Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/11/2016
-
Despite Boxer's Retirement, TSCA Advocates See Strong Senate Support
Nov 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Despite the retirement of leading Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform proponent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), environmentalists say there are several Democrats in the upper chamber that they expect to be allies in helping push President-elect Donald Trump's administration to fully implement the revised TSCA enacted this year. -
Trump Wins: Chemical Companies and Markets Join the Party (Part 1)
Nov 11, 2016 | Market Realist
By Peter Neil
Donald Trump was elected as the 45th president of the US. The election will go down as one of the biggest upsets in US history. Republican candidate Donald Trump beat Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton with 279 to 228 electoral votes at the last count. Wall Street surprisingly took a U-turn and posted gains. Many analysts expected that the market would react negatively if Donald Trump won the election. -
Will Donald Trump Really Want to Remove the EPA? (Part 2)
Nov 11, 2016 | Market Realist
By Peter Neil
Many analysts think that Donald Trump will make major changes to the EPA (Environment Protection Agency). Before the election, Trump said that the EPA hampers business by imposing new laws too often. In the US, the EPA monitors issues related to the environment by making laws and imposing fines and sanctions. -
Dakota Access Pipeline 84% Built; Opening 1Q2017 Possible, ETP Execs Say
Nov 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Despite an ongoing fight, the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline construction continues and is 84% complete as of a 3Q2016 earnings conference call Thursday by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), CFO Tom Long told analysts. -
Insurgent Trump Taps GOP Insiders, Lobbyists for Transition
Nov 11, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Andrew Restuccia, Isaac Arnsdorf, and Nancy Cook
Donald Trump campaigned as an outsider who vowed to “drain the swamp” in Washington, but the president-elect’s transition team is packed with veterans of the GOP establishment, as well as with lobbyists for the fossil fuel, chemical, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries. -
Consultant, Former DOE Official Considered for Top Trump Posts
Nov 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is considering industry consultant Ed Davis to lead the government's top nuclear office and Fluor Corp. executive Paul Longsworth to oversee the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, a source advising the transition effort said. -
Will Donald Hoffman be President Trump's Secretary of Energy?
Nov 11, 2016 | Forbes
By Rod Adams
President-elect Trump announced a major emphasis on infrastructure building and manufacturing growth that is going to require a large increase in our energy consumption. -
Clean Energy Backers Seek to Defend Gains After Trump Win
Nov 11, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Esther Whieldon and Eric Wolff
Clean energy advocates, once confident of the nation's trajectory toward decarbonization, now worry that President-elect Donald Trump and emboldened Republican majorities in Congress will undo tax incentives and regulations that have propelled the industry's rapid growth. -
API Says Poll Shows Strong Support for Energy Infrastructure Development
Nov 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
After remaining quiet through much of the presidential campaign, the American Petroleum Institute (API) said Thursday that more than 80% of actual voters it polled on Election Day support increased development of the country's energy infrastructure. -
Interior Dept. Issues Rule for Renewable Energy Development on Public Land
Nov 11, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The Interior Department issued a regulation Thursday aimed at speeding up development of renewable energy on federal lands, one of at least five major energy rules the Obama administration is expected to release in coming weeks, even though they may be swiftly unraveled by President-elect Donald Trump. -
Toxins Detected Beneath Iowa Wood Factory
Nov 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A wood products company in Pella, Iowa, spilled two toxic compounds into the ground, though the years-old releases do not affect local drinking water, according to a U.S. EPA study. -
Rescinding Obama Regs? Not so Fast, Legal Scholars Say
Nov 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
President-elect Donald Trump's vows to single-handedly gut Obama administration environmental regulations will be more difficult than he has portrayed, legal experts say. -
CASAC Appears Likely to Back EPA Call for Retaining NO2 Air Standards
Nov 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) appears poised to back the agency's suggestion to leave its nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) unchanged, but is questioning the need for retaining the annual NO2 standard that some panelists say is consistent with the NO2 one-hour standard.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Despite Boxer's Retirement, TSCA Advocates See Strong Senate Support
Nov 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Despite the retirement of leading Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform proponent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), environmentalists say there are several Democrats in the upper chamber that they expect to be allies in helping push President-elect Donald Trump's administration to fully implement the revised TSCA enacted this year.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) on Nov. 8 won the race for Boxer's Senate seat, and Harris could be expected to be a major voice in the debate over how EPA should craft its rules for implementing the updated TSCA. Boxer and others from California during the process of crafting the revised law strenuously opposed provisions that could have severely restricted the state's landmark green chemistry and other chemical regulatory programs.
Existing senators who will continue to serve in the 115th Congress are also expected to play a prominent role in overseeing EPA's TSCA rules, including Democratic Sen. Tom Carper (DE).
Carper is second highest senior Democrat on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) after ranking member Boxer, and could take the top minority post on the panel next year. But he is expected to try and retain his ranking position on the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
“I think you'll see Carper take a lead role,” one industry source says on the TSCA issues, but adds that Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), who authored the TSCA reform Senate bill along with outgoing Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), is also likely to remain engaged on TSCA implementation issues, although Udall is not on EPW.
The revised toxics law, which updates the 1976 TSCA, sets a host of deadlines for EPA to issue rulemakings on review and regulation of existing and new chemicals. Congressional oversight of how the agency writes and implements those rules is expected during the next Congress.
Senate Support
One environmentalist suggests that several Democratic senators who were “instrumental” in winning major changes in negotiations over the TSCA reform bill are likely to ensure strong oversight of EPA's implementation of it, including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
“Merkley has been quite involved,” and Oregon is a state that has pursued its own strong chemical safety rules, the source says. “I think he'll be a “continuing player,” as will Whitehouse, and “[Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has a long history on these issues.” The source adds that “for one Boxer, we've got three new ones waiting to take up that mantle.”
After Carper, the next most senior members of the EPW minority are Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD), ranking member on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, then Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who caucuses with Democrats and is ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, and then Whitehouse (D-RI).
Whitehouse is not the ranking member on any full committee, and has been an outspoken advocate for stringent climate change policies, along with taking a lead role in the TSCA negotiations. If Cardin decides to stay as the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, that would give Whitehouse a prime slot as ranking member on the environment panel to call for aggressive action on issues such as TSCA and climate change.
However, Linda Reinstein, President of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, says of the TSCA advocates in the next Congress, “I wouldn't narrow it down” to those who were heavily involved in drafting the bill.
In an interview with Inside EPA, she said Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have all been active in asking EPA to ban asbestos, and to ensure it is included on the list of the first 10 chemicals EPA will review for regulation under the new TSCA.
“Sen. Boxer for me is irreplaceable, but there will be a group to pick up her torch,” on the seeking the asbestos ban, said Reinstein, who has previously said she expects asbestos to be on the list of 10 chemicals.
Boxer's Retirement
Boxer, who served in the Senate 23 years and a previous 10 years in the House, was chairman of EPW from 2007 to 2014 and became the panel's ranking member in the 114th Congress after Republicans took over control of the chamber following their midterm election gains.
Boxer announced in early 2015 that says she would not be seeking reelection, touting various environmental policy achievements such as creating a climate change task force, brownfields law and environmental justice legislative actions.
Boxer long opposed previous bipartisan TSCA reform bills as insufficiently protective of public health, fearing the state preemption provisions were too sweeping and would block chemicals programs such as those in California, that the legislation did not adequately protect vulnerable populations and other criticisms.
In March 2015, she and Markey introduced their own TSCA reform bill, known as the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, though it did not gain any Republican sponsors.
But Boxer signed off on the final law following negotiated changes to the underlying bill, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which President Obama signed into law June 22, and has since continued to conduct oversight, urging EPA to include the known carcinogen asbestos among the first 10 existing chemicals for which it will consider regulation.
She also introduced a bill to force EPA to require EPA to publish within 90 days of enactment an identification and assessment of the known uses of, and exposures to, all forms of asbestos. EPA would have to no later than 18 months after enactment move to restrict use of the substance “necessary to achieve the maximum practicable reduction in human exposure.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-boxers-retirement-tsca-advocates-see-strong-senate-support
-
Trump Wins: Chemical Companies and Markets Join the Party (Part 1)
Nov 11, 2016 | Market Realist
By Peter Neil
Wall Street swings up on Donald Trump’s victory
Donald Trump was elected as the 45th president of the US. The election will go down as one of the biggest upsets in US history. Republican candidate Donald Trump beat Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton with 279 to 228 electoral votes at the last count. Wall Street surprisingly took a U-turn and posted gains. Many analysts expected that the market would react negatively if Donald Trump won the election.
On the day the election results were announced, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY), which tracks S&P 500 Index, rose 1.10%. Chemical companies like Dow Chemical (DOW), PPG Industries (PPG), LyondellBasell (LYB), and Praxair (PX) rose 0.80%, 0.60%, 2.50%, and 0.70%, respectively.
Plus and minus
The biggest benefit for chemical companies, although applicable to all companies, is Trump’s idea to cut down corporate taxes from 35% to 15%. It would help chemical companies improve their profits. They’re struggling in tough economic conditions. Trump claims that reducing the corporate tax for small and big business will create jobs. He also suggested imposing tax rates of 35%–45% for products manufactured outside the US and sold in the US market. It would help local companies compete with companies outside the US.
Trump’s ideology of “America First” has put some of the free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership under threat. It might be difficult for US companies to expand their business globally. To learn more, read Why Trump Sees NAFTA as the Worst Trade Deal Ever and Trans-Pacific Partnership: Impact on Consumer and Retail Firms.
http://marketrealist.com/2016/11/donald-blows-victory-trumpet-chemical-companies-markets-join-party/
-
Will Donald Trump Really Want to Remove the EPA? (Part 2)
Nov 11, 2016 | Market Realist
By Peter Neil
EPA and Trump
Many analysts think that Donald Trump will make major changes to the EPA (Environment Protection Agency). Before the election, Trump said that the EPA hampers business by imposing new laws too often. In the US, the EPA monitors issues related to the environment by making laws and imposing fines and sanctions.
Under President Obama, Congress approved the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. It allowed the EPA to keep a strict vigilance on chemical companies. Many people think that the EPA will eliminate the use of harmful chemicals used in consumer products. When Trump takes over as the next president with a Republican-controlled Congress, analysts expect a cut in the federal budget on agencies that could bring down the EPA’s capabilities to regulate the chemical industry. Earlier, Trump was criticized for his statement that he would abolish the EPA and not monitor chemical and other companies. Only time will tell if Trump really meant that he would abolish the EPA.
Social responsibility
As a social responsibility, chemical companies have kept a certain portion of their profit as a reserve for future environmental remediation. At the end of 2015, companies like Dow Chemical (DOW), PPG Industries (PPG), LyondellBasell (LYB), and Sherwin-Williams (SHW) accrued $670 million, $233 million, $106 million, and $30.20 million.
Investors can invest in these companies indirectly by investing in the Materials Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLB).
http://marketrealist.com/2016/11/will-new-president-really-want-remove-epa/
-
Dakota Access Pipeline 84% Built; Opening 1Q2017 Possible, ETP Execs Say
Nov 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Despite an ongoing fight, the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline construction continues and is 84% complete as of a 3Q2016 earnings conference call Thursday by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), CFO Tom Long told analysts.
A final federal decision on an easement for a water crossing under part of the Missouri River in southcentral North Dakota is "imminent," according to President Matt Ramsey.
"We remain confident that we will receive the easement from the Army Corps in a timeframe that will not result in significant delays in proceeding with drilling activities under Lake Oahe," said Long, predicting that commercial operations of the nearly 1,200-mile pipeline through four upper Midwest states will commence in the first quarter next year.
While reiterating ETP's commitment to protect all cultural resources, along with the environment and safety aspects of the undertaking, Long said his company's commitment is inherent in the project's route and the earlier approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). "[Almost all of the route, 99.98%] is on private land and does not cross any land owned by or under the control of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe," he said. Environmental activist groups and the Standing Rock Sioux have turned the project into a prolonged national demonstration against alleged mistreatment of Native American tribes by various government agencies (seeShale Daily, Nov. 9).
Now awaiting an easement from the USACE to complete work beneath Lake Oahe, construction continues on the remaining segments of the pipeline, Long said. The pipeline will cross 90 to 115 feet below Lake Oahe with double walled, and remote controlled shutoff valves on each side of the crossing.
"This land has been studied, surveyed and constructed upon at least twice before over the past several decades," Long said. "Multiple archeological studies conducted with the state historic preservation offices found no culturally significant items or sacred site along the route under construction."
Separately on Thursday, Christi Tezak, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, agreed that Dakota Access eventually will be completed, but the Obama administration may delay action and leave the final USACE permitting to President-elect Trump's administration.
"Even if the current administration continues to delay, or even deny, the [USACE] easement, the incoming administration may find more than ample evidence in the existing record to justify a decision to approve it," Tezak said in a ClearView analysis, adding that the tribes would likely appeal to the courts but are not likely to succeed.
Tezak cited a status conference held Thursday by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg on the complaints against the USACE earlier approvals of the pipeline. She said she continues to expect that outgoing the Obama administration will initiate additional delay to the pipeline's completion. Another status conference has been set for Dec. 9.
On the conference call, Long said ETP "continues to believe that the USACE will soon issue the easement for approximately 500 feet on each side of the lake necessary for the crossing beneath Lake Oahe, the sole remaining authorization necessary for the completion of the project. We received the [original] permit from the Corps for the crossing on July 25 of this year."
In response to a question from an analyst, Ramsey said the USACE re-review process has "now been probably 65, 70 days. They're not requiring any additional information out of us. We're in constant communication with them, and we feel like the decision is imminent..."
In response to a question about how much of the pipeline capacity has been contracted for, COO Marshall McCrea indicated that of the maximum 570,000 b/d capacity more than 450,000 b/d has been contracted for in terms of what has been publicly disclosed. "We are confident that as the project is completed, that we will contract up to complete capacity," McCrea said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108416-dakota-access-pipeline-84-built-opening-1q2017-possible-etp-execs-say
-
Insurgent Trump Taps GOP Insiders, Lobbyists for Transition
Nov 11, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Andrew Restuccia, Isaac Arnsdorf, and Nancy Cook
Donald Trump campaigned as an outsider who vowed to “drain the swamp” in Washington, but the president-elect’s transition team is packed with veterans of the GOP establishment, as well as with lobbyists for the fossil fuel, chemical, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries.
As Trump and his aides vet nominees for his Cabinet and lay out a first 100-day agenda, they are leaning heavily on the sort of DC insiders that the billionaire railed against on the campaign trail — people who cut their teeth working for Presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and former nominee Mitt Romney, as well as on the influence peddlers Trump accuses of ‘rigging’ the system against ordinary Americans.
One Republican lobbyist told POLITICO that the president-elect has no choice but to turn to GOP veterans with government experience to launch a new administration.
“Who else are you going to go to?” the lobbyist said. “Unless you get some used car salesman from Dubuque, Iowa, you go to policy people.”
To be sure, members of the transition team are not guaranteed jobs in the Trump administration — for now, they’ve been enlisted simply to assemble policy papers, vet potential nominees and develop road maps for governing. But their involvement makes it more difficult for the president-elect to portray himself as a political outsider — a development that at least some regard as positive.
“The fact that Donald Trump is reaching into the big pool of his party for some of the most highly qualified candidates is a good thing,” said one former Bush administration official. “It would be a huge mistake to not draw on that talent. I understand the campaign rhetoric. But if he’s not drawing from the Republican Party — and he’s obviously not drawing from the Democratic Party — where would he draw from?”
But some in the original band of insurgents are resentful. "The Bush crew is definitely trying to pretend that Trump’s win is not a direct repudiation of their failed administration," said one early supporter. "I’m surprised by the hypocrisy of the whole thing."
Top members of his transition team with ties to both Bushes include Kay Cole James, director of the Office of Personnel Management for the younger Bush; William Hagerty, an economic adviser to the elder Bush and player on Romney’s transition team; and Jamie Burke, a White House liaison to Health and Human Services for the younger Bush who also served on Romney’s transition.
There’s also Ado Machida, a top domestic policy aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney; David Bernhardt, Interior Department solicitor, and James F. Manning, a senior Education official, both for the younger Bush; and Ken Blackwell, undersecretary at Housing and Urban Development, and David Malpass, deputy assistant secretary of state, both for the elder Bush.
Former Bush officials are expected to find a place in Trump’s Cabinet too. Pamela Patenaude, a potential pick to lead Housing and Urban Development, was an assistant HUD secretary under the younger Bush; and Van Hipp Jr., a former deputy assistant Army secretary for the elder Bush, is seen as a leading candidateto be Army secretary.
William Evers, a possible pick for Education Secretary, worked at the younger Bush’s Education Department; Victoria Lipnic, a candidate for Labor Secretary, worked at his Labor Department; and Robert Grady, who served the elder Bush, is seen as a candidate to lead Interior, Energy, EPA or the Office of Management and Budget.
Trump’s transition team is also flush with lobbyists, raising questions about the president-elect’s promises to limit the influence of lobbyists in government.
During an October speech in Wisconsin, Trump vowed to “make our government honest once again.” He pledged to ask Congress to ban executive branch officials from lobbying the government for five years after they return to the private sector and to issue a similar five-year ban on former lawmakers and their staffs. He also proposed a lifetime ban on senior executive branch officials lobbying for foreign governments. And he said he would “close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisers when we all know they are lobbyists.”
But his transition team includes lobbyists who represent powerful corporate interests, according to an organization chart obtained by POLITICO and lobby disclosure filings:
Cindy Hayden of tobacco giant, Altria, is in charge of Trump’s Homeland Security team.
J. Steven Hart, chairman of Williams & Jensen, is in charge of the Labor team. His clients include Visa, the American Council of Life Insurers, Anthem, Cheniere Energy, Coca-Cola, General Electric, PhRMA and United Airlines.
Michael McKenna of MWR Strategies, who is working on the Energy Department team, lobbies for Engie (formerly GDF Suez), Southern Company and Dow Chemical.
David Bernhardt of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck who leads the Interior Department team, lobbies for the Westlands Water District in central California and used to represent Freeport LNG and Rosemont Copper.
Michael Torrey, who has the Agriculture Department portfolio, has his own firm representing the American Beverage Association and the Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau.
Mike Catanzaro of CGCN Group, lobbies for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a refining group, as well as Hess, Encana, Noble Energy and Devon Energy. Catanzaro is working on energy independence, along with Mike Ference, a lobbyist at the firm S-3 Group, representing Halliburton, Koch Industries and Marathon Oil.
Rolf Lundberg, who’s tasked with trade reform, worked at the Chamber of Commerce until 2013 and spun off his own lobbying firm representing Choice Hotels and the International Franchise Association.
Jim Carter, who oversees tax reform, is an in-house lobbyist for manufacturing company Emerson.
Transportation and infrastructure is being led by Martin Whitmer, the founder partner of lobbying firm Whitmer & Worrall who represents the American Association of Railroads, the National Asphalt Pavement Association and the Utilities Technology Council.
It is not known whether Trump will allow former lobbyists to serve in his administration -- instead of simply limiting what they do after leaving government. Unlike Trump, Hillary Clinton’s transition team banned lobbyists altogether and made staff sign a code of ethics requiring transition officials to recuse themselves from working on any issue on which they have lobbied in the past year.
A person close to Trump’s transition told POLITICO that he has not heard any discussion about limiting the role of lobbyists in Trump’s administration.
“When you lock lobbyists out, you’re really handcuffing yourself,” the person said. “It looks good on paper and it sounds good … But you’re cheating yourself and really limiting the talent pool.”
Indeed, even Obama had trouble keeping lobbyists out of government. The president issued several waivers permitting former lobbyists to work in his administration. Some Democrats privately acknowledge such limits are important symbolically, but are difficult to enforce.
“It is a big error to sweep with a broad brush when it comes to lobbyists,” said another former Bush administration official, “because some of the most seasoned and capable people able to responsibly pull the levers of government are among the lobbying ranks. To deprive yourself from that skill set is a mistake.”
Trump’s decision to rely on veterans of all stripes comes as a relief for many in the establishment.
“Look I don’t want his administration filled with Breitbart and Ann Coulter — those kind of folks,” said Peter Wehner, who served in the last three GOP administrations and who has been an outspoken Trump critic. “I hope for the sake of the country that he gets competent people in place who know how to run the government because he has no earthly idea what to do. I’m sure he’s in the process of figuring out that the presidency is not a reality television show.”
A Trump spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-transition-gop-insiders-lobbyists-231224
-
Consultant, Former DOE Official Considered for Top Trump Posts
Nov 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is considering industry consultant Ed Davis to lead the government's top nuclear office and Fluor Corp. executive Paul Longsworth to oversee the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, a source advising the transition effort said.
Davis and Longsworth are part of hundreds of names Trump's team is circulating and vetting as it assigns potential new managers for the government's sprawling agencies, national labs and weapons complex.
The team is working within six branches — choosing leaders for defense, national security, the economy, domestic issues, the budget, and agency "transform and innovation," according to an internal document obtained by E&E News.
Leading up the effort for the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission is lobbyist Mike McKenna. While Trump adviser and Continental Resources Inc. CEO Harold Hamm is often cited as a leading contender for secretary for DOE, the oil tycoon this week told his employees in an internal memo he was staying put (Greenwire, Nov. 10).
Other names percolating include David Hill, executive vice president and general counsel for NRG Energy Inc., who was DOE's general counsel during the George W. Bush administration; and J. Larry Nichols, co-founder of Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp.
On the nuclear front, Davis, president of the Pegasus Group, is the front-runner for the position of assistant secretary for DOE's nuclear energy or environmental management offices, the source said.
As the overseer of DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Davis would have a hand in shaping research of new reactor designs, the national labs and nuclear waste.
If tapped to lead the Office of Environmental Management, Davis would oversee the largest environmental cleanup program in the world — 107 legacy sites large enough to cover Rhode Island and Delaware combined — left over from decades of nuclear weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. To date, the office says it has cleaned up 90 of the sites.
Davis founded Pegasus in 2002 to advise nuclear clients and has served as president and CEO of NAC International Inc. from 1994 to 2002, where he helped pioneer dry-cask storage at nuclear plants across the country, according to his bio. He has a bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering from the University of Virginia.
The transition team is also considering Paul Longsworth, the vice president of Fluor, to lead the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous office under DOE that has oversight for the U.S. nuclear warhead stockpile.
Longsworth joined Fluor Government Group as executive director of environmental/nuclear business development in 2005, after leaving a post as NNSA's deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation under the George W. Bush administration. Longsworth worked in Fluor's U.K. office focusing on environmental and nuclear business development.
Prior to joining NNSA, Longsworth served as the senior policy advisory for national security and the former Soviet Union for former Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.
Longsworth is also a Hill veteran, having served as a staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information, according to the agency.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/11/stories/1060045605
-
Will Donald Hoffman be President Trump's Secretary of Energy?
Nov 11, 2016 | Forbes
By Rod Adams
President-elect Trump announced a major emphasis on infrastructure building and manufacturing growth that is going to require a large increase in our energy consumption.
Though many observers keep referring to a four-year-old tweet to characterize Trump’s view on climate change as a hoax, he has at least two close advisors — Senator Jeff Sessions and Donald Hoffman — that are strong supporters of nuclear energy development.
My reasonably well-founded guess is that Don Hoffman is near the top of a short list of potential candidates to become the Secretary of Energy.
Don mentioned his opportunities to talk with Candidate Trump about nuclear energy’s capacity for abundant, reliable power production without pollution or CO2 emissions in an October article published by EENews.
Hoffman described a more subdued, inquisitive and thoughtful nominee than the Trump portrayed in Twitter fights, catchphrases, insults and political barbs — a nominee, Hoffman said, who has an appreciation for the value of electricity from nuclear reactors.
“He’s quite insightful; one-on-one, he’s really excellent. He asked some very insightful questions; we talked about the business of nuclear and the things we were doing in New York for the zero-emission credit and hoping to take the concept out to other states,” Hoffman said.
Hoffman could not attest to what Trump does — or doesn’t — think about climate change. Hoffman doesn’t have a Twitter account, nor did he see Trump’s 2012 tweet in which the nominee asserted that climate change policy is an attempt to stifle American manufacturing at the expense of overseas competition, Hoffman said.
“During our discussions, he clearly understood the need for addressing carbon emissions and the potential deleterious effects to the environment.”
Who Is Donald Hoffman?
Hoffman joined Trump’s Leadership Council in March. He is the founder, President and CEO of Excel Services Corporation, a nuclear engineering and consulting firm that Don founded in 1985 after serving for nine years in the US Navy submarine force and four years at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Excel Services isn’t a widely known brand outside of the industry it serves, so here is a brief description provided in a profile published in Nuclear News at the time Hoffman became President.
In 1985, Hoffman left the NRC and formed EXCEL Services Corporation, lo- cated in Rockville, Md., in order to address what he perceived as the need to balance safety and performance/cost issues in a manner that would improve the overall safety and performance of nuclear power fa- cilities. “At the time, there was not a lot being done in that arena,” Hoffman said, “and I thought it would be interesting to do it.”
(His company, he insists, was the first in the United States to be named EXCEL, predating the Microsoft product.)
Hoffman describes his firm as “an international nuclear engineering company that specializes in regulatory and operational initiatives that enhance safety, improve per- formance, and reduce costs of operating nuclear facilities.” Over the past 28 years, he noted, EXCEL has done business with virtually every U.S. nuclear utility and every nuclear plant and enrichment facility in the United States. The company is also currently working on projects in 21 countries, as well as with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Nuclear Association, among other organization
For nearly a quarter of a century, Excel has generously supported the work of the American Nuclear Society, a 15,000-member technical society made up of scientists, engineers and technical specialists focusing on nuclear science and technology.
Hoffman has been extremely active in the Society. He has served on the Board of Directors and as President, a job with nominally a one year term of office that requires a three year commitment. The first year is spent traveling and meeting society members as the President Elect, and the second year leading the organization as the President, and the third year advising and special projects management as the immediate Past President.
Is Hoffman Too Focused On A Single Energy Source To Be Secretary Of Energy?
People with the technical capacity to understand nuclear energy are well suited to understand the workings of other energy sources and advanced scientific research. Don has proven that he is a capable manager and leader in a way that will most likely appeal to President Trump; he established his track record as a successful businessman in a challenging industry.
During his service and travels as ANS President and immediate Past President, Hoffman expanded on his already deep understanding of the important role that energy plays in our modern economy.
He has held discussions with leaders in coal, oil, gas, wind, hydro, solar and biomass. He’s been working to explain the Trump approach to sensible energy and has recently founded a non-profit named Sensible Energy Matters to America (SEMA) to help spread that message as widely as possible.
I imagine that both Sessions and Hoffman have convinced Trump that nuclear energy has vast untapped potential. From the 1940s to the 1970s, America was the greatest supplier of atomic energy to the world. People in Trump’s generation clearly remember that period of nuclear greatness.
That lost greatness came as a result of many of the factors that Candidate Trump talked about consistently on the stump. The factors the contributed to nuclear energy’s fall from grace in the U.S. include “cost-is-no-object” regulation, poor management, bad trade deals, efforts to handicap U.S.-based manufacturing and narrowed visions of the potential for human growth and development.
Nuclear went through a lengthy period during which is was not politically correct. In fact, it wasn’t long ago that being pro-nuclear was considered to be the third rail of politics. Admitting that position was nearly certain to cause political death.
Now, people at one end of the political spectrum recognize that we need our energy sources to be clean so that they do not contribute to air pollution or climate change. Many have reluctantly revised their indoctrinated position against nuclear energy because of its emission-free nature.
People on the other end of the spectrum understand the value of abundant energy and believe that regulations should be limited to protecting people and private property interests and not used as a club to halt development. They believe nuclear energy is fine as long as it can compete in the market.
Based on annual public opinion surveys, a majority of people in the middle of the political spectrum have always favored the safe development of nuclear energy.
A Secretary of Energy with a strong government, business, technical and non-profit group background in nuclear energy with a good understanding of all other energy options would be a good fit with Trump’s stated vision.
Robust nuclear energy growth would help Trump achieve his vision of restoring American manufacturing, improving our infrastructure, developing high-skilled jobs and expanding our international competitiveness.
There was a lot of hallway speculation about the possibility of Hoffman being Secretary during the recent ANS meeting in Las Vegas, especially since Hoffman seemed to be absent after early Wednesday morning. It’s unusual for him to depart early from a meeting.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/11/10/will-donald-hoffman-be-president-trumps-secretary-of-energy/#758ecb553115
-
Clean Energy Backers Seek to Defend Gains After Trump Win
Nov 11, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Esther Whieldon and Eric Wolff
Clean energy advocates, once confident of the nation's trajectory toward decarbonization, now worry that President-elect Donald Trump and emboldened Republican majorities in Congress will undo tax incentives and regulations that have propelled the industry's rapid growth.
On the campaign trail, Trump boasted that he would unleash fossil fuel development to accelerate growth, promising to revive the dying coal industry and reduce regulations on oil and gas development that he said held the U.S. energy economy in check. He has derided renewables, especially wind, and his team is considering fossil fuel chieftains like fracking pioneer Harold Hamm and Lucas Oil founder Forrest Lucas for prominent roles in the Trump administration.
After eight years of policy support from President Barack Obama, the sudden change in the political winds have knocked solar and wind backers on their heels. Recently extended tax credits for wind and solar may be at risk in a possible tax deal, and everything from EPA's Clean Power Plan to clean energy investment from the Department of Energy to efficiency standards could be on the chopping block.
Clean energy trade groups and backers are scrambling to develop a plan that would appeal to Trump. Backers of nuclear, natural gas and carbon capture can count on the stronger support they have traditionally received from Republicans, and they are optimistic about Trump's promises to cut regulatory red tape. Wind, solar and energy efficiency proponents, meanwhile, are hoping to appeal to Trump the businessman, promoting their technologies as engines of economic growth.
Trump "is a business man first and foremost," said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy. "And if you look at what businesses ... are doing with respect to advancing energy efficiency and showing a bottom line benefit from that, he'll want to follow suit. … So we're going to take that into Trump's administration and play that card hard."
The president-elect has made his antipathy to wind and solar clear enough. He aggressively fought to stop wind turbines that would be in the ocean outside one of his resorts in Scotland, and he has criticized them for killing birds and for being ugly. Moreover, Trump has long insisted that climate change is a hoax, and he promises to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement and undo the Clean Power Plan.
What he does want to do is tax reform, sparking fears that wind and solar tax credits could be useful ways to help pay for child care tax credits or reductions in the corporate tax rate and the top income bracket that he has called for. Those industries scored a major coup last year when Congress agreed to extend and phase out the production and investment tax credits for five years as part of a massive budget deal, but Trump may upend that arrangement.
"The present PTC/ITC is, and frankly all tax expenditures are, vulnerable in a tax reform world," said Hunter Johnston, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson and a carbon capture tax incentives lobbyist. "I think that the wind and solar industry would have to be very careful, make sure that their advocates are protecting what they have, and it is difficult to see additional tax expenditures being approved to enhance those products at this point."
But Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a group with ties to the Koch brothers that has opposed tax extenders, seemed to think the credits may be safe for now, given the support they enjoy from Republicans in windy and sunny states. "I don't know that the Congress has changed so dramatically that they're going to take a run at unwinding those. But what it has done is taken away any opportunity for the wind guys to try and take another run at that," said Pyle, an early Trump backer.
Wind generated two-and-a-half times as much electricity in 2015 than it did when Obama took office in 2009, while solar generated 30 times more electricity over that same span, according to the Energy Information Administration. Analysts say it is too soon to fully estimate the effects of a Trump presidency, but they say those sectors can stay on pace for at least a few more years as long as their federal tax credits and state-level mandates remain in place.
“Our forecast will actually be generally unchanged because the discussions around the Clean Power Plan or Paris or even around the EPA generally we don't think would immediately impact the industry in the short run," said Ethan Zindler, head of Americas and policy analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "The build we're seeing is not coming due to compliance with the CPP, it's being done because it makes economic sense with the tax credits around.”
Some renewable backers are optimistic that cost reductions achieved over the past eight years will insulate them from Trump's primary plans.
"If you tell me Mr. Trump is going to tear up the CPP and get out of the Paris Climate [deal], we weren't using that in the industry to push us forward anyways,” said John Berger, CEO of Sunnova, a company that opposed the ITC. He added, “At the end of the day it wasn't fundamentally driving this industry. The horse is out of the gate.”
Jay Faison, whose ClearPath Action Fund supported several Republicans who back clean energy, said he "would like to see a regulatory regime that doesn’t create market distortions. ... Nuclear and hydro don’t have the type of tax incentives that wind and solar do, we’d like to see parity among different energy sources."
Faison never formally endorsed the president-elect during the campaign, but his group met with Trump advisers on at least a few occasions to share policy recommendations. Faison is optimistic that Trump will streamline regulations on nuclear and hydropower permitting, both areas that he believes would grow if they were easier to permit.
"We will get the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation, so we can pursue all forms of energy. This includes renewable energies and the technologies of the future. It includes nuclear, wind and solar energy — but not to the exclusion of other energy," Trump said in the energy plan he unveiled this spring.
In addition to the uncertainty ahead next year, the election shake up has also cast doubt on whether lawmakers will do anything more than pass a short-term spending bill during the upcoming lame-duck session. Among the items that could get left behind are an energy bill that included numerous incentives for energy efficiency but remains stuck in conference.
"I think this probably kills the energy bill," said Pyle. "There's still pretty big differences between the House and the Senate" versions on things like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, he said. "I don't think there's going to be enough time or, pardon the pun, energy to try and get that bill over the finish line before they adjourn."
Also unclear is whether Congress will extended clean energy tax incentives that were left out of a December tax deal. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in September said those would be addressed when Congress returns, but it remains to be seen whether they will make it through before the end of the year.
Tax reform, at the earliest, could take effect in 2018, Curt Beaulieu, a tax lobbyist and attorney at Bracewell, said in a press call Wednesday. But in the meantime there is a "broad spectrum" of tax extenders — from accelerate depreciation of race horses to incentives for film and television to the biodiesel tax credit — that Republicans want to pass before they expire, he said.
Moreover, he said in an interview, "Congress would like to beef up the hog before it slaughters it." If they pass tax incentives now, lawmakers could later use that revenue to lower the rates.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/11/clean-energy-backers-amp-up-business-pitch-in-bid-to-win-trumps-favor-137432
-
API Says Poll Shows Strong Support for Energy Infrastructure Development
Nov 11, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
After remaining quiet through much of the presidential campaign, the American Petroleum Institute (API) said Thursday that more than 80% of actual voters it polled on Election Day support increased development of the country's energy infrastructure.
The organization added that it will encourage the incoming Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress to take a holistic approach to reforming the nation's energy policies. It also said the oil and natural gas sector isn't afraid of a possible increase in competition from coal, and offered a pragmatic stance on the Paris climate change agreement.
"After one of the most contentious election seasons in recent memory, it may seem like the American people don't agree on much," Jack Gerard, the organization's CEO, said in a conference call. "But there's one issue that earns high approval from Americans of all political identifications: American energy leadership."
According to the poll, 81% of respondents said they support increased development of the country's energy infrastructure, while 75% expressed concern about government mandates to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline. Another 72% said they oppose higher taxes that could decrease investment in energy production and reduce energy development.
The poll also found that 77% of respondents support the role natural gas played in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; 92% said they believe it is important for gasoline and diesel fuels to help reduce air pollution; and 77% oppose legislation that could increase the cost of domestic oil and gas operations, which in turn would drive up costs to consumers.
"Polling confirms that a Trump administration that pursues forward-thinking energy policies will have strong voter support behind it," Gerard said.
The poll was conducted on Tuesday by Harris Poll on behalf of API. It has a sampling error of plus/minus 3%. Harris surveyed 890 actual voters across the United States by telephone.
Consequence of GOP controlling White House, Congress
Gerard said the American people "spoke loud and clear" when they elected Trump to the White House and kept Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, although at slightly lower margins than before the election.
"Almost everyone was surprised by the reaction of the voters in terms of what they want the nation and the nation's leaders to focus on," Gerard said. "With a Republican Senate, House and presidency, there's opportunity to come together, but it's also important that they listen closely to what the American voters said. That's why the polling data we've shared today is so significant. It's overwhelming that they've seen the American energy renaissance as a positive, and they want us to continue that trajectory.
"The implications of having a Republican Senate, House and presidency are driven more by the American people's clear directive that we be focused on job creation, and recognition that some of the unnecessary burdensome regulations of the past are not what we need to be doing. We need to focus on the positive aspects.”
Holistic approach to existing regulation needed
Gerard said the oil and gas industry currently faces 145 regulations or other policies that could discourage production. He said two regulations -- specifically, the Interior Department's proposed Well Control Rule (see Daily GPI, April 13, 2015) and a rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands (see Shale Daily, March 20, 2015) -- "are clearly priorities.
"We need to look at the current regulatory approach holistically," Gerard said. "I would suggest that the whole approach should be a priority. What is being done to impede our ability to really satisfy what the American voter wants should be looked at and reviewed. With the new administration and a new Congress coming to town, we need to see what else we can do to advance and promote the American energy renaissance. Right now regulatory redundancy, overreach and added costs for no benefit, is clearly a top priority and should be."
Gerard added that reform would be a challenge since regulations covering the oil and gas industry are often intertwined.
"If you look at the different components of the industry, you can have one regulatory activity that might impede at certain segments, which then restricts other activities within energy," he said. "When you look at it holistically, we can raise which [issues] need to be addressed to allow infrastructure to move forward, and by doing that you'll be able to prioritize which ones are most important to move most quickly and efficiently."
Another priority involves three final rules governing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued last May (see Daily GPI,May 12).
"Methane is a top priority, and we'll be pursuing that aggressively because it adds conflict with states that regulate this activity, adds unnecessary costs and confusion, and seems to demonstrate no benefit for all the associated costs," Gerard said, reiterating API's position that while oil and gas production has increased, methane emissions have declined.
"We fundamentally raise the question: Why is the [Obama] administration continuing to pursue an aggressive methane regulatory strategy, when we're showing that they are already declining in terms of emissions? We're highly motivated to capture all methane."
New push to repeal or reform RFS
Gerard said it was a top priority for API to see the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program either repealed or significantly reformed. He said a bill that would do just that -- HR 5180, also known as the Food and Fuel Consumer Protection Act of 2016 -- currently has more than 100 co-sponsors and enjoys bipartisan support.
"Here's another energy issue that we can rally around as a nation," he said. "If you look at the groups that are seeking reform of the RFS, you've got a unique coalition that I've rarely seen in this town. One thing we all agree on is the RFS is broken. It's not functioning, it's not achieving what it was originally intended to do, as well as those intentions might be."
Momentum was continuing to build to repeal or reform the RFS program, he said. "Folks might have different ideas they want to bring to the table down the road. That's all great, that's the legislative process. I think we build on that momentum. I think you see the early stages of strong momentum to fix the RFS."
Congress enacted the RFS program through two pieces of legislation, both of which preceded the surge in domestic oil production made possible by the shale revolution.
Need to build infrastructure
Gerard lauded oil and gas infrastructure, including the controversial Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, as "a great opportunity in this country." He also said the Trump and Clinton presidential campaigns both identified infrastructure as a top priority.
"This is one of those areas I think we can come together as a nation. We can find common cause. We can bridge the gaps that we've had."
Gerard also referred to a 2014 study conducted by IHS Global Inc. and commissioned by API that found investment in oil and gas midstream and downstream infrastructure could total $1.15 trillion over the next 12 years (see Daily GPI, Jan. 8, 2014).
"That is a huge opportunity [and] doesn't require taxpayer dollars," he said. "We need to build this infrastructure to benefit the American consumers.
"I'm hopeful that on a bipartisan basis we can gather around and approach the infrastructure and release those investment dollars that are anxious to be invested, once they're confident that there won't be arbitrary decisions made that could restrict our abilities to build the infrastructure."
No fear of competition from coal
During the campaign, Trump signaled his support for the coal industry and promised to roll back environmental regulation on the sector. Although such moves could lead to increased competition from coal, Gerard indicated that the oil and gas industry is not overly concerned.
"It might surprise some, [but] the oil and natural gas industry believes that the marketplace should decide which form of energy is used," he said. "We believe some of the regulatory approaches that have been taken in the past put the finger on the scale on behalf of certain energy forms.
"We don't think government should be in the business of picking winners and losers. We believe all energy forms should compete fairly. We're hopeful that as some of these unnecessary regulations that were designed to pick their favorite energy forms are looked at again, that we'll bring them back to a level playing field."
Forget Paris?
When asked if the Trump administration should pull the United States out of last year's agreement in Paris to help mitigate climate change (see Daily GPI, Dec. 14, 2015), Gerard pointed out that natural gas led the nation to becoming a world leader in production while also reducing emissions.
"Rather than have this divisive conversation about who's a climate [change] believer on denier, we believe we need to move beyond that and look for solutions," he said. "And the first solutions have been demonstrated right here in the U.S., with carbon emissions going down because of affordable, reliable, primarily cleaner burning natural gas that has been brought to the marketplace.
"We believe there is a good practice here that should be looked at, and we would encourage the incoming administration, and frankly our allies around the world, to look at the U.S. success story. Let's model energy policy around what really works as opposed to theoretical, ideological conversations."
But when pressed further, Gerard said, "I don't want to speak for this incoming administration. There is a lot of discretion in the power of the executive as it relates to the Paris agreement. Our thought would be to focus on what's been demonstrated to work, and right now it shows that if we focus on the American energy renaissance, and continue to build on the great success today, that we'll have even further environmental improvement. That's where we have encouraged people to go."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108407-api-says-poll-shows-strong-support-for-energy-infrastructure-development
-
Interior Dept. Issues Rule for Renewable Energy Development on Public Land
Nov 11, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The Interior Department issued a regulation Thursday aimed at speeding up development of renewable energy on federal lands, one of at least five major energy rules the Obama administration is expected to release in coming weeks, even though they may be swiftly unraveled by President-elect Donald Trump.
After nearly eight years of regulations curtailing pollution from fossil fuels, the new rule, from the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, will be the Obama administration’s first major stab at regulating renewable-energy development on public lands.
It could be short-lived. President Barack Obama’s energy and environmental agenda, which his administration has pursued nearly exclusively with regulations, has been thrown into doubt with the surprising victory of Mr. Trump as the next president.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Wednesday both cited Mr. Obama’s energy and environmental regulations as top targets next year, given the GOP’s imminent control of the White House and both chambers of Congress.
Regulations that are well-established and in full effect can be difficult and time-consuming to undo. Republicans haven't focused on the renewable energy rule in particular as a target, but given that the Interior Department is issuing it so late in Mr. Obama’s presidency, it could be among the easiest to rescind.
Beyond the renewables rule, the Interior Department is working to finish an offshore oil and natural gas leasing plan; methane standards for oil and gas wells on public lands; and a stream protection rule for coal mining. The Environmental Protection Agency is also expected to issue final ethanol quotas that refineries would have to meet next year.
Such regulations, known in Washington as “midnight” rules because they’re completed in the final weeks of a presidency, can be more easily scrapped by the next administration than rules completed earlier.
Messrs. Ryan and McConnell said Wednesday they would look to undo virtually all of Obama-era rules on coal, including the EPA’s rule cutting carbon emissions from power plants and another EPA provision bringing more small waterways and wetlands under federal protection. Mr. Trump’s new transition website also cites the stream rule forthcoming from the Interior Department.
BLM, which manages 250 million acres of federal lands, mostly in Western states, has employed a patchwork of interim policies since 2009 to approve and manage renewable-energy projects. Officials hope the new rule will speed and simplify the process.
“This new rule not only provides a strong foundation for the future of energy development on America’s public lands, but is an important and exciting milestone in our ongoing efforts to tap the vast solar and wind energy resources across the country,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said.
Mr. Trump didn't focus much on renewable energy while on the campaign trail, instead emphasizing his intent to unlock fossil-fuel reserves. When he has talked about wind and solar, he has generally derided the energy source themselves and Mr. Obama’s approval of such projects.
“The administration fast-tracked wind projects that kill more than 1 million birds a year,” Mr. Trump said in a speech at an oil conference in North Dakota in May.
BLM officials say the new rule, which was first proposed in 2014, will allow companies to significantly cut the cost of getting government permits by operating in areas the government has prescreened, but some renewable-energy companies worry it could create higher costs.
BLM has designated about 285,000 acres of federal land in the West as having strong solar potential and low conflict with other resources, like wildlife. The new rule also sets up a process to designate more land for solar and other renewable power development, according to the BLM.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/interior-dept-issues-rule-for-renewable-energy-development-on-public-land-1478800839
-
Toxins Detected Beneath Iowa Wood Factory
Nov 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A wood products company in Pella, Iowa, spilled two toxic compounds into the ground, though the years-old releases do not affect local drinking water, according to a U.S. EPA study.
Pella Corp. released the carcinogen dioxin as well as pentachlorophenol — which is linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma — into the groundwater.
"There's very limited exposure to human health for this," said Jim Nieboer, a company manager. "And really, it's limited to people who work in our buildings and grounds crew who may be digging in our soil periodically planting flowers and tulips."
Pentachlorophenol is used to treat wood, and though it was heavily restricted in the 1980s, some industries still use it to preserve railroad ties and telephone poles.
The contamination is "probably going to be primarily confined close to that property," said University of Iowa hydrogeologist Mike Gannon. "It's really not going anywhere fast. It's there. It's in the soil."
EPA will determine whether Pella needs to remove the contamination.
"It's primarily underneath our manufacturing buildings," said Nieboer. "There are ways we can intercept and remove groundwater. Given the clay soils in Iowa, it could be a very long-term process of removal and treatment."
Gannon added that the contamination "probably doesn't pose much of a health risk" as long as chemicals don't migrate.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/11/stories/1060045617
-
Rescinding Obama Regs? Not so Fast, Legal Scholars Say
Nov 11, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
President-elect Donald Trump's vows to single-handedly gut Obama administration environmental regulations will be more difficult than he has portrayed, legal experts say.
And any effort by Trump's U.S. EPA to rescind or revoke major scientifically based rules — like the air standard for ozone pollution — would be met with a barrage of lawsuits.
"Lots of threats of this kind have come in the past," said Jody Freeman, a Harvard Law School professor and former climate adviser to President Obama. "Virtually every Republican administration comes in and says they want to deregulate. But when the rubber hits the road, there is little of it."
To be sure, Congress can pass legislation revoking any environmental regulation it wants, and that may be the way forward for Republicans who will now control the White House, House and Senate.
And Trump can unilaterally withdraw or abandon commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change, which would significantly undercut the Obama administration's policies.
But history suggests that presidents have rarely sought to rescind earlier regulations under their own executive power. When they do, several legal scholars said, they run into problems — including two Supreme Court precedents.
Freeman pointed to research suggesting that President Clinton repealed less than 10 percent of the last-minute, or "midnight," regulations of his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush. President George W. Bush then repealed only 3 percent of Clinton's; more than 80 percent of Clinton's midnight regulations were not even amended by Bush's team.
And when Bush tried, he often failed. The prime example was his attempt to undo the Clinton administration's roadless rule, a Forest Service regulation adopted in the final days of the administration. It prohibited most road construction, logging and mineral leasing within 58.5 million acres of national forests across the United States.
The Bush administration officially repealed the rule in 2005 and replaced it with a state petition rule, but that sparked a decade of litigation that ultimately ended when a federal appeals court struck down the Bush reversal last year (Greenwire, July 30, 2015).
Similarly, the Bush EPA made moves to alter or rescind air regulations and Clinton's drinking water standard for arsenic.
Those moves and air rules led to countless legal challenges, and the Bush administration rarely prevailed.
"They had a horrific record at the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit] when it came to defending air pollution rules," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
And when Bush's EPA attempted to move away from the Clinton drinking water standard for toxic arsenic, it faced significant public pushback. The agency reversed itself within a year, eventually backing the Clinton standard.
High court rulings
Under Supreme Court precedent, new administrations cannot rescind regulations with the stroke of a pen.
Two cases speak directly to the issue. In both, the high court ruled that an agency must provide a detailed explanation explaining a change in policy.
In 1983's Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the court dealt with a Reagan administration decision to revoke regulations requiring either airbags or automatic seat belts in cars.
The court held unanimously that the administration's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it did not adequately explain why the rules were no longer needed.
The agency "failed to present an adequate basis and explanation for rescinding the requirement, and must either consider the matter further or adhere or amend the Standard along lines which its analysis supports," the court said.
In 2009's Federal Communication Commission v. Fox Television Stations Inc., the court dealt with an FCC policy change involving curse words on television broadcasts.
The court held 5-4 that an agency must defend the justification for a policy change — just as it must for a brand-new rule. (Notably, the opinion was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and there was disagreement on the bench about whether policy changes require more extensive explanation than original rules. Scalia and the court held narrowly that they don't.)
Taken together, the rulings mean that if the Trump EPA decides to rescind Obama's rules, his administration will have to go through the same notice and public comment procedures that new rules require. That process can take years, and it's resource-intensive.
"You've got to go through a rulemaking process," Adler said. "You've got to acknowledge that you're changing your opinion. And you've got to explain why your new decision is reasonable."
Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau said those opinions mean that Trump can attempt to take sweeping actions in his early days in office, but they may not hold up in court.
"They can create chaos," he said. "But if they want to prevail in court in repealing rules, it'll be a steep climb."
Other obstacles
With some major Obama EPA rules, Trump would likely face pushback from industry. Utilities, for example, have nearly completed implementation of the Obama administration's landmark 2012 air standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollution — a rule that was heavily litigated.
Thomas Lorenzen, a former Justice Department environmental attorney, said there could also be a move against Obama's 70-parts-per-billion ozone standard finalized last fall.
"You clearly have an opportunity here to pull back on that," said Lorenzen, who now works for the firm Crowell & Moring. "But I could see some in industry, who have already made the investments in those scrubbers and other technologies, saying, 'That's unfair to us.'"
New administrations also run into skeptical judges when they don't fully justify policy changes, Adler said.
For example, the origins of Obama's mercury rule actually date back to the Clinton administration.
In 2000, Clinton's EPA concluded that it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate emissions of mercury, arsenic, cadmium and other pollutants — a threshold determination under the Clean Air Act that began the rulemaking process.
Bush's administration, however, reversed that decision in 2005. A court then overturned that change when environmentalists sued.
Obama's rule came after his administration reinstated the "appropriate and necessary" finding.
"What tends to get administrations in trouble is when they try to take shortcuts," Adler said, referencing the Bush mercury rule reversal. "That's what leads to situations where courts say you can't do that."
All of those precedents suggest that any effort by Trump's EPA to undo Obama policies on everything from air rules to endangered species listings to grazing regulations would be complicated.
"This doesn't mean you can't do it," Lorenzen said. "But there are complexities that I think people aren't really thinking about."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/11/stories/1060045632
-
CASAC Appears Likely to Back EPA Call for Retaining NO2 Air Standards
Nov 11, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) appears poised to back the agency's suggestion to leave its nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) unchanged, but is questioning the need for retaining the annual NO2 standard that some panelists say is consistent with the NO2 one-hour standard.
During a Nov. 9-10 meeting in Alexandria, VA, CASAC members weighed in on the agency's Clean Air Act-mandated review of the NO2 NAAQS, which is set at the annual standard of 53 parts per billion (ppb) and one-hour NAAQS of 100 ppb. The annual standards refer to the maximum allowable annual exposure to NO2, while the one-hour standard is the level of NO2 air pollution allowed over one hour that is considered health-protective.
The one-hour standard dates from 1971, while EPA created the hourly 53 ppb standard in 2010 to protect against spikes in pollution, also leaving the older standard in place. The standards serve as both “primary” NAAQS, designed to protect public health, and “secondary” standards, intended to protect the environment.
The air law mandates that EPA review its criteria pollutant NAAQS every five years, although the agency is behind schedule with the NO2 NAAQS review because it was due to be completed in 2015.
Environmentalists are suing the agency for missing its statutory deadline in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. McCarthy. Whatever the outcome of the suit, the incoming Donald Trump administration will make a final call on revising the NAAQS.
NO2 serves as the “indicator” for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), a broader group of chemicals. NOx is both harmful to health in itself, and a precursor to ground-level ozone that is also harmful. EPA has considered setting a novel joint secondary NAAQS for NOx and sulfur oxides, but has so far declined to do so.
CASAC's NOx panel is reviewing EPA's draft policy assessment (PA) document for the review of primary NO2 standards. The PA is the penultimate step before EPA drafts a proposed rule either changing the existing NAAQS or leaving them unchanged, and is designed to offer the EPA administrator options for the rule. Decisions on altering the NAAQS will fall to the next administrator under the Trump administration.
EPA staff in the draft PA, released in September, said it “has reached the preliminary conclusion that the available scientific evidence, in combination with the available information from quantitative analyses, supports the adequacy of the public health protection provided by the current primary NO2. Staff further reaches the preliminary conclusion that it is appropriate to consider retaining the current standards, without revision, in this review.”
This conclusion is driven by scientific uncertainty over NO2's health effects at decreasing concentrations, as NO2 levels continue to fall, EPA staff noted. Reductions in NO2 emissions are resulting from regulatory programs, such as EPA's emissions rules for power plants and cars. Further cuts are due to fuel switching from coal to natural gas in the electric utility and heavy industrial sectors, many observers have said.
CASAC Input
EPA staff in the PA document did not offer any alternative options to retaining the current standard, and CASAC members during the meeting appeared to back the agency's overall conclusions.
CASAC panel members that spoke at the meeting agreed to the conclusion that, given scientific uncertainties related to the lack of near-road monitoring and the confounding effects of other traffic pollutants, there is insufficient evidence that harm to human health occurs below 30 ppb. Given this finding, the existing “suite” of long-term and short-term standards is still health-protective and need not be changed, they concluded.
The 30 ppb figure matches regulatory standards in California, panelists said. The short-term standard provides the protection, however, while the annual standard in isolation is not required. The panel agreed on draft language that will recommend to EPA that the agency examine the health-protectiveness of the 53 ppb annual standard in its next review.
Panelists discussed new evidence recently published on NO2's harmful effects on cardiovascular health, and called for more research into the effects of NO2 on-road, rather than near-road, and in urban “street canyons” that concentrate emissions. Problems remain, however, in separating out the effects of NO2 from the effects of confounding pollutants also found in traffic fumes, the main source of NO2 emissions, panelists said.
In response to falling NO2 levels, EPA has proposed to scale-back near-road monitoring networks that it previously required states to create in order to implement the 2010 one-hour NAAQS. Since almost all monitoring locations are meeting the existing NAAQS, the agency will not require smaller cities to establish near-road NO2 monitors.
EPA earlier this year proposed to scale back near-road monitoring requirements for metropolitan areas with populations between 500,000 and one million people to install at least one near-road NO2 monitor by Jan. 1, citing falling NO2 levels and diminished health concerns.
Environmentalists condemned the move as premature, saying the existing network is still too small to ensure compliance with the current NAAQS. They have also warned that the network would be inadequate for a possible future, tougher NAAQS -- although the PA suggests EPA may not pursue a stricter standard. The CASAC panel's discussion, though, also suggests CASAC may oppose the scaled-back monitoring plan.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/casac-appears-likely-back-epa-call-retaining-no2-air-standards
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested