Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/22/2016
-
Trump's Agency Teams So Far
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team continues to roll out members of its so-called landing teams, staffers charged with orchestrating agency handoffs to the incoming administration. -
Trump Energy And Environmental Team Taking Shape
Nov 22, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team brought several new names into the fold this week as the incoming administration’s energy and environmental policy direction begins to take shape. -
Why Would Trump Want Hamm at Energy?
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The rumor mill has consistently churned out oil billionaire Harold Hamm's name as a potential Energy secretary in a Donald Trump administration. -
Trump Picks Top Bush DOJ Environmental Attorney for Transition
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
President-elect Donald Trump has selected a former top Justice Department environmental attorney who's involved in the litigation challenging the Clean Power Plan to serve on his transition team. -
New Member of State Transition Team Maps Exit from Paris Deal
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Steven Groves, who joined President-elect Donald Trump's State Department transition team yesterday, has mapped out an exit from the Paris climate agreement. -
New Interior Team Leader has Railed Against Climate Regs
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Doug Domenech, who yesterday took over as head of President-elect Donald Trump's Interior Department transition team, comes to the table with a deeply conservative pedigree and an outspoken distaste for U.S. EPA regulations. -
Another Secretary Prospect Heads to Trump Tower
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Rep. Cynthia Lummis is scheduled to meet with President-elect Donald Trump today in New York, where public lands and a possible administration post might be conversation topics. -
Enviros Protest Myron Ebell
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
Environmental groups yesterday projected images and messages onto a U.S. EPA building to protest President-elect Donald Trump's pick of Myron Ebell, a climate denier, to lead the agency's transition. -
Scientific Infidelity from Across the Pond
Nov 22, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. Joseph Perrone
America's economy is increasingly intertwined with the European Union's, and unfortunately the litany of bad European imports hasn't ended with Russel Brand. -
US FDA Revokes Food Contact Authorisation for Two PFCs
Nov 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US FDA is removing approval for the the use of two long-chain perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) for use in grease-proof food packaging. -
(ACC Mentioned) Is the EPA’s Landmark ‘Endangerment Finding’ Now Itself Imperiled?
Nov 22, 2016 | Pro Publica
By Abrahm Lustgarten
Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and said he plans to unburden American industries from Obama-era requirements to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases causing the planet to warm. -
RGGI Releases New Modeling Amid Regulatory Uncertainty
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Nine Northeastern states presented their analysis yesterday for further carbon cuts after 2020, at once signaling their continued commitment to addressing climate change under a Trump administration and demonstrating the challenges facing greens in the years ahead. -
Western States Sue Over BLM Methane Rule
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration's latest rule for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry was hit with a lawsuit yesterday — the second since the rule's unveiling last week. -
Legal Skirmish Over Documents Brews as Protests Boil Over
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As tense protests continue in North Dakota, the latest round of legal wrangling over the Dakota Access pipeline centers on a trove of documents the Obama administration wants to keep out of the courtroom. -
Enviros, Tribes File Lawsuit to Block Offshore California Fracking
Nov 22, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Native American Wishtoyo Foundation are suing the Obama administration for allowing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in federal waters without properly evaluating the risks. -
The Enormous Opportunity of Renewable Energy
Nov 18, 2016 | Huffington Post (in Real Clear Energy)
By Richard Branson
There is no greater challenge than tackling climate change. But there is no bigger economic opportunity than renewables and clean technology. To stimulate new jobs and prosperity, the clean energy revolution is the way to go. -
Group Targets Alaska Railroad Permit for LNG Shipments
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
A national environmental group is ramping up its campaign to challenge the safety of shipping liquefied natural gas over U.S. railroad networks. -
EPA Aims to Narrow Air Law Waiver for Internationally Transported Ozone
Nov 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's proposed rule detailing how states should implement the agency's 2015 ozone standard aims to narrow the potential uses of a waiver that allows areas to exclude internationally transported ozone from NAAQS compliance calculation, which could complicate Western states' plans to come into attainment with the standard. -
Don’t Expect Trump’s Top Cop Go After Law-Breaking Polluters
Nov 19, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Attorney General, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., is one of the most outspoken critics of environmental science and biggest climate change skeptics in Washington. -
Trump Softens Stance on Paris Climate Pact
Nov 22, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump stepped back from his pledge to quickly pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement Tuesday, leaving the door open for the agreement to stay in place under his presidency.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team continues to roll out members of its so-called landing teams, staffers charged with orchestrating agency handoffs to the incoming administration.
For top energy and environmental posts, the list includes staunch critics of the Obama administration's environmental policies, energy industry advocates and Republican aides from Capitol Hill.
More names are expected to be announced as the Trump team fills out its roster. Some of the team members have already sparked an uproar among Trump's critics, and former government officials are wary about some team leaders' lack of experience working inside the agencies where they will be shepherding the transition.
Trump is continuing to meet with possible picks for his administration in New York today — including potential Interior Department contender Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) — ahead of his planned departure this afternoon to Mar-a-Lago, his club in Palm Beach, Fla. Yesterday, he released a video outlining his policy plan for his first 100 days in office.
Here's a look at some of the names announced so far for landing team members who could play big roles in shaping energy and environmental policies for the incoming Trump administration:
U.S. EPA
Myron Ebell, a well-known climate change skeptic and director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Energy Department
Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries and a former Republican congressional aide.
Interior Department
Doug Domenech, director of the Fueling Freedom Project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, secretary of natural resources in Virginia under then-Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) and an Interior official during the George W. Bush administration.
Transportation
Nancy Butler, former vice president of government and federal relations at AECOM and director of communications and external affairs at the Department of Transportation from 1985 to 1993.
Agriculture
Joel Leftwich, staff director on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee; former senior director of public policy and government affairs at PepsiCo; and a congressional liaison at the Department of Agriculture from 2004 until 2005.
Office of Management and Budget
Dan Kowalski, a staffer on the Senate Budget Committee since 2012 and formerly a consultant to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.Linda Springer, former executive director in the government and public sector practice at Ernst & Young LLP, former Office of Personnel Management director during the Bush administration and former controller at OMB.
Justice Department
Ronald Tenpas, an attorney at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and a former top DOJ environmental attorney who is involved in the litigation challenging the Clean Power Plan (see related story).
State Department
Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation, a critic of the Paris Agreement on climate change signed by the Obama administration (see related story).
Commerce Department
David Bohigian, managing director of Pluribus Ventures; former managing director at E2 Capital Partners, which developed financing models for energy efficiency projects; and a former Commerce assistant secretary during the Bush administration, where he "led the administration's efforts on international deployment on clean energy technologies," according to his LinkedIn page.
Disadvantage for some team members?
Former Obama transition officials are wary of Trump transition team members' lack of experience in the agencies where they will be dispatched.
Several of those team members — including team leaders for EPA and DOE — have never worked in the agencies where they will be shepherding the transition. That could be a problem, according to former officials who worked inside those agencies and worked on the Obama transition in 2008.
"I think it puts them at a disadvantage going in, and they've already complicated their lives by having confusion about just who was going to be coming in," said Elgie Holstein of the Environmental Defense Fund, who helped lead the 2008 DOE transition.
Those who led the DOE transition staff in 2008 had experience covering "everything from policy to human resources and ... the management of the secretary's office," he said. Holstein had previously been DOE chief of staff.
"We had a really good feel for the department and its people," he said. "It helped enormously to have those backgrounds because we also had pre-existing relationships with so many of the career staff."
DOE in particular is a big agency "with a lot of moving parts," said Jeff Navin, former DOE chief of staff during the Obama administration.
"While it's always sort of tempting and sexy to look at what broad policy changes we're going to implement through the course of the administration, the stuff that will get you in the most trouble at DOE is failing" to manage programs like nuclear waste management, he said.
The Trump team is going to be "at a disadvantage" unless it fills out its team with people who "know where the bodies are buried" and who "can tell you what the potential problem spots can be," Navin added.
Someone familiar with Pyle, who is heading the DOE transition team, said his resume makes him well-suited for the job.
"His extensive experience in the energy space makes him qualified for the role," this person said. "If anything, never having worked for DOE is a plus because he's not entering the role with any preconceived notions or a business-as-usual attitude. Just as important, he's putting together a great team of experts to help guide and inform the transition process."
Robert Sussman, who helped lead the EPA transition team for Obama, said Ebell might have a tough time at that agency, having never worked there.
"From what I've seen, Myron Ebell has been functioning in the policy world at a pretty high level of generality, and a lot of what he has done is to debate the science of climate change and to engage in a big-picture sense on the policy options," Sussman said.
"I don't know the man, but I wonder whether he's got a very secure grasp of all of the laws that EPA implements and the way the programs carry out those laws and specifically the various rules that the Obama administration has issued and is working on."
Former agency officials added that the career staff at these agencies can help bring the transition team up to speed and will likely be willing to help, despite concerns among some federal staffers about the Trump team's policy agenda.
"The top management of the agency has made it clear that they want the transition to be productive and has instructed the staff to be cooperative and forthcoming. And so I think the EPA staff are professionals, and they will do that," Sussman added.
"They certainly have plenty of fears and concerns about what's coming next here, but I think the Obama administration is committed to a very professional transition."
Trump's first 100 days
Trump released a video last night describing his policy plans for his first 100 days in office.
It included broad pledges to act on energy by rolling back Obama administration regulations and slashing federal rules.
"On energy, I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy — including shale energy and clean coal — creating many millions of high-paying jobs. That's what we want; that's what we've been waiting for," Trump said.
As for federal regulations, he said, "I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated; it's so important."
Environmentalists were quick to criticize Trump's plans.
Greenpeace USA spokeswoman Cassady Craighill issued a statement saying Trump's policies "would put America 100 days further behind where we need to be to address climate change and 100 days closer to the planetary tipping point." She added, "These campaign promises from Trump have nothing to do with the American people, but they have everything to do with the wallets of his billionaire business buddies who are now tripping over themselves for a spot in the Trump cabinet."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046163
-
Trump Energy And Environmental Team Taking Shape
Nov 22, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team brought several new names into the fold this week as the incoming administration’s energy and environmental policy direction begins to take shape.
Trump has tapped American Energy Alliance (AEA) President Thomas Pyle to lead the transition at the Department of Energy (DOE). Pyle held a number of public and private roles in Washington, DC, prior to lobbying with the AEA. He founded his own consulting firm, Pyle Consulting Inc., and he served as Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives and as staff director for the Congressional Western Caucus, among other roles.
Lobbyist Michael McKenna, president of MWR Strategies, had previously been named as the leader of DOE’s transition under Trump.
At AEA, Pyle has been a frequent critic of the Obama administration’s energy policies. Most recently, he slammed the administration’s five-year Outer Continental Shelf leasing program, calling it “a farewell gift to the ‘Keep it in the Ground’ activists” and adding that the AEA “[looks] forward to President-elect Trump’s pro-energy and pro-growth outlook.”
Doug Domenech has been confirmed to lead the transition efforts at the Department of the Interior (DOI). Domenech joins the Trump team from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, where he has been serving as the director of the group’s Fueling Freedom Project. Domenech previously served in the DOI under George W. Bush’s presidency and as Virginia’s secretary of natural resources.
In a blog post last week, Domenech offered a clear indication of what he expects from the DOI under Trump’s administration. Domenech criticized the Obama administration’s “restrictive agenda on traditional land management practices on federal lands.
“...The incoming administration has pledged to open federal lands -- onshore and offshore -- for oil and gas production,” Domenech wrote. “[Trump] will revoke policies that impose unnecessary restrictions on innovative exploration technologies, rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama administration. He has also pledged to streamline the permitting process for all energy infrastructure projects.”
Trump has also appointed Myron Ebell to lead the transition at the Environmental Protection Agency. Ebell hails from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where he has been directing the organization’s Center for Energy and Environment. Ebell is part of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group that says it is “focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.”
Trump himself offered a few clues as to his energy policy priorities in a YouTube video published Monday that briefly outlined his plan for his first 100 days in office.
“I will cancel job killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high-paying jobs,” Trump said. “That’s what we want. That’s what we’ve been waiting for. On regulation, I will formulate a rule which says that for every new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. So important.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108519-trump-energy-and-environmental-team-taking-shape
-
Why Would Trump Want Hamm at Energy?
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The rumor mill has consistently churned out oil billionaire Harold Hamm's name as a potential Energy secretary in a Donald Trump administration.
But if Trump's plan is to free oil, gas and coal from federal regulations, experts say putting Hamm atop the Energy Department is not the way to do it.
"It's a misnomer that the secretary of Energy has authority over oil and gas," said Bill Richardson, who served as Energy secretary under President Clinton. "He may be extremely frustrated with his inability to unleash fossil energy."
If that's what Trump wants, "then he should appoint him Interior secretary," said Paul Bledsoe, an energy consultant and a former climate aide in the Clinton White House. "That's who decides public lands development and oil and gas leases, not the Energy secretary."
DOE, they note, deals mostly with the national laboratories, maintaining the nuclear stockpile and cleaning up nuclear weapons plants. It doesn't implement or enforce drilling regulations.
In addition to Interior, the other main agency with power over oil and gas is U.S. EPA. Hamm has not been mentioned as a contender to run EPA.
Hamm wrote a letter to his employees at the Oklahoma City-based Continental Resources Inc. the day after the election telling them he is "committed to you, our company and the city" (Greenwire, Nov. 10). Still, last week, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a Trump energy adviser, said Hamm has "right of first refusal" for the DOE post (E&E Daily, Nov. 15).
The Energy secretary does have some influence over oil and gas policy, Richardson said. He or she would be "in the meetings." And the department approves terminals for liquefied natural gas and oversees the strategic petroleum reserve.
And each secretary has room to define the job. Richardson chose to lobby OPEC countries on oil prices. Still, even he was surprised by the limits on his authority on electricity issues.
"I remember going in there and saying, 'Can't I tell FERC to do some transmission lines?'" he recalled. "They said, 'No. You can talk to them. But there's a process.'"
Blunt provocateur
Hamm shares with Trump a distaste for energy regulation. And he has an up-by-the-bootstraps life story that has cemented him as the embodiment of Oklahoma's wildcatter ethos. The 13th child of sharecropper parents in rural Oklahoma, he grew up picking cotton until Christmas or the first snow.
At 18, Hamm started a one-truck business to service oil companies in the Oklahoma fields. Today, he has a net worth of more than $13 billion. He ranked No. 30 on Forbes' 2016 list of the richest Americans.
As an oilman, Hamm would have few conflicts of interest at DOE. But at Interior, he'd have a lot. As the largest leaseholder in the Bakken Shale play in North Dakota and Montana, changes to regulations or payment rules would affect a significant chunk of Continental's holdings.
Continental has an interest in the equivalent of 180,000 acres of oil and gas rights on federal land where it has yet to complete wells, according to its regulatory filings. That's about 15 percent of the company's net undeveloped acreage.
Trump's oil and gas holdings include Exxon Mobil Corp., Halliburton Co., Energy Transfer Partners LP and TransCanada Corp. They are held in brokerage and wealth management accounts, according to the financial disclosure report he filed in May.
As Energy secretary, Hamm might be the first to have actively pushed for higher oil prices (Greenwire, Sept. 8). He has repeatedly predicted that the price will rise above $50 or $60 a barrel, but the price has averaged below that. Hamm would stand to gain personally from a price increase.
He has also engaged on several other issues, such as lifting the crude export ban and opposing President Obama's call to end tax advantages for drilling. He also lobbied against the Keystone XL pipeline until a link was added to the North Dakota oil fields. He now supports the pipeline.
He criticized the renewable-energy-focused energy plan of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton as "silly" and was an energy adviser for 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
Closer to home, Hamm intervened to discourage state scientists in Oklahoma from saying that the earthquake swarms rattling the state were caused by oil-field activity (EnergyWire, March 3, 2015).
Hamm endorsed Trump in late April, in the wake of the New York primary, after Trump topped his then-rivals — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — in New York.
In a short speech at the Republican National Convention in July, Hamm cast environmental regulations as enablers of terrorism and said Trump would "double U.S. oil production" (EnergyWire, July 21).
"Every time we can't drill a well in America, terrorism is being funded," Hamm said in brief prime-time remarks. "Every onerous regulation puts American lives at risk."
He added, "Climate change isn't our biggest problem. It's Islamic terrorism."
Dishing out red meat like that points to another problem Bledsoe highlighted — picking blunt-spoken campaign supporters for influential posts.
"During the campaign, Trump wanted extreme levels of controversy and disruption," Bledsoe said. "When you try to run a government, those same levels of controversy and disruption can cause massive problems."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046123
-
Trump Picks Top Bush DOJ Environmental Attorney for Transition
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
President-elect Donald Trump has selected a former top Justice Department environmental attorney who's involved in the litigation challenging the Clean Power Plan to serve on his transition team.
Ronald Tenpas will be part of the landing team that will interview current DOJ officials about ongoing policies and make recommendations for the incoming administration, the Trump transition team announced yesterday.
Tenpas served as assistant attorney general for the agency's Environment and Natural Resources Division from 2007 to 2009, the position currently occupied by President Obama appointee John Cruden. He oversaw a team of 400 government lawyers.
Prior to that, Tenpas served for several months as acting assistant attorney general, during which he helped DOJ reach a $4.6 billion settlement with American Electric Power Co. Inc. over alleged Clean Air Act violations.
While heading the environment section, Tenpas expanded criminal prosecutions into new areas, including worker endangerment.
But DOJ was unsuccessful during his time at the helm in obtaining a guilty verdict for W.R. Grace and Co., which supplied specialty chemical, construction and container products, over alleged asbestos-related contamination in Libby, Mont.
Tenpas is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he represents Allete Inc. subsidiary Minnesota Power in the massive litigation over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.
The Clean Power Plan requires existing power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Challengers say U.S. EPA has overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act; the Supreme Court in February stayed the rule until the litigation is resolved.
Trump has promised to eliminate "job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy," though how exactly he would ax the Clean Power Plan remains uncertain (Greenwire, Nov. 9).
At an American Bar Association conference last month in Colorado, Tenpas said it was "not intuitive" that EPA could regulate the electricity sector as it's doing in the Clean Power Plan. The rule creates "dislocation" in coal-heavy states like West Virginia, he said.
Tenpas also called the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act "vintage" statutes and predicted that the lawsuits over the Clean Power Plan and the Obama administration's contentious Clean Water Rule "have the potential to really define the scope of regulatory authority at EPA."
"One of the things that I think will come out of the Clean Power Plan litigation and the Waters of the U.S. litigation is some testing and illustration of very, very big constitutional themes that are not especially connected to environmental law," Tenpas said. "Environmental law will be the vehicle, in the same way that environmental law produced Chevron, which matters across every nook and cranny of administrative law."
The 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council established the principle under which the courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes where Congress is ambiguous on an issue.
The DOJ transition staff also includes Kirkland & Ellis LLP partner Brian Benczkowski, who formerly was the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican staff director under then-Chairman Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump's pick for attorney general.
Trump also picked Jones Day LLP partners Greg Katsas and James Burnham, McGuireWoods LLP partner J. Patrick Rowan, Morrison & Foerster LLP partner Jessie Liu, Zina Bash of Doctors' Hospital at Renaissance, and William Cleveland of the city of Alexandria Public Schools.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046148
-
New Member of State Transition Team Maps Exit from Paris Deal
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Steven Groves, who joined President-elect Donald Trump's State Department transition team yesterday, has mapped out an exit from the Paris climate agreement.
On a news platform created by the Heritage Foundation, where Groves is a senior research fellow, he co-wrote a commentary last week on three steps Trump should take to reverse course on the emissions agreement.
"The most effective and efficient pathway out of Paris is to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change altogether," Groves and Heritage economist Nicolas Loris wrote on The Daily Signal.
They also encouraged Trump to use the Congressional Review Act to avert recent U.S. regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and to prohibit additional commitments to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, which aims to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Groves has testified to the House Judiciary Committee on why the United States should not be considered a party to the Paris Agreement without a Senate vote to ratify the agreement. He blasted the Obama administration for treating Paris like an "executive agreement" in testimony to the committee's task force on executive overreach.
"President Obama has placed his desire to achieve an international environmental 'win' and bolster his legacy above historical U.S. treaty practice and intragovernmental comity," Groves argued in his testimony.
Republican lawmakers have aligned with those views, dismissing the agreement and looking to streamline climate efforts at the State Department (Greenwire, Nov. 16).
Trump has promised to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, though it's unclear what route he'd follow. Groves and Loris recommend submitting a written notice to the U.N. secretary-general of the intention to withdraw from the climate convention framework, a move that could pull the United States out of the deal as early as Jan. 20, 2018.
Experts have warned Trump would struggle to find an audience for other key foreign relations priorities, like trade deals or fighting radical regimes, if he withdraws from international climate efforts (Greenwire, Oct. 5).
"Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement or [U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change] process will cause many countries to consign the U.S. to pariah status, since climate change action is now justifiably seen as a key measure of international moral and diplomatic standing. But the 'Trumpets' seem not to care," said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate aide.
Bledsoe said the Groves appointment "is another sign that the Trump administration will attempt to cynically manipulate the climate change issue for short-term political gain despite the huge and growing economic and physical costs to our country and world."
A survey released yesterday by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs suggests that if Trump were to withdraw from the agreement, his decision may be unpopular in the United States.
Seven in 10 Americans surveyed in June, including 57 percent of Republicans, said the United States should participate in the Paris Agreement, according to the report. Results are based on a representative national sample of 2,061 adults, with a margin of error of about 2 percent.
Bledsoe predicted Trump might face a massive backlash.
"Sooner than they know, both American voters and people around the globe will reject their cynicism and judge Trump and his cronies all but criminally negligent in their duty to protect our citizens and the world from the massive depredations of climate change," he said.
Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, last week told E&E News that pulling out of the agreement would hurt America's reputation abroad.
"It would weaken U.S. international leadership. The climate change [deal] signed by over 190 countries represents a global priority. It's a universal priority," Cardin said.
Environmental Defense Fund’s Nathaniel Keohane, vice president of global climate, expressed concern about Groves’ appointment, though he advocated a wait-and-see approach. “At the same time, let’s see who is appointed to some of these key slots,” Keohane said, referring to U.S. EPA and Interior Department.
He said pulling out of the Paris agreement would damage the United States “a lot more” than it would damage the deal. When the George W. Bush administration effectively ended participation in the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, it set back many of the Bush’s other priorities, Keohane said.
Groves joined six members of the State transition team. The other members are Erin Walsh, formerly of Goldman Sachs; Alexander Gray, previously with Trump for America Inc.; Jackie Wolcott of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Ashley Bell, from the Republican National Committee; Charles Glazer of Fieldpoint Private; and Christopher Burnham of Cambridge Global Capital LLC.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046157
-
New Interior Team Leader has Railed Against Climate Regs
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Doug Domenech, who yesterday took over as head of President-elect Donald Trump's Interior Department transition team, comes to the table with a deeply conservative pedigree and an outspoken distaste for U.S. EPA regulations.
On social media and across prominent conservative media platforms, the former Virginia secretary of natural resources and Bush-era Interior official makes it clear he is no fan of EPA's embattled Clean Power Plan and expresses a murky belief in climate change.
"Important," tweeted Domenech on Oct. 4, linking to a news article about a report from the Pew Research Center. "Pew: Most Americans Don't Believe in 'Scientific Consensus' on Climate Change."
Domenech, who is director of the Fueling Freedom Project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the stated mission of which is to "explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels," has expressed concerns that the science around climate change is being twisted to achieve an environmental agenda that will needlessly harm the American public.
In an opinion piece for RealClearEnergy, Domenech summarized the legal action being taken against think tanks, Exxon Mobil Corp. and academic institutions to "squash dissent" on climate science. He later quoted at length a Heritage Foundation report that shows no connection between climate change and extreme weather or rising sea levels.
"There is little doubt that the proposed solution to the CO2 'problem' will be all-pain with no-gain," he writes. "The high cost will produce an immeasurable difference in CO2 concentrations."
On the Paris Agreement, Domenech penned multiple op-eds expressing doubt about the international plan, calling it "vapid." In one piece for The Daily Caller, he called the U.S. delegation to Paris "the true disciples of climate alarmism."
As for carbon dioxide, Domenech writes the gas is something the Obama administration has determined to be an "evil opponent" in need of regulation.
"And I hate to tell you but it is coming OUT OF YOUR MOUTH!" he wrote. "Even though CO2 concentrations have been far higher in the geologic past, government propagandists and paid 'science' advisers, are obsessed with rising levels of the gaseous foe all around us."
Domenech also lambasted EPA's regulation to cut emissions from power plants on his Twitter account, which was made private and hidden from view yesterday afternoon. In articles for The Federalist, the Heartland Institute and Morning Consult, Domenech expressed dismay over the legality of the plan and its impact on energy prices.
Domenech did not respond to a request to discuss his views.
An 'incredibly nice guy'
Despite having spent eight years at the Interior Department serving in multiple positions, notably as deputy chief of staff and deputy assistant secretary for insular affairs, Domenech's public writings have focused little on the agency's policies.
In an opinion piece for The Daily Callerpublished in June, Domenech noted energy policy in the United States "should not doom third world countries to a lifetime of poverty" and argued that "potential prosperity and health generated by fossil fuels is how we transform society."
In that same op-ed, he wrote that he was pleased when Interior Secretary Sally Jewell "showed a glimmer of practicality I'd hoped for when a few weeks ago she called activists in the 'keep it in the ground' movement as 'naive.'" He went on to call her "a complete apologist for climate change theory, one based more on models than observations."
Despite the rancor of his writings, Lynn Scarlett, former deputy secretary of the Interior during the George W. Bush administration, said Domenech was an "incredibly nice guy" with whom she worked very closely.
She noted that he would be open to thinking about a clean energy agenda, was sympathetic to public-private conservation programs created during his tenure at the Interior Department and "values the multifaceted mission of the agency."
Scarlett recalled Domenech expressing support, during a trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands, for a Forest Service-monitored turtle nesting site they visited, for example.
"I think it's important to understand in Doug you have somebody that definitely has a conservative ideological framework, there's no question about that, but that should not be interpreted as someone who has a lack of empathy or interest in conservation," said Scarlett, who is now global managing director of public policy for the Nature Conservancy.
She speculated that he would likely be open to advancing energy development on public lands for its economic benefits, something that is in line with what Trump has touted.
Domenech was previously secretary of natural resources in Virginia under then-Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), a role in which he was "fantastic," said Charles James, a partner at the law firm Williams Mullen.
"Doug Domenech was an outstanding secretary of natural resources and brings a wealth of expertise and experience to the table," he said.
Prior to his appointment, Domenech was senior vice president of Washington-based communication firm Artemis Strategies and a principal at Chrysalis Energy Partners LLC, an energy consulting firm.
He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1978 with a degree in forestry and wildlife management, and worked in both forestry field research and for a trade association representing the forest products industry, according to his LinkedIn profile.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046119
-
Another Secretary Prospect Heads to Trump Tower
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Rep. Cynthia Lummis is scheduled to meet with President-elect Donald Trump today in New York, where public lands and a possible administration post might be conversation topics.
The retiring Wyoming Republican has been widely floated as a potential contender to lead the Interior Department.
She's been one of the leading House Republicans on public lands and energy development issues from her posts atop a House Oversight subcommittee scrutinizing the Interior Department and as a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Lummis has been a key advocate for ranchers and other land users in the chamber and has sponsored bills benefiting ranchers, miners, drillers and loggers (E&E Daily, Jan. 30, 2015).
Trump transition spokesmen said today that the meetings with the president-elect are generally to discuss policies and aren't necessarily indicative that officials are under consideration for top administration jobs.
If Lummis is in the running for Interior secretary, she may not be the only contender.
Trump met yesterday with Oklahoma Republican Gov. Mary Fallin, another rumored contender for the post. And he discussed public lands issues over the weekend with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and former Oklahoma House Speaker T.W. Shannon (R) (Greenwire, Nov. 21).
Should Trump pick Lummis for the Interior job, the nomination would be met with criticism from the left.
"By considering Rep. Cynthia Lummis as possible Interior Secretary, President-elect Trump makes it painfully clear that he has no intention of supporting a clean energy economy or dealing with the public health crisis that is burning fossil fuels," said Greenpeace spokeswoman Cassady Craighill.
"A known climate denier, one of Lummis' most egregious offenses is putting the interests of fracking companies before the public health of her own Wyoming constituents," Craighill added. "By opposing common-sense fracking rules and meddling in an EPA study that revealed the fracking industry poisoned groundwater and found fracking chemicals in the blood of Wyoming residents, Lummis has proven she works not for the people, but for corporate interests."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046162
-
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Camille von Kaenel
Environmental groups yesterday projected images and messages onto a U.S. EPA building to protest President-elect Donald Trump's pick of Myron Ebell, a climate denier, to lead the agency's transition.
Images of a green planet, icebergs and flames swirled across the face of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, an office building near the Federal Triangle in downtown Washington, during the evening rush hour.
Messages running down the columns of the building read "#RebelAgainstEbell" and "Don't let deniers trump climate action."
"We want Trump to know the people do not want a climate denier at the head of the agency supposed to protect their health, which is now very much tied to tackling climate change," said Rudhdi Karnik, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club, one of the organizers of the event along with 350.org.
Carroll Muffett, the president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, added that he also hoped EPA employees leaving work would see the images as a sign of support for the work they have been doing, like writing the Clean Power Plan, despite Trump's pledges to roll back many of the agency's rules and shrink its capacity.
A few office workers scurrying through the biting cold stopped to take photos of the images. Around the corner, tourists took selfies with the luxury Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue.
President-elect Trump yesterday released a video message declaring that "patriots" are being brought in to help with his transition. He outlined a number of executive actions he will take on "day one," including an intent to "cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy," which he claimed will create millions of jobs.
"That's what we want. That's what we've been waiting for," Trump said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046130
-
Scientific Infidelity from Across the Pond
Nov 22, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. Joseph Perrone
America's economy is increasingly intertwined with the European Union's, and unfortunately the litany of bad European imports hasn't ended with Russel Brand. Brussels bureaucrats today increasingly subject chemicals to the guillotine of fact-challenged, agenda-driven science. And while we have yet to see how Trump will execute his campaign pledges on trade, one thing is certain: the United States can no longer ignore Europe’s proposed unscientific restrictions of safe and economically important substances used in countless everyday products.
One of the most egregious examples is a proposal by France to classify titanium dioxide, a naturally occurring pigment crucial to myriad products from paints to pharmaceuticals to sunscreen, as a carcinogen. Titanium dioxide has been safely used in products for over a century—it replaced dangerous lead components as a white pigment in paints and is one of the safest substances used in sunscreens to absorb the sun’s UV rays and protect against skin cancer.
Certainly, materials posing a threat to human health should be appropriately regulated. But the French case against titanium dioxide has no scientific basis.
Studies following thousands of industrial workers reveal no increased mortality from cancer, even after decades of intense titanium dioxide exposure. Titanium dioxide also hasn’t been shown to cause cancer in animals, with the exception of rats exposed under extreme “overload” conditions – akin to what one might experience chronically breathing a thick cloud of dust. In fact, European Chemicals Agency guidelines recommend against giving significant weight to such “overload” studies because similar effects are unlikely to be seen in humans.
Classifying titanium dioxide as a carcinogen would severely limit its use in most applications, creating serious consequences for the U.S. The substance is used in a vast volume of products both exported to and imported from the EU and in most cases, there are no available substitutes.
The bad science doesn’t stop there. The EU’s environmental arm is considering nominating the substance octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP).
These terms probably mean nothing to most readers, but D4 is an essential material used in the creation of virtually all silicone products. Once a material is classified as a “POP” under the Stockholm Convention, an international treaty, they are severely restricted and phased out of use. This extreme action is reserved for chemicals that persist in the environment and can travel over long distances. However, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that D4 tends to degrade rather than persist in the environment and doesn’t travel.
The EU’s “environmental champions” overlook the fact that silicone chemistry is crucial to the production of solar panels, windmills, and energy efficient buildings. By empowering renewables, D4 saves over 9 times the carbon dioxide emissions used to produce it. Ironically, eliminating D4’s use through a POP designation could have long-term environmental impacts.
In another scientifically questionable move, the European Commission recently unveiled its proposal for a haphazard system to identify chemicals as “endocrine disruptors” without actually confirming whether named substances can actually harm the human endocrine system.
A wide array of naturally occurring and man-made substances can interact with the human endocrine system, including sunlight, soy, and caffeine. Instead of drafting criteria to restrict only chemicals that show evidence they have enough potency to harm the human endocrine system, the EU is moving toward a broad, hazard-based approach.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a solution of its own – the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Rather than issuing a blanket rejection of any chemical showing endocrine activity, the EPA integrates hazard and risk to determine whether restrictions are warranted, and provides a gradation of regulatory responses appropriate to the level of exposure.
With our own models for chemical regulation already in place, the U.S. needs to flex its muscles over poorly proposed regulations streaming from across the pond to ensure Europe bases its decisions on sound scientific evidence to protect American consumers.
Dr. Joseph Perrone is the Chief Science Officer at the Center for Accountability in Science.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/307122-scientific-infidelity-from-across-the-pond
-
US FDA Revokes Food Contact Authorisation for Two PFCs
Nov 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US FDA is removing approval for the the use of two long-chain perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) for use in grease-proof food packaging.
The amendment to the food additive regulations comes in response to a petition from 3M Corporation, which said that the use of these substances has been intentionally and permanently abandoned.
The regulations will no longer allow the use of two perfluoroalkyl-containing substances as water and oil repellents for paper and paperboard in contact with aqueous and fatty foods. These are:
ammonium bis (N-ethyl-2-perfluoroalkylsulfonamido ethyl) phosphates, containing not more than 15% ammonium mono (N-ethyl-2-perfluoroalkylsulfonamido ethyl) phosphates, where the alkyl group is more than 95% C8 and the salts have a fluorine content of 50.2% to 52.8% as determined on a solids basis; and
perfluoroalkyl acrylate copolymer containing 35% to 40% weight fluorine, produced by the copolymerisation of ethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)-oxy]-,chloride; 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, oxiranylmethyl ester; 2-5 propenoic acid, 2-ethoxyethyl ester; and 2-propenoic acid, 2[[(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl]methyl amino]ethyl ester.
The final rule includes a 30-day period to file objections, from 22 November.
Phasing out long-chain PFCs
In 2010, the FDA identified safety concerns – including systemic and developmental toxicity in combination with biopersistence – with the use of long-chain PFCs in certain food packaging applications. It worked with manufacturers to voluntarily phase out these uses by 1 October 2011.
The agency also amended its food additive regulations in January, to no longer allow for the use of three voluntarily abandoned substances.
But in comments supporting 3M’s petition, a group of NGOs called on the agency also to revoke its authorisation for seven food contact notifications (FCNs) for substances included in the voluntary phase out.
Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at commenting organisation the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), told Chemical Watch he was disappointed – and “a little surprised” – that the FDA has not yet acted to pull the authorisations of these remaining PFCs.
“The seven long-chain PFCs approved as FCNs and voluntarily removed from commerce by manufacturers belong to the same class of chemicals” as the three which had their approvals removed at the beginning of the year, said the NGO coalition comments. “The agency should have removed their effectiveness based on abandonment in 2011, and should do it now based on its decision on 4 January.”
Mr Neltner said that the FDA has told advocacy groups that a food additive petition cannot be used to prompt action on the chemicals. “So we don't have a tool to drive the agency to reconsider these, even though they've acknowledged the problem,” he said. "We have a food additive regulatory system that's broken.”
In its response to submitted comments, the FDA said it declined to address substances outside the scope of 3M’s food additive petition.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51173/us-fda-revokes-food-contact-authorisation-for-two-pfcs
-
(ACC Mentioned) Is the EPA’s Landmark ‘Endangerment Finding’ Now Itself Imperiled?
Nov 22, 2016 | Pro Publica
By Abrahm Lustgarten
Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and said he plans to unburden American industries from Obama-era requirements to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases causing the planet to warm.
In the crosshairs of his agenda — according to written statements the Trump campaign made shortly before the Nov. 8 election — is a 2009 determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health and security, a ruling that serves as the foundation for the EPA’s efforts to curb climate-damaging emissions and that affects its governing of everything from automobile exhaust to power plants to refrigerators.
But overturning that rule — known as the “endangerment finding” — might prove difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish with anything like the simple administrative stroke of the pen, according to legal experts.
“Attempting to overturn the endangerment finding would be like running toward a machine gun,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “Scientific support was very strong when it was issued in 2009; it has become much stronger since then.”
The rule represented the direct evolution of a 2007 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, one that determined that the EPA not only had the authority to regulate climate gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act, but was obligated to do so. The court directed the EPA to examine the scientific evidence and determine if greenhouse gases posed a threat to the public.
The EPA did that — examining everything from the potential for more damaging hurricanes, to death rates due to ozone and heat exposure, to deadly exposure to pathogens — and concluded in unambiguous terms that there was “compelling” reason to believe the gases threaten the health of Americans, and that the threat would get worse.
The agency’s conclusion rested on thousands of pages of peer-reviewed research, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, and from the National Research Council. The agency wrote its rules and subjected them to public criticism. The public submitted voluminous comments, all of which were reviewed by the EPA before it issued a final rule.
The original rule-writing process alone took 14 months, (or 10 years if you count the arguments leading up to the 2007 Supreme Court fight). After its completion, The American Chemistry Council and other groups petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia to review the validity of the finding. In 2012, that court upheld the EPA’s endangerment rule, finding that the agency’s interpretation of its authority and of its obligation to regulate carbon dioxide “is unambiguously correct.”
In order to effectively eliminate the rule now, one former EPA attorney told ProPublica, the Trump administration would likely have to reargue the original decision, including the merits of the scientific evidence, and then build on it.
Per the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision, the new administration would have to use existing evidence to prove no risk is posed by climate gases. Then it would have to explain how new information that has emerged since 2009 — a period including the hottest years on record, some of the biggest storms and driest droughts, and destabilizing mass human migration — demonstrate how the EPA erred in its 2009 conclusion.
It’s a steep hill to climb, and, as Gerrard points out, would inevitably lead to a fresh wave of lawsuits both against the EPA and against polluters directly in courts across the country.
In the meantime, the EPA remains obligated to enforce the climate-related rules on record.
There is, however, another option, but not one the Trump administration can execute alone: Congress could render the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision moot by passing new legislation amending the Clean Air Act itself — changing the landmark 1970 environmental law so as to explicitly exclude its oversight of carbon dioxide, methane and the pollutants known to be driving climate change.
Such a step would inevitably invite filibuster resistance not only among Democrats, but among Republicans concerned about climate risks, said Gerrard.
David Goldston, director of public affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Trump and other Republicans may try and chip away at environmental enforcement or regulations that are based on the finding, but not likely the finding itself.
“There’s a reason why, despite all the ideological gnashing of teeth for 20 years at least, that Republicans haven’t actually been able to touch the Clean Air Act successfully,” Goldston said. “It passed by a wide bipartisan margin, and it turns out, it’s almost like an article of faith with the public.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-epa-landmark-endangerment-finding-now-itself-imperiled
-
RGGI Releases New Modeling Amid Regulatory Uncertainty
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Nine Northeastern states presented their analysis yesterday for further carbon cuts after 2020, at once signaling their continued commitment to addressing climate change under a Trump administration and demonstrating the challenges facing greens in the years ahead.
The modeling, conducted on behalf of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, focused on annual emissions reductions and proposed fixes aimed at making the program more flexible to market conditions.
The results came as the nine-state coalition determines how to continue the regional cap-and-trade system implemented in 2009. If no action is taken, RGGI's cap on carbon emissions will stop declining in 2020.
The question facing RGGI today is how much more to cut beyond 2020. The analysis, presented by consultancy ICF International, examined the future of the Northeastern power sector under three scenarios: a base case where the cap is unchanged, a 2.5 percent annual reduction in the RGGI emissions cap and a 3.5 percent annual cap reduction.
In each case, emissions reductions, prices and the makeup of the RGGI generation mix were dependent on a series of factors, most notably the price of natural gas and renewables, along with the deployment of Canadian hydropower.
What the analysis signaled might be more telling, however, revealed the great political challenges facing RGGI as it tries to move forward. All three scenarios assumed the Clean Power Plan, President Obama's proposal to curb carbon emissions from the power sector, would be implemented.
The election of Donald Trump as president has cast doubt over the future of the Clean Power Plan. In a video address yesterday, Trump promised that in his first 100 days in office, he will "cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy."
RGGI officials, meanwhile, offered little insight for how Trump's ascendance has changed their calculations.
"We don't know what the future will hold or bring," said Andrew McKeon, RGGI Inc.'s executive director. "The modeling and assumptions presented here remain in draft form and may be revised."
When McKeon asked state officials if they cared to comment on the subject, he was met with silence.
Enviros want more from RGGI states
Jackson Morris, director of Eastern energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said there is little reason to think ICF's analysis would change greatly following Trump's election. RGGI states were already well on their way to meeting their Clean Power Plan goals prior to the real estate magnate's victory, he said.
Yet RGGI is also facing calls from greens to go further, implementing an annual 5 percent cap reduction. Yesterday's presentation had not concluded when the press releases started filing in.
Conor Bambrick, air and energy director at Environmental Advocates of New York, framed the discussion as the first climate test for Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) in the Trump era, saying the governor "should stand firm and ensure that New York proceeds with aggressively ratcheting down the emissions cap and keep his promise to expand RGGI to other states and beyond power plants."
The need for aggressive state climate policy is even greater given Trump's stance on the issue, said Vien Truong, director of Green For All.
"The two scenarios put forward by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative leaders today fall short and set a precedent for the future that fails to protect the most vulnerable communities in Maryland and across the Northeast," Truong said.
The RGGI states are already divided over how far to push. Maryland officials said earlier this year that they might consider leaving RGGI if the organization pursued a 5 percent reduction (ClimateWire, Sept. 7). Republican Chris Sununu's win in the New Hampshire gubernatorial race threatens to further complicate the dynamics. Sununu raised doubts about New Hampshire's participation in the initiative during his campaign against Colin Van Ostern (D).
Maryland officials unveiled a proposal for an "emissions containment reserve," which could ultimately serve as a compromise between states that want to cut more and those seeking moderate emissions reductions. The ECR, as it is called, would effectively strengthen the cap if the cost of carbon reductions proves to be significantly cheaper than initially anticipated.
Morris, the NRDC representative, praised the idea, saying it seemed to be flexible to market conditions while achieving emissions reductions at the lowest cost.
