deliveries this year and that its Model X sport utility vehicle will start reaching customers in the third quarter. In addition, Tesla has 38,000 orders from around the world for Powerwall, its home energy product, and 2,500 for the industrial-sized Powerpack. Tesla announced several partnerships with companies like Edison International's Southern California Edison and Amazon.com Inc.
Should Tesla help boost demand for lithium hydroxide, FMC will need to expand production capacity by 2017, Brondeau said.
Albemarle also plans to begin production later this year at a new plant in Chile that can make 20,000 tons a year of battery-grade lithium chloride from brine, although production won't fully ramp up until early 2017, Kissam said. The chloride product can be processed into hydroxide, or used in stationary batteries.
Albemarle and Sociedad Quimica & Minera de Chile SA, or SQM, are the lowest cost producers of lithium carbonate, he said.
Lithium is Albemarle's most profitable business, with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization approaching 40 percent of sales, Kissam said. Albemarle acquired the business with its $6.2 billion purchase of Rockwood Holdings Inc. in a deal that closed in January.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Strong Outlook for U.S. Chemical Industry
Jun 3, 2015 | Powder Bulk Solids
Following a first quarter softened by transitory extreme weather as well as port disruption, the U.S. economy is growing below its potential as high taxes, debt, and regulatory burdens continue to take a toll on business and consumer confidence, causing businesses to cut-back on capital spending in the first quarter of 2015, according to the American Chemistry Council's (ACC), Mid-Year 2015 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook released today.
Against this backdrop, however, the U.S. chemical industry will be a long-term economic growth engine as improvements in its customer industries and in emerging markets occur, and as enhanced feedstock competitiveness continues to take root.
In the U.S., economic growth is expected to be near its long-term growth potential this year and will be led by consumer spending. Following growth of around 2.5 percent in 2015, growth is expected to accelerate to a pace of around 2.9 percent in 2016, before moderating in the second-half of the decade. Areas of drag include exports and, in the short-term, business investment, as lower oil prices continue to curb energy sector investment.
Turning to the business of chemistry, despite the slowdown in global manufacturing and volatile oil price dynamics, U.S. chemistry volume gains have held up well. The outlook for the U.S. business of chemistry is for a 3.2 percent gain in production volumes this year, followed by 3.0 percent in 2016. This is slightly down from ACC's 2014 outlook as first quarter softness and the strong U.S. dollar weigh on expectations.
According to the ACC, excluding pharmaceuticals, the numbers are even brighter: a 4.1 percent gain in 2015 followed by a 3.4 percent gain in 2016. Production will continue to gather steam as renewed competitiveness fosters a wave of new investment and new capacity. In the long-term, the U.S. chemical industry will grow faster than the overall U.S. economy.
Growth in the industry has also reversed a decade-long trend in falling employment. Employment is expected to grow by 0.7 percent in 2015, with jobs being added through 2020.
While growing strength in American manufacturing, improvement in labor markets, and growth in key end-use markets have yielded solid domestic demand for chemicals, weakness in external markets has continued to limit U.S. export sales. The effect of the high dollar and the slow growth of external markets will continue to hinder trade growth for the rest of the forecast period. Despite the competitive position due to the favorable oil-to-gas price ratio, ACC does not expect that the domestic industry will post a trade surplus until 2018, with the industry positioned as a net exporter over the longer-term. As new investments continue to come online, basic chemicals export growth will accelerate.
Overall Outlook
At the midway point in 2015, the business of chemistry is poised for growth. Continued recovery in end-use markets, sustained competitiveness and the eventual return of global economic growth will lift demand for American chemistry over the next several years. Inventories remain largely balanced, so increasing demand for chemistry will be met by new production rather than stock drawdowns. ACC expects to see above-trend growth in basic chemicals over the forecast horizon, in addition to solid demand in other segments.
With the development of shale gas and the surge in natural gas liquids supply, the U.S. has moved from being a high-cost producer of key petrochemicals and resins to among the lowest-cost producers globally. This shift in competitiveness will eventually support robust export demand and is driving significant flows of new capital investment toward the United States. Despite some project delays, we anticipate that announced new capacity for chemicals will significantly expand production when those investments come online in the coming years. As a result, employment in the business of chemistry will further accelerate. The industry is expected to continue adding high-paying jobs through the end of the decade. U.S. chemical exports are expected to grow, and as external demand becomes more robust, and the recent pattern of trade deficits shift to one of net surplus. By 2020, American chemistry will be posting record trade surpluses.
The Mid-Year 2015 Situation & Outlook is available for $200 and includes a year-end report published in December. To order or download an electronic version, visit www.americanchemistry.com/store or call 301-617-7824. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Advocates Outline Legal Arguments In EPA DSW Rule Litigation
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Industry proponents and environmental groups in separate court filings are laying out issues they will raise in challenging EPA's recently finalized definition of solid waste (DSW) rule in court, with industry questioning whether EPA is illegally regulating hazardous secondary materials that have not been "discarded," and environmentalists questioning the agency's exclusions from hazardous waste regulation under the rule.
The energy utility industry, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the energy resource company Freeport-McMoRan, and environmental groups represented by Earthjustice filed separate statements of issues with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al. v. EPA last month.
The litigation is a consolidated suit in which the parties are all challenging EPA's rule, which the agency formally issued in January. The long-awaited rule responds to earlier litigation by environmental groups over a Bush-era rule and attempts to close what EPA saw as regulatory gaps in the 2008 version of the rule by mandating use of all four of the agency's criteria for determining that recycling of hazardous waste is legitimate, rather than just two under the Bush-era rule. It also eliminates a transfer-based exclusion from the solid waste definition, replacing it with a stricter "verified recycler exclusion," allowing those who meet certain criteria to avoid strict hazardous waste requirements.
In addition, the new final rule affirms the legitimacy of pre-2008 DSW exclusions, but industry attorneys have previously said EPA is nonetheless imposing new requirements on these recyclable materials.
According to EPA's supporting documents for the 2015 rule, the rule also "retains the exclusion [from the solid waste definition] for recycling under the control of the generator, including recycling on site, within the same company, and through toll manufacturing agreements." Exempting hazardous secondary materials from the definition of solid waste also exempts them from hazardous waste regulation under RCRA.
But the suing parties lay out a plethora of issues they expect to raise in the case. For instance, several of the industry parties point to questions over whether EPA can exercise authority under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) over secondary materials that have not yet been discarded.
Industry's Statements
In a statement of issues filed by ACC and NAM, the parties say they will raise the issue of "[w]hether EPA's expansion of RCRA to incorporate legitimately recycled hazardous secondary materials that have not been discarded is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." Determining whether a material has been discarded is key to defining a substance as solid waste under RCRA.
API in its filing says one question is whether revising the "generator-controlled" exclusion from the definition of solid waste constitutes regulation of materials that have not actually been discarded.
Some of the industry petitioners are also finding fault with EPA's elimination of the transfer-based exclusion for hazardous secondary materials. USWAG and other energy utility organizations in a May 8 statement of issuesquestion whether the agency's withdrawal of that exclusion "is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
Industry parties are also questioning EPA's requirement that all four legitimacy factors be met.
In addition, ACC and NAM take issue with the way EPA treats pre-2008 RCRA recycling exclusions, questioning for instance whether "new substantive regulatory requirements on facilities operating under pre-2008 RCRA recycling exclusions [are] arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law."
API in its statement of issues says, among other issues, it will raise questions over EPA's "renewed assertion" to exercise regulatory authority over used petroleum refinery catalysts that have not been abandoned or disposed of, but rather restored or processed to produce metal products.
Freeport-McMoRan, in its statement of issues, also singles out issues particular to its industry, for instance questioning whether EPA is "improperly seeking to regulate certain in-process materials and products at primary metals processing sites and facilities[] that are not 'discarded.'" Further, it questions whether EPA abided by the law when it failed to define numerous key terms, such as "analogous product or intermediate," and "product of the recycling process."
Environmentalists' Concerns
In their statement of issues, environmentalists raise questions over the agency's adoption of the verified recycler exclusion, without having provided any notice or comment opportunities on the idea. The exclusion was not part of the draft rule. These groups also question whether EPA's decision that materials transferred under this exclusion are "not discarded" is contrary to the plain meaning of "discarded," and whether it is arbitrary and capricious.
Further, the environmental groups question EPA's decision to allow for exclusions from hazardous waste requirements through tolling agreements between generators and other companies. They raise several questions on this matter, including: "Is EPA's contention that secondary materials are not discarded when they are sent by the generator to a 'tolling contractor' for reclamation contrary to the plain meaning of 'discarded' or unreasonable?"
The environmentalists also question a decision by EPA regarding the pre-2008 exclusions. In the draft rule, EPA sought comment on whether 32 pre-2008 exclusions "may allow hazardous wastes to evade RCRA regulation in the absence of additional requirements."
In the draft, EPA asked for specific comment on additional requirements for notifying the agency of the types and quantities of secondary materials managed under the pre-2008 exclusions. But in the final rule, EPA did not establish any of these requirements, the statement says. The groups ask if EPA arbitrarily failed to offer a rational explanation for making this decision, and ask whether the pre-2008 exclusions are unlawful.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tests of Canned Food Brands Reveal Most Have Controversial Chemical in Can Lining
Jun 3, 2015 | Food Safety News
By James Andrews
Bisphenol-A, or BPA, a chemical component found in plastic bottles and canned food liners, has long courted controversy over its alleged health risks. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has maintained that it is safe at current levels, environmental groups and others contend that the synthetic compound may cause health complications in humans.
On Wednesday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released its list of 78 canned food brands that use BPA in their can lining, along with 31 brands that do not use BPA. The organization said this is the first time that such information has been released.
The list of brands containing BPA includes household names such as Progresso, Hormel and Del Monte, as well as more specialized or regional brands. Products that do not use BPA in can lining included those from brands such as Amy’s, Tyson and Earth’s Best Organic.
EWG tested 252 canned food items between January and August 2014 to come up with the list and is now encouraging supporters to take action by demanding that the companies using BPA cease doing so.
BPA can leach out of container linings and into food, and studies have shown trace amounts to be found in most people. Some studies have shown that large doses of BPA exposure may be linked to a range of health maladies, from reproductive issues to cancer.
But FDA and other regulatory bodies around the world have repeatedly dismissed those claims, stating that the levels found in food are far too low to cause any health problems. The American Chemistry Council, for one,agrees.
“Scientists and regulatory agencies who have reviewed BPA have concluded that BPA is safe for use in food packaging,” said a representative from the Grocery Manufacturers Association in a statement to Food Safety News.
Aside from FDA, that list of regulatory agencies includes the European Food Safety Authority, the World Health Organization, the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, and Health Canada.
Last year, scientists from FDA and the National Institutes of Health published a collaborative study looking into the effect of BPA on rats at doses ranging from 70 times the amount Americans typically consume to several million times that amount.
Even at 70,000 times the typical American exposure levels, the rats in the study exhibited no significant changes, the researchers found.
In May, California’s scientific advisory panel added BPA to its list of toxic chemicals.
In 2011, EWG successfully campaigned to have BPA banned from baby bottles and sippy cups in California, and today, bottles and cups designed for babies and young children and sold in the U.S. do not legally contain BPA.
The organization’s director of research, Renee Sharp, called for a national standardized limit on BPA in canned foods.
“Many people on tight budgets or with little access to fresh food rely on canned food as a source of nutrients,” Sharp said in a statement. “That’s why we need to get this right. We need a clear national standard that limits the use of BPA in canned food and improves transparency so that people can know when and if they are ingesting this harmful chemical.”
-
House Panel Approves Toxic Chemical Safety Bill
Jun 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced a toxic chemical safety bill on a nearly unanimous vote on Wednesday, clearing the bill to hit the House floor by the end of the month.
The TCSA Modernization Act would overhaul the federal Toxic Substances Control Act for the fist time in decades. The bill would force the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate chemicals in consumer goods and quickly issue risk management regulations on them. Those rules would apply nationally, but the bill also gives states the chance to issue their own regulations.
Manufacturers would also be allowed to petition the EPA to issue a ruling on the safety of the chemicals in their products.
Lawmakers praised the bill as a win for consumers, manufacturers, the environment and even the EPA, since it removes a handful of regulatory requirements officials must consider when evaluating toxic chemicals.
The bill "is a real breakthrough in regulatory reform," bill sponsor Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said at a committee hearing Tuesday night. "It keeps the best of the old TCSA and retools some of the provisions that hindsight tells us were not working very well."
Every member of the Energy and Commerce Committee voted to approve the bill except for Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who voted present. Eshoo said she is concerned about the bill's treatment of state chemical laws.
Republican leadership has scheduled a vote on the bill by the end of the month. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate and backers say their bill has wide bipartisan support.
"Human health and this environment deserve the highest level of protection, but the status quo of almost no protection is simply unacceptable," bill co-sponsor Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said.
-
House Panel Gives Broad Approval to TSCA Update
Jun 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bipartisan update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, but it could undergo some tinkering to allow more leeway for state regulations.
The panel forwarded the bill on a vote of 47-0, with California Democrat Anna Eshoo abstaining. The full House is expected to take it up in the last week of June.
Eshoo had offered and then withdrew an amendment to clarify that state controls and enforcement would be preempted only when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal laws.
Republican panel leaders said they feared that Eshoo’s suggested changes could erode some GOP support.
“We think we’ve got it balanced where we can move it with a pretty good majority vote,” Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus said, and the amendment might push it “over the limit to really disrupt the bill moving forward.”
Eshoo pointed to the large congressional delegation in California, New York and other states represented by the attorneys general who sent a letter to panel leaders May 28 asking for the changes. “There are a lot of votes in these delegations,” she said.
Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone requested an effort to reach a possible compromise before the floor debate, and though Chairman Fred Upton was skeptical that there would be enough time, he agreed to keep the dialogue going. -
TSCA Bill Sails Through Committee to Full House
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning easily approved a bipartisan bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, though rifts emerged among some pushing for additional provisions.
Lawmakers passed the bill, H.R. 2576, on a 47-0 vote, with Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) abstaining. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) won adoption of a technical amendment prior to the vote.
Eshoo warned committee leaders that they risked losing the support of a significant number of members from large states, including her own, if they did not include her proposed amendment to address legal ambiguities concerning how states may enforce their own chemical laws.
"My intent is not to blow this bill up at all," Eshoo said, but she said it was crucial to preserve as much state authority as possible.
The House bill already contains what many lawmakers and advocacy groups say could be a more protective pre-emption proposal than a competing Senate plan because it does not use a complicated waiver process for states to obtain an exemption from seeing their laws curtailed when U.S. EPA has started evaluating -- but not taken final action -- on a chemical (E&E Daily, May 13).
Shimkus, the chairman of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee, and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) warned that significantly altering the bill's most contentious provisions may be infeasible if House leaders want to advance the proposal this month.
Advertisement
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week posted the TSCA legislation on the House floor agenda for June (Greenwire, June 1). The Senate also may hold a floor debate on its TSCA bill, S. 697, as soon as July, Upton said.
Eshoo later agreed to withdraw the amendment and further discuss the issue. Ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said it may be possible to address Eshoo's concerns at a later date.
Shimkus also has previously modified the bill to address concerns about the unintended consequences of some phrases (Greenwire, May 28). The bill also includes language meant to exempt California's Proposition 65 chemical labeling program from federal interference.
These concerns were heightened by a recent letter from the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington to the committee. In the letter, the attorneys general credited lawmakers for allowing states to take some actions that were curtailed in previous TSCA legislation, such as letting states enforce requirements identical to federal law and not curtailing states' authorities before U.S. EPA has taken a final regulatory action.
But the officials said they believed the bill "scales back states' police powers in at least two significant ways that go beyond the limits found in existing TSCA."
The officials said they were concerned states would not be able to act against a chemical if EPA has already evaluated it for a particular use, "even if they endeavor to address a different health impact than that tackled by EPA."
"Thus, for example, a hypothetical EPA action with respect to use of a particular cleaning product chemical on the basis of its long-term cancer causing potential might be asserted to preclude a state from taking a regulatory action designed to protect against, e.g., short-term respiratory effects," the attorneys general wrote.
Chemicals designated as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, or PBT, would be subject to stricter scrutiny, though, the letter noted.
While the bill attempts to grandfather in existing state chemical bans and regulations that exceed federal law, the officials said the language could be tightened to further clarify this exemption. In addition, lawmakers should make it clear that future state reporting requirements would not be pre-empted.
The officials asked that lawmakers "reconsider those provisions and maintain the traditional state-federal partnership that has been forged to protect the public from toxic chemicals."
Top Democrats on the committee, including Pallone, have acknowledged that the bill does not go as far as they would like but say it is the best that can be achieved right now. Despite Shimkus' recent changes, the bill has not prompted any of the key environmental and public health organizations previously in opposition to change their mind on the plan.
Pallone said he still hopes to pass a more protective bill at some point, "but we must face practical realities and make progress where we can."
With House leaders planning to bring the legislation for a floor vote in three weeks, there is little time to make big changes to the proposal, Shimkus and Upton said.
Shimkus said addressing the attorneys general's concerns may be impossible. The scope of their proposed changes "pushes us over the limit and could really disrupt the bill as it moves forward, not for your side, but for our side," he said.
Shimkus has lately pushed to lock down the bill in its current form and avoid major changes to the legislation, which he says can only scuttle the deal and leave Americans stuck with the decades-old law.
"Push too far, this gets disrupted and we'll come back here in the next Congress and try it again," Shimkus said.Industry pushes for vote
Industry groups applauded the fast progress today. More than 140 trade organizations, through an umbrella group called the American Alliance for Innovation, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) urging that he take action on the Senate bill before the August recess.
"Passage of S. 697 is critical to further ensuring the safe use of chemicals, while encouraging innovation and the development of new products, and maintaining America's ability to compete in today's global marketplace," the industry groups wrote.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), a co-sponsor of the Senate legislation, said in a statement that the House committee's "overwhelming and bipartisan support to move forward with TSCA reform legislation in the House is a clear indicator of the momentum building to update our nation's ineffective, outdated chemical regulatory program."
-
Actress Builds Billion-Dollar Company on Peace of Mind
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Jessica Alba, the co-founder of the Honest Company, has built a $200 million fortune selling parents products meant to give them peace of mind.
Alba is quick to tout the virtues of the company's 120 products, all of which replace conventional chemicals with alternatives like all-organic cotton and plant-based polymer.
The Honest Company has grown from $10 million in revenue in 2012 to an estimated $250 million in revenue this year, according to analysts, and the firm has been valued at $1 billion. That means Alba's 15 to 20 percent stake is worth around $200 million.
Alba got into the business in 2008 while engaged to Internet entrepreneur Cash Warren and pregnant with her first child. She remembers being told to prewash baby clothes and her own childhood battles with allergies, hives and chronic asthma, which she said were aggravated by harsh chemicals.
"I was like, 'How can this be safe for babies if I'm having this type of reaction?'" Alba said.
That spawned the Honest Company, as Alba found it difficult to find natural and eco-friendly products that were not grossly overpriced or designed for hardcore practioners of natural lifestyles. Alba has also been active advocating for Congress to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
"I felt like my needs weren't being met as a modern person," Alba said. "I want beautiful design like everybody else. But it shouldn't be premium-priced, and it should, of course, be safe" (Clare O'Connor, Forbes, May 27). -- SP
-
EWG Report Urges Consumers to Shun Companies Using BPA in Cans
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Working Group today increased its efforts to target companies that use the controversial chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA, in the linings of cans.
The group released a report detailing the results of a survey of 250 brands of canned food it conducted last year. The group said it found that more than 110 brands use epoxy resins containing BPA to line all or some of their metal cans. EWG said it was unsure whether 100 other brands used the chemical because the companies did not respond or responded in an incomplete manner.
The report said Target Corp.'s Market Pantry brand, Bush Brothers & Co.'s baked beans, Nestlé, USA's Carnation, and Hormel Foods' Dinty Moore stews were among brands using BPA in cans. The report's "worst players" -- companies that use BPA in all products, instead of some -- lists 78 brands.
The BPA report stemmed from EWG's food scores database, which was released last year, said Renee Sharp, EWG's research director for its toxics program.
When researchers were examining nearly 100,000 food items to rate them on factors like nutrition, food additives and antibiotics use, they realized that the use of BPA was so prevalent that it needed its own report, Sharp said.
Sharp said EWG wanted to tell a larger story of "where are canned food companies in terms of moving away from BPA."
Advertisement
At the same time, Sharp said, little information exists about what companies use as a replacement for BPA, and some studies suggest companies may simply use other chemicals that are very similar to BPA.
The industry was quick to dismiss the report as of limited relevance to consumers.
In a statement, the North American Metal Packaging Alliance said the EWG report was based on the "false premise" that BPA was unsafe. The industry has continued to point to findings by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority that BPA is safe for consumers as currently used.
The report "is a recycling of past errors and misleading statements from this group," NAMPA President John Rost said. "It provides no new information on hazard or exposure."
Rost added the report was "unfortunately similar to EWG's past reports irresponsibly warning consumers against vaccines and sunscreen."
-
EPA Reviewing PCP Registration After International POPs Treaty Decision
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
An ongoing EPA review of its registration of the antimicrobial pentachlorophenol (PCP) -- which the agency began as an international ban on the wood preservative was pending -- could affect the chemical's use in this country even though the United States is not bound by the recent international decision to prohibit use of the chemical.
The Stockholm Convention is an international treaty intended to control the production, use and export of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), toxic chemicals that do not readily degrade in the environment. The Conference of the Parties (COP) for the treaty decided during a meeting last month that PCP meets this definition and voted to add it to the list of chemicals that the treaty eliminates, with a time-limited exemption for PCP's production and use for utility poles and cross arms.
The treaty does not affect use in the United States, since the country has yet to ratify the treaty. However, EPA announced last December that it would review the chemical's registration. The decision came just two months after the October 2014 meeting of technical experts to the Stockholm Convention known as the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), where the technical experts recommended that the COP eliminate PCP's use.
It is not entirely clear why EPA decided to review the registration now when it completed a similar review in 2008 and typically plans a 15 year registration review cycle for all pesticide registrations. But in its preliminary plan for the review, released last December, EPA mentions the POPRC's October decision to recommend adding the pesticide to the treaty's list of substances scheduled for elimination.
While the United States is not a party to the POPs treaty, it was present at the October meeting as an observer. And an EPA representative argued at the POPRC meeting that the agency's 2008 registration review and risk assessment showed the chemical's registered uses on utility poles and railroad ties were not human health risks.
This representative, from EPA's pesticides office, "stated that, based on a technical analysis, the US concluded that the benefits of using PCP outweigh the risks to society and said a 'better case' needs to be made to support a recommendation to the COP to list PCP," according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development's semi-official Earth Negotiations Bulletin.
In addition to EPA's arguments, Canadian representatives "claimed U.S. and Canadian risk assessments showed the safety of PCP," an environmentalist said last fall.
The schedule for EPA's ongoing review of PCP is unclear. The agency has yet to release a final work plan, which will contain that schedule.
Utility Poles
Meanwhile, Houston-based KMG Chemicals Inc., the only American producer of PCP, is touting the COP's decision to allow continued uses of PCP on utility poles, though it fails to mention that allowance expires in five years. The chemical is widely used in Canada and the United States to preserve utility poles from deterioration.
"[T]he Stockholm Convention accepted the recommendation of the [POPRC] that [PCP] can continue to be produced and used as an industrial wood preservative for the treatment of utility poles and cross-arms," KMG says in a May 19 statement. "Delegates from several countries supported and defended the use of [PCP] for industrial wood preservation applications and challenged the validity of the scientific review process. However, the COP agreed with the proposal of the Review Committee that [PCP] be listed as a [POP]."
That support for the chemical's use led to the first-ever vote of the COP at the meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, May 15, environmentalists say. Generally, the COP makes such agreements by consensus, according to a May 16 press release from the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN), but India repeatedly blocked action on the chemical.
"Switzerland triggered the voting procedure -- the first in the history of the convention," IPEN's statement says. "Ninety-four countries voted in favor of global prohibition of pentachlorophenol; two opposed; and eight countries abstained."
India and Nepal opposed the vote, an environmentalist says, adding that countries among those abstaining were "China, Russia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe -- all countries that blocked action on other substances at the meeting." Additionally, Canada and Mexico also abstained from the vote, the source says.
Canada was the lone objector to the POPRC's decision last fall. KMG's only PCP production plant is located in Mexico.
But even with its production plant in Mexico, KMG Vice President and Corporate Counsel Roger Jackson says, "For five years, there's no issue. . . . According to the POPs convention, for a country that has not ratified it, there is no effect at all. For a country that is bound by the convention, there is a minimum of a five year period [when PCP for utility poles can be sold] and it doesn't start now, in effect it's a six-year period." Jackson adds that after the initial five year period, there is "potentially" the ability to extend PCP's usage for an additional five years.
Jackson says that KMG will be participating in EPA's ongoing review of the chemical's registration in the United States per the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act "so EPA can do a thorough review." He said he is not aware of the review being triggered by the Stockholm Convention and noted that all pesticides go through a registration review process.
Asked if the location of KMG's only PCP plant in Mexico, a signatory of the treaty, would cause the company to move the plant, Jackson said that's "not on the table at present."
International Discussion
KMG's press release indicates that the company intends to continue to lobby Canada and the United States to support its product in the ongoing international discussion. As a non-signatory, the United States cannot vote, but its representatives can comment at the various meetings.
"Both Canada and the United States recognized that [PCP] . . . serves a critical role in preserving the uninterrupted delivery of power through the electric grid," the company's statement says. "KMG will remain actively engaged with Canada and the United States, and intends to vigorously assert that the use of [PCP] on utility poles and cross-arms should be continued indefinitely, as the current, stringent regulatory practices in North America are protective of human health and the environment. KMG is confident that Canada and the United States will continue to support their previous regulatory decisions . . ."
The environmentalists, however, suggest U.S. support may be waning. A coalition of environmental groups sent a letter to EPA and the State Department before the Geneva meeting, urging the U.S. representatives to support eliminating PCP. U.S. representatives met with environmental and indigenous representatives at the COP, a second environmentalist says. "It was at that time that they informed us that the U.S. would not block the listing of PCP."
KMG's most recent required quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March lists the COP's decision as a risk factor for the company. "Although the United States is not bound by the determination of the Conference of the Parties, because it did not adopt the Stockholm Convention treaty, Canada and Mexico are governed by the treaty. No assurance can be given that the ultimate action of the Conference of the Parties will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operation."
-
Ex-Im Bank is Critical to US Role in Energy Exports
Jun 3, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Former Amb. Ron Kirk
The world's growing electricity market needs America's proven expertise, but the opportunity for American industry to supply that capability is at risk.
More than 60 power reactors are currently under construction in 13 countries, notably China, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Russia. More than 165 reactors are in licensing or advanced planning stages worldwide. This means that U.S. nuclear energy suppliers are poised to secure as much as $740 billion in this business. But a major threat looms that can mean the loss of all that business and the economic benefits this can provide Americans: Members of Congress are threatening to put an end to the Export-Import Bank.
If you had told me 10 years ago that political grandstanding would be threatening to break up an institution that, at no cost to taxpayers, empowers U.S. businesses, strengthens national security and creates revenue for the U.S. Treasury, I would never have believed it. But that's exactly what is happening.
Traveling throughout the world during my tenure as U.S. trade representative under President Obama, I personally saw conditions in countries that lack what many Americans take for granted: dependable, readily available electricity. The simple ability to turn on a light switch or plug in a curling iron at any time, the assurance of refrigerated food, or the availability of affordable power for industry — many citizens in other countries cannot assume these benefits will always be there.
Nuclear energy increases stability abroad by providing a reliable supply of low-carbon electricity in countries where that simply doesn't exist. These countries are expanding and growing rapidly, and they have identified nuclear energy as one of the most reliable ways to generate large-scale electricity.
For instance, China now how has 26 operating reactors on the mainland and 24 reactors are under construction, including the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, designed by Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse. The opportunity for growth is clear, as China aims to increase its nuclear capacity by more than double by 2020.
These countries will be building new nuclear energy facilities, whether U.S. businesses are involved or not, and the Ex-Im Bank is essential in making this happen. Export credit, even if untapped, is a "must-have" element of reactor projects proposed by America's nuclear energy suppliers, just as other governments back their companies. In 2013, the bank provided $27 billion in financing, which enabled $34.7 billion exports and supported 205,000 American jobs. Ninety percent of Ex-Im's transactions involved small businesses.
But America's place in the global nuclear energy market is at risk. We must ask ourselves: Do we want to be a country that just buys goods made elsewhere? Or do we want to be the country that creates goods sold around the world?
The good news is that we can take steps to help ensure our country retains its leadership role in the global nuclear energy market. After all, beginning more than 60 years ago, the U.S. first demonstrated that nuclear energy can produce safe and reliable, emission-free electricity that is available 24/7. In fact, the world has emulated our example. Other countries need to continue to benefit from America's expertise in nuclear energy technology. The Ex-Im Bank is essential in making this happen as it backs the bids of America's nuclear energy suppliers, just as other governments back their companies.
Earlier this year, I joined 10 other former Cabinet officials and senior government leaders in a letter to Senate and House leadership encouraging them to renew the Ex-Im Bank's charter. Each of us has seen how commercial and economic diplomacy have become critical elements of national security. The involvement of U.S. companies in emerging markets fundamentally benefits the U.S. economy while bolstering political stability abroad. Without the bank, U.S. manufacturers would cede business to their competitors in Russia and China, to name a few countries.
As we wrote in our letter, unilateral disarmament has never been considered a viable defense policy, and there is no reason why it should be considered a rational export policy. Congress should be exploring how to strengthen the Ex-Im Bank through sound reform and expand its efforts to counter aggressive moves of our economic competitors. Those are goals we all can share.
Kirk is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He previously served as U.S. trade representative under President Obama and as mayor of Dallas.
-
Enviros Jump into Fracking Rule Litigation -- On Government's Side
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
After two months of public speculation over how environmental groups would respond to the Obama administration's new regulations for hydraulic fracturing, a coalition of conservation groups has come out on the government's side -- seeking to defend the rule in federal court.
The Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, Earthworks, the Conservation Colorado Education Fund, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Western Resource Advocates yesterday asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to allow them to intervene as respondents in two lawsuits that seek to block the new fracking rule. An industry suit contends that Interior's Bureau of Land Management failed to consider steep compliance costs, while a challenge from affected states says the agency overstepped its authority in crafting the regulations.
The years-in-the-making rule, which regulates well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracking on public and tribal lands, has elicited disappointment from environmental groups since its unveiling in March, with advocates calling it a missed opportunity to fully protect public lands. But the groups pushing to join the litigation say the last thing they want is a legal rebuff of the rule that sends regulators back to the drawing board.
"We would have liked to see BLM go further with these rules, but they nevertheless are an important step in the right direction," Western Resource Advocates President Jon Goldin-DuBois said in a statement. "They promise to reduce the number of chemical spills, groundwater contamination and other accidents."
Pete Maysmith, executive director of Conservation Colorado, added that winning the lawsuits is critical to protecting federal agencies' power over development of public lands.
"Most important in this case is that the clear authority federal agencies have to oversee heavy industrial oil and gas activities on our public lands is maintained, if not further strengthened," he said in a statement.
Advertisement
The environmentalists' involvement in the case may also keep regulators from compromising with industry and weakening the restrictions, said Earthjustice attorneys representing the groups (Greenwire, June 2).
"Without the Citizen Groups' participation as intervenors, BLM will only have to address the arguments and demands of the Oil and Gas Groups -- and not the Citizen Groups -- when briefing the merits of this case, during any litigation over a remedy, and in settlement negotiations," attorneys wrote in a brief filed yesterday. "It is entirely foreseeable that such a scenario will lead BLM to further compromise the Citizen Groups' interests in favor of the Oil and Gas Groups seeking to weaken or eliminate the Rule."
Gaining formal status in the lawsuits will also give the environmental groups the option to appeal any unfavorable court decisions that come down, even if Interior chooses not to.
But the coalition's strategy does not signal any kind of consensus in the environmental community.
The Center for Biological Diversity told EnergyWire in an email yesterday that the industry and state lawsuits were unlikely to prevail over the rule, so the group is instead using its resources to continue pushing for an outright ban on fracking on public lands.
"The rule gives oil companies an easy way to hide what dangerous chemicals they're using on our public lands, and the agency refused to consider more protective alternatives such as banning fracking," said Kassie Siegel, director of the CBD's Climate Law Institute. "If we challenge the rule, it will be on these grounds."
Food and Water Watch, which has also taken a harder line against the rule, agreed, noting that it remains focused on advocating for a fracking ban on public lands.
Also absent from the coalition is the Natural Resources Defense Council, which said in March that it was evaluating its legal options to respond to the rule. The group did not respond by publication time to a request for comment.
-
Barrasso, Doc Spar Over Ozone Costs
Jun 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen
It was doc versus doc at a Senate ozone hearing on Wednesday.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) — who practiced orthopedic medicine for more than two decades and was once named Wyoming Physician of the Year — hounded Gregory Diette, a Johns Hopkins professor who supports tightening ozone standards, about the health dangers presented by unemployment.
The back-and-forth exchange, which at times bordered on testy, underscored a broader issue around many environmental regulations: whether the health and environmental benefits outweigh economic costs.
Democrats tend to embrace the benefits, while Republicans, including Barrasso on Wednesday, focus on job impacts.
“Communities and businesses across the country are telling us counties that are designated as in non-compliance with this new ozone standard will see construction jobs and economic activity grind to a halt,” Barrasso said at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.
The National Association of Manufacturers, which opposes tightening the standard and has called EPA’s proposal potentially the costliest regulation ever implemented, projects about 1.4 million jobs will be lost.
Barrasso cited a 2004 study co-authored by Diette, a professor of medicine, epidemiology and environmental health science, that examined “emotional quality-of-life” in adolescents with asthma.
“Based on your research, what would the impact be to children with asthma in communities that have high unemployment, chronic high unemployment due to joblessness?” asked Barrasso.
Diette, who noted that his research did not specifically look at the health risks faced by unemployed people and their families, said that Barrasso was creating “quite a string of events” with his inquiry.
“I’m connecting parents that are more likely to be alcoholic, more likely to have problems with substance abuse, spouse abuse, all related to chronic unemployment based on positions that this administration [is] going after jobs for hardworking Americans,” Barrasso shot back.
Diette responded that Barrasso should consider other studies that came from the same line of research as his “emotional quality of life” report.
“When somebody’s asthma, particularly a child’s asthma, is aggravated, just like any other illness that a child has, it impacts the family immensely,” he said. “What that means is, if you’re talking about jobs, if that’s your target, that means mom or dad’s not going to work the next day after there’s an asthma attack.”
A clearly unsatisfied Barrasso fired back that no parents are going to work “if they’re one of those 1.4 million who’ve lost their job as a result of this policy. “
The two found few areas of agreement, though Diette conceded that there are indeed health risks faced by the unemployed and their families.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, the committee’s top Democrat, repudiated Barrasso’s assertion that a tightened ozone standard would bring economic devastation.
“To sit here and say there’s going to be no jobs and no development as you meet the standards is totally false. It’s ridiculous,” she said later in the hearing, after Barrasso had left the room.
“We’re not supposed to protect the polluters,” Boxer added. “We’re supposed to protect the health of the people while ensuring that we have an economically robust society. And we have done it over the years.”
EPA’s December proposal to lower the ozone standard to between 65 and 70 parts per billion from a 75 ppb standard set in 2008 has drawn intense backlash from business groups, which have said the costs to comply with the tighter limits would be excessive.
EPA and environmental and public health groups have dismissed those concerns as overstated, and argued that the health benefits outweigh the costs to industry.
The agency’s proposed rule estimates compliance costs would be $3.9 billion in 2025 for a 70 ppb standard and $15 billion for 65 ppb. That covers most of the U.S. excepting California, where costs would range from $100 million to $1.6 billion. Calculations for California are made separately because many areas in that state would have longer timelines to comply with tighter standards.
Meanwhile, EPA estimates benefits for the U.S., excluding California, would range from $6.4 billion to $13 billion for a 70 ppb standard and $19 billion to $38 billion for a 65 ppb standard. In California, post-2025 standards would bring health benefits ranging from $1.1 billion to $4.1 billion.
EPA is set to finalize the new standards by Oct. 1.
-
One Senator's Crusade to Combat a McConnell Anti-EPA Onslaught
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Joel Kirkland
When Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse started his 95th Senate floor speech on global warming, the discerning cable viewer witnessed a shift from his bully pulpit admonition that often begins, "We are sleepwalking our way to a climate catastrophe."
"Mr. President," he said, standing over a small dais in the back of the chamber in April, "the distinguished majority leader, the senior senator from Kentucky, is resolutely opposed to any serious conversation about climate change."
Four months into Sen. Mitch McConnell's quixotic effort to return the U.S. Senate to consensus-building, the Democrat from Rhode Island laid a shot across McConnell's bow. Whitehouse chastised McConnell for an open letter he sent to governors urging them to ignore a proposed U.S. EPA rule that would require states to build a plan for slashing power-sector carbon emissions.
Whitehouse stood in front of an iconic photo of the planet Earth, now propped up behind him for nearly every weekly speech on global warming. He noted its dog-eared corners during his 100th speech last month.
"It turns out that Kentucky is already crafting a plan for complying with President Obama's Clean Power Plan," Whitehouse said. Relaxed, but buttoned up for a Senate fight, he spoke to a nearly empty chamber and jabbed his finger at the air.
Whitehouse named names: "Kentucky has an energy and environment secretary. His name is Dr. Len Peters. Dr. Peters does not mock or disparage the EPA."
He pointed to state agencies, cities, electric utilities, universities and professors in McConnell's home state that support climate action. That day, he made a full-throated argument that Kentucky is running away from McConnell, who was re-elected for a fifth time in November. During McConnell's campaign, tens of millions of dollars were spent on his behalf to turn "Obama's war on coal" into votes for McConnell.
McConnell's re-election included support from coal mining counties in eastern Kentucky, where moderate Democrats held onto political power for decades. "Look, I know how grim it is in eastern Kentucky," he told business leaders recently on a post-election return trip to Pikeville, Ky., in the heart of coal country. "But I'm here to say, 'Let's not give up. Coal is going to have a future; and it's our job to see that it has a future in the United States.'"
Whitehouse's speech targeting McConnell, given during dinner-time hours on the East Coast, marked a departure. Usually his speeches split among climate science, rising sea levels and anger about congressional inaction. This time, from his Senate desk, Whitehouse took aim at the architect of any GOP legislative strategy that emerges after EPA releases its final power plant rule. The proposed rule sets state emissions targets and is designed to cut national power sector emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It would force power companies to retire some coal-fired power plants, use more natural gas and shift more power generation to zero-carbon sources.Waging an economic argument
In an interview with EnergyWire, Whitehouse said he'll do more of the same as EPA moves toward finalizing its Clean Power Plan this summer. He'll target GOP senators whose states are vulnerable to climate change and economic drift. But he'll also be McConnell's foil during floor debates.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Photo courtesy of his office.
Whitehouse is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, where its chairman, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), is the Senate's most outspoken climate change skeptic. Still, Whitehouse is on the outside of a process led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is putting together an energy bill expected to cut across areas of regulation shaping electricity sector development and energy use.
The political scrum around Obama administration air regulations still splits along party lines, since there's been no real debate in Congress on climate and energy policies since 2010. Girding for a debate over EPA's rule in which McConnell calls the shots, Whitehouse looks for early leverage through an economic message.
"You continue to emphasize that they're making a choice here to protect polluting incumbents at the expense of new industries emerging in their states," Whitehouse said. "At some point, the hydraulic difference between the power and economic significance of the new technologies reaches equilibrium with the old ones and begins to exceed them. That shift is coming fast."
Whitehouse is a student of the politics, not nuts-and-bolts regulations. "John Cornyn is not going to ignore the wind energy industry in Texas," he said. "Chuck Grassley will go to war for the wind production tax credit," he added. "They're 30-something percent in Iowa and climbing. MidAmerican [Berkshire Hathaway Energy] has great jobs maintaining the wind turbines."
Political analysts predict McConnell will try to use the Congressional Review Act to turn back an EPA final rule on carbon. The rarely used legislative strategy allows Congress to stop a major rule on the premise that it's expensive and too hard to comply with. Such a move would require Obama's signature, and there aren't enough votes in the Senate to overturn a veto.
"I think they'll get blowback from wind, solar and other competing industries, which are furious that they're seeing old polluting power plants with a huge competitive advantage over them," Whitehouse said.
Whitehouse has predicted that Congress would act once it became clear top-down regulations would go into effect. That hasn't happened so far.
"For the utility industry, the value is that there may be more efficient ways to get to the same results than all this regulatory apparatus," he said, "allowing them more room to innovate."
Whitehouse has given a speech on the effects of global warming every week that the Senate has been in session since April 2012. It's a discipline that's garnered him attention from Senate colleagues and climate activists; but in the world outside of Washington, D.C., the speeches lose out to the day's hot news and the latest long-shot candidate announcing his run for the presidency.
Whitehouse, 59, came to the Senate in 2007 after defeating Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican. He had been a crusading attorney general, taking tiny Rhode Island to battle in a high-profile -- though ultimately defeated -- public health nuisance case against lead paint manufacturers. And that informed his bully pulpit approach.
During his climate speeches, Whitehouse equates "climate deniers" with the powerful tobacco lobbyists who for decades defeated attempts to raise awareness of public health dangers around smoking.
"It's a crucial approach," said Gerald Markowitz, a history professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who has written about the Rhode Island childhood lead poisoning nuisance case. "Unless a citizenry is educated about these issues, they're not in a position to act on them."
Shelves in Whitehouse's Senate office are packed with books about FDR and other liberal icons. He has every book by Winston Churchill. On a bookshelf closer to his desk, Whitehouse has Markowitz's books about public health, including one about the lead paint case he brought as attorney general. Long fought, a lower court ruling in the state's favor was overturned by the state Supreme Court.
"That was the ultimate heartbreak," Whitehouse said.
-
Obama's Pitch for Clean Power Plan Hinges on Health Research
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
In its push for cutting greenhouse gases in the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration has leaned hard on the health argument for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
President Obama pitched his carbon proposal last year from Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where he met with children suffering from asthma. In the first year it goes into effect, U.S. EPA's carbon plan for existing power plants would avert up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks, the president noted.
In April this year, Obama made the case personal when he told ABC News that his daughter Malia suffered an asthma attack when she was 4, leading to an emergency room visit. Though her condition improved, the specter of allergies has haunted the first family, leading to precautions like choosing a hypoallergenic pet dog.
The White House also released a fact sheet that reported that asthma rates have doubled over the past 30 years.
Like individual hurricanes and droughts, it's not possible to say that Malia Obama's asthma sprang from a changing climate. But the White House argued that rising carbon dioxide levels worsen the allergens and pollutants that sensitize people to asthma, and that cutting greenhouse gases also cuts particulate pollution, making a compelling case for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under its health mandate in the Clean Air Act.
Opponents of the regulation, however, didn't connect the dots in the same way.
The Heartland Institute, a think tank that claims that science doesn't support regulating greenhouse gas emissions, published an article in April that claimed that poverty, not air pollution, is the key driver behind childhood asthma.
The article's author, Alyssa Carducci, cited a paper published earlier this year in theJournal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology that looked at the roles of poverty, ethnicity and geography in asthma prevalence.
"A new study authored by a research team led by Dr. Corrine Keet [sic] of John's Hopkins Children's Center [sic] has found no link between outdoor air pollution and childhood asthma," Carducci wrote. "Dr. Keet's findings point to poverty, not air pollution, as a leading factor in childhood asthma."Doctor says Heartland Institute is wrong
The article went on to say the study undermines EPA's rationale for limiting carbon dioxide, as well as other pollutants like ozone, for which EPA is considering stricter rules. Regulations, on the other hand, can lead to a death for every $7.5 million in compliance costs to the economy.
Carducci did not respond to a request for comment.
Corinne Keet, however, rejected Heartland's take on her work. "I did not agree with that interpretation," she said.
The scope of her study, she explained, was how asthma changes among different groups of people between urban and rural environments. The team found that household poverty and ethnicity were bigger risk factors for asthma than simply living in a dense, inner-city neighborhood.
The study challenged the idea that city living raises asthma risks, but it didn't control for specific asthma triggers, like ragweed or soot.
"We didn't look at pollution at all," Keet said.
She observed that air pollution isn't limited to where it's produced and that wind can spread harmful compounds from cities to the countryside. In some instances, ozone levels are higher in the suburbs than in nearby cities.
In addition, a recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine found that long-term air quality improvements led to "statistically and clinically significant positive effects on lung-function growth in children."
The back-and-forth debate on health is critical to the Clean Power Plan because the provision of the Clean Air Act the Obama administration is invoking, Section 111(d), according to EPA's website, "requires EPA to develop regulations for categories of sources which cause or significantly contribute to air pollution which may endanger public health or welfare" (ClimateWire, Apr. 10).
Diesel exhaust, wood burning and industrial emissions all have immediate effects on hearts and lungs. However, carbon dioxide isn't toxic on its own, and the effects of global warming are slow and parceled out over time, which means the justification for invoking 111(d) has to bridge between a long-term problem and its short-term effects.'EPA has been pretty damn conservative'
Sylvia Brandt, an associate professor of resource economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said the links between greenhouse gas emissions and visits to the doctor are robust and getting stronger.
Pollen allergies are one example. Rising temperatures mean longer and more intense seasons for ragweed and tree pollen, leading to more runny noses and watery eyes. Researchers have also found that carbon dioxide exposure can directly raise pollen production in certain allergenic plants (ClimateWire, Nov. 10, 2014).
"That is two hops from climate change to kids in the emergency room," said Brandt.
As for costs to the economy, Brandt said the benefits from curbing carbon dioxide emissions drastically outweigh the risks from regulation, though current accounting methods may not accurately reflect the scale of the impact.
"The way we think about costs is much more complete than the way we think about benefits," she said. "We're undervaluing kids' health, and we're undervaluing caregiving time."
The health dividends of mitigating climate change are even greater over the course of decades but are even more difficult to price. Extreme weather events like hurricanes and drought are poised to get worse, which can cause immediate injuries as well as harm from hunger, disease and poverty as infrastructure crumbles.
"My view is that EPA has been pretty damn conservative in attributing health effects of climate change," said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law at the Vermont Law School.
However, the Clean Air Act is not the ideal vehicle for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Parenteau said, suggesting that pricing carbon would yield better and faster results than setting compliance targets for individual states.
Nonetheless, the Clean Air Act does have a successful track record of cutting other air pollutants. "What's different [about carbon dioxide] is the scale and the disruption in the energy system from having to transition from carbon-intensive fuels to carbon neutrality," he added.
One looming concern is that once the law cements the link between carbon dioxide and health problems, big emitters may face lawsuits for their greenhouse gases. "The day is definitely coming where the fossil fuel industry will be held to account for the damage they're doing," Parenteau said. "Sooner or later, they are going to pay the piper."
The Clean Power Plan is now under review at the White House, and the Office of Management and Budget projects a final release sometime in August (E&ENews PM, June 2).
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested