Podcast: Chemical Processing Distilled News — 2025 in Review

Welcome to the year-end edition of Distilled News. To wrap up 2025, we will review some of the top stories coming from the chemical industry over the past 12 months. My name is Jonathan Katz, and I’m the executive editor of Chemical Processing.

Among the most-viewed articles of the year was the 2025 industry outlook by Martha Gilchrist Moore, chief economist for the American Chemistry Council. However, we won’t talk too much about that since Martha will provide another year-end review and outlook scheduled to appear Jan. 5 on ChemicalProcessing.com, so please stay tuned for that.

While we won’t specifically discuss Martha’s column, many themes from her analysis played out throughout the year. This includes the ever-changing tariff situation coming from the Trump administration.

On April 8, I reported in an article entitled “Chemical Industry Wary as Trump Tariffs Take Effect” that trade organizations were expressing concern over rising costs and supply chain disruptions related to the tariffs imposed by President Trump.

In that article, several international chemical sector associations rebuked the administration for the tariffs, with Cefic, the EU’s chemical industry association, calling them “unjustified” in a March 27 statement.

The organization pointed to a plurilateral agreement in 1994 called the Chemical Tariff Harmonization Agreement that has already established low import duties for both the EU and the United States. Cefic called on the two governing bodies to make all efforts to resolve the issues diplomatically. 

The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates issued a statement April 3 saying it supports the president’s goals of revitalizing U.S. manufacturing but noted that tariffs will raise feedstock costs for its members. 

Eric Byer, CEO of The Alliance for Chemical Distribution, was particularly outspoken about the dangers of tariffs, providing a member-exclusive tariff breakdown webpage to help the alliance’s members understand the impact that tariffs could have on the chemical industry. Byer remarked that the tariffs place “an enormous economic strain on America’s chemical supply chain.” 

Later in the year, on Nov. 5, Chemical Processing sister publication IndustryWeek reported that tariffs were resulting in price hikes across a wide range of manufacturing sectors.

An August survey by Endeavor Business Intelligence, the research division of Chemical Processing parent company EndeavorB2B, showed that more than half of respondents had hiked prices to offset at least some tariff-related costs.

Next, we recap the ongoing fallout from lawsuits related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

On Aug. 4, CP Managing Editor Amanda Joshi reported that Chemours, DuPont and Corteva Agreed to $875 million PFAS settlement with the state of New Jersey.

The agreement addresses legacy contamination claims at four current and former sites as well as alleged statewide PFAS pollution, including from aqueous film-forming foam.

Payments totaling $875 million will be made over a 25-year period starting no earlier than Jan. 1, 2026, following final court approval of the proposed judicial consent order. The present value of the settlement is approximately $500 million, the companies said. Chemours will pay 50% of the total, DuPont 35.5% and Corteva 14.5%, based on a 2021 cost-sharing agreement.

The settlement also includes funding mechanisms for future remediation and a capped $475 million reserve fund, both backed by surety bonds or similar instruments. These funds are intended to ensure financial resources for long-term environmental obligations without requiring immediate cash payments beyond the costs of maintaining the bonds.

The settlement follows a separate agreement in May between 3M and the state of New Jersey to resolve PFAS contamination claims for up to $450 million. That settlement covered alleged damage to natural resources and public drinking water supplies across the state.

In April, I attended the American Chemistry Council’s GlobalChem conference in Washington, D.C. and reported on several key themes coming from the event, in particular, a speech by Chad McIntosh, who, at the time, was serving as the EPA's acting deputy administrator. McIntosh, now the United States Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission, didn’t hold back on his disdain for the Biden administration’s regulatory platform.

McIntosh rattled off more than a dozen rules the agency will overhaul, including easing regulations on coal-fired power plants, air toxins, greenhouse gas reporting rules and particulate matter limits.

The agency would defer to courts to interpret laws, McIntosh said. This follows the Supreme Court's 2024 decision overturning the "Chevron deference" doctrine, which had previously granted federal agencies broader authority to interpret the laws they administer.

At the time, McIntosh described a lean staff of about 20 appointees who took over the EPA and began implementing changes one week into the new administration. The agency had been working with the Department of Government Efficiency – then led by Elon Musk – to further streamline the agency, according to McIntosh

The article included comments from Shari Barash, who leads EPA's new chemicals division. At the time, she said federal workers were anxiously awaiting word on additional cuts. 

"I think probably anywhere in the federal government right now workers are nervous," said Barash. "Our folks are, I think, really trying to keep their heads down and do their work."

Meanwhile, McIntosh praised President Trump and his appointees for cutting wasteful spending and streamlining regulations while criticizing the Biden administration's regulatory agenda, particularly its environmental justice initiatives.

“The agency … spent so much time and money worried about those areas, which actually have nothing to do with environmental protection,” said McIntosh.

We later reported in July that the EPA, under the leadership of Lee Zeldin, would eliminate its Office of Research and Development. The agency’s goal was to reduce budget expenditures, improve science and have EPA’s research activities better support the work of its media offices, as CP columnist Lynn Bergeson noted in her monthly Compliance Advisor column.

The reorganization affected between 900 and 1,000 employees.

As Bergeson stated, critics of the administration claim ORD’s reorganization reduces protections of the environment and human health at EPA and other government agencies. Supporters see the reorganization as a long-overdue effort to streamline research efforts, align them with agency priorities and curb ORD’s overly conservative tendencies when assessing risks.

The administration’s stance on risk assessments was highlighted recently, on Dec. 3, when the agency announced it would revisit the Toxic Substances Control Act risk evaluation for formaldehyde.

In July, we reported that hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency employees signed a public dissent letter condemning Zeldin's leadership, accusing him of politicizing the agency while putting the public at risk for generations to come. 

Following publication, 139 of the signatories received emails placing them on administrative leave, according to various news reports. 

Another recurring theme throughout 2025 involved plant closures and divestitures. On Jan. 25, we wrote about Evonik’s plan to close its silica production facilities in Waterford, New York, and Havre de Grace, Maryland, as part of an ongoing reorganization to enhance efficiencies. The Waterford site ceased production in June. Havre de Grace will continue to operate until mid-2026. In February, we ran a Tribune News Service story about LyondellBasell’s plan to close Houston’s oldest refinery as it required significant upgrades to remain viable.

And we’ll close on a more positive note. While not a news article, our regular Energy Saver column by Thomas Kwan, global vice president of strategic innovation and industrial ecosystems at Schneider Electric, continues to garner much attention. His column, “Process Intensification Maximizes Output, Minimizes Resources,” was our top-read article of 2025. In the column, Kwan discussed how process intensification technologies like reactive distillation and membrane reactors can reduce energy consumption and cut capital costs.

Keep your eye on future columns from Thomas, Lynn Bergeson and insights from our other esteemed contributors in 2026.

While 2025 was certainly a challenging and interesting year, we look forward to keeping you informed on the stories that matter most to the chemical processing industry in 2026. I'm Jonathan Katz, and this has been Distilled News.