"What we've seen today is more analysis that RGGI states can deliver with a strong post-2020 program," Morris said. "We're optimistic that while we may see less progress at the federal level, the RGGI states will continue to lead."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046131
-
Western States Sue Over BLM Methane Rule
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration's latest rule for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry was hit with a lawsuit yesterday — the second since the rule's unveiling last week.
Wyoming and Montana filed their challenge in federal district court in Wyoming, asking the court to set aside the rule. They say the rule is beyond the authority of the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.
"The Bureau's rule is a blatant attempt by a land management agency to impose air quality regulations on existing oil and gas operations under the guise of waste prevention," the suit says. "Congress specifically delegated authority to regulate air pollution to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states because they are in the best position to regulate air quality matters."
The lawsuit comes just a week after the BLM methane rule was released. Part of President Obama's climate plan, the regulation is designed to rein in emissions of methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas.
"The BLM is once again overstepping its bounds and imposing unnecessary regulations," Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) said in a statement. "Congress has delegated regulation of air pollution to the states and EPA, not BLM. Wyoming has successfully regulated air pollution emissions from oil and gas activities for over 20 years and has effective limitations on venting and flaring of natural gas."
Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R) called the rule "yet another example of the Obama administration pushing the envelope to see how much they can get away with before leaving office."
The suit is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, the same court where the Western Energy Alliance and Independent Petroleum Association of America challenged the rule last week. The case has been assigned to Judge Scott Skavdahl, the same judge who struck down the Obama administration's fracking rule earlier this year.
Environmentalists have vowed to intervene in the litigation to defend the rule, a crucial position given the likelihood that the Trump administration will not be eager to defend it (EnergyWire, Nov. 16).
The legal dispute mirrors another lawsuit over EPA's separate rule for methane emissions from new oil and gas operations. The Western Energy Alliance and several states sued over that rule, and environmentalists and supportive states intervened to defend it. The suit is playing out in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046125
-
Legal Skirmish Over Documents Brews as Protests Boil Over
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As tense protests continue in North Dakota, the latest round of legal wrangling over the Dakota Access pipeline centers on a trove of documents the Obama administration wants to keep out of the courtroom.
Dakota Access LLC lawyers doubled down Sunday on their request for the Army Corps of Engineers to submit records that explain why it decided to hold off on granting a final approval for the contentious oil pipeline. The pipeline company, backed by Energy Transfer Partners LP, first pushed for the documents last week in a request to supplement the voluminous administrative record the corps already submitted to the federal court handling the case.
"These documents are properly part of the administrative record," the company told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The pipeline developer is seeking a better understanding of behind-the-scenes decisionmaking that led to the Obama administration's surprise September announcement that it would hold off on granting a final real estate easement for Dakota Access to cross Lake Oahe, a section of the Missouri River, and instead conduct a review of the Army Corps' approval of a related water crossing permit for the project.
The agency completed the review last week but said it would still withhold the easement and continue "discussions" with tribal officials who oppose the oil pipeline (EnergyWire, Nov. 15).
According to Dakota Access, the Army Corps' administrative record — reports, emails and other agency documents related to the pipeline — should include materials from the most recent round of review.
The agency's Omaha district commander, Col. John Henderson, signed a letter in June recommending approval of the Lake Oahe easement, and the agency on July 25 issued a "finding of no significant impact" for related authorization of the Lake Oahe crossing. The company says additional records would shed light on why the corps seemed to shift gears in its approach to the project.
"How could the government take such irreconcilable positions?" company lawyers asked in a legal brief late Sunday night.
The records are especially important, Dakota Access says, to answer the company's recent cross-claim asking the court to rule that the easement has already effectively been granted.
"Dakota Access will prevail on its cross-claim if, as expected, those records show that the post-July 25 process consisted of reviewing the very same factors the Corps had already reviewed when it made its no-harm-to-the-public-interest determination," the lawyers argued. "And if that is what the documents show, it means that when the Corps concluded, yet again, on November 14 that the decision to allow the Lake Oahe crossing 'comported with legal requirements,' it was reaffirming that Dakota Access has its right-of-way."
Government lawyers pushed back on the company's position late last week, urging the court to reject the calls to supplement the administrative record. In a legal brief, Justice Department lawyers representing the corps attacked company lawyers' logic, arguing that if the company believes the July 25 decision represented a final approval for the pipeline project, it should not need later documentation to make its case.
"Dakota Access's new theory is fatal to its motion to supplement because it is inappropriate to supplement the record of a decision made on July 25 with documents that were created after that date," DOJ lawyers told the court.
The brief continues by noting that Dakota Access has repeatedly stated that it cannot finish the pipeline until it receives the easement — acknowledgments DOJ says undercut the company's new argument that the easement was actually granted over the summer.
The administration also noted last week that it cannot produce an administrative record for a decision that has not been made yet. The corps is still considering whether to grant the easement.
The dispute over additional records is now in the hands of the district court.
Protests escalate
Meanwhile, in North Dakota, tensions between pipeline opponents and law enforcement spiked again over the weekend, resulting in one arrest and many protesters being soaked with fire hoses in subfreezing temperatures.
According to the Morton County Sheriff's Department, a standoff began when protesters attempted to move north on Highway 1806 toward the Dakota Access construction zone. Several fires burned nearby during Sunday's standoff, but the two sides dispute who started them.
Authorities used tear gas and fire hoses in subfreezing temperatures to try to disperse the crowd. Earlier altercations between protesters and law enforcement included the use of rubber bullets, flash grenades and pepper spray. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Dave Archambault II called the use of the hoses "unlawful and dehumanizing," and other pipeline opponents derided their use as an act of police brutality.
"Spraying water on peaceful water protectors in freezing temperatures is nothing short of life-threatening and inhumane, making this a disgraceful new low in the ongoing use of force by police," Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has called on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to investigate the authorities' use of fire hoses, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took to Twitter yesterday to call on President Obama to protect pipeline opponents' rights and stop the Dakota Access project "in any way that you can."
Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier said field commanders considered the cold weather but decided to use the fire hoses on protesters because they were threatening law enforcement.
"It's a consideration, but the No. 1 thing is ... the safety of everybody involved, and we're just not going to let people and protesters in large groups come in and threaten officers," he said during a live-streamed press conference. "That's not happening."
Asked during the press conference yesterday whether law enforcement would use fire hoses for crowd control again, Mandan Police Chief Jason Ziegler noted that protesters had been throwing rocks and burning logs and said "we can use whatever force necessary to maintain peace."
"It was effective, wasn't it?"
Dakota Access on offense
Back in the courtroom, Dakota Access' cross-claim against the Obama administration is just getting started.
Company lawyers made waves last week when they filed a motion for summary judgment in the case — asking Judge James Boasberg to rule that the Army Corps already issued the necessary easement over the summer when it issued a "finding of no significant impact" for water crossings.
The move put the company, which had remained relatively quiet amid the growing pipeline opposition, squarely on offense.
"Dakota Access Pipeline has waited long enough to complete this pipeline," Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren said in a statement when the cross-claim was filed. "Dakota Access Pipeline has been granted every permit, approval, certificate, and right-of-way needed for the pipeline's construction. It is time for the Courts to end this political interference and remove whatever legal cloud that may exist over the right-of-way beneath federal land at Lake Oahe."
The company has asked the court to expedite consideration of its claim. The Obama administration pushed back last night, arguing that Dakota Access could have filed its claim sooner.
"Dakota Access's delays in bringing this claim should not be rewarded with a schedule that prioritizes its claim over the claims of the Plaintiff Tribes, who filed their complaints expeditiously," DOJ lawyers told the court.
Plus, government lawyers argued, Dakota Access has previously admitted that it "began construction prior to receiving all necessary approvals from the Corps 'at its own risk.'"
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046122
-
Enviros, Tribes File Lawsuit to Block Offshore California Fracking
Nov 22, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Native American Wishtoyo Foundation are suing the Obama administration for allowing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in federal waters without properly evaluating the risks.
The move comes in anticipation of a push from the incoming Trump administration to end the longstanding prohibition on offshore drilling in federal waters off California. The groups filed the lawsuit in a federal district court in Los Angeles.
The two organizations said that they expect oil companies to push again to drill and frack in federal waters near Southern California's Malibu and Orange counties, and to the far north off Humboldt County. They see the election of Donald Trump as an eventual spur for an upcoming push by the industry.
Opposition groups are focused on the results of an environmental assessment (EA) released earlier this year by the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The EA evaluated potential impacts from using well stimulation treatments on the 23 oil and gas platforms currently in operation on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore California.
In 2015, San Francisco-based CBD sued Interior for permitting fracking off the California coast, alleging it threatens ocean ecosystems, coastal communities and marine wildlife.
"Federal officials' failure to carefully study the risk of offshore fracking is doubly disturbing after Trump's election," said Kristen Monsell, a CBD attorney. Monsell alleged that "every offshore frack increases the risk of poisoning our ocean and that danger could now spread along the [California] coast."
Local Chumash Native American tribes joined in the legal action, contending that the federal agencies have failed to examine the impacts fracking could have on natural and cultural resources. Chumash maritime peoples depend on the offshore resources "to sustain our lifeways and connect with our ancestors," according to Mati Waiya, executive director of the Wishtoyo Foundation.
The latest action is an attempt to get the Obama administration in its waning days to forestall expanded drilling off the California coast under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which the plaintiffs claim gives the president authority to "withdraw from disposition" any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.
The EA released earlier this year was characterized as "drawing on the best available science," and providing information and analysis on the use of well stimulation treatments in federal waters offshore California, BOEM Director Abigail Ross Hopper said in May. "The comprehensive analysis shows that these practices, conducted according to permit requirements, have minimal impact."
The EA was required to be completed by the end of May under a settlement agreementfinalized in February between Interior and some conservation groups.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108517-enviros-tribes-file-lawsuit-to-block-offshore-california-fracking
-
The Enormous Opportunity of Renewable Energy
Nov 18, 2016 | Huffington Post (in Real Clear Energy)
By Richard Branson
There is no greater challenge than tackling climate change. But there is no bigger economic opportunity than renewables and clean technology. To stimulate new jobs and prosperity, the clean energy revolution is the way to go.
We are now a year on from the Paris Agreement, a wonderful commitment to combatting climate change that joins nations from around the world behind a common cause. Now, with the Agreement officially entering into force, the world needs to move forward more quickly on investment in renewable energy. COP21 was about securing commitment, and COP22 in Marrakech is very much about embarking on implementation.
With this in mind, part of our investment strategy at Virgin is focused upon finding opportunities in the renewable energy sector and also in energy efficiency. We have recently purchased BMR Energy, a developer, manager and owner of energy generation projects in the Caribbean and Central America. The company currently has a 36 MW onshore wind park in Jamaica, with additional projects in the region in the pipeline.
The potential for renewable energy across the world is massive, especially here in the Caribbean. We are perfectly placed to be a test bed from which clean, innovative energy solutions can scale. Caribbean economies suffer from some of the highest electricity prices in the world—perpetuating poverty, contributing to national debts, and preventing any form of sustainable development.
Despite an abundance of sun and wind, Caribbean islands have implemented relatively low amounts of renewables to date, as a result of several barriers, such as long-term fossil fuel contracts and issues with local permitting. As a consequence, Caribbean countries spend a large portion of their GDP on imported fossil fuels thereby constraining socioeconomic development.
And, while Caribbean countries emit less than one percent of total global greenhouse gasses, they are bearing the brunt of climate change, facing nearer-term impacts from sea-level rise, increasing temperatures, and extreme weather events. The wind farm is expected to reduce greenhouse gasses by about 66,000 tons CO2 equivalent per year, roughly equivalent to taking 13,000 cars off the road. Elsewhere, the Carbon War Room/Rocky Mountain Institute is leading the charge with its Islands Energy Program, which guides island governments and utilities to define and achieve their energy visions.
There is still so much to be done in stepping up research into new forms of energy generation and the fuels of the future, well as areas such as carbon removal, which is the focus of the Virgin Earth Challenge. Today, we also need to continue testing renewable fuels, something Virgin Atlantic have been working on with partners such as LanzaTech. Its alcohol-to-jet fuel has passed all its initial performance tests with flying colors, and initial analyses suggest the new fuel will result in carbon savings of 65 per cent compared to conventional jet fuel. This is a real game changer for aviation and could significantly reduce the industry’s reliance on oil within our lifetime.
As well as our environmental work with The B Team, I am also proud to be part of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, set up by Bill Gates, which is focusing upon developing new sustainable tools to power the world. As the team says, the world needs widely available energy that is reliable, affordable and does not produce carbon. The only way to accomplish that goal is by developing new tools to power the world. The stakes have never been higher, and the opportunity has never been greater.
This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post, in conjunction with the U.N.’s 22nd Conference of the Parties(COP22) in Morocco (Nov. 7-18), aka the climate-change conference. The series will put a spotlight on climate change issues and the conference itself. To view the entire series, visit here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-branson/the-enormous-opportunity-_b_13078760.html
-
Group Targets Alaska Railroad Permit for LNG Shipments
Nov 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
A national environmental group is ramping up its campaign to challenge the safety of shipping liquefied natural gas over U.S. railroad networks.
In a lawsuit filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Center for Biological Diversity charged that the Federal Railroad Administration has refused to provide documents proving that the Alaska Railroad Corp. (ARRC) can safely transport LNG.
The environmental group is challenging the federal government's 2015 decision to grant the Alaska railroad the nation's first permit to carry LNG shipments. The center charged that the decision came after "minimal public scrutiny."
The ARRC began its first test shipments in September, hauling two 7,000-gallon International Organization for Standardization tanks of LNG on a flatcar from the Anchorage rail yard to Fairbanks.
Under the terms of FRA's two-year permit, the Alaska railroad can initially transport up to 36 portable LNG tanks each week. Beginning in 2018, that limit increases to 60 tanks every four days.
In filing the lawsuit, CBD senior attorney Miyoko Sakashita argued that "the public deserves to know the risks of shipping LNG by rail through Alaska's biggest cities and majestic wilderness."
"We know that oil trains and LNG facilities both have deadly histories of explosions," she said. "So the secrecy surrounding this project should worry everyone."
Seven months before the Alaska railroad began its initial LNG shipment, the environmental group submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking federal documents explaining how regulators had determined that the tanks of LNG can be safely transported by rail. When the federal agency failed to respond, the group took legal action.
The lawsuit notes that the Alaska railroad will carry the supercooled LNG tanks 350 miles "through biological rich and sensitive habitats," including Denali National Park and Preserve.
"This transport of LNG threatens the safety of people that live near the railway as well as the habitats and wildlife along the corridor," the group told the court.
"If an LNG by rail explosion were to occur, it would likely be catastrophic because if rail cars that are strung together were to ignite, the fireball could be far larger than the blast from a truck carrying a single LNG tank."
Sakashita said that "expanding the country's fossil fuel infrastructure by putting LNG tankers on our railways is a terrible idea. It deepens our climate crisis and puts families along rail lines at risk."
"But to do it under a veil of secrecy, denying the public's right to scrutinize this plan, is simply unacceptable," she said. "So we're asking the courts to intervene."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/22/stories/1060046120
-
EPA Aims to Narrow Air Law Waiver for Internationally Transported Ozone
Nov 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's proposed rule detailing how states should implement the agency's 2015 ozone standard aims to narrow the potential uses of a waiver that allows areas to exclude internationally transported ozone from NAAQS compliance calculation, which could complicate Western states' plans to come into attainment with the standard.
Some Western states with high levels of naturally occurring and foreign-sourced "background" ozone that cannot be regulated have warned that this background ozone will make it almost impossible to attain the ozone standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb) issued in October last year. They were weighing the possibility of citing adverse impacts from international ozone in the hopes of trying to show attainment with the NAAQS but for the existence of the foreign ozone.
However, EPA's implementation rule signed Nov. 2 and published in the Nov. 17 Federal Register indicates that the agency expects only those areas closest to the Canadian and Mexican borders to need to cite the waiver. This suggests that more inland Western areas might struggle to convince EPA to grant them the exception.
Air law section 179(B) provides areas in nonattainment an exemption from some air law control requirements that would otherwise apply, although it cannot help areas avoid be designated nonattainment in the first place.
EPA's rule says section 179B(a) "provides that the EPA shall approve an attainment plan for such an area if: (i) the attainment plan meets all other applicable requirements of the [air law], and (ii) the submitting state can satisfactorily demonstrate that "but for emissions emanating from outside the United States," the area would attain a NAAQS.
Section 179B(b) applies specifically to the ozone NAAQS and says if a state can prove it would meet the standard "but for" foreign emissions, then it can avoid extension of the ozone attainment dates pursuant to air law section 181(a)(5), section 185 fees, and the mandatory reclassification provisions under section 181(b)(2) for areas that fail to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
The international transport provisions have, however, been seldom used, and applied only to areas along the U.S. border with Canada and Mexico. Yet as a result of EPA's decision to tighten the NAAQS more attention has focused on areas in the mountain West where background ozone levels, especially in winter, can approach or even exceed 70 ppb, rendering the standard impossible to attain by air regulators limiting local emissions.
EPA has touted some tools to help areas in this position, while downplaying the likelihood that background levels would compromise NAAQS attainment. These include petitions under section 179(B), exemptions for rural areas lacking pollution sources of their own, and exemptions for "exceptional events" such as wildfires or dust storms.
International Sources
In its new proposal, EPA notes that the previous implementation rule for the 2008 NAAQS of 75 ppb allowed use of section 179(B) for emissions from anywhere in North America or beyond. "EPA notes, however, that the science review conducted as part of the 2015 ozone NAAQS suggests that the influence of international sources on U.S. ozone levels will be largest in locations that are in the immediate vicinity of Mexico or Canada. The EPA, therefore, anticipates that section 179B will most often be used by states with areas along the border with Mexico and Canada."
Historically, only areas "in the immediate vicinity of the Mexican border," including El Paso, TX, Imperial Valley, CA, and Nogales, AZ, have used the provision, EPA says. The agency says it will consider 179(B) demonstrations on a case-by-case basis.
However, "EPA asks for comment on whether the opportunity for such a demonstration should be limited to nonattainment areas adjoining international borders, and on any technical and legal basis for determining whether it is appropriate to have, or conversely whether it is appropriate not to have, such a limitation."
EPA says it further "encourages air agencies to coordinate with their EPA regional office to identify approaches to evaluate the potential impacts of international transport and to determine the most appropriate information and analytical methods for each area's unique situation."
The agency "will also work with air agencies that are developing attainment plans for which CAA section 179B is relevant, and ensure the air agencies have the benefit of the EPA's understanding of international transport of ozone and ozone precursors. Air agencies are encouraged to consult with their EPA Regional office to establish appropriate technical requirements for these analyses."
EPA invites comment "as to whether the EPA should develop technical guidance for the 'but for' analysis," and on "which methodologies and tools would be most effective to help states develop section 179B demonstrations."
The agency is taking comment on the proposed rule until Jan. 17.
Alternative Path
The implementation rule also offers an alternative path to revoke the prior 2008 ozone NAAQS that responds to litigation pressure brought against the agency in a lawsuit challenging the implementation rule for that standard.
In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, environmentalists are challenging the rule because of what they say are inadequate provisions to prevent "backsliding" in air quality. They also reject EPA's revocation of the 2008 standard.
The approach taken in the 2008 NAAQS implementation rule revokes the 1997 NAAQS -- expressed as 84 ppb -- in all areas effective one year after the effective date of designations for the 2008 ozone standard.
This option, which EPA offers again for revoking the 2008 standard, would establish a set of protective anti-backsliding requirements for all nonattainment areas that have not yet attained the 2008 NAAQS at the time of its revocation.
However, environmentalists in South Coast argue that this approach results in "orphan" areas where protections against air pollution are inadequate. As a result, EPA in its new proposed implementation rule for the 2015 NAAQS offers a second possibility: revoke the 2008 ozone NAAQS in areas designated attainment for that NAAQS one year after the effective date of the designations for each area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Under this second option, the 2008 ozone NAAQS would continue to apply in any area designated nonattainment for the 2008 standards until that area is redesignated to attainment. This option would follow the approach established most recently for the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
One environmental lawyer familiar with the South Coast case says, "We know from the history of implementing ozone standards that revoking smog standards is bad for health because it lets polluted areas off the hook for cleaning up their air on time and keeping it clean. It seems premature to say that what EPA's proposing is a step in the right direction before we've reviewed all the details."
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) in a Nov. 1 statement said the proposed rule "fails to accommodate the fact that the 2008 implementation guidance was issued almost seven years after the rule was finalized," which was due in part to extended litigation over the rule.
Inhofe and industry groups have criticized as unnecessary the tightening of the ozone standards and the resulting compliance costs, but also EPA's prior lateness in issuance of implementation rules to help states craft compliance plans. State organizations such as the National Association of Clean Air Agencies have previously urged EPA to issue implementation rules earlier, and not several years after the issuance of NAAQS.
Emissions Trading
EPA in the proposed implementation rule is also floating a narrowing of its policy allowing "intra-precursor trading" (IPT) to meet nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements that pollution sources in nonattainment areas purchase offsets of ozone precursors to compensate for their increased emissions.
EPA proposes to change its stance adopted in the previous implementation rule in response to environmentalists' criticism. In the previous rule, states could allow pollution sources to trade ozone precursors nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in order to satisfy the offset requirements.
Environmentalists, however, oppose this approach, and emissions trading in general, which they say allows emissions sources to escape cutting their pollution by buying credits instead. Environmental groups Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Downwinders at Risk and the Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles filed an administrative petition for reconsideration on this issue.
In response, EPA seeks input on a new approach under which "IPT cannot be used to meet the NNSR offset requirement unless the precursor substitution is technically supported. For air agencies implementing an EPA-approved NNSR program, these provisions must be approved in the air agency's plan addressing NNSR requirements for ozone."
EPA has therefore prepared a technical assistance document to help air agencies and pollution sources develop "IPT ratios tailored to particular ozone nonattainment areas." The ratios guide regulators in what proportion VOCs and NOx should be reduced relative to each other in order to achieve the greatest pollution cuts based on the unique atmospheric chemistry of each area.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-aims-narrow-air-law-waiver-internationally-transported-ozone
-
Don’t Expect Trump’s Top Cop Go After Law-Breaking Polluters
Nov 19, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Attorney General, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., is one of the most outspoken critics of environmental science and biggest climate change skeptics in Washington.
The top three Sessions benefactors are energy giant Southern Company ($174,765); Balch & Bingham, a Birmingham law firm that represents big fossil fuel and nuclear interests ($140,375), and coal giant Drummond Company ($87,950).
His views on the emissions driving global warming don’t stray from his funders’ interests.
“Carbon pollution is CO2 [carbon dioxide], and that’s really not a pollutant; that’s a plant food, and it doesn’t harm anybody except that it might include temperature increases,” Sessions said in a 2015 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
His climate change ignorance and hostility toward science wouldn’t be so worrisome if Trump had picked him to serve as ambassador to Liechtenstein. But since he’s likely – pending Senate approval – to become head of the Justice Department and its Environment and Natural Resources Division, we smell trouble.
According to the division’s website, roughly half of its attorneys “bring cases against those who violate the nation's civil and criminal pollution-control laws,” such as violations of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Other attorneys in the division “defend environmental challenges to government programs and activities and represent the United States in matters concerning the stewardship of the nation's natural resources and public lands.” The division also handles cases on Indian rights and wildlife protections.
Some of the division’s recent work includes getting a major coal company to take immediate action to reduce water pollution from its mining operations in Appalachia. It secured a $14.7 billion settlement from Volkswagen after it cheated on U.S. emissions tests and deceived customers. It forced agro-chemical giant Bayer CropScience to increase safeguards at its chemical facilities after an explosion killed two workers in 2008.
What would an attorney general so hostile to the environment and so cozy with big polluters mean for the important work of the Environment and Natural Resources Division? We may be about to find out.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2016/11/don-t-expect-trump-s-top-cop-go-after-law-breaking-polluters
-
Trump Softens Stance on Paris Climate Pact
Nov 22, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump stepped back from his pledge to quickly pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement Tuesday, leaving the door open for the agreement to stay in place under his presidency.
In a meeting with New York Times journalists at the newspaper’s Manhattan headquarters, columnist Tom Friedman asked about Trump’s position on withdrawing from the climate pact, according to Times reporter Mike Grynbaum, who was in the room.
“I’m looking at it very closely,” Grynbaum reported Trump as saying. “I have an open mind to it.”
Trump also walked back from his previous position that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese to threaten American manufacturing.
“I think there is some connectivity” between human activity and climate change, Trump said. “Some, something. It depends on how much.”
Pulling out of the Paris deal was one of Trump’s most high-profile pledges in the energy policy sphere on the campaign trail this year.
“We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement,” Trump said at a May speech in North Dakota.
He also promised to roll back all of President Obama’s executive actions and regulations on climate change, including the Clean Power Plan.
His position aligns with most mainstream Republicans. But diplomats and leaders around the work have harshly criticized Trump on his position on Paris since the election and urged him to stay in the accord.
United Kingdom Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, a vocal Trump supporter, added his voice to the mix Tuesday, saying that he and the nation’s government would push Trump to retain the United States’ position in the agreement, according to the Guardian.
An aide in Trump’s transition team told Reuters days after the election that they are looking into ways to quickly exit the pact, including cutting off the United States’ membership in the United Nations’ entire climate agency.
The pact, reached last December, includes non-binding greenhouse gas limits that each country determined for itself. President Obama, a key figure in reaching the deal, pledged the United States to cut its emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/307211-trump-i-have-an-open-mind-on-paris-climate-pact
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested