Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/9/2016
-
EPA Sends TSCA Prioritization Risk Review Rule to OMB
Nov 8, 2016 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger, Martha E. Marrapese, and Adrienne M. Timmel
EPA has sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a pre-publication proposed rule for implementing a formal process for prioritizing “active” existing chemicals as “low” or “high” priority for risk evaluation under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Worried About Hull Water Fluoridation Plans? Here's What You Need to Know
Nov 9, 2016 | Hull Daily Mail
By Allison Coggan
Health bosses will decide next week if they will make a formal request to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to add fluoride to the city's water supply. -
What Election 2016 Means for the Chemistry Enterprise
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The election of Donald Trump as U.S. president and a Republican-controlled Congress portend impacts to the chemistry enterprise. -
Industry Files Second Suit Over New York County Toy Laws
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of children’s product manufacturers has filed a lawsuit against Suffolk County, arguing that the New York county’s Toxic Free Toys Act is preempted by federal toy regulations. -
After Clinton Bloodbath, 'All Hell Breaks Loose' for Oil Activists
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
For a community that had vowed to fight Hillary Clinton from the left, the reality of a Donald Trump presidency is a grim prospect to wake up to. -
Trump Win Signals Titanic U-turn on Energy, Climate Policies
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak
With President-elect Donald Trump's stunning election victory yesterday, the states — not Washington, D.C. — are likely to become the prime engines of energy and climate policy, based on the Republican candidate's campaign denunciations of the Obama administration's regulatory agenda. -
Rule's Demise Looms, But How Trump Will Ax It Remains Unclear
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Obama administration's carbon rules for power plants are in dire straits after last night's election of Republican businessman Donald Trump as president. -
A 'Sea Change' for Power-Sector Climate Action?
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
With Donald Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court, all expectations for U.S. climate action flipped last night. -
Oil, Coal Seen as Winners With Trump Victory
Nov 9, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Sarah Kent, Benoit Faucon, and Kevin Baxter
Republican Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president promises relief for U.S. coal miners, a boost for American oil players and fresh uncertainty for Western energy companies’ plans to return to Iran, as he seeks to undo eight years of Obama administration energy policy. -
Gas, Power Industry Officials Caution Over Impact of Trump US Election Victory
Nov 9, 2016 | Platts
By Stuart Elliott
Senior gas and power industry officials reacted with caution Wednesday to Donald Trump's surprise US presidential election victory, saying at a Paris conference it remained to be seen if he would follow through on some of his more controversial policy pledges regarding the energy sector. -
California County Votes on Fracking, Washington State on Carbon Tax Proposal
Nov 9, 2016 | Platts Blog
By Brian Scheid
Voters in California’s Monterey County passed a ballot initiative Tuesday to ban hydraulic fracturing in the county, a vote which may shut down all oil production in the coastal county after roughly 70 years there. -
California County Votes to Ban Fracking
Nov 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Voters in a county on California’s coast passed a ballot measure to ban hydraulic fracturing and put other limits on oil and natural gas drilling within its borders. -
Trump Victory Sets Stage for Reversal of Obama's Environmental Agenda
Nov 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
President-elect Donald Trump's victory in the Nov. 8 election opens the door to Republicans overturning a host of EPA policies and rules issued since 2009 -- including the Obama administration's climate agenda -- while reversing course on pending rule proposals, and potentially enacting dramatic cuts to the agency's budget. -
Washington Voters Reject Carbon Tax Proposal
Nov 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Voters in Washington state on Tuesday rejected a proposed tax on carbon emissions that had divided environmentalists in the state. -
Trump’s Views on Major Science Policy Issues
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
Science was not one of the primary policy issues in the 2016 election, but Donald Trumpanswered 20 questions on majority science policy issues.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
EPA Sends TSCA Prioritization Risk Review Rule to OMB
Nov 8, 2016 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger, Martha E. Marrapese, and Adrienne M. Timmel
EPA has sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a pre-publication proposed rule for implementing a formal process for prioritizing “active” existing chemicals as “low” or “high” priority for risk evaluation under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to the OMB website, the Office received EPA's draft “Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act” rule on November 7.
OMB review typically takes 90 days, but reviews can take more or less time. EPA has indicated that it plans to propose this and other TSCA rules in the Federal Register before the end of CY2016, which provides OMB with approximately 60 days to help EPA meet its self-imposed deadline.
Additional proposed TSCA “reform” rules under development have not yet been sent to OMB. These include proposed rules to: (1) implement the risk evaluation process; (2) initiate the TSCA Inventory “reset” process; and (3) implement fees for administering notifications and confidential business information (CBI) claim reviews under the new TSCA law.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-sends-tsca-prioritization-risk-review-rule-to-omb
-
(ACC Mentioned) Worried About Hull Water Fluoridation Plans? Here's What You Need to Know
Nov 9, 2016 | Hull Daily Mail
By Allison Coggan
Health bosses will decide next week if they will make a formal request to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to add fluoride to the city's water supply.
Around 250,000 people in the city and between 49,000 and 87,000 people in the East Riding including Hornsea, Withernsea, Anlaby, Willerby and Dunswell could be affected.
Members of Hull's Health and Wellbeing Board will be asked on Tuesday to approve the submission of a formal proposal to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
In his report to the board, city health and wellbeing manager Tim Fielding argues that the move will help prevent tooth decay and says "there is not considered to be any reliable evidence of any adverse impacts on general health from water fluoridation."
But campaigners insist they will fight the plan, claiming water fluoridation could be linked to cancer, hip fractures and other health problems. They say adding fluoride to the water is unethical and is "medicating people without consent".
With campaigners expected to protest outside Hull History Centre next week, our special report considers the stormy issue of fluoridation.
What is water fluoridation?
Fluoride is already present in virtually all water supplies but not usually in high enough levels to protect against tooth decay. It is not "medication" but a naturally occurring mineral.
It involves the controlled addition of fluoride to the public water supply. If Hull goes ahead with the plan, it will add 1ppm of fluoride to the supply, in line with the World Health Organisations (WHO) 2011 recommendation of between 0.5 to 1.5ppm.
Strength in numbers
Around 330,000 people in Britain already drink naturally fluoridated water, including those in Hartlepool, Uttoxeter and parts of Hampshire and Berkshire.
Another 5.8 million have had fluoride added to their water supply including Tyneside, Cheshire, Nottinghamshire and the West Midlands. And, just over the bridge, 136,000 people in North Lincolnshire, including Barton, Brigg and Scunthorpe, are drinking fluoridated water.
More than 204 million Americans, around 74 per cent of the population, drink fluoridated water.
The rot sets in
Rates of tooth decay in Hull are significantly worse than national rates, with 37.8 per cent of five-year-olds having tooth decay in 2014/15. While the rate has decreased from almost 44 per cent in 2011/12, Hull's public health team say is it not improving fast enough.
They say water fluoridation will result in children having fewer fillings, reduce tooth decay in adults, lower school absence and reduce days lost at work by parents.
Didn't Nazis use fluoridation as mind control?
The wild claim was first made by an anti-fluoridation campaigner in Florida in 2011 but has been widely condemned as there is no evidence to back it up.
Historians of the Holocaust have discredited the claim, now labelled an "urban myth" and a "conspiracy theory". Even leading anti-fluoridation campaigners urge those who oppose fluoridation not to repeat it.
But search Google and it will still throw up articles linking fluoride to the Nazis and the Communist Party, for that matter. There's no evidence of that either.
Who's all for it?
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, America's public health authority, calls water fluoridation "one of the greatest public health achievements of the century".
The World Health Organisation, in a report in 2006, said fluoride has beneficial effects on teeth at low concentrations in drinking water. It said studies of pregnant women drinking fluoridated water showed no increased risk of miscarriages or birth defects.
Public Health England said earlier this year: "The evidence is clear that water fluoridation is a safe and effective measure to help people improve their oral health. At the levels we permit in our water supplies, there is no evidence of it causing any harm."
Water fluoridation is also supported by the British Medical Association and British Dental Association.
But 'people power' has halted schemes
People around the world challenge water fluoridation plans. They're highly organised, passionate about their cause and vocal, with a noisy protest expected next week outside the History Centre.
From Australia to America and all over Britain, the arguments are, essentially, the same - the benefits of water fluoridation on oral health is debatable and the effects on health have not been studied properly to rule out risks.
And they've chalked up successes. Anti-fluoridation campaigners fought off plans in Southampton. In 2004, the Scottish Government shelves plans after public consultation.
Campaigners link water fluoridation to health problems including cancer, hip fractures, increased concentrations of lead in the blood and lower IQs in babies drinking fluoridated water.
All very worrying. But is it true?
No studies show evidence of any health problems caused by adding the level of fluoride Hull is proposing – 1 mg per litre or 1 part per million (1ppm) – to the water supply.
But, with feelings running high, both sides can quote any number of studies to back their arguments, muddying the waters for those in the middle. Even different parts of the same report can be used by the two sides to further their cause.
Take the so-called York Review. Pro-fluoridation campaigners say the report, published in 2000, found the "best available evidence" showed water fluoridation reduces tooth decay, found no link between bone fractures in 29 studies and "no clear association" between fluoridation and cancer in 26 studies.
However, the York Review said little "high quality research" was available and called for future studies using correct research techniques.
That, for anti-fluoridation campaigners, is enough to halt any future schemes because they say the research is of such poor quality, findings cannot be relied upon.
Anti-fluoridation campaigner Paddy Holdsworth said: "Surely the precautionary principle should apply. Why would we be dosing people with something which is possible harmful for something that is meant to be aimed at a subset within a subset of young people?"
In 2014, Public Health England, required by law to monitor effects of water fluoridation on people's health, found no evidence of increased hip factures, Down's syndrome, bone cancer in the under 25s, bone cancer in the over 50s or any other type of cancer in areas where people drink fluoridated water. In fact, they found lower rates of kidney stones and bladder cancer.
While there's no evidence of health risks at 1ppm, Hull's public health team accepts adding fluoride to the water increases dental fluorosis or mottling of the teeth in some. But they say it's cosmetic and the percentages of people affected are small - around four in every 100.
But I've heard it lowers IQ in children
Critics of water fluoridation often cite research by a team from Harvard which looked at the effect of cognitive development in children after studying reports from China, which has much higher rates of fluoridation than the amount being proposed in Hull.
Dr Brittany Seymour of Harvard School of Dental Medicine was forced to take to YouTube after the findings of the study were widely misrepresented on the internet.
She said: "More up-to-date, high quality research has found absolutely no link between fluoridation and low IQ scores.
"Next time you read a frightening post about the so-called 'Harvard studies', remember this. The deans of Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Dental Medicine all support water fluoridation as an effective and safe public health measure for people of all ages."
In 2014, the Lancet published a review by Grandjean and Landrigan which claimed fluoride might cause neurodevelopmental harm. But that review has been challenged, with the American Chemistry Council stating the authors had ignored the "fundamental principles" of science by using flawed methodology.
Although the original review has been used by anti-fluoridation campaigners, critics point out the studies examined involved Mongolia, China and Iran and did not take into account other factors such as air or water pollution.
Professor David Coggon of the University of Southampton said the review "lacked rigour" and its claims were "highly speculative". Professor Jean Golding of the University of Bristol, said it was "basic scare statements based on inconclusive studies."
What's all this going to cost?
The capital costs of water fluoridation, estimated at between £1.6m and £2m, will be paid for by Public Health England. However, the council will pick up annual running costs of around £330,000. The council will also foot the bill for feasibility studies and consultation.
The public health team say for every £1 spent on water fluoridation, the city will save £7.22 in dental costs for children up to five years along and days taken off work by their parents. And they say the scheme will break even in relation to the under-fives alone in the second year.
Councillor Colin Inglis, chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board, insists water fluoridation is the right thing to do. He said: "Our public health clinicians and officers are saying this is the one thing we can do that will have the most impact on public health in Hull."
What difference will it make?
Hull's public health team says fewer children will go through the agony of tooth decay or tooth extraction under general anaesthetic if fluoridation goes ahead. They say tooth decay will reduce in all age groups and millions of pounds will be saved in fewer NHS treatments.
But campaigners like Paddy Holdsworth say only "a few hundred kids" will benefit. And he said any benefits would be short-lived because parents of those children most at risk of tooth decay would still neglect dental hygiene and feed them sugary snacks and drinks.
He said: "Even if it is beneficial, it would be of such a miniscule scale compared to the detrimental effects of having sugar and acid on the teeth and would be completely irrelevant.
"That £330,000 needs to be targeted at the small group of children who are being brought up in erratic households which means they aren't getting appropriate dental hygiene at the right age."
But Hull's public health team counter this with statistics. On average, five year-olds in fluoridated areas are 15 per cent less likely to have tooth decay than those in non-fluoridated areas. In 12 year-olds, it's is 11 per cent. And tooth decay in adults living all their lives in fluoridated areas is between 27 per cent and 35 per cent lower than their counterparts in non-fluoridated areas.
There are 45 per cent fewer hospital admissions in children aged one to four for dental extractions under general anaesthetic, rising to 55 per cent in deprived areas like Hull, if children drink fluoridated water.
What happens now
Regardless of what happens on Tuesday, water fluoridation would still be a long way off even if Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt agrees to the proposal for Hull, highly likely given the backing of Public Health England.
Hull City Council will proceed to a full feasibility study. East Riding Council will have three months to consider Hull's plan once formal notification is given, expected early in the new year.
A public consultation, lasting at least three months but potentially longer, will begin, giving residents their say.
Hull City Council will then make a decision based on the public consultation. If water fluoridation is approved by the council, Jeremy Hunt still gets the final say.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/worried-about-hull-water-fluoridation-plans-here-s-what-you-need-to-know/story-29878385-detail/story.html#A7MsMuP74X1Oc1VD.99
-
What Election 2016 Means for the Chemistry Enterprise
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The election of Donald Trump as U.S. president and a Republican-controlled Congress portend impacts to the chemistry enterprise. In addition, state ballot measures also decided in the Nov. 8 election will affect the burgeoning analytical testing industry that’s grown around legal marijuana.
With Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, cuts in federal spending are likely. This means chemistry researchers are apt to see the dwindling of federal grant money from the National Science Foundation, the Energy Department, and other federal agencies.
Budget cuts would also limit the abilities of federal agencies to regulate, which could trammel the chemical industry’s expectations for modernized regulation of its products. With tightly limited resources, the Environmental Protection Agency could struggle to implement Congress’ revisions earlier this year to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which had strong backing of chemical manufacturers and product formulators.
Trump has been quiet on the topic of chemical regulation, with one exception. He has spoken out about the benefits of asbestos, a known human carcinogen that activists are calling on EPA to ban under its new TSCA authorities.
The president-elect has also pledged to overturn the Obama Administration’s keystone climate change regulation—the Clean Power Plan designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel-fired electricity-generating plants. Trump supports domestic coal mining. He has said he will restore jobs in that industry that have largely been lost to the recent boom in cheap natural gas due to fracking.
Trump’s election is casting a chill over international climate change negotiations. He has repeatedly called climate change a hoax and has pledged to “cancel” the 2015 Paris Agreement. That landmark deal calls for virtually every country on Earth to control greenhouse gas emissions to restrain human-caused climate change.
Officials of the Obama Administration downplay the impact that Trump could have on the Paris Agreement. The international business community is already responding to the Paris deal, shifting investments from fossil fuels to more climate-friendly energy technologies, says John Morton, National Security Council senior director for climate and energy.
In addition, Trump has also vowed to act against an international issue dear to the U.S. chemical industry—major trade agreements. Chemical manufacturers, which constitute the nation’s exporting sector, backed the Obama Administration’s efforts to hammer out trade deals with Pacific Rim and European trading partners. Trump is highly critical of these pending deals.
Meanwhile, in state elections, the outcome of several ballot initiatives will foster the legal marijuana industry that uses chemical products and employs chemists.
This industry is poised to continue its rapid growth in the U.S. Voters in California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada legalized recreational cannabis this year, joining Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia. More than half of all U.S. states have legalized cannabis for medical purposes and four additional states—Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota—voted in favor of medical marijuana this year. Experts predict that the cannabis industry will continue growing rapidly and become a $32 billion industry by 2020.
Cannabis comes in many different forms—flowers or buds that are smoked, baked goods like brownies and cookies, oils, waxes, and other products. This large variety of different kinds of cannabis products makes quality control a challenge, particularly when it comes to pesticides.
States are on their own to set safe levels of pesticides on marijuana. They are getting no help from the EPA, which generally evaluates pesticides for safety, because the federal government categorizes marijuana as a controlled substance with no accepted medical uses and a high potential for abuse.
In an election outcome not yet final, the plastics industry appears to have lost its campaign against the nation’s only statewide ban of single-use plastic bags. In a California ballot initiative, voters affirmed the state’s prohibition, which state lawmakers passed in 2014 with support from environmental activists and the grocery industry.
The American Plastic Bag Alliance, founded by The Society of the Plastics Industry, a plastics trade association, unsuccessfully fought the ban. Hilex Poly, Formosa Plastics, Superbag, and Advance Polybag collectively spent $6 million to defeat the ban, according to MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/11/Election-2016-means-chemistry-enterprise.html
-
Industry Files Second Suit Over New York County Toy Laws
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of children’s product manufacturers has filed a lawsuit against Suffolk County, arguing that the New York county’s Toxic Free Toys Act is preempted by federal toy regulations.
The Safe to Play Coalition is seeking a declaration that enforcement of the county’s law violates the supremacy clause of the US constitution, and have called for an injunction preventing enforcement of the rule in any non-identical manner to federal laws.
In its complaint, the coalition says the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) regulate exposures to hazardous substances for the same children’s products covered in Suffolk’s measure.
“Congress enacted those provisions to ensure that nationwide, uniform standards would govern the safety of children’s products, and to avoid the uncertainty and inefficiency of patchwork safety regulation through hundreds of different state and local standards,” said the coalition’s complaint. “The law the Suffolk County Legislature has enacted is precisely the kind of law Congress wanted to preempt.”
Frederick Locker, representing the coalition from Locker Greenberg & Brainin, told Chemical Watch that he is hopeful that the county will voluntarily commit to following the federal law – or that the court will stay the enforcement of the county’s law – before its 1 December effective date.
Patchwork county laws
The Suffolk County legislature passed its measure on 2 June 2015. It was one of several New York counties that adopted so-called toxic toy laws, after repeated attempts to get traction for such measures in the New York state legislature failed.
Suffolk’s law stipulates that retailers may not knowingly distribute, sell or offer for sale a children’s product containing certain heavy metals – lead, mercury, antimony, arsenic, cobalt and cadmium – above specified levels.
Although the federal limits established under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) are identical to Suffolk’s, the complaint alleges that “regulations, exclusions, test methods and protocols for determining compliance are nowhere to be found in the Code and County regulations.” It says that the county’s law is thus inconsistent with ASTM F963 – the mandatory toy safety standard – and is therefore preempted.
The coalition filed a similar lawsuit last year against Albany County. Enforcement of the county’s measure has been stayed by the courts, and other countries have voluntarily delayed enforcement of their own measures, while the litigation continues to play out.
The Toy Industry Association, a coalition member, said that calls for this type of legislation are “based on the false premise that the safety of children's toys is not regulated and that hazardous substances are present in toys.”
But, the group contends, “the misleadingly titled Toxic Free Toys Act of 2015 does nothing to improve product safety. It merely prevents families in Suffolk County from buying the safe playthings that are available in other communities across the country and harms local businesses by unnecessarily limiting the toys they can put on their shelves.”
The coalition comprises the American Apparel & Footwear Association, the Halloween Industry Association, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) and the Toy Industry Association (TIA).
https://chemicalwatch.com/50851/industry-files-second-suit-over-new-york-county-toy-laws
-
After Clinton Bloodbath, 'All Hell Breaks Loose' for Oil Activists
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
For a community that had vowed to fight Hillary Clinton from the left, the reality of a Donald Trump presidency is a grim prospect to wake up to.
Activists with the anti-fossil fuel "keep it in the ground" movement fought hard to elect Clinton, urging their supporters to cast a ballot for her and then return to the streets in protest of projects that have advanced under the Obama administration. For many, imagining a Trump presidency was a bridge too far.
"We'll be in the streets either way, I guess. One will be a much nicer feeling, I think. The other will be all hell breaks loose"
That's how Jane Kleeb, founder of Bold Nebraska and president of the Bold Alliance, a network of community-based activists on land and water issues, looked ahead to the prospect of a President Trump.
Kleeb's activism was born with the Keystone XL pipeline fight, and hers and other groups have espoused a radically pro-environment stance that rejects carbon-based energy on local environmental grounds as well as for larger climate reasons. The movement is decentralized and disparate, with some activists calling for a sudden break with oil, natural gas and coal while others push for more incremental steps to edge the nation away from burning carbon.
"I honestly think it will be a very scary time," Kleeb said yesterday of a Trump presidency. "I think you'll start to see an intense level of civil disobedience."
If President Trump greenlights the Keystone XL pipeline, as he has pledged to do in his first day in office, Kleeb said, "No question, we would immediately be going into organizing mode."
For the Dakota Access pipeline fight, a high-profile standoff that has extended for weeks over construction on land identified as sacred to some Native American tribes, that would start with creating "civil disobedience teams" for various segments of the route through North Dakota and Nebraska, Kleeb said, using "as much creativity and people power and civil disobedience and nonviolence" as the group can muster.
"Citizens will be standing up and saying 'no,' and literally the only thing we'll be able to fall back on, since [Trump] says he'll be doing away with the EPA [and other regulatory agencies], will be us trying to block projects," Kleeb added. "I think it will tear the country apart."
An about-face on resource development
The oil and gas industry, of course, views "keep it in the ground" activists with skepticism, highlighting the central role of fossil fuels in powering the U.S. economy. Oil, natural gas and coal have made up more than 80 percent of total U.S. energy consumption since 1900, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and renewable resources don't have nearly the scale or reliability required to replace fossil fuels in the near term.
"The goals of the 'keep it in the ground' movement are just not practical," said Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs with the Western Energy Alliance, which advocates for oil and gas producers. "They would either shut down our modern lifestyles, or more practically, we would just import more energy from overseas."
Sgamma expects the Trump administration will move rapidly to remove roadblocks to domestic energy development.
Trump "has been very much focused on the working people and creating jobs, and there's nothing you could do quicker than unleashing oil and gas development" to spur job growth, Sgamma said. Studies suggest that tens of thousands of jobs would be created by completing federal environmental analyses of energy projects, she said, clearing the way for developers to break ground. "He would be working toward moving forward with American energy development," Sgamma said.
Oil tycoon Harold Hamm, who has made billions of dollars from founding Oklahoma-based Continental Resources, has been a key energy adviser for Trump during his election campaign, and many reports have speculated on a potential role for him at the helm of Trump's Energy Department (Greenwire, Oct. 5).
Sgamma said for the oil and gas industry, DOE's leadership is not the most crucial, given the key regulatory role held by U.S. EPA and the leasing decisions made by the secretary of the Interior. If Hamm led DOE, it could be good for the liquefied natural gas industry, whose key export permits pass through that agency, Sgamma noted. And more broadly, "Harold Hamm advising the president directly on energy issues is very important for moving things forward."
Sgamma noted that her group was prepared to work with a potential President Clinton, who she described as "pragmatic" and not a "zealot" like the anti-fossil-fuel activists, but said Clinton was too beholden to environmentalists for political support. In contrast, a President Trump "would not be beholden to the environmental lobby like she is," Sgamma said.
'Scary as shit'
WildEarth Guardians is a more moderate "keep it in the ground" backer than groups like Kleeb's Bold Nebraska, aiming to wean the U.S. economy off fossil fuels through concrete steps like ending federal leasing programs that put publicly owned coal, oil and natural gas assets up for private development.
Jeremy Nichols, the group's climate and energy program director, points to the moratorium announced early this year on federal coal leasing as an important victory for the movement. In January, the Interior secretary said the department would not issue new coal leases until it had conducted a comprehensive environmental review of such activity, a step that Nichols and others saw as a possible precursor to a more lasting ban (E&ENews PM, June 22).
But actions that are implemented by federal agencies without congressional involvement or a formal rulemaking process are vulnerable to change by subsequent leaders, and activists' hope that the pause on coal leasing would be extended to oil and natural gas will almost surely be dashed next year. During his campaign, Trump frequently promised to end the Obama administration's "war on coal" and bring the industry back to health, and lifting the federal leasing ban would be an obvious place to start.
In the face of a Trump win, Nichols pointed to the president-elect's thin policy record on energy and held out threads of hope. "Clearly he's said he wants to revitalize the coal industry, but then there have been moments where he's talked about wanting to protect public lands and supporting conservation," Nichols said.
But then the optimism crumbles. "It's scary as shit, I'll be honest," he said of the outlook for a Trump presidency.
"This is a guy who has no belief in the courts [and] wants democracy to serve his interests," Nichols said. "Even George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, they couldn't get their way all the time, and they acknowledged that. ... This seems to be a president who has no interest in accommodating any other interest.
"I think the fights that we're going to face in a Trump administration are going to be unlike any fights we've faced before," Nichols added. "I think the powerlessness that will exist for the climate movement, and groups like ours, will be at an all-time high."
Nichols reached again for a silver lining to the fossil fuel opposition movement's stunning loss. "Maybe the upside is there will be a way to work more with some moderate Republicans," he suggested. "It's not just crazy enviros who stand to lose with climate change."
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045485
-
Trump Win Signals Titanic U-turn on Energy, Climate Policies
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak
With President-elect Donald Trump's stunning election victory yesterday, the states — not Washington, D.C. — are likely to become the prime engines of energy and climate policy, based on the Republican candidate's campaign denunciations of the Obama administration's regulatory agenda.
Trump has promised to kill U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, with its mandated goal of carbon emission reductions from power plants, and was equally dismissive of the agency, telling Fox News last month, "Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations.
"We'll be fine with the environment," Trump said. "We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses."
Trump's pledges to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement and abandon the court-challenged Clean Power Plan are within his power, notes ClearView Energy Partners in an overnight analysis of Trump's Election Day upheaval.
"If CPP challengers prevail before the D.C. Circuit, the Trump Administration seems unlikely to appeal," the analysis says. "If the D.C. Circuit sends CPP back to the EPA for revision, a substantially weaker, new rule could emerge (and not quickly, we suspect). If the rule survives and challengers appeal to the Supreme Court, we have a hard time imagining the Trump Administration mounting an ardent defense.
"Weakening or abandoning the cornerstone of the U.S. nationally determined contribution [international climate pledge] could undermine climate bilateralism with China, putting the Paris pact in jeopardy," ClearView Energy Partners says.
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton had pledged significant new regulatory actions or legislative initiatives on the energy front, including setting a federal renewable energy target, completing EPA regulation of methane emissions from gas wells and pipelines, asking Congress to restore federal oversight of well drilling in hydraulic fracturing operations, and expanding the interstate transmission networks.
None of this was on Trump's public priority list during the campaign.
He will be in position to support and sign Republicans' congressional energy initiatives that have built up steam while blocked by Democrats and the administration. The ClearView Energy analysis concludes that a Trump administration could also use executive authority to slow or stall renewable energy leasing on federal lands, reinstate federal coal leasing and federal oil and gas lease sales, grant an easement to the Dakota Access pipeline, approve a new permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, and expand liquefied natural gas exports.
Trump has also pledged to revive the ailing coal industry in the United States — though how effectively his policies will be able to do so remains to be seen.
"Trump seems to be arguing that he would support both coal and natural gas, but if we're looking at that standpoint from the electric grid, those two resources compete with one another," noted Emily Hammond, a professor at the George Washington University Law School. "It's a stance that would be very difficult to turn into on-the-ground policies, and frankly, it's a stance that's running contrary to what market forces are doing."
Trump's stunning election victory was immediately welcomed by the conservative-leaning American Energy Alliance, whose president, Thomas Pyle, called it "an opportunity to reset the harmful energy policies of the last generation."
Trump "has laid out an energy plan that puts the needs of American families and workers first," Pyle said in a statement.
Back to the states
If Trump takes a hands-off position on grid transformation, that will leave governors' offices, state legislatures and city halls to respond to the dramatic changes in energy production and electric power technologies, by default. States are already embarking on many different courses based on their own energy profiles and political leadership. Utility companies are intent on charting their own futures amid a fast-changing landscape of cheaper renewable fuels, new smart-grid technologies and distributed energy opportunities.
One action area in Washington, D.C., is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with its charge to regulate the interstate transmission grid and wholesale power prices. Trump will have the opportunity to fill two existing vacancies subject to Senate confirmation and choose its next chairman. His ideas about FERC's mission are yet to be revealed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also has two vacancies to fill, and that may create an opportunity for a Trump White House to affect reviews of new nuclear power technologies.
Climate activists had hoped that FERC, under Clinton, would be receptive to petitions to recognize the economic value of zero-carbon electricity in wholesale power rates. The nuclear industry is also looking to FERC for help, as a dozen or more reactors struggle to make a profit in competition with natural gas generation.
Now that scenario is much more in question, and an activist role for FERC seems less likely.
"There are going to be some challenges in terms of carrying out FERC's workload," said Joel deJesus, a partner at the Dinsmore & Shohl law firm, citing informal conversations with commissioners and FERC staff. DeJesus — interviewed before yesterday's election results were in — suggested that an understaffed commission would have to place its focus on statutory obligations and that any extra work on policy development "may take a backseat for however long it takes to fill those vacancies."
DeJesus also highlighted unfinished business from last year's proposal for emergency authority enabling the secretary of the Energy Department to play a more hands-on role in the bulk power system during a major crisis. The authority would add a "new regulatory regime" to traditional oversight by FERC and the North American Energy Reliability Corp., he said.
There is bipartisan support for stronger defenses against state-backed cybersecurity threats to the power grids and other critical infrastructure, and for protecting vital parts of the interstate power networks against physical assaults and natural disasters. Trump has also called for expanded federal capabilities to defend and strike back against cyberattacks. He told an audience last month, "The United States must possess unquestioned capacity to launch crippling counter-cyberattacks. This is the warfare of the future. ... America's dominance in this arena must be unquestioned, and today, it's totally questioned."
DeJesus noted that a report is due from DOE recommending responses to a national emergency threat to power networks. "How broadly the Department of Energy defines what a grid security emergency is and what actions it takes in response to those are still open questions," deJesus said.
DOE's response to this congressional directive is due soon, joining a shelf of other policy studies and proposals that have come or will arrive before the Obama administration shuts down. They include proposals for upgrading the electric power system as part of the second installment of the Energy Department's Quadrennial Energy Review, a strategy for protecting power grids against damaging currents from solar storms, a presidential commission's recommendations on combating cybersecurity threats and a National Cyber Incident Response Plan from the Department of Homeland Security.
The studies were seen as a bridge between the Obama administration and a Clinton-led successor in the energy and grid security areas but now may be quiet codas to Clinton's widely unexpected defeat.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/09/stories/1060045493
-
Rule's Demise Looms, But How Trump Will Ax It Remains Unclear
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Obama administration's carbon rules for power plants are in dire straits after last night's election of Republican businessman Donald Trump as president.
The Clean Power Plan is "in critical condition," said Michael Gerrard, faculty director of Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
But how, exactly, the Trump administration could go about eliminating the Clean Power Plan is still very much linked to litigation that is pending in federal court, legal experts said today.
The president-elect would have various options based on how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules and how an appeal to the Supreme Court would take shape.
"There are a lot of new unknowns in the mix," said Jack Lienke, an attorney at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity.
The Clean Power Plan, finalized in August 2015, requires states to develop strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Overall, the rule aims to slash power plants' CO2 emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Dozens of entities, including 27 states, raised various challenges to the rule, including that U.S. EPA exceeded its Clean Air Act authority. Eighteen states and Washington, D.C., as well as cities, environmental groups and some industry groups, are defending EPA in the court battle.
In September, a panel of 10 judges on the D.C. Circuit held nearly seven hours of oral arguments in the massive litigation. The court is expected to issue a ruling in early 2017, but it's unclear exactly when.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had a lead in polls going into yesterday's election, had been expected to stay the course on the Clean Power Plan and continue defending the rule in court. But Trump has pledged to overturn the rule among a host of Obama administration regulations.
"A key question is where the Trump administration will actually land on the issue of climate change," said Scott Fulton, president of the Environmental Law Institute and a former EPA general counsel. "We know what candidate Trump said about climate change en route to the nomination. He presented himself as a climate skeptic of sorts. But now we really do need to see where a President Trump would be on this issue."
Still, Trump has "made it very clear he was not a fan of the Clean Power Plan," said Jim Rubin, an attorney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP and a former Justice Department official. "My expectation is that the administration will not actively support it. How it all works out will depend on what the court does."
Ahead of the election results, Jeff Holmstead, a former top EPA air official and a partner at Bracewell LLP who represents industry clients, yesterday predicted that a Trump administration would move swiftly to reverse the rule.
"One of the first things a Trump administration would do is submit a letter to the court saying that they plan to revoke the rule and asking for a voluntary remand," Holmstead said. "I don't know if they were to grant that — it depends on how close they are to reaching a decision."
Thomas Lorenzen, an attorney at Crowell & Moring LLP who argued in September on behalf of industry foes of the Clean Power Plan, today said he expected the D.C. Circuit would still issue a decision.
"Certainly there's the possibility that if they're still wrestling with the case come Jan. 20, you could see DOJ filing something that withdraws their advocacy for the rule," said Lorenzen, a former Department of Justice attorney. "But I don't think that will interfere with the D.C. Circuit's view that it has to rule on the lawfulness of the rule."
It's "a little bit hard to anticipate" exactly what the court would do between now and Jan. 20, Fulton said.
"It's also possible that the court, being observant itself of what's happening and how politically charged this rule is, could decide on its own to kind of slow-walk it until the new administration is in place," Fulton said.
Legal experts today outlined possible scenarios for the litigation's fate if it continues to play out in the D.C. Circuit.
If the D.C. Circuit strikes down the rule, it's likely the Trump administration will sit out an appeal to the Supreme Court, legal experts said. Other groups involved in the litigation may petition justices to take up the litigation, but the rule there may face an uphill battle in the form of a conservative-tilted court.
The Trump administration "can wait for the D.C. Circuit to rule, and whoever loses will presumably appeal to the Supreme Court," Gerrard said. "By the time it gets there, there may be a new Trump-appointed justice, which would not bode well for a decision upholding the rule."
On the other hand, if the D.C. Circuit upholds the rule, "we get a bit of a topsy-turvy world" in which the Justice Department could wind up asking the Supreme Court to vacate the rule, Lorenzen said. But the high court may be more receptive to arguments for vacating the rule made by other groups given that the Trump administration would have the power to undo the rule on its own, Lorenzen said.
Historical precedence
It's not unprecedented, though, for a new administration to argue against the positions the prior administration took.
That scenario, for example, played out over EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. During the Clinton administration, while it ultimately didn't issue regulations, EPA's general counsel said the Clean Air Act gave EPA the authority it needed. The George W. Bush administration disagreed.
In a 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the position taken during the Clinton administration.
In another example, when the Obama administration took office, it chose not to appeal the D.C. Circuit's ruling striking down the Bush administration's Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule.
"There were a lot of folks who wanted the administration to defend both those rules, especially the CAIR rule," Holmstead said. "Had there been another Republican administration, certainly it would have appealed."
It's possible that the same Justice Department attorneys who have defended the Clean Power Plan could find themselves arguing against it during a Trump administration, Lorenzen said.
But environmental and public health organizations and EPA's state allies that have intervened in the case would likely still defend the rule, Lienke said.
"Even if a Trump administration were to decide not to defend the rule in court, those groups are already parties in the case," he said. "They have standing to defend the rule."
Enforcement of the rule, in the meantime, will remain on pause until the Supreme Court issues a final decision.
Regardless, it's highly unlikely for President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to play a role in the Clean Power Plan's legality, experts said. Garland, the D.C. Circuit's chief judge, recused himself from all litigation while his nomination was pending.
A path through Congress
If the courts were to uphold the Clean Power Plan, Trump's EPA would have to go through a formal rulemaking with public notice and comment to rescind the rule.
"You have to look at the opinion that just came out of the D.C. Circuit. ... You have to explain the rationale for choosing to revoke the Clean Power Plan," Holmstead said. "It's possible the D.C. Circuit will say that the Clean Power Plan is based on a reasonable interpretation. It's not going to say that EPA was legally compelled to do it that way."
A Trump administration would have to give a reasonable explanation for why it changed its mind, Gerrard said.
"The court may or may not credit that change," he said. "Ordinarily, courts give a lot of deference to the expert judgment of expert agencies. But when the agency changes its mind for obviously political reasons, that reduces the deference."
Another potential scenario: The Trump administration could take steps to revoke the Obama administration's rule for limiting carbon emissions from new power plants, a legal prerequisite for the Clean Power Plan.
A swifter way to get rid of the Clean Power Plan could be through the Republican-controlled Congress, Lienke said.
"If Congress were to block the Clean Power Plan, the litigation would become irrelevant," he said.
On the other hand, the litigation and uncertainty could act as a "pressure point" for supporters of climate change action to mobilize around alternative means of lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
"There has, within a number of industry quarters, been favorable discussions about a carbon tax as another alternative to the Clean Power Plan regulatory regime," Fulton said.
Gerrard of the Sabin Center said he still expects the market to move away from coal even if the Clean Power Plan or some form of the rule doesn't survive.
"One major part of the Clean Power Plan was accelerating the transition from coal to natural gas," Gerrard said. "Market forces are making that happen anyway, although not at the same pace that the Clean Power Plan would drive.
"I think we are going to continue to see the retirement of old plants — just not as quickly."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/09/stories/1060045517
-
A 'Sea Change' for Power-Sector Climate Action?
Nov 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
With Donald Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court, all expectations for U.S. climate action flipped last night.
Just days ago, some environmental advocates were optimistic a President Hillary Clinton could eventually consider an ambitious cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax. Now even a slate of smaller efforts she could have pursued seems in the distant past.
The specifics of what Trump will do to gut climate change work are unclear. But he has promised to eviscerate as many Obama executive orders and regulations as he can as soon as possible (ClimateWire, Nov. 8). That includes the electricity-sector climate rules known as the Clean Power Plan.
Trump has said he would exit international climate deals, which could be devastating to diplomatic efforts to secure global action now or in the near future. The policy reversal couldn't come at a more pivotal time. The United States has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Getting there would require more regulations or new laws (ClimateWire, Nov. 8). Trump would instead deconstruct whatever existing policies he can and try to promote fossil fuels.
Trump's unpredicted victory and what it means for climate change left consultants, environmental advocates and even conservative groups hustling to pull together their post-election memos and statements late into the night.
"WOW ... few saw an election like this unfolding," began an email from energy industry lawyer Frank Maisano.
Around 2:30 a.m. EST, before Clinton conceded to Trump, the environmental group Greenpeace USA called it an "uncertain time for America" and said it would be "fighting harder than ever for environmental, racial, and social justice."
Half an hour later, the NRDC Action Fund echoed that sentiment.
"If Donald Trump thinks he can launch a big polluter assault on our air, waters, wildlife and lands, we'll build a wall of opposition to stop him," President Rhea Suh said. "Whatever else we may have voted for on Tuesday, we haven't turned away from generations of common-sense environmental safeguards. We're not about to turn away now."
With no clear way forward for climate action in Congress or the White House, environmental groups will likely ramp up lawsuits to compel progress, although the analysis firm ClearView Energy Partners noted rules driven by "sue-and-settle" lawsuits can take years to emerge.
"We may very much experience a situation similar to the Bush administration with more industry favored initiatives and legal pressure from the environmental community," Dorsey & Whitney LLP attorney Jim Rubin said.
State policies will be more critical than ever to reducing emissions. Within the power sector specifically, corporate goals could push more renewable energy. Existing tax policies that favor renewables will likely stay in force and continue to lower carbon levels, along with declining solar and wind costs and low natural gas prices.
While the electric industry accounts for a big chunk of greenhouse gas emissions, it's already well on the way to decarbonizing, with or without the Clean Power Plan. Many utilities have been assuming the Clean Power Plan will move forward and have acted accordingly.
"For power companies, a Trump win might not change very much in the near term," said Kyle Danish, a lawyer with Van Ness Feldman LLP. "Most major power companies have solidified their plans for the next five or so years. And for companies in the renewables business, the extension of the [production tax credit] and the [investment tax credit] were always going to be the major drivers for the next few years."
Uncertainty about the Clean Power Plan, however, will have a greater impact on longer-term planning, Danish said.
Clearview said Trump's win "bodes ill for the CPP under almost any scenario," whether the courts strike down the rule or require changes that would be written slowly and made weaker by a Trump EPA. If the rule moves forward, Trump could discretionarily enforce it and accept lenient state plans.
Rubin said before the news outlets called the election that "it's really too hard to say now what happens if he wins," because it might depend on Trump's "picks, confirmations and judicial nominees."
"I would imagine the administration would quickly slow further climate regulation wherever possible," Rubin said. It would be "a lot harder" to undo the Clean Power Plan without a new rulemaking, but its fate still lies with the courts, he said. It would also be hard to pull out of the Paris deal to curb emissions, but Trump "could basically decide to freeze domestic obligations and face whatever diplomatic consequences result," he noted.
Bracewell LLP lawyer Scott Segal agreed it's "hard to say for sure" what could happen to the Clean Power Plan in particular. Legal challenges will be unsettled when Trump takes office. If the rule does proceed, his administration could try to reopen it "assuming their decision is based on substantial evidence in the administrative record," Segal said.
"I think it's safe to say carbon regulation of the power sector is about to face a sea change," Segal said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/09/stories/1060045490
-
Oil, Coal Seen as Winners With Trump Victory
Nov 9, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Sarah Kent, Benoit Faucon, and Kevin Baxter
Republican Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president promises relief for U.S. coal miners, a boost for American oil players and fresh uncertainty for Western energy companies’ plans to return to Iran, as he seeks to undo eight years of Obama administration energy policy.
Mr. Trump was often vague on specifics on energy policy but his aim was clear. He said he would pull back regulations that weighed on coal and petroleum sectors, end U.S. participation in global efforts to curb climate change and review a deal to lift sanctions on oil-rich Iran.
Mr. Trump’s energy ideas are “basically the antithesis of the current administration’s,” said consultancy JBC Energy.
His surprise election sent energy stocks down on Wednesday morning, as BP PLC fell 1.5% in London trading, while Royal Dutch Shell declined by 1% PLC. The FTSE 350 oil and gas index fell 1.2% in early trading.
Mr. Trump’s victory should be viewed as positive for U.S. oil companies, said Alexandre Andlauer, head of oil and gas at Alphavalue. The president-elect has promised to ease regulations, lift limits on mining and drilling on federal land and promote the construction of energy-related infrastructure such as controversial oil and gas pipelines.
“In relative terms, the oil and gas industry is a clear winner with the new president. Pipeline players and suppliers first, then all shale players, followed by the conventional ones” said Mr. Andlauer. “U.S. oil companies have a better future today than yesterday.”
Some of the most dramatic changes Mr. Trump promised were in the coal sector, which has been hit by a wave of bankruptcies that included the country’s biggest miner Peabody Energy Corp. Mr. Trump has promised to reverse this decline by repealing a host of energy and environmental regulations that have hit the sector.
“We will put our coal miners and our steelworkers back to work, where they want to be,” Mr. Trump told a business-friendly audience at the Detroit Economic Club earlier this year.
But many of those promises may be challenging to fulfill. A new president can’t easily undo existing regulations and many of the coal industry’s troubles go beyond U.S. policy to rest on world-wide market trends that are likely to persist regardless of any actions Mr. Trump may take as president.
Mr. Trump’s support for coal could come at the expense of U.S. natural-gas producers, whose flood of new output in recent years has hurt the coal industry.
Supporting domestic coal production could free some gas for export, meaning more liquefied natural gas going to crowded markets such as Europe. That could also further depress prices for LNG, of which there is a large oversupply globally.
Uncertainty over Mr. Trump’s foreign policy is another significant wild card for the energy industry.
He was an intense critic of Mr. Obama’s deal to lift international sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on the country’s nuclear program, calling for doubling or tripling sanctions on the Islamic Republic to force more concessions.
Energy companies had been waiting for the results of the U.S. election before making a move into Iran because there are still American sanctions over terrorism and weapons they don’t want to run afoul of.
One exception was French oil giant Total SA, which on Tuesday announced a $4.8 billion deal to develop an Iranian natural-gas field in the Persian Gulf.
An executive at another European company trying to enter Iran’s oil fields said it would make it difficult for his company to quickly follow on Total’s footsteps now that Mr. Trump has been elected
“Everything is going to slow down,” the executive said. “It’s going to be wait-and-see.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-coal-seen-as-winners-with-trump-victory-1478693338
-
Gas, Power Industry Officials Caution Over Impact of Trump US Election Victory
Nov 9, 2016 | Platts
By Stuart Elliott
Senior gas and power industry officials reacted with caution Wednesday to Donald Trump's surprise US presidential election victory, saying at a Paris conference it remained to be seen if he would follow through on some of his more controversial policy pledges regarding the energy sector.
Speakers warned the gas and renewables industries would be impacted by a Trump administration, while others said they hoped the impact on energy exports would be limited.
Charif Souki, chairman of US-based Tellurian Investments, and former head of US LNG pioneer Cheniere Energy, said Trump's protectionist attitude toward trade should not mean a future block on development of US LNG export projects.
"I don't see him getting in the way of business -- I think he will be business-friendly," Souki said on the sidelines of the Petrostrategies conference.
"A very large percentage of American trade is exports, so he understands this. I don't see any problems with that," he said.
Nonetheless, Souki said the road forward under a Trump administration was unclear.
"We have no idea where he's coming from, what he really thinks. I'm hard pressed to know who his advisers are for energy policy. I wouldn't know who to go to ask, so you have to wait and see what happens. He's just as surprised as the rest of us," he said.
Tellurian Investments plans to build a new 26 million mt/year LNG export plant in Louisiana called Driftwood LNG with construction set to begin in 2018.
POLICY FUTURE
While Trump has given few concrete details about his energy plans, his statements during the campaign indicate he would likely adopt policies that attempt to expand fossil fuel production, ease regulations on industry and roll back President Barack Obama's clean air policies.
"It is bad news for gas and renewable energy -- he said he was not going to adhere to the COP21 pact," veteran gas industry consultant Nordine Ait-Laoussine of Nalcosa said.
But, Ait-Laoussine said, it remained to be seen whether he would stick to that policy or if he would be swayed by advisers.
"There is a difference between what a candidate says during the campaign and what he does," he said.
Didier Houssin, CEO of renewables group IFP Energies Nouvelles, added that at state level renewables may continue to win support despite Trump's negative view of the industry.
"California, for example, will continue to support renewables," Houssin said.
He added that gas had developed so well in the US because of its price competitiveness.
"So maybe the impact will not be that big," he said.
ECONOMIC WARNINGS
Souki also said one area that would be helpful is that Trump wants to eliminate regulatory roadblocks in the upstream.
"He's in favor of production so in that respect it could be beneficial," he said.
But, Souki also warned on Trump's position on emissions. "His position on carbon taxes and prices is not very supportive -- we'll see as he learns more about the business if he changes his position."
Other senior officials at the Paris conference were less vocal on their views of the Trump victory.
Iran's Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli -- the secretary general of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum -- said only that there were now "new realities" that must be taken into account.
Adeli added that gas demand was expected to be buoyed in the coming year by expectations of global economic growth, "but one should see how the developments of today will affect it."
Total's head of gas, renewables and power, Philippe Sauquet, said only that he hoped governments around the world would continue to support the COP21 agreement.
"We'll see if COP22 will confirm that and we'll see whether what happened tonight will affect this issue or not," Sauquet said.
"There is always some exciting news to make the future more complicated," Sauquet said.
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/paris/gas-power-industry-officials-caution-over-impact-26591418
-
California County Votes on Fracking, Washington State on Carbon Tax Proposal
Nov 9, 2016 | Platts Blog
By Brian Scheid
Voters in California’s Monterey County passed a ballot initiative Tuesday to ban hydraulic fracturing in the county, a vote which may shut down all oil production in the coastal county after roughly 70 years there.
Voters approved the initiative, known as Measure Z, which will ban the use of fracking and other high-intensity methods of oil and gas extraction, such as acid stimulation, prohibit new oil and gas operations in the county and phase out operational oil and gas wells.
The measure was approved by a vote of 40,332, or 55.8%, to 31,949, or 44.2%. Results of the vote were not fully counted until Wednesday morning.
The approval of the ballot measure Tuesday marked the first time a US county with relatively significant oil production has voted to ban fracking. Monterey County’s San Ardo field has produced, on average, 21,900 b/d of crude this year, about 4.4% of California’s overall 499,000 b/d of onshore production, according to the state’s Department of Conservation.
The measure was expected to be challenged by industry in court.
A group known as Monterey County for Energy Independence spent millions of dollars fighting the measure in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s election.
The group was funded largely by Chevron and Aera Energy, a venture between Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
Earlier this year, environmental groups failed to get two anti-fracking proposals on Colorado’s November ballot — one that would have given local governments new powers to restrict fracking and another which would prohibit new oil and gas facilities within 2,500 feet of homes or other occupied buildings.
Also on the West Coast, voters in the US state of Washington rejected a ballot initiative that would have created America’s first statewide carbon emission tax on the sale or use of fossil fuels and fossil fuel-generated electricity.
The tax would have set an initial rate of $15/mt of emissions by July 2017 and was estimated to increase gasoline prices by 25 cents/gal by that time.
The tax proposal was rejected by a vote of more than 1.09 million, or 59%, to nearly 772,000, or 41%, according to results from the Washington secretary of state’s office.
The carbon tax proposal faced opposition from some unlikely sources, including the state’s Democratic Party, labor organizations and environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, that refused to back it.
After being set at $15/mt in July 2017, the tax, known as the Washington Carbon Emission and Sales Tax Reduction, would would have risen to $25/mt in July 2018 and then by 3.5% plus inflation until the tax reaches $100/mt.
The tax was designed to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, but also to remain revenue neutral. Coupled with the emissions tax, the plan also would have lowered the state sales tax to 5.5% from 6.5%, boosted a tax credit for low-income families and reduced manufacturing taxes.
The tax would be collected from the first person or company in Washington who sells or burns the oil, coal or other fossil fuel. The state Department of Revenue would have needed to set rules for how to calculate carbon dioxide emissions for each type of fuel and fuel use.
The rejection of the Washington carbon tax proposal Tuesday shows the uphill battle that backers of a carbon tax face in the US. Efforts to set up a federal cap and trade policy failed during the last Democrat-controlled Congress. Speculation about establishing a national carbon tax has existed for years, but such a move is seen as politically untenable.
President Barack Obama last month said “the likelihood of an immediate carbon tax is a ways away.”
Find more election coverage in our US Election 2016 news and analysis feature, which includes links to blog posts, podcasts, videos, special reports, news stories and more.
http://blogs.platts.com/2016/11/09/california-monterey-county-fracking-washington-carbon-tax/
-
California County Votes to Ban Fracking
Nov 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Voters in a county on California’s coast passed a ballot measure to ban hydraulic fracturing and put other limits on oil and natural gas drilling within its borders.
Monterey County’s Measure Z passed Tuesday night, 55 percent to 45 percent, the San Jose Mercury News reports.
The victory came despite millions of dollars spent in opposition to the ballot measure by major oil companies like Chevron Corp. and Aera Energy.
It’s the latest in a string of local bans on fracking, including those in six California counties. Monterey County’s fracking back is unique, however, because it is a significant oil drilling area.
The measure bans fracking as well as new oil drilling and wastewater injection, the Mercury News said.
Environmentalists applauded its passage.
“David beat Goliath in Monterey County’s stunning victory against oil industry pollution,” Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, told the newspaper.
“Despite spending millions, oil companies couldn’t suppress this grassroots campaign,” she said. “This triumph against fracking will inspire communities across California and the entire nation to stand up to this toxic industry.”
The measure benefitted from some endorsements from high-profile figures including presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D), actor Leonardo DiCaprio and major liberal figures.
The oil industry said the victory is an alarming development in what companies see as a strategic attempt to shut down fossil fuel use.
“It’s very concerted, it’s very strategic, and it has less to do about fracking and more to do with ending oil production,” said Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for campaign opposing the measure.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/305198-california-county-votes-to-ban-fracking
-
Trump Victory Sets Stage for Reversal of Obama's Environmental Agenda
Nov 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
President-elect Donald Trump's victory in the Nov. 8 election opens the door to Republicans overturning a host of EPA policies and rules issued since 2009 -- including the Obama administration's climate agenda -- while reversing course on pending rule proposals, and potentially enacting dramatic cuts to the agency's budget.
At press time, the GOP candidate Trump had been declared the winner of the election with at least 289 electoral votes compared to 218 for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, a surprising reversal after Trump consistently trailed in national and state-by-state polls for months.
On the presidential campaign trail, Trump vowed to undo much of the Obama EPA's agenda, though his promises on specific issues have often been vague or contradictory, adding to uncertainty over what his environmental agenda will be when he takes office in January.
For instance, he said early in his candidacy that he would push to eliminate EPA entirely, but later walked back that pledge and said he would “refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans.”
Republicans retained control of the House and Senate in the elections, meaning that Trump could be poised to approve GOP-backed budget proposals that would greatly cut EPA's funding, after years of such bills being blocked in part by White House opposition.
Despite Trump's shifts on cutting EPA's funding, he has consistently attacked the administration's climate agenda, including its landmark existing source performance standards for power plants' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, also known as the Clean Power Plan.
In the same Sept. 22 speech in Pittsburgh, PA, where he said he would not seek to end EPA altogether, Trump said he would “scrap the 5 trillion dollar Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan -- these unilateral plans will increase monthly electric bills by double-digits without any measurable improvement in climate.”
Despite those attacks, Trump is said to be favoring as EPA administrator Robert E. Grady, a former official in the George H.W. Bush administration who worked on the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and favors some GHG controls.
In a 2009 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Grady -- currently a venture capitalist active in Wyoming politics -- opposed President Obama's then-nascent climate agenda but said he did not believe “that Mr. Obama should not be attacking the problem of climate change,” referencing cap-and-trade policies as well as a carbon tax as possible avenues.
Trump's Agenda
Along with the administration's climate rules, Trump has also attacked the rule defining which waters are subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA), and signaled that he would withdraw it entirely – which would restart the lengthy process of defining the law's reach.
While any action rescinding the power plan or CWA rule would have to go through a full rulemaking process, observers have said a Trump administration could use the Data Quality Act to downplay the value of scientific findings supporting the rules, which would make any action striking the policies more defensible. In addition, he could withdraw the U.S. commitment to the 2015 Paris climate agreement, which the GOP has argued is not binding since the Senate never ratified its terms.
Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) would also be able to drop its defense of the Clean Power Plan and the CWA rule, both of which are stayed pending court rulings on their legality – which would make it much more likely that courts will scrap the policies regardless of any new executive action.
While Trump will likely seek to reverse course on less prominent issues, such as implementation of the newly revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), observers have said the Trump EPA will likely have less power to make wholesale changes to the Obama agenda due to statutory mandates.
For example, the reformed TSCA imposes a slew of deadlines for new EPA toxics rulemakings, and while a Trump EPA could ignore those in order to rework Obama's proposals, advocates or others could file lawsuits asking federal courts to force the agency to issue the rules.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-victory-sets-stage-reversal-obamas-environmental-agenda
-
Washington Voters Reject Carbon Tax Proposal
Nov 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Voters in Washington state on Tuesday rejected a proposed tax on carbon emissions that had divided environmentalists in the state.
A ballot measure — called Initiative 732 — won only 42 percent of the vote in the state, and just one county, the Seattle Times reports.
Backers of the initiative knew they faced an uphill battle in Washington, where heavy hitters in the environmental sphere — including the Sierra Club and others — came out against the ballot measure.
“While we did not pass the nation’s first carbon tax, many states around the country are looking at I-732 as a model and we expect a nationwide movement to take root in the years ahead,” Yoram Bauman, the founder of pro-tax group Carbon Washington, said in a statement.
“We will look back at this as a lost opportunity to create history in Washington State, but also as a catalyst for much needed U.S. leadership on climate action.”
Green groups broadly favor a tax on carbon emissions, but many argued the Washington measure wasn’t the right way to do it.
Opponents were concerned about the initiative’s impact on poor residents in the state, as well as the fact the measure would not fund green energy programs there. Fossil fuel and other industry groups had also lined up against the proposal.
“The only way to combat climate change fast enough is to both cut pollution and invest in clean energy solutions like wind and solar power,” the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, a state group made up of conservation and labor organizations, said in a statement.
“And doing it right includes investing in communities and workers hardest hit by pollution and the transition off dirty fossil fuels. For a solution that can last, disadvantaged communities and workers need to see themselves in our clean energy future.
Supporters of the plan said it should spur more conversation on carbon taxes around the country.
“While tonight’s outcome is disappointing, Audubon [Society] members and supporters all across Washington rose to the occasion and said yes to a cleaner, better future,” Gail Gatton, executive director of Audubon Washington, said in a statement.
“We have awakened a sleeping giant, and we look forward to continuing the fight for commonsense climate solutions for birds and for people.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/305160-washington-voters-reject-carbon-tax-proposal
-
Trump’s Views on Major Science Policy Issues
Nov 9, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
Science was not one of the primary policy issues in the 2016 election, but Donald Trumpanswered 20 questions on majority science policy issues. Those questions were posed to all of the leading presidential candidates by ScienceDebate.org, a coalition of fifty-six leading U.S. nonpartisan organizations, including the American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN.
Here are the questions and the answers Trump provided to ScienceDebate.org:
1. Innovation
Science and engineering have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII. But some reports question America’s continued leadership in these areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains at the forefront of innovation?
Innovation has always been one of the great by-products of free market systems. Entrepreneurs have always found entries into markets by giving consumers more options for the products they desire. The government should do all it can to reduce barriers to entry into markets and should work at creating a business environment where fair trade is as important as free trade. Similarly, the federal government should encourage innovation in the areas of space exploration and investment in research and development across the broad landscape of academia. Though there are increasing demands to curtail spending and to balance the federal budget, we must make the commitment to invest in science, engineering, healthcare and other areas that will make the lives of Americans better, safer and more prosperous.
2. Research
Many scientific advances require long-term investment to fund research over a period of longer than the two, four, or six year terms that govern political cycles. In the current climate of budgetary constraints, what are your science and engineering r esearch priorities and how will you balance short-term versus long-term funding?
The premise of this question is exactly correct—scientific advances do require long term investment. This is why we must have programs such as a viable space program and institutional research that serve as incubators to innovation and the advancement of science and engineering in a number of fields. We should also bring together stakeholders and examine what the priorities ought to be for the nation. Conservation of resources and finding ways to feed the world beg our strong commitment as do dedicated investment in making the world a healthier place. The nation is best served by a President and administration that have a vision for a greater, better America.
3. Climate Change
The Earth’s climate is changing and political discussion has become divided over both the science and the best response. What are your views on climate change, and how would your administration act on those views?
There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.
4. Biodiversity
Biological diversity provides food, fiber, medicines, clean water and many other products and services on which we depend every day. Scientists are finding that the variety and variability of life is diminishing at an alarming rate as a result of human activity. What steps will you take to protect biological diversity?
For too long, Presidents and the executive branch of our federal government have continued to expand their reach and impact. Today, we have agencies filled with unelected officials who have been writing rules and regulations that cater to special interests and that undermine the foundational notion of our government that should be responsive to the people. Our elected representatives have done little to uphold their oaths of office and have abrogated their responsibilities. When these circumstances occur, there is an imbalance that rewards special interests and punishes the people who should benefit the most from the protection of species and habitat in the United States. In a Trump administration, there will be shared governance of our public lands and we will empower state and local governments to protect our wildlife and fisheries. Laws that tilt the scales toward special interests must be modified to balance the needs of society with the preservation of our valuable living resources. My administration will strike that balance by bringing all stakeholders to the table to determine the best approach to seeking and setting that balance.
5. The Internet
The Internet has become a foundation of economic, social, law enforcement, and military activity. What steps will you take to protect vulnerable infrastructure and institutions from cyber attack, and to provide for national security while protecting personal privacy on electronic devices and the internet?
The United States government should not spy on its own citizens. That will not happen in a Trump administration. As for protecting the Internet, any attack on the Internet should be considered a provocative act that requires the utmost in protection and, at a minimum, a proportional response that identifies and then eliminates threats to our Internet infrastructure.
6. Mental Health
Mental illness is among the most painful and stigmatized diseases, and the National Institute of Mental Health estimates it costs America more than $300 billion per year. What will you do to reduce the human and economic costs of mental illness?
This is one of the great unfolding tragedies in America today. States are reducing their commitments to mental health treatment and our jails are filled with those who need mental health care. Any mental health reforms must be included in our efforts to reform healthcare in general in the country. We must make the investment in treating our fellow citizens who suffer from severe mental illness. This includes making sure that we allow family members to be more involved in the total care of those who are severely mentally ill. We must ensure that the national government provides the support to state and local governments to bring mental health care to the people at the local level. This entire field of interest must be examined and a comprehensive solution set must be developed so that we can keep people safe and productive.
7. Energy
Strategic management of the US energy portfolio can have powerful economic, environmental, and foreign policy impacts. How do you see the energy landscape evolving over the next 4 to 8 years, and, as President, what will your energy strategy be?
It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption. Further, with the United States, Canada and Mexico as the key energy producers in the world, we will live in a safer, more productive and more prosperous world.
8. Education
American students have fallen in many international rankings of science and math performance, and the public in general is being faced with an expanding array of major policy challenges that are heavily influenced by complex science. How would your administration work to ensure all students including women and minorities are prepared to address 21st century challenges and, further, that the public has an adequate level of STEM literacy in an age dominated by complex science and technology?
There are a host of STEM programs already in existence. What the federal government should do is to make sure that educational opportunities are available for everyone. This means we must allow market influences to bring better, higher quality educational circumstances to more children. Our cities are a case-study in what not to do in that we do not have choice options for those who need access to better educational situations. Our top-down-one-size-fits-all approach to education is failing and is actually damaging educational outcomes for our children. If we are serious about changing the direction of our educational standing, we must change our educational models and allow the greatest possible number of options for educating our children. The management of our public education institutions should be done at the state and local level, not at the Department of Education. Until more choices are provided in our cities, those who tout their concern about educational outcomes cannot be taken seriously.
9. Public Health
Public health efforts like smoking cessation, drunk driving laws, vaccination, and water fluoridation have improved health and productivity and save millions of lives. How would you improve federal research and our public health system to better protect Americans from emerging diseases and other public health threats, such as antibiotic resistant superbugs?
The implication of the question is that one must provide more resources to research and public health enterprises to make sure we stay ahead of potential health risks. In a time of limited resources, one must ensure that the nation is getting the greatest bang for the buck. We cannot simply throw money at these institutions and assume that the nation will be well served. What we ought to focus on is assessing where we need to be as a nation and then applying resources to those areas where we need the most work. Our efforts to support research and public health initiatives will have to be balanced with other demands for scarce resources. Working with Congress—the people’s representatives—my administration will work to establish national priorities and then we will work to make sure that adequate resources are assigned to achieve our goals.
10. Water
The long-term security of fresh water supplies is threatened by a dizzying array of aging infrastructure, aquifer depletion, pollution, and climate variability. Some American communities have lost access to water, affecting their viability and destroying home values. If you are elected, what steps will you take to ensure access to clean water for all Americans?
This may be the most important issue we face as a nation for the next generation. Therefore, we must make the investment in our fresh water infrastructure to ensure access to affordable fresh water solutions for everyone. We must explore all options to include making desalinization more affordable and working to build the distribution infrastructure to bring this scarce resource to where it is needed for our citizens and those who produce the food of the world. This must be a top priority for my administration.
11. Nuclear Power
Nuclear power can meet electricity demand without producing greenhouse gases, but it raises national security and environmental concerns. What is your plan for the use, expansion, or phasing out of nuclear power, and what steps will you take to monitor, manage and secure nuclear materials over their life cycle?
Nuclear power is a valuable source of energy and should be part of an all-the-above program for providing power for America long into the future. We can make nuclear power safer, and its outputs are extraordinary given the investment we should make. Nuclear power must be an integral part of energy independence for America.
12. Food
Agriculture involves a complex balance of land and energy use, worker health and safety, water use and quality, and access to healthy and affordable food, all of which have inputs of objective knowledge from science. How would you manage the US agricultural enterprise to our highest benefit in the most sustainable way?
The implication of your question is that there should be central control of American agriculture by the federal government. That is totally inappropriate. The agriculture industry should be free to seek its best solutions through the market system. That said, the production of food is a national security issue and should receive the attention of the federal government when it comes to providing security for our farmers and ranchers against losses to nature.
13. Global Challenges
We now live in a global economy with a large and growing human population. These factors create economic, public health, and environmental challenges that do not respect national borders. How would your administration balance national interests with global cooperation when tackling threats made clear by science, such as pandemic diseases and climate change, that cross national borders?
Our best input to helping with global issues is to make sure that the United States is on the proper trajectory economically. For the past decade we have seen Gross Domestic Product growth that has not provided adequate resources to fix our infrastructure, recapitalize our military, invest in our education system or secure energy independence. We cannot take our place as world leader if we are not healthy enough to take care of ourselves. This means we must make sure that we achieve our goals in tax reform, trade reform, immigration reform and energy independence. A prosperous America is a much better partner in tackling global problems that affect this nation achieving its national objectives.
14. Regulations
Science is essential to many of the laws and policies that keep Americans safe and secure. How would science inform your administration's decisions to add, modify, or remove federal regulations, and how would you encourage a thriving business sector while protecting Americans vulnerable to public health and environmental threats?
This is about balance. We must balance a thriving economy with conserving our resources and protecting our citizens from threats. Science will inform our decisions on what regulations to keep, rescind or add. A vibrant, robust free market system will regulate the private sector.
15. Vaccination
Public health officials warn that we need to take more steps to prevent international epidemics from viruses such as Ebola and Zika. Meanwhile, measles is resurgent due to decreasing vaccination rates. How will your administration support vaccine science?
We should educate the public on the values of a comprehensive vaccination program. We have been successful with other public service programs and this seems to be of enough importance that we should put resources against this task.
16. Space
There is a political debate over America’s national approach to space exploration and use. What should America's national goals be for space exploration and earth observation from space, and what steps would your administration take to achieve them?
Space exploration has given so much to America, including tremendous pride in our scientific and engineering prowess. A strong space program will encourage our children to seek STEM educational outcomes and will bring millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in investment to this country. The cascading effects of a vibrant space program are legion and can have a positive, constructive impact on the pride and direction of this country. Observation from space and exploring beyond our own space neighborhood should be priorities. We should also seek global partners, because space is not the sole property of America. All humankind benefits from reaching into the stars.
17. Opioids
There is a growing opioid problem in the United States, with tragic costs to lives, families and society. How would your administration enlist researchers, medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies in addressing this issue?
We first should stop the inflow of opioids into the United States. We can do that and we will in the Trump administration. As this is a national problem that costs America billions of dollars in productivity, we should apply the resources necessary to mitigate this problem. Dollars invested in taking care of this problem will be more than paid for with recovered lives and productivity that adds to the wealth and health of the nation.
18. Ocean Health
There is growing concern over the decline of fisheries and the overall health of the ocean: scientists estimate that 90% of stocks are fished at or beyond sustainable limits, habitats like coral reefs are threatened by ocean acidification, and large areas of ocean and coastlines are polluted. What efforts would your administration make to improve the health of our ocean and coastlines and increase the long-term sustainability of ocean fisheries?
My administration will work with Congress to establish priorities for our government and how we will allocate our limited fiscal resources. This approach will assure that the people’s voices will be heard on this topic and others.
19. Immigration
There is much current political discussion about immigration policy and border controls. Would you support any changes in immigration policy regarding scientists and engineers who receive their graduate degree at an American university? Conversely, what is your opinion of recent controversy over employment and the H1-B Visa program?
Immigration has been one of the cornerstones of my campaign. The issues brought up in your question are exactly what we should be addressing in immigration reform. If we allow individuals in this country legally to get their educations, we should let them stay if they want to contribute to our economy. It makes no sense to kick them out of the country right after they achieve such extraordinary goals. As for the H1-B program, we cannot allow companies to abuse this system. When we have American citizens and those living in the United States legally being pushed out of high paying jobs so that they can be replaced with “cheaper” labor, something is wrong. The H1-B system should be employed only when jobs cannot be filled with qualified Americans and legal residents.
20. Scientific Integrity
Evidence from science is the surest basis for fair and just public policy, but that is predicated on the integrity of that evidence and of the scientific process used to produce it, which must be both transparent and free from political bias and pressure. How will you foster a culture of scientific transparency and accountability in government, while protecting scientists and federal agencies from political interference in their work?
Science is science and facts are facts. My administration will ensure that there will be total transparency and accountability without political bias. The American people deserve this and I will make sure this is the culture of my administration.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/11/Trump-views-major-science-policy-issues.html
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested