Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/18/2016
-
Beware of a Bogus ChemRxiv
Nov 17, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Andrea Widener
A fraudulent version of a chemistry preprint server proposed by the American Chemical Society is causing confusion in the chemistry community. -
EPA To Hold Public Meeting on Changes to New Chemicals Review Program
Nov 17, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergson
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just announced that its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is holding a meeting on December 14, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EST) to update the public on changes to the New Chemicals Review Program... -
(ACC Blog) Helping to Keep Schools Safe for Children
Nov 17, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Judith Nordgren
This National Education Week, I would like to express my thanks to all those who contribute to educating American students. My hat is off to teachers and school administrative staff and to the community of school employees known as “Educational Support Professionals” (ESPs)... -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Thinks Asbestos ‘100 Percent Safe’
Nov 17, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Our next president thinks asbestos – a carcinogen that kills up to 15,000 Americans a year, with no safe level of exposure – "got a bum rap." -
New EPA Reporting Mandates Coming for Dispersant Chemicals
Nov 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning on enacting new reporting requirements for companies that work with a type of industrial surfactant called NPEs. -
EPA Narrows Scope of Proposed Solvent Rulemaking
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Proposed new use rules to manage two solvents were released by the Environmental Protection Agency Nov. 17. -
Parents & Advocates Deliver 125,000 Petition Signatures on BPA to Albertsons’ Headquarters
Nov 17, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Conservation Voters for Idaho
Yesterday, a group of concerned parents, other consumers and Conservation Voters for Idaho gathered with signs in front of Albertsons’ headquarters in Boise before delivering 125,000 petition signatures to Albertsons demanding an end to the use of BPA in its food packaging. -
Toxicity Prediction Models Useful Despite Uncertainties: EPA
Nov 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Cellular assays, zebrafish toxicity tests and computer-based chemical exposure prediction models can be useful despite their uncertainties, a senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist said Nov. 17. -
Senate Energy Bill Negotiators Eager for House Counteroffer
Nov 17, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
House energy bill negotiators are expected to deliver a counteroffer on Friday to a proposal the senators sent them last month, Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Maria Cantwell said today after an hourlong meeting with their counterparts from the lower chamber. -
Senate Rejects Bill to Boost State Revenue from Offshore Drilling
Nov 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senators on Thursday rejected a bill that would have given states a share of the royalties from oil and natural gas drilling off their shores. -
Regional Climate Program Facing New Challenges Under Trump
Nov 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has spent several months on how to comply with federal carbon dioxide limits for utilities, but the cap-and-trade program faces new questions and challenges with the election of Donald Trump and the likely demise of the Clean Power Plan. -
Clean Power Too Hot for Even Trump to Cool as Companies Step Up
Nov 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
On Nov. 4, Walmart announced an aggressive plan to increase its investments in renewable energy, pledging to power half its operations from wind, solar, and other renewables by 2025 and to cut the carbon footprint of its operations by 18 percent over the same period. -
North Dakota Producers Keep Eye on Dakota Access, OPEC Developments
Nov 17, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
As production continues to fall further below the 1 million b/d level, North Dakota producers and state officials are casting an anxious eye on the political fight surrounding the completion of the Dakota Access oil pipeline and developments thousands of miles away... -
The Future of the Arctic
Nov 17, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mark Begich
During my time serving in the United States Senate, I witnessed my fair share of partisan rhetoric—especially when it came to Alaska’s energy potential. While politicians like to use the future of the Arctic as a political hot potato, the truth is that the Arctic can and should be... -
Commentary: Seismic Surveys Play Significant Role in Offshore Drilling
Nov 17, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Andy Radford
A decisive majority of American voters – 80 percent – support increased production of U.S. oil and natural gas, including 94 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents and 71 percent of Democrats. -
A New Line of Defense – The Cyber Guard
Nov 17, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rudy Pamintuan
From hackers managing to take down the CIA website last year to both the DNC and RNC being hacked this year, cyber attacks on America’s digital infrastructure have increased in frequency and sophistication. -
Fire at Torrance Refinery Has Little Effect on Gas Prices But Stirs Safety Fears
Nov 17, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By Ivan Penn and Tony Barboza
An explosion last year at a Torrance oil refinery spewed smoke and dust into surrounding neighborhoods and alerted residents to the dangers of living near the sprawling industrial complex. -
US Rail Lobby Warns Against 'Midnight Rules' from Obama STB
Nov 17, 2016 | Railway Age Magazine
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) said November 17 that the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB)should defer regulatory proposals, most notably forced access, until the U.S. Senate confirms a full slate of board members appointed by President-elect Donald J. Trump. -
States Ask Trump to Restrain But Not Eliminate EPA
Nov 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Dylan Brown
Emboldened by Donald Trump's campaign promises to gut U.S. EPA, five state environmental agencies asked the president-elect to give them more authority. -
Environmentalists Ask D.C. Circuit to Remand, Not Vacate, Boiler MACT
Nov 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are asking a federal appeals court to remand, rather than vacate, a series of air toxics emissions limits established in EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule for industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers... -
Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But.
Nov 18, 2016 | New York Times
By Edward Wong
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the world’s climate is changing, the president-elect of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has long been on the side of the deniers. -
GOP Climate Activists Ponder Battle Plan Under Hostile Trump
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
Faced with a president-elect who has called global warming a "hoax" and appointed a noted climate skeptic to head the U.S. EPA transition team, left-leaning environmentalists find themselves with an obvious game plan for the next four years: playing an aggressive defense. -
The Trump Effect on Energy and Environment Law, Manufacturing — An E&E News and ABA Presentation
Nov 17, 2016 | E&E TV
What will a Trump administration mean for the energy and environment legal landscape, and do manufacturers stand to benefit? Bracewell LLP's Jeff Holmstead and the National Association of Manufacturers' Ross Eisenberg sit down for an in-depth discussion on the impact... -
Wait for Supreme Court on Water Rule Challenge, Judge Says
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency's Waters of the U.S. rule appear to be arguing “the same case in a different jurisdiction” by bringing an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, a justice of the court said ...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Nov 17, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Andrea Widener
A fraudulent version of a chemistry preprint server proposed by the American Chemical Society is causing confusion in the chemistry community.
he website is just one letter off from ACS’s proposedname for its preprint server—the real ChemRxiv vs. the imposter ChemArxiv. E-mails urging people to deposit papers into the preprint server were circulating earlier this month. Preprint servers allow researchers to share draft papers.
ChemArxiv appears to be related to Open Academic Press, which is on a list of likely predatory publishers maintained by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver. Open Academic Press publishes two predatory journals—fake journals designed to steal money from authors—on polar research and molecular electronics, Beall says.
“The site launched by Open Academic Press has absolutely no association with ACS’s plans announced in August to organize ChemRxiv as a chemistry preprint server,” says Kevin Davies, a vice president in the publications division of ACS, which publishes C&EN.
Most scam publishers are motivated by money, Beall says. But he’s not sure what might motivate someone to create a free preprint server, except to draw people into predatory journals.
E-mails from the account of an Ulf Edvinsson at Open Academic Press claim that ChemArxiv is related to ACS and mimics arxiv.org, a well-established physics and computer science preprint server. Attempts to reach Edvinsson by e-mail were unsuccessful.
However, Edvinsson might not be a real name, Beall says, explaining that people who run such sites often use fraudulent names. The preprint website is registered to someone else and appears to originate in France. The Open Academic Press site, which claims to be in Germany, has yet another name associated with it.
ACS announced in August that it would create the ChemRxiv preprint server. ACS purchased the chemrxiv.org and chemrxiv.com domains. This slight variation seems to have been purchased in September.
The real ChemRxiv has not yet launched, Davies says, but he expects a landing page will be up soon. ACS is in negotiations with several organizations about making ChemRxiv a repository for international chemistry research.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i46/Beware-bogus-ChemRxiv.html
-
EPA To Hold Public Meeting on Changes to New Chemicals Review Program
Nov 17, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergson
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just announced that its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is holding a meeting on December 14, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EST) to update the public on changes to the New Chemicals Review Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. EPA states that it will “describe its review process for new chemicals under the amended statute, as well as discuss issues, challenges, and opportunities that the Agency has identified in the first few months of implementation.” During the meeting, interested parties will have the opportunity to provide input on their experiences with the New Chemicals Review Program, including submittal of pre-manufacture notices (PMN), microbial commercial activities notices (MCAN), and significant new use notices (SNUN), under TSCA Section 5. EPA states that information obtained during this meeting and from submitted written comments will be considered as it works to implement the new requirements and increase efficiency in its review process under TSCA.
There has been considerable concern with the impact of new TSCA on EPA’s New Chemicals Program. EPA is to be recognized for seeking stakeholder input, and interested parties should come to the meeting with thoughtful questions and clear expectations as to what stakeholders can reasonably achieve from the meeting. This could be the first of several such meetings to help interested parties understand the processes OPPT is developing in response to new TSCA, add greater transparency to those processes, and to assist EPA as appropriate with implementing the new law.
In-person and webinar registration is available now. EPA is requesting that interested parties register by December 13, 2016. Written comments will be accepted via www.regulations.gov under Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0658.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-to-hold-public-meeting-changes-to-new-chemicals-review-program
-
(ACC Blog) Helping to Keep Schools Safe for Children
Nov 17, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Judith Nordgren
This National Education Week, I would like to express my thanks to all those who contribute to educating American students. My hat is off to teachers and school administrative staff and to the community of school employees known as “Educational Support Professionals” (ESPs) who keep our schools maintained and running on a daily basis.
Case in point: As a grandmother of three precious boys, two of whom attend pre-school, I am keenly aware of how colds and other viruses can spread like wildfire among the under-five-year-old set. Frequently, the “germ du jour” comes home for the whole family to share. It’s just a fact of life for young families. What gives me great comfort, however, is knowing that the custodians and other ESPs in my grandsons’ school are working hard to keep their learning environment as safe as possible. From maintaining the playgrounds, to cleaning and sanitizing kitchens, bathrooms and frequently touched surfaces, we owe a great vote of thanks to ESPs.
Bleach Sanitization
One of the most effective ways that surfaces frequently touched by children are sanitized is with dilute solutions of chlorine bleach. If using “children” and “bleach” in the same sentence makes you wary, that’s understandable. And that is why the American Chemistry Council’s Chlorine Chemistry Division collaborated with the National Education Association and a substantial team of advisors to develop a video on the safe use and storage of bleach in the school environment. Available at www.schoolbleachsafety.com and via Facebook, the video instructs ESPs on the safe and proper handling and storage of chlorine bleach. The video has been viewed some 15,000 times, and we’re so proud that our chemistry is making a difference in schools where bleach sanitization is being carried out responsibly. I know we can’t dispense completely with sampling the “germ du jour,” but I’m grateful to the ESPs who work every day to help keep all our children safer and healthier.
Learn More
To learn more about the surprising benefits of chlorine beyond bleach, visit www.elementofsurprise.org.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/11/helping-to-keep-schools-safe-for-children/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Thinks Asbestos ‘100 Percent Safe’
Nov 17, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Our next president thinks asbestos – a carcinogen that kills up to 15,000 Americans a year, with no safe level of exposure – "got a bum rap."
In his 1997 book, “The Art of the Comeback,” President-elect Donald Trump claimed asbestos is “100 percent safe, once applied.” (You can read more about Trump’s fondness for asbestos here.)
As a real estate developer, Trump's praise for asbestos as “the greatest fire-proofing material ever used” would be bad enough, especially for the people who live and work in his buildings. But now that he's president-elect of the United States, soon to have enormous influence over the federal laws in place to protect the public from toxic chemicals, it's really bad news for all Americans.
Under the nation's new chemical safety law, by the end of the year the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to release a list of 10 toxic chemicals it will consider banning or restricting. Asbestos is widely considered to be at the top of the list. However, behind the scenes the asbestos industry is pressing the EPA to keep the notorious killer off the agency’s target list. If that lobbying effort prevails, asbestos will remain legal – despite the fact that many Americans believe it was banned decades ago.
In a letter sent to the EPA in August, the American Chemistry Council, the industry's powerful lobbying group, argued that asbestos is essential to the chlor-alkali industry. The council urged the EPA to “take this into consideration as it determines whether to select asbestos among the initial 10 chemicals for risk evaluation” under the new law.
A reminder to the EPA: Trump doesn't become president until Jan. 20. Let's get that list out quickly, so the U.S. will still have a chance to finally join the 55 other nationsthat have banned all uses of asbestos.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2016/11/trump-thinks-asbestos-100-percent-safe
-
New EPA Reporting Mandates Coming for Dispersant Chemicals
Nov 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning on enacting new reporting requirements for companies that work with a type of industrial surfactant called NPEs.
These companies will now have to report data on their use of these chemicals to the agency's Toxics Release Inventory program which quantifies emissions and discharges of chemicals from facilities across the country.
The EPA formally proposed adding NPEs, an acronym for the chemicals nonylphenol ethoxylates, to its toxics database with a Nov. 16 notice in the Federal Register. In the notice, the EPA said it's taking this action because NPEs can be “highly toxic to aquatic organisms” after they break down in the environment. Surfactants are often used to break down oils and other petroleum products.
The TRI is a publicly available database created through emergency planning and public right-to-know laws. It contains geographical data on the releases of thousands of chemicals from industrial facilities across the country.
Action Had Been Expected
Barbara Losey, a consultant with the company RegNet Environmental Services, which represents companies that work with NPEs, said the EPA's move to add the surfactants to the list of substances covered by the TRI's reporting requirements “has been expected for some time now.” The compounds are considered high-production volume chemicals, meaning they are produced in volumes over 1 million pounds per year.
Prior to 2011, no reporting on the compounds under the Chemical Data Reporting Rule was required for polymers. That rule requires manufacturers to report quantities of the chemicals they make.
The impact of these new reporting requirements might be blunted from a consumer perspective because NPEs are now almost exclusively used in industrial settings only, as companies have largely phased out their use in consumer products, Losey said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100707246&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100707246&jd=100707246
-
EPA Narrows Scope of Proposed Solvent Rulemaking
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Proposed new use rules to manage two solvents were released by the Environmental Protection Agency Nov. 17.
The proposed rules (RIN:2070-AK09) reduced from six to two the number of chemicals the agency had previously planned to cover in this rulemaking, based on a previous description of it in the federal regulatory agenda. The proposal did not address why the rule's scope was narrowed.
The two chemicals—n-ethylpyrrolidone (NEP) and n-isopropylpyrrolidone (NiPP)—are used as solvents and reaction-causing compounds to make pharmaceuticals, paints and coatings, adhesives and other products, the agency's proposed rule said.
N-ethylpyrrolidone was produced in or imported into the U.S. in volumes ranging between 1 million and 10 million pounds in 2011, the most recent year for which production volume is available from the EPA. The four companies that reported making or importing it were Ashland Inc., the BASF Corp., Prochimie International Inc. and Stahl Holdings.
EPA said there were no known uses of n-isopropylpyrrolidone as of Nov. 17; nor were any manufacturers listed in 2011.
Avoiding Regrettable Substitutes
Both chemicals are structurally similar to another solvent, n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), which is easily absorbed through the skin and which has caused skeletal malformations, fetal resorptions and other problems when experimental animals were exposed in the womb, EPA's proposed rule said. Through a separate rulemaking, the EPA already aims to reduce exposures to NMP.
The agency is concerned that n-ethylpyrrolidone and n-isopropylpyrrolidone may cause harm based on their structural similarity to NMP, it said.
The agency's new use rules are designed to avoid regrettable substitutes, Richard Engler, a senior scientist with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. told Bloomberg BNA. Engler worked at the agency for 17 years before joining that law firm.
The significant new use rules would allow ongoing uses of the two solvents. The EPA, however, would have a chance to review the chemicals used as substitutes for NMP or other applications that could raise concerns, he said.
The agency's proposed rules would allow companies to continue making or using these chemicals for existing applications. That means companies can make or use them as a reactant, in silicone seal removers, coatings, consumer and commercial paint primers and adhesives, the proposed rule said.
Other Uses Would be New Use
The manufacture or use of the two solvents for any other purpose, however, would be considered a new use.
Any manufacturer or processor wanting to use either of the two chemicals in a new way would have to notify the EPA 90 days before doing so. That would allow the EPA to review the proposed manufacture or use and determine whether it would pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
Companies will have 60 days to comment on the proposed rules once the EPA publishes them in the Federal Register.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100707263&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100707263&jd=100707263
-
Parents & Advocates Deliver 125,000 Petition Signatures on BPA to Albertsons’ Headquarters
Nov 17, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Conservation Voters for Idaho
Yesterday, a group of concerned parents, other consumers and Conservation Voters for Idaho gathered with signs in front of Albertsons’ headquarters in Boise before delivering 125,000 petition signatures to Albertsons demanding an end to the use of BPA in its food packaging.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is present in epoxy resins that food manufacturers use in the lining of cans to keep food from spoiling, but mounting evidence has revealed that this estrogen-mimicking compound is linked to a number of serious conditions including obesity, type-2 diabetes, asthma, ADHD, fertility and reproductive issues and even cancer.
Grocery store giant Albertsons – which owns chains including Osco, Safeway, Star Market and many more – has claimed to have reduced BPA in its food, however a study found that 50 percent of Albertsons’ store brand food cans tested contained this dangerous chemical.
“We realize that Albertsons has made efforts to reduce the use of BPA in the food it sells,” said CVI Deputy Director Kate Thorpe, “but we believe it should do a lot more.”
Thorpe said Albertsons is one of our country’s leading grocery store chains, adding, “it must set an example and stop selling food products containing BPA to protect the health and safety of its customers.”
“This petition is 125,000 voices asking Albertsons to take the lead in getting BPA out of our food,” Thorpe said. “We are hopeful that the company will make a renewed and determined effort to do just that.”
CVI works to eliminate toxic chemicals from products that affect the health of families and our environment. CVI teamed up with allies at the Mind the Store Campaign of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families to demand Albertsons protect all of its consumers and stop selling canned foods containing BPA once and for all. Customers across the country signed the petition through CREDO, Change.org and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF).
Also today, SCHF released a new report card on the nation’s top retailers called, “Who’s Minding the Store — A Report Card on Retailer Actions to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals.” In the report card, Albertsons earned an F with a score of 12.5 points out of 130.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/11/17/parents-advocates-deliver-125000-petition-signatures-to-albertsons-headquarters/
-
Toxicity Prediction Models Useful Despite Uncertainties: EPA
Nov 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Cellular assays, zebrafish toxicity tests and computer-based chemical exposure prediction models can be useful despite their uncertainties, a senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist said Nov. 17.
Richard Judson, who develops databases and computer applications at the EPA's National Center for Computational Toxicology, gave a progress report on the center's activity during a monthly webinar the center hosts.
These emerging toxicity and exposure prediction methods have a lot of uncertainty that scientists must fully report, Judson said.
Yet the results of experimental animal tests have more uncertainty than toxicologists have recognized in the past, he said.
The bottom line, Judson said, is that “we have to be very rigorous and honest about uncertainties.”
Despite these uncertainties, researchers and analysts can use the information to determine whether human exposure to a potentially hazardous chemical is potentially high enough to warrant further investigation. Likewise, when an exposure is low or non-existent it may prompt a decision that more research isn't needed, he said.
Public Data Needed
The types of non-animal tests EPA's computational toxicology center uses help address a problem, Judson said.
People are exposed to more than 40,000 chemicals over their lifetime, he said. Yet publicly available data show that only about 3,000 chemicals have been through toxicity tests that evaluated effects at more than a single level of exposure.
Studying the tens of thousands of chemicals that need to be looked at is not feasible with standard animal-based testing methods. Increasing reliance on animal tests is expensive, raises animal welfare concerns and is not reliably predictive of human health outcomes, he said.
EPA's center has compared data from its automated and computer-based ToxCast system with data from tests on zebrafish, a simple vertebrate animal that can show toxicity in days rather than months or years, Judson said.
That comparison has boosted the center's confidence that foregoing whole animal tests in favor of cell-based assays is nevertheless predictive of harms, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100707258&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100707258&jd=100707258
-
Senate Energy Bill Negotiators Eager for House Counteroffer
Nov 17, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
House energy bill negotiators are expected to deliver a counteroffer on Friday to a proposal the senators sent them last month, Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Maria Cantwell said today after an hourlong meeting with their counterparts from the lower chamber.
The chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee seemed frustrated at the slow pace of negotiations. Murkowski and Cantwell sent over a detailed offer three weeks ago that included hundreds of pages of legislative text, but they said discussions earlier this week indicated several sticking points remained on issues like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, energy efficiency and liquefied natural gas exports.
“I think it is important that we actually get something concrete back, and it’s just been disappointing that it has taken this long,” Murkowski said.
The senators’ offer backed away from a call for a permanent LWCF reauthorization — something House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop had labeled a nonstarter. Instead, the senators proposed extending the LWCF for “a very, very long period of time,” and included additional reforms beyond what was in the original Senate energy bill (S. 2012), Cantwell said.
“I think it’s more about a very good-faith offer. ... We made a lot of compromises,” Cantwell told reporters.
Bishop left the meeting saying they may be able to agree on some small-bore provisions but remain far apart the biggest pieces of the bill. With every day that goes by, he said, “my optimism kind of fades.” House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton said, "We’re going to keep talking."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Senate Rejects Bill to Boost State Revenue from Offshore Drilling
Nov 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senators on Thursday rejected a bill that would have given states a share of the royalties from oil and natural gas drilling off their shores.
The procedural vote for the American Energy and Conservation Act was 51-47, short of the 60-vote threshold needed to continue consideration in the Senate.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), would have given states 37.5 percent of the revenue that the federal government collects from oil and gas production and wind power in the outer continental shelf off their shores.
It would have expanded the limited revenue-sharing that is in place for some areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
Republicans framed the bill as a way to ensure that states get a fair return for the millions of dollars in energy production off their shores, which the federal government usually keeps for itself.
“The American Energy and Conservation Act will benefit American families and small businesses by expanding opportunities for states, not just Gulf Coast but elsewhere, to support energy development,” Cassidy said on the Senate floor.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the revenue sharing “is important because states like mine, especially along the Gulf Coast, spend an awful lot of money investing in infrastructure to support an industry that benefits not just our states, not just the region, but the entire country. And it's time to balance these costs with reasonable revenue-sharing agreements such as we have struck in the past.”
The bill would not have expanded offshore drilling, which is only happening in federal waters at a large scale in the Gulf of Mexico.
But Democrats said it would have incentivized states to seek offshore drilling in areas like the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, while taking billions of dollars out of the federal coffers.
“This bill is about one thing and one thing only: another giveaway to big oil,” said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a vocal opponent of the push to allow offshore drilling in the Atlantic.
“It's about paving the way for oil drilling up and down the Atlantic coast. It's about expanding drilling in the Gulf, even as those communities work to recover from the BP disaster.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the measure would have only benefited the Gulf states that host offshore drilling.
He called it “a massive wealth transfer from 46 states to those four states, at a time when my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying that we need to cut spending to crucial programs that help our seniors and that help low-income Americans and that help students.”
The bill got the support of the Chamber of Commerce. The League of Conservation Voters asked senators to vote against it, saying it would have incentivized more drilling.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/306562-senate-rejects-bill-to-boost-state-revenue-from-offshore-drilling
-
Regional Climate Program Facing New Challenges Under Trump
Nov 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has spent several months on how to comply with federal carbon dioxide limits for utilities, but the cap-and-trade program faces new questions and challenges with the election of Donald Trump and the likely demise of the Clean Power Plan.
The nine RGGI states are finishing a yearlong review that began with the goal of meeting the requirements of the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first ever carbon dioxide emissions limits on power plants, but will now conclude with the likely prospect that federal climate change action will be nixed under the incoming Trump administration. Trump has called climate change a hoax and vowed to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan.
RGGI will hold its fifth and final scheduled stakeholders meeting in connection with the review Nov. 21. While the comprehensive program review is required by the memorandum of understanding between RGGI states, its focus was largely on compliance with the Clean Power Plan.
“The RGGI states have proven to be climate leaders time and time again over the last decade, but never before have they faced such an urgent decision point,” Jordan Stutt, a policy analyst for the Boston-based Acadia Center, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“Trump's election shines a national spotlight on the RGGI program review,” he said.
The last RGGI program review in 2012 resulted in a significant lowering of the program's emissions cap, which led to a run-up in carbon allowance prices. Higher carbon prices increase the cost of compliance for electricity generators in the region and raise the amount of revenue available to RGGI states from quarterly carbon auctions.
Carbon Market Responds
The carbon market has already responded pretty clearly to the Trump victory with the price of RGGI carbon allowances in the secondary market dropping considerably since the election, according to Timothy T. Cheung, vice president of Washington, D.C.-based ClearView Energy Partners LLC.
“RGGI states dramatically reduced carbon caps in 2012 in the absence of a federal program,” he told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “And now with Trump's victory, we would expect environmentalists to ramp up pressure on RGGI states to increase ambition in the program.”
“Future stringency could serve as a backstop for prices,” Cheung said, referring to a tightening of the program's emissions cap.
Stutt said the RGGI carbon market is oversupplied.
“For a significant rebound in allowance prices, the RGGI states will have to announce ambitious cap levels through 2030, reforms to the cost containment reserve and an adjustment for banked allowances,” he said.
In the third quarter of 2016, RGGI carbon prices dropped and volatility increased, according to a Nov. 16 report from Potomac Economics, RGGI's market monitor.
The average price of allowances for the quarter was $4.70, a 5 percent decline from the previous quarter and a 24 percent decline from the same period in 2015, the report said.
New Urgency?
RGGI supporters said they hope the election will add greater urgency to the initiative's efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions.
“The world is depending on the United States to reduce emissions and transition to clean energy,” Heather Leibowitz, director of the New York City-based Environment New York, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “Now, New York and its neighbors must build even more momentum for climate protection.”
“Going forward, our region's leadership will be even more important as an example for other states and the world,” Leibowitz said.
Mark Kresowik, eastern region deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, said RGGI remains popular in the Northeast as a means for the states to achieve their climate targets.
“Big polluters in the region are still contributing to climate disruption, and the states still have their own commitments to meet, so the urgency to limit, price and reduce carbon pollution doesn't change,” he told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
Brian C. Murray, interim director of the Duke University Energy Initiative, said the status of the Clean Power Plan was already “a large source of uncertainty” for RGGI's program review because of court consideration of the plan. A 10-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard nearly seven hours of argument on the rule in September and a decision is expected in early 2017.
“The RGGI states will need to decide whether they are in this for the long haul, regardless of the administration in power—recalling that RGGI was originally conceived under the second Bush administration—or if it was an experiment to induce comprehensive national action, which could be unlikely for a while,” Murray told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“At this point, the U.S. is only committed to four years of a Trump administration,” he said. “In the scheme of the climate problem, that is not very long and states may well wish to remain committed rather than turn their back now.”
RGGI Expansion
Another key issue facing the nine RGGI states involves expansion because RGGI was once viewed as an off-the-shelf way for states to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
New Jersey, the only state that joined and subsequently left RGGI, could rejoin the initiative under the next governor, according to Kresowik. Gov. Chris Christie (R) is term limited and will leave office in January 2018.
William M. Shobe, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Studies at the University of Virginia, said several states could potentially join RGGI under the right conditions.
“RGGI should position itself as the go-to model for those states not yet ready for a comprehensive, economy-wide cap such as California's,” Shobe told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“One thing that RGGI can do to make this more likely is to be flexible about the terms of membership,” he said. “For example, other states may not want to use auction revenues for energy or environmental goals.”
Under the current RGGI structure, most revenues from quarterly auctions are used for energy efficiency, renewable energy and other consumer benefit programs. Shobe said other states might want to use auction proceeds for such things as tax rebates on electricity bills.
“In return for this flexibility, RGGI may find it easier to recruit new state partners into their climate club,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100707230&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100707230&jd=100707230
-
Clean Power Too Hot for Even Trump to Cool as Companies Step Up
Nov 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
On Nov. 4, Walmart announced an aggressive plan to increase its investments in renewable energy, pledging to power half its operations from wind, solar, and other renewables by 2025 and to cut the carbon footprint of its operations by 18 percent over the same period. Ten days later, Microsoft made its largest wind-power purchase agreement ever, with a deal to buy 237 megawatts of electricity from turbines in Kansas and Wyoming to run data centers in Cheyenne.
In between those announcements, Donald Trump was elected president, in part by calling climate change a hoax and vowing to gut most of Obama's clean-energy policies and revive coal mining. If the actions of Walmart and Microsoft are any indication, a Trump administration will do little to dissuade companies from continuing to invest in renewables. “I think fears of a negative impact of Trump on renewable energy are really overblown,” says Thomas Emmons, a partner at Pegasus Capital Advisors, a private asset management firm focused on sustainable and alternative investments.
One reason is timing. The biggest economic incentives for clean energy are federal tax credits for solar and wind projects. Both were set to expire at the end of last year, prompting a surge in investments as companies raced to get in under the deadline. In December, Congress unexpectedly extended both credits (for solar until 2021 and for wind until 2019) as part of a deal to lift the 40-year-old ban on U.S. oil exports. It's not clear that Trump will try to persuade Congress to repeal the extensions. Wind power is especially popular across the Midwest, a Republican stronghold; in many cases it's become cheaper than other sources of grid power.
Sixty percent of Fortune 100 companies have renewable-electricity or climate change policies, and 81 companies globally have committed to get 100 percent of their energy from renewable sources, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Companies tend to invest in renewable energy in one of three ways: sourcing clean power from wind and solar projects through long-term agreements; purchasing a stake in green power projects; or using renewable-energy credits to offset the dirtier power they consume.
Since 2008, U.S. companies have signed agreements to purchase more than $10 billion worth of wind and solar power—about 10Gw, enough to run almost 2 million U.S. households for a year. BNEF expects that pace to increase over the next decade, with at least 50 U.S. companies signing long-term agreements to buy an additional 22Gw of clean energy. “A Trump presidency does not lower our expectations for the growth of the corporate renewable-energy market,” says Nathan Serota, a clean-energy analyst at BNEF. “If anything, a less ambitious stance on renewables at the federal level could encourage corporations to pick up the slack even further.” With the government providing less support, more businesses may decide the best way to ensure clean-power projects get built is to sign long-term purchase agreements. That way, renewable developers have a guaranteed customer, ensuring they can finance new projects.
These agreements are emerging as the preferred way to invest in clean energy. Locking in electricity prices for up to 15 years, the deals let companies hedge exposure to volatile natural gas and coal prices, which have historically determined wholesale power prices in the U.S. As wind and solar get cheaper, companies are able to lock in renewable power for less than the average wholesale power price, says Swami Venkataraman, senior vice president at Moody's Investors Service.
“Companies are investing in sustainability, not because they're making a political statement, but because they have a fiduciary duty to protect shareholders and make money,” says Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a nonprofit sustainability advocate. Even if Trump rolls back Obama's commitment to the Paris climate accord and his signature clean-energy initiative, the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which directs states to lower carbon emissions from power plants, it's unlikely to influence investment decisions. “Renewable developers weren't building a business model premised on the CPP,” Serota says.
On Nov. 16, 300 U.S. businesses, including General Mills, EBay, and Intel, called on Trump to support the Paris accord. “The sustainable investing trend has global momentum and big players such as Goldman Sachs and Bill Gates,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director for energy and sustainability at the University of California at Davis, in an e-mail. “Corporate America has lots of millennial customers, and they want to buy from companies with sustainable supply chains and a commitment to renewable energy. I don't see that changing.”
The bottom line: Companies should continue investing in renewables despite Trump's promise to roll back clean-energy initiatives.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100707241&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100707241&jd=100707241
-
North Dakota Producers Keep Eye on Dakota Access, OPEC Developments
Nov 17, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
As production continues to fall further below the 1 million b/d level, North Dakota producers and state officials are casting an anxious eye on the political fight surrounding the completion of the Dakota Access oil pipeline and developments thousands of miles away in the Middle East, where OPEC ministers are considering a production cutback.
Both developments could influence what approach the Bakken Shale producers ultimately take regarding production increases next year, the state's chief oil/natural gas regulator, Lynn Helms, said Wednesday during a webinar reporting the latest monthly production statistics. Oil production was down about 1% in September, the latest month for complete statistics, but natural gas production dropped even more, 2.3%, Helms said.
While it is now "more probable" there will be a drop in production at OPEC, Helms said in anticipation of the cutbacks, in recent weeks production was ramped up to what he called "record levels (33.7 million b/d)." This means even with the cuts the global production will still be at the levels of August or September, he said.
"This slows all the expectations about increased [Bakken] activity," Helms said, adding that Bakken operators have indicated that they plan to add about a dozen rigs next year collectively. With the current rig total at 38, that means the overall rig count a year from now will be about 50, he said.
Helms said state and industry officials will be watching the Dakota Access and Keystone XL oil pipelines with the new Trump administration set to take over in January. Dakota Access, in particular, has a large potentially favorable economic impact on North Dakota producers if it can be completed early next as planned, he said.
In response to a question on the webinar, Helms said he thinks the delay and uncertainty now surrounding the $3.8 billion Dakota Access project is affecting production in the state.
"The uncertainty is having an impact," he said. "When producers look at their economics, they look at well cost, well productivity and taxes, and then they have to look at transportation costs, and that is a big factor. If they can lock in a known transportation cost, that really helps them in terms of raising venture capital, so if they ramp up production and all of it has to be shipped on rail cars that adds $15-25/bbl for transportation."
Helms estimates that transportation costs generally with the new oil pipeline would be $6-10/bbl for shipping, without Dakota Access those costs are $12-25/bbl. The key is to lock in transportation costs long term and have a widely known value for it, he said.
A combination of the completion of the new four-state oil pipeline and a substantial cut in OPEC production would remove a lot of the current uncertainty that is keep production down in the state, Helms said in response to another question.
"Instead of cutting the 700,000 b/d that they have talked about, cutting 1 million b/d would put us solidly above the $50/bbl WTI price, which is a key number in terms of mobilizing frack crews and really stabilizing production in North Dakota," he said. "So I think the state and our energy industry would like to see a million barrels [daily] taken off the [global] market."
Producers are looking for $50-55/bbl oil to allow them the "running room" to frack wells and stabilize production above 900,000 b/d, Helms noted.
For September, the state's oil production was 29.1 million bbl (971,658 b/d), compared to August totals of 30.4 million bbl (982,011 b/d). Natural gas production in September was 48.3 Bcf (1.61 Bcf/d), compared to 50.8 Bcf (1.63 Bcf/d).
Prices on Wednesday for Bakken sweet crude were $34.75/bbl, down from October prices of $39.31/bbl.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108474-north-dakota-producers-keep-eye-on-dakota-access-opec-developments
-
Nov 17, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mark Begich
During my time serving in the United States Senate, I witnessed my fair share of partisan rhetoric—especially when it came to Alaska’s energy potential. While politicians like to use the future of the Arctic as a political hot potato, the truth is that the Arctic can and should be a key component of America’s comprehensive energy plan.
Developing our Arctic resources means we can continue to ensure the Arctic is well managed by our neighbors while replacing the oil we are buying from foreign and often hostile countries. It also means creating jobs here at home and controlling energy costs for American families. Production in the U.S. means more royalties and revenue coming to federal, state and local governments rather than to countries whose policies we may or may not support. The bottom line is that there is much to gain from responsible development here at home.
As designated by law, every five years, the Department of the Interior assesses which parcels of federal land and waters are eligible for oil and gas lease sales. What has become clear to me, and to many of us across Alaska, is that if Alaska’s offshore is not included in the next lease sale, due to be announced any day now, one of America’s last great energy opportunities may never be developed.
The Obama Administration has already demonstrated they understand the value of harnessing America’s energy potential. After 25 years of stalled progress under several administrations, the Obama Administration permitted oil and gas exploration in waters off Alaska’s North Slope and allowed work to get underway in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), which is expected to produce 18 million barrels of oil per year. Just last week, Amy Pope, the Vice Chair of the White House Arctic Executive Steering Committee and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor reiterated that the Arctic will “likely continue to provide valuable supplies to meet U.S. energy needs into the future.” As we approach the final months of this Administration, I hope we will see continued support for maintaining access to America’s diverse energy sources.
Promising discoveries such as the recent Smith Bay find near NPR-A may harness as much as 10 billion barrels of oil. These discoveries, coupled with the great potential in Alaska’s federal waters, can keep the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) supplying west coast states with critically needed fuel. Of course, there will be no discoveries to be had if federal access is not granted; making inclusion of Arctic waters a key aspect of America’s future energy supply.
In many ways, the energy challenges that Alaskans face are no different from those across the country. The Lower 48 has benefited from the shale revolution that has ushered in record-breaking levels of production and dramatically lower energy and living costs. But this production is projected to decline as soon as the 2030s, and unless we develop other sources of energy, we will continue our dependence on oil from foreign and potentially unfriendly countries. The Arctic alone holds at least 15 years of U.S. net oil imports, and these domestic supplies can allow a comfortable transition to an inevitable renewable energy future.
Alaskans have always had a stake in our natural resource development and a keen understanding of the critical role it plays in our state’s overall economy. But we also understand how important Alaska is to the energy and national security of our country. And we understand we have a responsibility to safely and responsibly develop our resources, which we have proven is possible in Alaska time and time again. Having a ready supply of oil and gas protects America’s role as a leader across the world and protects jobs here at home.
As Americans, we have never been afraid to take on tough challenges and create great opportunities. That is why I believe we must focus on harnessing Alaska’s potential for innovative energy development and create a long-term, sustainable energy plan that works for our country. I hope the Administration won’t miss this critical opportunity.
Former Sen. Mark Begich represented Alaska in the Senate from 2009-2015. He is now the President and CEO of Northern Compass Group located in Anchorage, Alaska.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/306598-the-future-of-the-arctic
-
Commentary: Seismic Surveys Play Significant Role in Offshore Drilling
Nov 17, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By Andy Radford
A decisive majority of American voters – 80 percent – support increased production of U.S. oil and natural gas, including 94 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents and 71 percent of Democrats. Voters associate energy production with job creation, economic growth, energy security and lower energy costs, polling also shows.
And they’re right. Thanks to the stabilizing effect of America’s world-leading oil and natural gas production, drivers saved more than $550 in fuel costs last year while average household budgets were $1,337 more flush due to utility cost decreases and other savings. Manufacturers are saving, too. With industrial electricity costs 30 to 50 percent lower than foreign competitors, U.S. companies enjoy a valuable competitive advantage that translates to manufacturing job growth. That’s in addition to the direct economic boost energy development brings to countless local economies across the nation.
The American energy revolution is bringing real economic relief to families and businesses, and offshore energy exploration is indispensable to maintaining it. Production in the Gulf of Mexico generated over 16 percent of U.S. oil and 4.5 percent of U.S. natural gas in 2015, creating jobs throughout the region and making a significant contribution to American energy security.
It all starts with the exploration process, which advanced seismic survey technology has revolutionized, safely and efficiently uncovering new oil and natural gas resources. For instance, the Minerals Management Service estimated 9.57 billion barrels of recoverable oil resources in the Gulf of Mexico in 1987. By 2011, advances in seismic surveying and other technology helped increase that estimate to 48.4 billion barrels of oil — a fivefold jump.
Like an ultrasound, seismic surveying technology releases compressed air into water to create sound waves that reflect back to the surface, allowing scientists to produce detailed 3-dimensional maps to identify the safest, most efficient locations for energy exploration. Seismic surveys are commonly used not just by the oil and natural gas industry, but by the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation and the offshore wind industry.
Seismic surveys are carefully conducted and are subject to a rigorous environmental analysis and permitting process to ensure minimal impact on the marine environment. There is no evidence that the sound produced by exploring for oil and gas with seismic surveys has resulted in any physical or auditory injury to a marine mammal or impacted marine mammal populations in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, marine life and commercial fishing have thrived alongside seismic exploration in the Gulf of Mexico for more than 30 years.
To ensure that safe track record is maintained, the oil and natural gas industry has worked closely with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the National Marine Fisheries Service over the past 10 years to develop an updated regulatory framework to guide seismic surveying in the Gulf.
The new regulations have been the focus of a series of hearings conducted by BOEM, and it’s critical that we avoid any steps that would unnecessarily threaten the economic and operational feasibility of performing seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico.
According to BOEM itself, seismic surveying “has been used for more than 30 years around the world…with no known detrimental impact to marine animal populations or to commercial fishing.” BOEM’s Chief Environmental Officer, Dr. William Brown – who describes himself as “a scientist who has spent a good part of my career working in non-governmental environmental organizations and in industry” says claims to the contrary are “wildly exaggerated and not supported by the evidence.”
Offshore energy development as a whole is safer now than ever before, according to congressional testimony from the co-chairs of the Presidential Oil Spill Commission, who applauded the oil and natural gas industry and the government for working together to enhance standards, regulations, spill prevention and response capabilities.
Decades of operational experience and the best available science confirm that seismic surveying is safe. And we know that it’s a critical part of energy exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, which in turn makes it a critical part of America’s future energy security. America’s oil and natural gas industry remains committed to improving the scientific understanding of this vital technology, and we look forward to working with BOEM to keep it safe.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/11/17/commentary-seismic-surveys-play-significant-role-in-offshore-drilling/
-
A New Line of Defense – The Cyber Guard
Nov 17, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rudy Pamintuan
From hackers managing to take down the CIA website last year to both the DNC and RNC being hacked this year, cyber attacks on America’s digital infrastructure have increased in frequency and sophistication. In 2007, the year Twitter was founded, US-CERT received almost 12,000 cyberincident reports. Two years later, this number doubled and three years later this number quadrupled. Today, what we know of cyberattacks is they are more coordinated and targeting more high value assets.
As we take stock of the U.S.’ current preparedness, we see results that are far from encouraging.
The types of attacks launched are broadly varied and change faster than we can keep up with them. Our systems are being attacked from the outside; therefore we cannot just create a standard and think that is sufficient. Solutions need to also “come from the outside.” Merely approaching the problem utilizing a perimeter defense is not sufficient. With that mindset our nation will always be playing “catch up” and never will fully be prepared.
For instance, in President Obama’s home state of Illinois, of all the challenges Illinois faces in this regard, the most critical is the scarcity of human capital ready and able to respond to the numerous attacks we are facing. While it is important for government to provide leadership on this issue, the private sector must produce the cyber security professionals who can combat this dangerous adversary.
The United States must develop a “first response” team, similar to a 911 call to the police or firefighters, when a cyberattack occurs. The first 24 hours are crucial and through the creation of a U.S. Cyber Guard (USCG), this country can work to protect our most sensitive national secrets and personal data the event of a large-scale cyber attacks like the ones mentioned above, as well as the ones which hit Citigroup and Sony.
Rather than waste time and money to curate the initial USCG, we can find USCG members who are currently being employed throughout the country as technical experts in their field, thus reducing the overall operating expenses of the USCG. Just as local volunteer fire departments and communities depend on their citizens, so too would Illinois’ communities employ the same type of volunteer mechanism for cyber incidents.
Regular training would occur to establish response procedures and process, as well as to maintain and sharpen the skills of the participants. Training would include a combination of cyber/live sessions as well as red team and blue team scenarios to develop and hone the “guards’’ skills. Additionally, the members of the USCG will also be vetted through a disciplined system and would be carefully selected to defend the systems of our businesses and government. Finally, efforts would be coordinated with States in partnership with the private sector to supplement and support USCG activities.
The USCG will serve as an excellent way to recruit cyber professionals and to create a mechanism generating the number of individuals needed to be effective against breaches, especially large or potentially grave attacks. Currently, the US Cyber Challenge has been scouring the country for the best talent in grey hat hacking, and our next generation workforce of cyber professionals. The USCG would be a natural “part 2” for USCC — participants move from school to high-earning jobs after going through the USCC process, while the USCG concept will keep them together. Should a major incident occur, these professionals will be available for quick mobilization and can be readily identified by their skill sets which were graded, ranked and developed by the USCG.
Not only would this program help the country and the private sector better prepare in case of attack, but the effort will also assist in indentifying and strengthening the workforce in the State. By doing so, the United States would take initiative in establishing itself as a pioneer in the cyber security industry – protecting, creating jobs and prioritize a growing concern.
Rudy Pamintuan is managing director for Sherman Worldwide, an international affairs firm based in the United States.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/306642-a-new-line-of-defense-the-cyber-guard
-
Fire at Torrance Refinery Has Little Effect on Gas Prices But Stirs Safety Fears
Nov 17, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By Ivan Penn and Tony Barboza
An explosion last year at a Torrance oil refinery spewed smoke and dust into surrounding neighborhoods and alerted residents to the dangers of living near the sprawling industrial complex.
Since then, shutdowns, flaring incidents and a fire that broke out Tuesday have only increased anxiety about the Torrance Refining Co.FROM OUR PARTNERS: BRITISH RETAILERS DO BATTLE FOR TOP XMAS ADPauseCurrent Time1:02/Duration Time1:32Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%1:02Fullscreen00:00Mute
“Our concerns have gone from breathing — the lack of air quality — to the very real danger of explosion and catastrophic release,” said Elaine Wilson, a community activist who lives on the 750-acre facility’s fence line.
In the latest incident, two dozen firefighters were dispatched to the refinery Tuesday after a fire broke out about 4:20 p.m. while maintenance crews were replacing a high-pressure fuel line that is part of its flaring system, Torrance Fire Department Capt. Bob Millea said.
Firefighters and the refinery’s fire brigade extinguished the blaze within 30 minutes. Paramedics evaluated three employees for injuries, but none required treatment. The cause of the fire, Millea said, remains under investigation.
In July, New Jersey-based PBF Energy bought the refinery from ExxonMobil. Jeffrey Dill, president of PBF Energy’s western region, said the company continues to take steps to respond to the community’s concerns, including responding to phone calls and distributing leaflets with information on the fire.
He added: “We definitely have to do better.”
Residents’ fear stems in part from their growing knowledge about dangerous chemicals at the refinery.
The Torrance Fire Department said the 10-inch flare pipe that burned is “outside the boundary of the alkylation unit,” an area where modified hydrofluoric acid, a highly hazardous chemical, is used. Though that unit was not affected, refinery personnel shut it down when the fire broke out, fire officials said.
Nearby residents and elected officials said they were disturbed to learn that the blaze occurred near the alkylation area because it has been a focus of safety concerns in the community since the February 18, 2015, explosion at the refinery, which shuttered most of its operations for more than a year.
In that incident, a giant piece of pollution control equipment called a precipitator blew up, filling the air with dust and debris. Federal regulators have called the explosion a “serious near miss” that could have resulted in a “potentially catastrophic release” into surrounding communities.
As part of an ongoing investigation into the blast, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board in January released findings that one piece of equipment narrowly missed crashing into a tank in the alkylation unit. The tank contained tens of thousands of pounds of modified hydrofluoric acid.
If the projectile had hit that vessel, the agency determined, it could have released a toxic cloud with “the potential to cause serious injury or death to many community members.”
In light of the fire Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said he is urging the Chemical Safety Board to examine the recent flaring and fire before completing its final report.
“Refineries are not supposed to have explosions, they're not supposed to have massive flaring and they're not supposed to have fires,” Lieu said. “The multiple incidents at the Torrance refinery suggest there is either a management issue or an infrastructure issue or both.”
PBF and state energy regulators emphasized that most of the recent troubles, including the shutdown of the refinery twice this fall, were not the fault of the company, but were caused by Southern California Edison power failures.
Dill, the PBF president, said investigators continue to assess the damage from the fire, but he does not expect it to be significant.
“This was, obviously, extremely disappointing,” Dill said. “The fire was limited to a very localized area. Production has continued, not necessarily at full rates.”
The problems have frustrated the refinery’s new owner as the company has worked to establish itself in the California oil and gas market.
Torrance supplies 10% of the state’s refined gasoline capacity and 20% in Southern California. Gas price analysts said the fire triggered an initial increase in the wholesale market that appeared to taper off and is not expected to have a lasting effect.
Gordon Schremp, senior fuels analyst for the California Energy Commission, called the market’s reaction to the incident “muted” because of ample supply, a result of the switch to the winter blend of gas, which carries less stringent requirements than the summer mix.
“I think the impact on gasoline prices for consumers is going to be very minor,” Schremp said.
Meanwhile, the refinery’s use of flares — stacks that burn off excess gas when a refinery unit shuts down — has spurred intervention by air quality regulators.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District last month cited the Torrance Refining Co. for causing a public nuisance by billowing, black smoke from its flare for hours when it lost power Oct. 11.
That incident followed two other flaring events deemed excessive by the air quality agency — one Sept. 19 following a power cut, and another July 11 from a software malfunction. The air district is seeking an administrative order to reduce flaring at Torrance and recently pledged stronger regulations to curb the practice at all Southland refineries.
But some residents say their concern about flares pales compared to their fear that a fire or explosion could launch a cloud of hydrofluoric acid over their neighborhoods.
Steven Goldsmith, who lives about a mile west of the Torrance refinery, was playing tennis when ash-like dust from the 2015 explosion began showering down on him.
News of Tuesday’s fire reignited his fears. “We didn't know what was going on,” he said, and his family considered jumping in their car and fleeing.
“We’re all feeling quite anxious because of what we’ve learned from that initial explosion,” Goldsmith said. “Flaring and pollution are chronic, but the problem of hydroflouric acid is acute…. Thousands of people could have been killed.”
After the February 2015 blast, Goldsmith and others formed the Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, one of several new activist groups that are seeking changes at the facility.
The group wants the facility to remain open, Goldsmith said, but has urged its new owners to initiate a plan to switch to a safer alternative to hydroflouric acid within three years.
Dill, the PBF president, said Torrance’s hydrofluoric acid unit includes several features to ensure community safety. One measure saturates the system with water. Another removes the chemical into a containment area, behind a glass wall.
“It’s one of the most sophisticated units in the country and in fact in the world,” he said.
Those measures are not enough, said Al Muratsuchi, a Democrat who was recently elected to represent the Torrance area in the state Assembly. He has pledged to make improving safety and eliminating the use of hydroflouric acid at the facility a top priority.
"The people in Torrance have lost confidence in the refinery to run safely,” he said. “And we need to do something about it.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-torrance-refinery-20161116-story.html
-
US Rail Lobby Warns Against 'Midnight Rules' from Obama STB
Nov 17, 2016 | Railway Age Magazine
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) said November 17 that the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB)should defer regulatory proposals, most notably forced access, until the U.S. Senate confirms a full slate of board members appointed by President-elect Donald J. Trump.
The AAR notes such a pause would be "in line with Trump’s call for a temporary moratorium on all new regulation and a full review of both proposed and existing rules, as well as the process in which rules are made. The call for a freeze is also consistent with the same principles that led Henry Waxman and John Rockefeller, then-leaders of the House and Senate Commerce Committees, respectively, to call upon the Federal Communications Commission in 2008 to halt any complex and controversial items until the Obama Administration took office."
“The policy landscape in Washington, D.C. dramatically shifted on Election Day, and as such, the freight rail industry believes the STB should suspend its misguided quest to reregulate freight rail,” said Edward R. Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads. “Now is not the time for midnight regulations, let alone the enactment of the unfounded proposals currently arising from the STB that will surely fail to meet the rigorous examination promised by future leaders.”
Speaking at a conference in New York City, Hamberger noted that a new administration has a real chance to ensure that policies are rooted in data and recognize the market realities of today, not the past. He stressed that all government agencies – including the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) – should strive for transparent, empirically driven rules that consider the cumulative effects of regulation, and that Washington leaders can be powerful change agents in fixing a broken regulatory system.
“Our industry has made it clear that rules should protect a true free market, and that no agency can spur ‘competition’ through regulation,” Hamberger said. “The current economic regulatory structure enables freight railroads to earn the revenues necessary to invest so we can deliver the rail service our customers expect and deserve. Baseless proposals to reregulate commodities exempt from strict oversight for more than 30 years, or mandates for privately owned companies to use their private infrastructure and equipment for the benefit of competitors are indeed drastic shifts in economic regulation and have no business advancing without a full complement of board members.”
Congress reauthorized the STB in 2015 for the first time since its creation, expanding the board from three members to five. President-elect Trump will nominate three new members next year, which are subject to Senate confirmation.
“The bottom line,” Hamberger said, “is that great uncertainty is looming not just over the freight rail industry, but the entire economy. Now is not the time for regulators to jam through rules and inject even more government-induced uncertainty.”
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/aar-stb-should-pause-until-trumps-board-arrives.html
-
States Ask Trump to Restrain But Not Eliminate EPA
Nov 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Dylan Brown
Emboldened by Donald Trump's campaign promises to gut U.S. EPA, five state environmental agencies asked the president-elect to give them more authority.
The heads of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, North Dakota Department of Health and Environment, and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection penned a letter to Trump yesterday.
"Our country still needs the EPA, but not the EPA of recent years," they wrote.
The letter accuses the Obama administration of "systematically" undermining cooperative federalism, a state-first regulatory framework they argue is at the heart of bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Water Act.
"Your administration can avoid the agenda-driven federal regulatory process that has stifled our country's competitiveness," the state environmental leaders wrote.
The Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule, state officials argued in the letter, are "glaring examples of federal overreach."
They requested a moratorium on proposed and new regulations of that ilk. They called on the federal government to work with states on rulemaking to avoid "wasteful duplication of effort."
The letter said, "That process will run more smoothly once the EPA shifts from being an autocrat to being our partner."
It expressed confidence in Trump's transition team. "We look forward to working with your administration in order to protect our environment," regulators wrote, "while bringing economic prosperity to all Americans."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/17/stories/1060045958
-
Environmentalists Ask D.C. Circuit to Remand, Not Vacate, Boiler MACT
Nov 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are asking a federal appeals court to remand, rather than vacate, a series of air toxics emissions limits established in EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule for industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers, while industry groups are seeking a swift rulemaking on remand.
In a brief filed Nov. 16 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corporation, et al. v. EPA, et al., environmental groups including Sierra Club, Clean Air Council and Environmental Integrity Project ask the court to revise its July 29 ruling that vacated numerous standards set under the MACT for “major source” boilers.
The court in its ruling scrapped the emissions limits based in part on the arguments of environmental groups who said the standards were flawed and should be tightened. EPA is petitioning the court for panel rehearing as to remedy, and is supported by the environmental groups.
The advocates write, “it is within the Court’s discretion to remand these standards without vacatur, and doing so would preserve the important health and environmental protection that Congress intended them to provide. Because these standards have been in effect since January of this year, companies have already made the investments and installed the pollution control equipment necessary to comply.”
Further, “remanding the standards without vacatur would not prejudice any party. Conversely, vacating the standards would harm Environmental Petitioners’ members by prolonging and increasing their exposure to toxic pollution and the resulting health harms and damage to their ability to enjoy daily life in their homes and communities.”
The groups say vacating the standards “would effectively punish” them for winning the case and “would chill citizens’ exercise of their right to judicial review in future cases where EPA has issued rules that are less protective than an environmental statute requires.”
EPA in a September filing previously asked the D.C. Circuit to amend its ruling scrapping certain MACT emissions limits for large industrial boilers for being too weak, saying the court should instead remand the limits to the agency without vacatur and allow it to revise them.
Regulatory Certainty
Industry litigants that sought to fend off environmentalists' efforts to strengthen the boiler air standards are taking a pragmatic approach that favors regulatory certainty over scrapping standards.
In a separate Nov. 16 brief, they say “Industry Petitioners support remand without vacatur in this case. Most affected sources have already spent the capital and implemented the projects needed to comply with the vacated standards. Therefore, switching the remedy from vacatur to remand would not impose significant additional costs or burdens on affected boilers. While we do not ask this Court for any further relief at this time as to remedy, we emphasize that it is important for EPA to expeditiously complete the remand rulemaking.”
Meanwhile, in a related D.C. Circuit proceeding, Sierra Club et al. v. EPA, et al., a broad industry coalition in another Nov. 16 brief defends EPA's use of a 130 parts per million (ppm) minimum carbon monoxide (CO) threshold in the major source boiler MACT rule.
Below this level of CO in boiler stack emissions, combustion of air toxics is considered “essentially complete” by EPA, the groups write. But environmentalists are suing the agency to overturn this threshold, because they say EPA cannot legitimately use CO as a “surrogate” for air toxics in in this way.
The groups call the use of CO as a surrogate “properly justified” and previously upheld by the courts. They further defend as lawful EPA's provision of “work practice standards” such as use of “clean fuels” as alternatives to hard numerical emissions limits during periods of startup and shutdown.
“The record shows that establishing and enforcing numeric emission standards is not feasible during startup . . . because the necessary measurement methodologies cannot be applied or are not accurate during these time periods.” Further, “the work practice standards EPA promulgated for those periods also are reasonable and comply with the statutory requirements. EPA’s work practice standards require sources to do everything they can reasonably do.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-ask-dc-circuit-remand-not-vacate-boiler-mact
-
Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But.
Nov 18, 2016 | New York Times
By Edward Wong
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the world’s climate is changing, the president-elect of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has long been on the side of the deniers.
In 2012, he posted on Twitter a couple of messages that asserted that climate change was a hoax that China had devised to secure an unfair trade advantage, presumably because the Obama administration was seeking to curb coal consumption in the United States.
“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” Mr. Trump wrote. That message has been reshared more than 104,000 times and “liked” nearly 66,000 times.
On Wednesday, a deputy foreign minister of China, Liu Zhenmin, told reporters at a climate conference in Marrakesh, Morocco, that starting from the 1980s, the administrations of Mr. Trump’s Republican predecessors — Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush — supported climate change negotiations under a United Nations panel.
That was apparently an important moment in China’s realization of the onset of climate change.
Mr. Liu said that President Xi Jinping brought up the issue in his call with Mr. Trump on Monday, saying that China would continue its struggle to curb climate change “whatever the circumstances,” according to Bloomberg News.
China’s lecturing the United States on the need to fight climate change is a reversal from the usual roles and a sign that, with the United States governed by Mr. Trump, China may have to take the leadership position in the global campaign.
Under President Obama, the United States government persuaded China to announce important pledges in the fight against climate change. In 2014, Mr. Xi stood next to Mr. Obama in Beijing and said that China would ensure that its greenhouse gas emissions peaked by 2030 and that 20 percent of its energy would come from non-fossil fuel sources by that year. Mr. Obama pledged to greatly reduce coal use by 2025.
Diplomats and climate negotiators have been meeting in Marrakesh this week to discuss steps needed to carry out the Paris climate agreement, which was negotiated last year and which China and the United States signed this year. There has been much anxiety over whether Mr. Trump might try to withdraw the United States from the pact after he takes office.
But the agreement now has enough countries as signatories to make it legally binding, and Mr. Trump may have a hard time extricating the United States from the deal. In addition, other countries have said they intend to go ahead with the plan on their own.
“It is a new world order,” Erik Solheim, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, said in Marrakesh. “Leadership on climate change policy has now gone to the developing countries, China among them.”
However, having the United States on board would be hugely helpful in trying to meet the ambitious goal of keeping the future increase in global temperatures below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The United States is the second-leading emitter of greenhouse gases, after China.
Researchers say greenhouse gas emissions have leveled off for at least three years now, mostly because of a drop in coal consumption in China. A major reason is the slowing Chinese economy. But it is still unclear whether China’s emissions have hit a peak, well before the 2030 deadline.
China is already grappling with the direct consequences of climate change, like melting glaciers in western mountain ranges and expanding deserts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
-
GOP Climate Activists Ponder Battle Plan Under Hostile Trump
Nov 18, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
Faced with a president-elect who has called global warming a "hoax" and appointed a noted climate skeptic to head the U.S. EPA transition team, left-leaning environmentalists find themselves with an obvious game plan for the next four years: playing an aggressive defense.
But for the growing ranks of conservative climate activists, the strategy for President-elect Donald Trump's term is a little more complicated.
Conservationists and clean energy advocates have long focused on building a coalition on Capitol Hill to back climate policies, but now they must also find a way to sway the White House — even if Trump can't necessarily be persuaded to accept climate science.
"While I'm skeptical of President-elect Trump's energy and climate policy, I am desperate to be proven wrong," said Alex Bozmoski, director of strategy and operations for the conservative climate group republicEn, who dubs his fellow conservationists the "EcoRight."
Trump has touted an energy platform that would significantly increase domestic oil and gas production, including on federal public lands and offshore. He has also vowed to revive the nation's flagging coal industry — which has faced stiff competition from low natural gas prices — by rolling back environmental regulations and backing out of the Paris climate agreement.
In many of his campaign speeches, Trump also repeatedly suggested his administration will protect "clean air and clean water," although he's offered no details for what that would entail.
But despite Trump's dismissal of global warming, Bozmoski asserted that conservative climate activists may appeal to his desire to be a "dealmaking president" to find common ground for climate action.
"I'm optimistic in a dealmaking Congress there's a lot of room for clean energy development, energy research, for grid modernization, for nuclear, wetlands restoration and for real climate action," Bozmoski said.
He later joked that legislation could be known as the "the Trump climate solution" or the "Trump energy revolution," a nod to the Republican's penchant for plastering his name on real estate projects.
Similarly, Niskanen Center fellows David Bailey and David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's former chief climate counsel, suggested in a recent essay that "doom and gloom from the climate-concerned is overblown."
"Donald Trump's more positive reputation is as a man who likes to make a deal. He'll be looking for a way to get his infrastructure ideas and tax reform plans implemented," the duo wrote for Niskanen, a libertarian think tank. "That requires a lot of money. There aren't going to be many popular ways to do that. Is it too much to hope that a smart Democratic negotiator might see an opportunity to get a return for things that are already lost, like trading EPA greenhouse gas regulatory authority for a carbon tax to help fund the infrastructure build-out or tax reform?"
During the Republican primary, Trump said he would oppose any carbon tax or consideration of the "social cost" of carbon-based fuels (Greenwire, March 30).
Still, Bozmoski said Trump could be swayed with sufficient data. The Republican president-elect has publicly shifted his views on a range of policies as well as his party affiliation — the real estate mogul and reality TV star was once a Democrat before his foray into politics.
"Knowledge changes the game, and I'm sure that he'll realize that climate change is a real risk. He obviously thinks it's a risk that's not acute enough to spend a lot of time on, but I think that changes as he's presented with more information and especially on the national security front," Bozmoski said.
He added: "Climate change is just the chronic risk that makes all the other acute risks around the world that much worse."
Carmel, Ind., Mayor Jim Brainard, another Republican who has been a vocal proponent of climate action, likewise said he believes Trump could make a U-turn on his policy positions with sufficient education.
"He may change his mind on this issue," Brainard told E&E News as he prepared to mark the opening of his city's 100th traffic circle, one of a host of conservation measures the Hoosier State city has pursued along with switching over its light fixtures to light-emitting diodes.
"He's coming from a background where he hasn't been involved in public policy with his businesses," Brainard added. He noted that Trump has clarified his position on issues like health care and immigration since winning the election. "I've seen a pattern where he is very open to changing his opinion on things as he's gotten more information."
In the meantime, Brainard said he has reached out to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the outgoing governor of Indiana, to offer his assistance with other mayors and on climate policy. Brainard serves as co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Energy Independence and Climate Protection task force and held a seat on the Obama administration's State, Local and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.
"This election wasn't about climate change. It was about other issues," Brainard acknowledged. "I hope that over time, there's multiple ways to get to a good result. It may be green jobs, building materials, photovoltaics, energy independence."Ayotte rumor cheered
In the meantime, Trump has riled climate activists on both sides of the aisle by appointing the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment Director Myron Ebell to lead the transition process for EPA (E&ENews PM, Nov. 15).
"Even if this joker had legit ideas for reform, it's taunting & abusive to the 18,000 EPA civil servants. They deserve more respect than this," Bozmoski wrote on his Twitter account recently in reference to Ebell.
Ebell is also among more than a dozen individuals believed to be in the running as a potential successor to current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, along with others like Republican Reps. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Andy Harris of Maryland, as well as former Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Kathleen Hartnett White and Mike Catanzaro, an energy lobbyist and former EPA associate deputy administrator during the George W. Bush administration (Greenwire, Nov. 16).
While conservative climate activists remain hopeful Trump could pick someone like the Niskanen Center's Jerry Taylor for the EPA post — a former colleague of Ebell's — that possibility remains a long shot.
But the Trump administration is reportedly considering New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), who was defeated in her re-election bid, for secretary of Defense. Ayotte is a favorite among conservative energy groups, like North Carolina entrepreneur Jay Faison's ClearPath Action Fund and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.
"If he appoints Kelly Ayotte to DOD, he will hear about [climate change] unabated," Bozmoski said. "He will hear about acute risks to our national security."
Federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture, could also potentially sway Trump on climate policy by highlighting the impact of changing temperatures on farmers, the coastline and fishermen.
Should the Trump administration remain intractable on the subject, however, conservative conservationists are likely to continue to focus on their standard avenues: swaying members of Congress and building grass-roots support for free-market solutions to climate policy.
"We will continue to build our grass-roots base so these members of Congress understand how badly their constituents want real action on climate," Bozmoski said. "Our core strategy hasn't changed."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/11/18/stories/1060045980
-
The Trump Effect on Energy and Environment Law, Manufacturing — An E&E News and ABA Presentation
Nov 17, 2016 | E&E TV
What will a Trump administration mean for the energy and environment legal landscape, and do manufacturers stand to benefit? Bracewell LLP's Jeff Holmstead and the National Association of Manufacturers' Ross Eisenberg sit down for an in-depth discussion on the impact President-elect Trump could have on U.S. EPA, climate regulations, the Obama administration's new methane rule and the future of the electric power grid in this special presentation by E&E News and the American Bar Association.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, I'm Monica Trauzzi from the E&E News studios in Washington, D.C. President-elect Donald Trump's surprise win last week has raised many questions about the impact his administration could have on the future of environmental litigation and regulation. E&E News and the American Bar Association have collaborated to present today's discussion. We'll look to answer many of the questions facing the environmental law community, regulators and lawmakers as well. And joining me is Jeff Holmstead, head of the environmental strategies group at Bracewell, and Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. Jeff, Ross, thank you both for joining me.
Jeff Holmstead: Thanks for having us.
Ross Eisenberg: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: So such a drastic difference between administrations on environmental issues, going from a president whose legacy is largely based on climate action to a president who would like to scale back or completely revoke many of the efforts that are in place to reduce climate change. It could not be a more critical time really for environmental litigation. So, Jeff, I want to start by discussing the future of the Clean Power Plan. President-elect Trump signaled on the campaign trail that he would like to do away with the plan. It's not as easy as walking in on day one and signing off on that. The fact that the plan is before the D.C. Circuit certainly impacts next steps. So what are the different scenarios that we could see playing out?
Jeff Holmstead: Well, it's certainly true that this is not something that can be done at the stroke of a pen, and it's also true that there are some regulations that are very difficult for a new administration to change or revoke. When I was with the Bush administration, we came into office and there were some regulations that we certainly wouldn't have done, but for legal reasons or for practical reasons it's just not possible.
The Clean Power Plan is very different. It's not one of those regulations. It actually — the procedural steps will need to be followed, they will need to do it carefully, but it will be relatively simple as a legal matter to go through those steps and to revoke the Clean Power Plan. Exactly how they do it will depend a little bit on what happens with the litigation before the D.C. Circuit, how that ultimately comes out. But I'm — you know, I think there's uncertainty about a lot of issues, but I don't think there's much uncertainty about the Clean Power Plan and its future. I think it will be revoked, unless it's struck down by the D.C. Circuit before that happens.
Monica Trauzzi: But if the D.C. Circuit upholds the rule, then what happens?
Jeff Holmstead: Then I think they go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to revoke it. I mean, the D.C. Circuit is not going to say this, "This rule is legally required." The question is whether it's legally permissible. I think it's not, and I think there's a good chance the D.C. Circuit will reach that same decision, if they reach a decision before the Trump administration does something with the rule. So I don't think we know all the details yet. It's almost certain to be another round of notice-and-comment rulemaking. And there's the connection between the Clean Power Plan and what we call the New Source Rule that requires carbon capture and sequestration, and so all those things are kind of in play. And there will be more regulatory process, but I am confident those things will be carried out.
Monica Trauzzi: The environmental community is gearing up for a long road ahead on litigation. E&E News reported earlier this week that there's an expectation that fundraising among environmental groups is actually going to be ramped up quite significantly and be extremely successful as a result of the Trump win. There's going to be a lot of money put behind litigating any moves that President-elect Trump might make on environmental issues. Could an aggressive stance on environmental regulations by Trump then backfire in some ways?
Jeff Holmstead: I don't really think so. I mean, I have no doubt — you know, all of us around this table have dealt with the environmental community, and when they have fundraising opportunities, they seize them. There's no doubt that this will be a reason to go out and to get money. There will be lots of lawsuits and lots of litigation. But ultimately if the administration goes through the proper procedures and does things thoughtfully and carefully, and I'm confident they will, I don't think some of the things that the environmental groups really want to happen can possibly happen. These rules are going to be I think revoked. Those revocations will be challenged, there will be litigation, but it's just hard to see how they get any court to say EPA is legally required to do this cockamamie scheme that they've come up with under the Clean Power Plan.
Monica Trauzzi: [Laughter] You feel very strongly about it, I know. From the perspective of an organization that has fought the power plan, this could mean, as Jeff has suggested, a very long road ahead until you see the result that you are looking for. What does the industry do in the interim?
Ross Eisenberg: So we do what we've always been doing, which is innovating and doing the things that we are trying to do to build our communities and clean up the air and fight climate change, and do all of those things that manufacturers have been doing. You know, this is not an either/or thing for us. Yes, we had issues with the Clean Power Plan, we still have issues with the Clean Power Plan and that's why we're challenging it, but at the end of the day manufacturers want to do something about climate change. It's built into our policy statements at the NAM. It's what our members have been telling us all along. They want to do something about climate change. They want to do something about ozone. They want to do something about water pollution and waste, and all of these issues that matter to their workers, to their communities, and to their own competitiveness.
And so we're not going to put our heads in the sand and walk away from any of that stuff. Obviously we disagree on the way that the Clean Power Plan should look, but we still think that you should be doing something about climate change and we are committed to doing something about climate change. We have innovated. Over the past 10 years we have 10 percent reductions in greenhouse gases. We've effectively as a globe decoupled carbon emissions from economic growth, which is a pretty amazing thing when you think about it. Manufacturers want to be the solution to those problems. They want to be the solution to our environmental challenges, and they want to be able to deploy those around the world. I don't think our members are going to stop doing that. They just want regulations and legislation if we get there on any issue that allows them the chance to compete on a level playing field, and build and innovate and do all the things that they do.
Monica Trauzzi: So manufacturers are not going to be satisfied if President Trump comes in, does away with the Clean Power Plan, walks away from the Paris Agreement, and doesn't put anything in its place?
Ross Eisenberg: So we're going to take this on a step-by-step basis, and to be perfectly honest with you I think we're going to have to see how our own members and the manufacturing community at large responds to some of those issues. But I can tell you that there is a commitment to sustainability among pretty much every manufacturer in our membership. That doesn't mean that they're going to have a problem pulling back the Clean Power Plan. That's why we opposed the Clean Power Plan.
But at the end of the day we've learned a lot. We know that you can do things like increase energy efficiency, you know, improve your water efficiency, things of that nature that will allow us to sort of diversify our fuel mix. And there are things that are happening already because of market forces. As long as you're not doing it in a proscriptive way that's creating winners and losers and you're creating the right kind of incentives so that the companies that are looking into ways to capture carbon, to improve battery storage, to do all of those things that are going to be that next mousetrap — if you have a policy in place that's going to allow them to do that in a fair way, then I think we're going to be for it. You know — but when you start picking winners and losers and doing the things that a lot of these policies that we've had a problem with do, that's when we have to fight over it. I — we're not getting signals out of the president-elect and his new administration that they're going to take the route of trying to pick winners and losers. And so as long as we have a fair chance here, I think we're committed to this. And we absolutely do want to do something about climate change, and so —
Monica Trauzzi: But they have — in all fairness, they have not laid out a plan for addressing climate change.
Ross Eisenberg: Well, I mean, they haven't laid out a plan for a lot of things. I think it's still a bit of a wait-and-see approach on how they're going to take this one. But I'm confident that they're going to want to take on this issue, and — because we want to take on this issues, and that's certainly been our message to them all along. It's been our message from the beginning of this process when we met with all the campaigns, is that yes, we care about environmental progress, environmental achievement, and so fix the problems and balance the regulations that are in place, but by all means let's work together to find an answer here.
Monica Trauzzi: I want to ask you both about the future of coal. We heard a lot about the future of coal on the campaign trail, certainly from President-elect Trump, but it remains largely uncompetitive in the market when you compare it to low natural gas prices, clean energy sources that are becoming increasingly more attractive to investors. So with those factors in mind, how could the Trump administration actually rev up coal jobs as promised during the campaign?
Ross Eisenberg: Well, it certainly goes beyond just the Clean Power Plan, right? I mean, so that will obviously be an improvement for some of those prospects. But largely if you talk to the folks in the electricity sector, market forces, customer demands are driving a lot of their choices right now. There are plenty of other regulations hanging out there that could use a pretty darn hard look. I mean, the ones that are still at OMB right now, things like the Stream Protection Rule, the moratorium on leasing and the valuation stuff, those are going right at the mining of coal, the people that are in the mines that are producing the coal that are the jobs that the president — the folks that he was talking to. And so they can certainly take a hard look at those regulations. I know that the industry itself has spoken pretty loudly that those matter to them. That's something you can do. You can look at exports. I mean, obviously there are robust export markets, and the industry for a number of years has been trying to increase its exports, both in the Powder River Basin and elsewhere. That is a place obviously where I expect the coal industry is going to want better policies than they've had over the past few years. So, you know, I expect that there will be efforts to be made in those areas. That's certainly what we will be recommending.
Monica Trauzzi: But those seem potentially like smaller efforts. We're not going to see a "the future is coal" movement, correct?
Ross Eisenberg: Well, the grid is diversifying because it's diversifying, because you have — you know, you have different fuels that are for cost reasons, for liability reasons better off in some places than others. I see that in my own membership. I see manufacturers say, "Well, you know, it's better for us to use this fuel here; it's better for us to use that fuel there." I don't think the diversification is going to stop anytime soon, and you may differ with me on this. But I don't think you're going to see that stop. That is a trend that seems poised to continue no matter what happens on the Clean Power Plan. But that being said, you know, we've been at a point for the past few years where this is an industry that was down and is being repeatedly kicked. The kicking is going to stop. That at a minimum is a good thing and something that obviously would be good for any of our sectors and our membership. But we're happy to see that the kicking is going to stop for a little while.
Monica Trauzzi: Jeff, EPA by law needs to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How then do you envision a Trump EPA navigating those obligations?
Jeff Holmstead: There are a lot of options that they will have, but the most important thing on my mind, as Ross just said, is we really have had — and this has become a political term, but it's really true. There has been a war on coal, and you look at the series of things that have been targeted at anybody using coal, at anybody mining coal. And I think the kicking will stop and some of those regulatory requirements that are just unreasonable will be addressed.
Monica Trauzzi: But investors are not running to invest.
Jeff Holmstead: No, but I think the idea is that there are market forces, there are also security issues, there's energy diversity issues that people care about, and I think those types of considerations will — is going to be what's moving all of these markets forward. So, I mean —
Monica Trauzzi: So how could a Trump EPA move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Jeff Holmstead: If you go back to various documents that have been produced over the years, people have proposed a whole bunch of different ideas. I'm probably not going to speculate as to how they may do it, but I will predict this: I think greenhouse gas emissions will continue to go down. I think they'll continue to go down for market forces, for regulatory reasons. I think you will continue to see that. So I — the environmentalists will tell a different story, right? I mean, that helps their fundraising if they can say things are going to get terrible now. I think the Trump administration will be responsible on all these issues, partly for political reasons. I mean, everybody cares about the environment. Everybody — I care about environmental issues deeply. Everybody I know does. But I think one of the messages of the election is there has been overreach, and I think a lot of people felt that in the Rust Belt. And I think that we're going to get back to a much more traditional kind of centrist rule where the EPA is doing responsible things, and those things will continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air quality will continue to improve, quality in rivers and oceans will continue to improve, but we're not going to be I think beholden to a very small slice of people who think that the environment is the only thing that matters. I think people care about other issues as well.
Monica Trauzzi: It has been reported that you are on the short list for EPA administrator in a Trump administration. Is that a job you would like? And can you confirm that you are being considered?
Jeff Holmstead: You know, you won't be surprised that that's not something that I'm really able to talk about, but thank you for asking.
Monica Trauzzi: [Laughter] Nothing more. All right, Ross, on the subject of EPA administrators, Myron Ebell, who is also on the short list, has been selected to lead the transition, the EPA transition. Do you think that he's an accurate representation of what the manufacturing base would like to see on environmental protection?
Ross Eisenberg: So we — first off, Myron is somebody that we've known for a while. We've worked with him for a while — same thing for all of the other members of the energy and environment transition team, people that we've worked with in various different capacities and have a lot of respect for. At the end of the day they're representing a candidate who now won the election and his positions on the environment, and so, you know, we're a nonpartisan organization. We're going to work with whoever is in the White House and where they go. We may not like it all the time, we may like it some of the time, but at the end of the day we're committed to our manufacturing message and what our members need us to do to represent them. So, you know, personalities obviously do matter, relationships do matter, but the agenda for the 12 million men and women that manufacture in the U.S. on energy and environment is our end game and what we're going to keep pushing for.
Monica Trauzzi: So in many cases states and utilities have already acted and are currently acting to reduce emissions. We have renewable portfolio standards in many states. You see utilities making investments in cleaner sources of energy, switching to natural gas in many cases. Would you expect that trend to continue, and if so, could the federal action almost become irrelevant if you see a stronger movement among the states to continue on that path?
Ross Eisenberg: So I think we're obviously bracing for a lot of state action, particularly given how much — I mean, we all recognize that folks pushing some of these policies have been fundraising. I mean, it's got to go somewhere, and so I think there will be a lot of state action. There's been a lot of state action on a number of these things that has been very positive. In the energy efficiency space, again programs like PACE, programs like performance contracting, things of that nature that have been reducing emissions that have been improving the efficiency of buildings and industrial spaces. Certainly we're expecting a lot of that to continue. In the regulatory space could you — you know, I think you're going to — could you see a patchwork and then have to have Congress step in? I don't see how that would be any different than what the Clean Power Plan actually was going to turn out to be anyway. So you know, we've always kind of viewed states as — certainly we're a federal-based organization so we've always viewed states as willing and able to do whatever is best for their state and probably the best-equipped to do that in the environmental space. Yes, there is a role for federal environmental protection, but states obviously know their state best, and so — and their constituents best. So it's entirely possible that there will be a shift to state work on a lot of these big, existential issues, but we're certainly ready for that and prepared to be engaged and a constructive voice at the table.
Monica Trauzzi: So let's move on to methane. Jeff, this week the Obama Interior Department finalized the Methane and Waste Protection Rule. The expectation is that President Trump will move to roll back the regulations, but it might be a little bit of a difficult maneuver there. What would President Trump have to do?
Jeff Holmstead: So to my knowledge he has not spoken about that particular issue, but there is I think a great concern about not only regulatory overreach, but what we often call midnight regulations. And historically both parties, when the party changes hands, the new administration comes in, they freeze everything that has not become effective in an effort to try to review all of those things — I suspect we will see something like that as we have in the last many times. A question that people are asking is, well, are some of those things still subject to the Congressional Review Act? And I think — you know, that act has been in place since '94, '95 — has only really been used successfully one time before. But my guess is that there will be a number of things that will be caught up by the Congressional Review Act and will be overturned as they try to push some of those things out. Again that particular regulation I haven't heard him talk about, but you would think that that could be a candidate for the Congressional Review Act.
Ross Eisenberg: And certainly it's our hope that that's going through the minds of the folks who are reviewing these regulations right now that are still on the table to come out, because the Congressional Review Act — the reason it has been used so sparsely is because it is a very, very heavy-handed device. It makes a regulation go away permanently, and so — and makes it a lot harder to issue anything else like it. That's why we haven't seen another Ergonomics Rule, because it is gone. Not that you can't really figure out a way to do it, but it gets a lot harder. And so, you know, you have to think about that balance piece. Do you want a regulation that could be made to go away forever? Or would you prefer to do something that's a little bit more balanced that might have a shot at sticking around? Our preference would obviously be the latter. Let's get that balance in place.
Monica Trauzzi: WOTUS, the Waters of the U.S. rule, is another regulation that the expectation is Trump will move on. If the D.C. — if the 6th Circuit vacates the rule, then it goes back to EPA and the Army Corps. If the rule is upheld, we could ultimately see Donald Trump repeal it. What would the process look like? And there's also a congressional pathway on this as well.
Jeff Holmstead: Yeah, I would point out that, like the Clean Power Plan, the WOTUS rule has been stayed by the courts. So it's not only the Trump administration who has opposed those two rules, it's a majority of states, it's — I mean, so to my mind that's another example of regulatory overreach. So whether it is struck down in court or whether it is revoked and redone by the next administration, I think those are kind of open questions. Either could happen. You know, this is an issue that's been around for as long as I've been in Washington. We've had at least two prior Supreme Court cases on how this is to be defined. I think most people thought the clear signal from the courts was that EPA needed to be more circumspect, and yet they actually went beyond what had been done before.
So I think it will go back, and I — you know, in talking to people that I know who around the Trump team, I think they are resisting the temptation to overreach in the other direction. I think they are looking for sensible policies that can be durable. So I think when it comes to WOTUS they're going to be looking to do something that can kind of put an end to all the uncertainty that's been in place for such a long time, to give people some pretty clear guidelines about how, you know, waters are properly defined, where you need federal approval and where you don't. And so that's what I would expect on WOTUS and some other things as well, where I think there is a real sense that at least on these issues it's in everybody's interest to have durable policies that are acceptable to most everyone. There will always be people who litigate and complain, but I think that with WOTUS in particular that's something that they're already thinking about.
Monica Trauzzi: So you've had conversations with the team that lead you to believe that they're looking for more of a middle ground.
Jeff Holmstead: Well, I don't want to say I've had conversations with the team because, you know, like Ross, we know people who are involved. It's not entirely clear what kind of — but when I say that, I'm really talking about people on all sides of the issue, including people at EPA who I think believe that it makes sense to have a more durable, kind of acceptable policy that's implementable, that's understandable. And I think that there's a real interest in trying to find those kind of policies.
Ross Eisenberg: That's always what our members want. That is always what businesses, manufacturers want, is certainty. So I think the message on the vast majority of these regulatory issues that are hanging over the EPA agenda right now is, "Fix them. We just want them fixed." WOTUS is a perfect example of that. At the end of the day, we are comfortable with them defining what waters of the United States are. Just define it in a way that reduces uncertainty. The WOTUS rule as structured didn't do that; we want something that actually does tell. OK, just tell us what is — is this pond regulated? Is that stream regulated? We just want to know, period.
Monica Trauzzi: Jeff, on the Mercury Rule — we've talked about it many times on this show. Investments have already been made to comply, so how much could an impact — of an impact could scaling back those regulations actually have?
Jeff Holmstead: I think you're right — as a practical matter, not very much. In fact that was something that I think the Supreme Court ultimately recognized too late, that its decision was too late to really do very much in the real world because investments had been made. Even plants that have been closed down as a result will be very difficult to reopen because of all the process that comes into place when you're shutting down a plant or trying to reopen a new one. I think there are a lot of people who still believe that EPA's justification for the rule was completely flawed. This was supposed to be a rule that dealt with mercury, and yet the agency itself recognized that the benefits of reducing mercury were very small. And so they justified by saying, "Well, there's all these other benefits that we get," that have nothing to do with what EPA was supposed to be regulating. So I think there's those kinds of questions out there, but in terms of what actually happens to the rule itself, I think you're right. I think it's already done what it's going to do and there's no way now to reverse that.
Monica Trauzzi: On NEPA climate guidance, that sets out how federal agencies should consider climate concerns in environmental reviews. That's also likely to face fire from the Trump administration. How does that all go down, and you know, ultimately should there be some consideration of climate change as agencies look to regulate?
Ross Eisenberg: So I think you're right. I think that's probably on the list of — on the cutting board right now. What happens with it ultimately and how that goes down is anyone's guess, but to pull back a guidance is relatively — you don't have to — it's not as difficult as a rulemaking that is complete. So I certainly expect that to be one that is modified at the very least. That being said, it definitely teases what is going to be one of our biggest issues for this opening part of the administration, which is infrastructure. I don't think you can look at the map and come away with any conclusion other than manufacturing voted, labor voted, the people that are trying to get to work voted in the states that mattered here. And what do they agree on? They agree on infrastructure. They agree that we should be building things, and we should be doing it faster and we should be doing it better and we should be putting people to work doing those kinds of things. And energy is certainly a space where you need that.
And that's where the NEPA guidance comes into play. And the president-elect has certainly made some overtures on energy infrastructure. We're happy to see it. We want to be part of that, and we've got a lot of ideas in that space. That being said, one of the worst things on the permitting side you can do is have an environmental review with holes in it, right? If you get to the end of this process and something is just not done, then you're subjecting yourself to litigation, which subjects to even longer — more uncertainty and more troubles. So most of those project managers want a complete EIS or a complete EA or however they're going to take this thing on. The NEPA piece — you know, the climate piece is part of that. We certainly had it done in a number of instances. The issue isn't necessarily should you be doing it so much anymore, and I realize there is that threshold issue that they will be dealing with, but also how it's done, right? The big push that you're seeing in a lot of the fossil infrastructure space — coal exports, LNG, pipelines — is to do this very, very boundless, limitless, life-cycle kind of review where you're looking at the extraction, the burning of the fuel overseas. That's something that frankly could tie up a NEPA analysis for years. I mean, it's so open-ended that it would make it impossible. And again, time is money; you need to get this infrastructure done.
So these are the kinds of things that we're hoping that they address. You know, should you have it in there? Well, you should treat it like any other environmental issue, and if it's a relevant impact, then you address it, and you address it in a way that the NEPA statute directs you, not this boundless, limitless stuff that just creates even more uncertainty. It's time to get these folks to work. We want folks to get to work. I know that the people that voted up there do, and we're —
Monica Trauzzi: In which industries do you expect to see the largest uptick in job creation?
Ross Eisenberg: Well, so that's probably a better question for our economist. Certainly on the — if you're building pipelines, energy infrastructure, things of that nature, that's a lot of manufacturing, right? So it's everything from steel and rubber and aluminum and some of these spaces, to — you know, and cement — to coatings and paints and valves and things of that nature basically. And then you think about the Caterpillar tractors and the John Deere tractors and the services and things of that nature. We did a couple studies over the past year on oil and gas pipelines, and definitely in the oil space — I want to say 32 percent of the inputs on a pipeline are manufacturing inputs. And so you're looking at tremendous opportunity across the board. Sixty to 80 different manufacturing subsectors are benefiting by, you know, $10 million or more from pipeline construction. So there's a lot of growth here in the manufacturing space if we can get these things in place and get people on the ground building them.
Monica Trauzzi: Jeff, how has the Trump win changed the dynamic of the conversation at Bracewell?
Jeff Holmstead: Well, it was unexpected to I think us as well as most other people. I wish we could claim that we had better foresight than others. And I'm happy to answer that question more directly. I do want to go back to the other question, though, because I think this is an area where there really could be bipartisan consensus. It has become extraordinarily difficult to build any major project. And, you know, statutes that originally were designed to allow an appropriate review and then projects to go forward can now tie people up for years and years and years. You hear people talk about transmission lines, and we dealt with this with the MATS rule, that people said, "Look, it takes 10 years to get the approvals for a transmission line by the time you go through all the reviews." And one of the things I do remember is back at the very beginning of the Obama administration, when there was that initial effort for infrastructure, California actually proposed reforming the review process because it just took so long to get people back to work, to get those jobs done. So I think there's an opportunity, maybe not only administratively but legislatively, to deal with some of these things, not to weaken the reviews but to make them more predictable and to create kind of a more appropriate pathway.
And one of the things that some of my colleagues have mentioned is, you know, in the — and I hate to be political; you're probably more equipped than I am to deal with this. But in two years there are 10 Democrats who are up — 10 Democratic senators who are up for re-election in states that were carried by Trump. You know, there's a signal there that for political reasons they may be looking for ways to deal with the concerns that were raised by workers. And so I — again, maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but I think there is a chance that we could see those kinds of process reforms so that we have appropriate reviews that don't go on for years and years, but that give people some certainly. And I think NEPA, I think maybe ESA — and I'm not talking about fundamental restructurings because I don't think that's in the cards. But I think around the edges you could do things that would make a real difference and put people back to work.
Monica Trauzzi: And tell me how the last week has been like for you and your firm?
Jeff Holmstead: Oh, you know, all of us have — were thinking about what to expect in a Clinton administration, what the issues were likely to be. And since then people have thought much more about, OK, what is it that the Trump administration is actually going to move forward with? You know, what will their priorities be? How will that affect us and the clients that we work for? So yeah, I'm not pretending it wasn't — it has certainly changed the things that we've been talking about over the last week.
Monica Trauzzi: And, Ross, what are the questions that you're getting from your member companies?
Ross Eisenberg: So certainly we saw the divisiveness, we saw the divisiveness, our board saw it, our executive committee saw it, and saw — our CEO said something at one of our staff meetings recently that I think really resonated with me. He said, "Heading into the election, about 50 percent of the country was angry. Heading out of the election, 50 percent of the country is scared." And those wounds need to be healed, right? And so that's why we as an association, at the direction of our board, reached out and got 1,100 manufacturers on a letter to the president-elect, whoever that person may have been, saying, "We're ready to help heal this. We're ready to help unite. We're ready to help lift people up and try to bring us back together as a country." And we delivered that at 6:30 in the morning the day after the election, so once the election was called. And it was written no matter who won, because we knew that there would be a divide no matter what. They're serious about that. Our members are very serious about that. Yes, there are some that politically are happy and some that politically are sad, but they all agree it's — the success of this nation is about working together and lifting everybody up together. And that's what we've been directed to do as an association, not just on my issues but on every issue.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we're going to end it right there. Thank you both so much for your thoughts today. I very much appreciate it.
Ross Eisenberg: Thank you.
Jeff Holmstead: Thanks. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thank you for watching. For E&E News, I'm Monica Trauzzi.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2181/transcript
-
Wait for Supreme Court on Water Rule Challenge, Judge Says
Nov 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency's Waters of the U.S. rule appear to be arguing “the same case in a different jurisdiction” by bringing an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, a justice of the court said (Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. v. EPA, 10th Cir., No. 16-5038, 5039, oral argument 11/17/16).
The plaintiff-appellants in the case, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Oklahoma, may have to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether to take up a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit establishing itself as the appropriate venue to hear the nearly two dozen consolidated challenges to the rule, said 10th Circuit Judge Nancy Moritz.
“If they are going to accept the case, we are going to hear about that in the next couple of months,” said Moritz, a member of the three-judge panel that heard oral arguments in Denver Nov. 17. “If they accept cert, it is going to resolve the issue of whether this case belongs in the district court or the circuit court,” she said.
Fractured Ruling
Plaintiffs in the two consolidated 10th circuit cases, which include the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, appealed the district court's decision to dismiss their challenge of the Clean Water Act rule without reaching the merits of their claims.
The district court relied upon a fractured 6th Circuit decision finding that the courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction because the WOTUS rule has an “effluent limitation or other limitation” under Section 1369 of the Act, they argue.
The question before the court is whether the 10th Circuit is entitled to say that the 6th Circuit made an error on the jurisdictional issue.
Michael Park of Consovoy, McCarthy & Park in New York, attorney for the Chamber of Commerce, said the 10th Circuit needn't wait for the Supreme Court.
“Respectfully, if this circuit takes its jurisdictional authority seriously, it shouldn't wait,” he said. “It can issue a ruling, and create a split, which would make the case more ripe for Supreme Court review.”
Several states, industry organizations and environmental groups have filed amicus briefs in the appeal before the 10th Circuit.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=100707250&vname=dennotallissues&fn=100707250&jd=100707250
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested