Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 12/5/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Signal for SOS, Heather Podesta for PepsiCo
Dec 2, 2016 | Politico
By Isaac Arnsdorf
... Last night the Congressional Chemistry Caucus held a "Chemistry of Beer" event that featured a briefing on the science of beer-making by the New Belgium Brewing Company and an overview of Central Michigan University's new Fermentation Science program. -
Five Potential Trump EPA Picks
Dec 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump is due to announce “almost all” of his remaining Cabinet picks in the coming week, likely including his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposal Threatens Confidentiality, Chemical Makers Say
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Some changes the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed for its significant new use regulations would disclose chemical manufacturers’ confidential business information, according to industry comments. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Needs Vote in Stockholm Treaty, Chemistry Council Says
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
It's time for the U.S. to have a vote in the decisions countries are making about whether and how to restrict persistent organic pollutants, a top American Chemistry Council attorney told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 2. -
Group Grades Retailers On Safer Chemicals In Products
Dec 5, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
A new report gives 11 major U.S. retailers an average grade of D+ in meeting rising consumer demand for safer products, though it also found major progress at some firms. -
'Maybe, Perhaps' A Deal Will Happen— Bishop
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss
With lawmakers looking to shut the door on the 114th Congress by the end of the week, it's D-Day for the two-year push to enact the first major energy bill in almost a decade. -
Celebration Quickly Turns To Trump Strategy
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Northey
The Obama administration's decision last night to withhold a final approval for the Dakota Access pipeline not only signaled a major victory for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — it also deepened the battle lines between anti-fossil activists and the incoming Trump administration. -
Army Blocks Drilling of Dakota Access Oil Pipeline
Dec 4, 2016 | The New York Times
By Jack Healy and Nicholas Fandos
he Standing Rock Sioux Tribe won a major victory on Sunday in its battle to block an oil pipeline being built near its reservation when the Department of the Army announced that it would not allow the pipeline to be drilled under a dammed section of the Missouri River. -
Ban Fracking In Maryland? Extending Moratorium Seems More Likely
Dec 4, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Josh Hicks
Maryland fracking opponents are pushing hard for a state law to prohibit the controversial gas-extraction method, but lawmakers seem more likely to extend the existing moratorium on the practice during the upcoming legislative session. -
EPA Accused of ‘Whitewashing’ Conclusions About Fracking
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Environmental Protection Agency “whitewashed” a June 2015 report on the impacts hydraulic fracturing has on drinking water sources, critics charged and called on the regulators to justify their conclusion of no “widespread, systemic impacts.” -
Environmentalists Raise New Concerns Over EPA's Draft Fracking Study
Dec 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are raising new concerns based on recent press reports that EPA officials made last-minute changes to the agency's draft assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing to drinking water to downplay risks associated with the findings, leading to the study's finding of no widespread impacts on water. -
NAS Highlights Data Gaps On Oil & Gas Seismic Factors, Surface Impacts
Dec 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A two-day National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop on certain risks associated with oil and natural gas operations highlighted several areas where, despite data collection efforts by EPA and others, information gaps still exist on factors that influence induced seismicity and surface impacts such as habitat issues and legacy wells. -
Too Early To Tell Next Role On Energy & Commerce — Shimkus
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
One day after falling short in a tough race for the coveted Energy and Commerce Committee gavel, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) told reporters it's too soon to know what the future holds for him on the panel. -
Walden Slated To Lead Energy And Commerce Committee
Dec 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) has won the Republican race to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee in the next Congress, a move that is winning praise from a top Trump transition adviser who says the lawmaker will be a key ally in efforts to help “reset” several federal policies to curb greenhouse gases. -
Carbon Standards for New Power Plants Go to Court in April
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Three months after the new administration takes office, President-elect Donald Trump's Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency will head to court to defend one of President Barack Obama's signature climate change rules (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 12/2/16). -
In Surprise, D.C. Circuit Slates Oral Arguments In EPA NSPS GHG Case
Dec 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a surprise order is scheduling April oral arguments in a case that challenges EPA's greenhouse gas rule for new power plants, with at least one source noting the order is unusual because it was issued in the midst of briefing, and the court generally waits until briefing is complete before slating arguments. -
Congress Should Take The Lead On Our Nation’s Energy Policies
Dec 2, 2016 | The Hill
By Margo Thorning
Almost a year ago, Congress made history by lifting the ban on crude oil exports – an archaic provision in the law that stifled America’s ability to become global energy leader. -
Court Sets May 8 Arguments on EPA's Malfunction Emissions Rule
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal appeals courts scheduled May 8 arguments over an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring 36 states to make changes to plans for addressing excess air pollution emissions that occur during startup, shutdown and malfunction periods at industrial facilities (Walter Coke Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1166, 12/2/16). -
McCabe Sees States Working On Climate 'Concern' Despite Trump Doubts
Dec 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe says states under President-elect Trump will likely lead on policies to target their “concern” over climate change despite the incoming president's doubts about whether climate change is real, saying states are well-positioned to “step up” on the issue if Trump's EPA pulls back on climate regulations. -
Trump's Cabinet Nominations Spark Concern, Letter From Scientists
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeannie Baumann
Growing concern the new White House will let politics interfere with science and health policies has prompted thousands of scientists to sign an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump.
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Signal for SOS, Heather Podesta for PepsiCo
Dec 2, 2016 | Politico
By Isaac Arnsdorf
Last night the Congressional Chemistry Caucus held a "Chemistry of Beer" event that featured a briefing on the science of beer-making by the New Belgium Brewing Company and an overview of Central Michigan University's new Fermentation Science program. Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) and John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) kicked off the event co-hosted by the American Chemical Society, American Chemistry Council, National Association of Chemical Distributors and the Brewers Association.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2016/12/signal-for-sos-heather-podesta-for-pepsico-217681
-
Five Potential Trump EPA Picks
Dec 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump is due to announce “almost all” of his remaining Cabinet picks in the coming week, likely including his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator.
The nominee, who is subject to Senate confirmation, would oversee the 15,000-employee agency that writes and enforces regulations on air pollution, water pollution, climate change, land contamination and more.
The EPA head would also be responsible for Trump’s aggressive deregulatory push.
On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to roll back all of President Obama’s climate agenda, including the Clean Power Plan, which limits carbon dioxide from power plants.
He said that the Clean Water Rule, known as the Waters of the United States rule, would be undone, and all existing regulations would be reviewed for potential changes or repeal.
Trump, though, also promised to support EPA actions that protect clean air and clean water, and to fight against drinking water contamination like what happened in Flint, Mich., cases that he called “real environmental challenges.”
Below are five candidates frequently mentioned as top contenders to replace current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Kathleen Hartnett White
White is one of the frontrunners for the EPA job, sources familiar with the transition said.
She is currently the director of the energy and environment center at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and a former chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2007.
White met with Trump in New York City on Nov. 25. She told the Houston Chronicle that Trump did not offer her the EPA job, but said she would “be hearing from them later.”
White, like Trump, disagrees with the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the climate to change and has made it clear that the EPA should not regulate those emissions.
White has written that carbon dioxide, the most emitted greenhouse gas, is “the gas that makes life possible on the earth and naturally fertilizes plant growth,” and “whether emitted from the human use of fossil fuels or as a natural (and necessary) gas in the atmosphere surrounding the earth, carbon dioxide has none of the attributes of a pollutant.”
Like Trump, White also believes that fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas can be a driver of economic prosperity, and that idea is the focus of much of her recent scholarship.
Scott Pruitt
Pruitt, the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, is seen as another top candidate. He is a former state senator and has been Oklahoma's top lawyer since 2011. He also met with Trump on Nov. 25.
Pruitt has made a name for himself as a top challenger in the courts of President Obama’s environmental agenda.
He has sued the Obama EPA to stop regulations on carbon dioxide, ozone and mercury, the Clean Water Rule and more.
“This is an effort that I think is extraordinary in cost, extraordinary in scope and I think extraordinary as it relates to the intrusion into the sovereignty of the states,” Pruitt said recently of the Clean Power Plan, shortly before a federal court heard his and other states’ challenges against it.
“It’s an invasion of the state regulatory domain, and it’s something that is unique and breathtaking as it relates to the kind of rulemaking the EPA has engaged in historically.”
Pruitt also doubts the science of climate change, saying that the “debate is far from settled.”
He was central to a 2014 New York Times investigation that found that he sent a letter on air pollution to the EPA that was actually written by an energy company. The Times characterized it as part of a “secretive alliance” between conservative attorneys general and energy companies.
Jeff Holmstead
Holmstead led the EPA’s air pollution office under President George W. Bush and is being considered by the Trump transition team to lead the agency.
He currently works at the law and lobbying firm Bracewell, where he previously lobbied for numerous energy companies. Recently, though, he filed registration paperwork with Congress saying that he does not represent those companies anymore.
Holmstead would be a decidedly insider choice for Trump, someone with extensive experience at the EPA, a contrast to the outsider mentality Trump has projected.
His time at EPA gave Holmstead experience in environmental deregulatory efforts like streamlining permitting processes, which the Trump administration may try to learn from.
Donald Van der Vaart
Van der Vaart has occasionally been mentioned as a potential EPA leader, though sources say Trump and his team are not leaning toward him.
He is currently North Carolina’s top environmental regulator, and a frequent critic of Obama’s environmental agenda.
The week after Election Day, Van der Vaart and leaders of other environmental agencies in conservative states sent a letter to Trump with specific requests, including that he repeal the Clean Water Rule and give more power to the states to regulate pollution.
“Many environmental improvements have occurred since the EPA was created; however, in recent years the EPA has run out of control,” they wrote.
Van der Vaart has been tight-lipped about speculation he's under consideration for the EPA.
“All I’ve been instructed to say is you need to ask the Trump campaign that question,” he said, when asked by the Carolina Journal.
Myron Ebell
Ebell is one of the most outspoken climate change skeptics inside the Beltway and is leading Trump’s transition team efforts for the EPA. That's led many to see him as a prime candidate to lead the agency.
Ebell leads the energy and environment efforts at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receives substantial fossil fuel funding. He has little experience in government.
But sources say Ebell is not high on the consideration list for the EPA, despite his job in the transition.
Nevertheless, Ebell’s beliefs and tactics often align with Trump’s on environmental policy.
Ebell, more so than many Republicans, is not afraid to make waves as a climate contrarian. He often refers to attempts to fight global warming as “climate alarmism.”
He called a bipartisan 2005 cap-and-trade bill “a shameless con game,” accused then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) of having “soft feelings for cuddly little critters” in reference to endangered species and has gone after Republicans seeking middle ground on climate change.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposal Threatens Confidentiality, Chemical Makers Say
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Some changes the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed for its significant new use regulations would disclose chemical manufacturers’ confidential business information, according to industry comments.
The agency could take other actions to encourage companies to voluntarily disclose information that was previously protected as confidential but no longer needs that protection, the American Chemistry Council said.
The American Chemistry Council, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Coatings Association were among the industry groups that commented on the confidential business information aspects of amendments the EPA proposed in July to make to its significant new use, or SNUR, regulations (RIN 2070-AJ94; 81 Fed. Reg. 49,598).
The AFL-CIO, the Environmental Defense Fund and the International Chemical Workers Union Council were among the labor and environmental organizations that joined the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in supporting a separate part of the EPA's proposal.
They backed the EPA's intent to align new use chemical regulations with the long established industrial hierarchy of controls. That hierarchy begins with substituting safer chemicals, products or processes. The last option to be pursued is personal protective equipment.
Legitimate Claims
The Bergeson & Campbell P.C. law firm summarized a position voiced throughout the trade association comments.
“As currently drafted, the proposed modifications would not properly protect legitimate confidential business information claims,” wrote Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of the Washington-D.C. based law firm.
The law firm and trade associations focused on changes the EPA proposed regarding requests called bona fides.
Companies that want to make or use a chemical regulated through a SNUR must file bona fides if they have a question about whether their intended manufacture or use of a chemical is permitted.
The agency's changes appear designed to make it easier to answer bona fides, the American Chemistry Council said.
Yet, they “would disclose more confidential information than is necessary to answer the requestor's question,” the council said.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers offered a specific example of potential problems. “Disclosure of production volumes and discrete uses can create an anticompetitive environment by giving an advantage to those who submit bona fide intent notices,” the petrochemicals group said.
The American Chemistry Council said the EPA could protect confidential information and help the requester by simply stating whether or not a proposed manufacturing process or use is permitted.
The EPA also must let the original company, which had asserted a confidential business information claim, know when information about the confidential use has been shared, wrote the council and other trade associations.
Boosting Voluntary Disclosures
Separately, the EPA could do more to encourage the voluntary sharing of previously confidential information, the chemistry council said.
Many of the confidentiality claims were made in the 1980s or 1990s and confidential protection may no longer be needed, it said.
The EPA should request companies that originally claimed the identities or uses of their chemicals to be confidential to notify it if they wish to relinquish those claims, the council said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101233949&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101233949&jd=101233949
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Needs Vote in Stockholm Treaty, Chemistry Council Says
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
It's time for the U.S. to have a vote in the decisions countries are making about whether and how to restrict persistent organic pollutants, a top American Chemistry Council attorney told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 2.
In the coming congressional session, the chemical industry will urge the Senate to give its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, said Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Joining the convention won't be a “day one” issue under the incoming Trump administration or next Congress, Walls said during an interview on the council's 2017 priorities.
It's important to tee up the discussion because the parties to the treaty increasingly are discussing restricting chemicals in active commercial use that may not fit the treaty's current criteria for persistent organic pollutants, he said.
The U.S. government is an observer that participates in discussions at party meetings. However, it does not get a vote in treaty decisions because it has never ratified the convention.
The Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention will hold its eighth meeting April 24 through May 5, 2017 in Geneva.
Chemicals Listed, Under Consideration
The U.S., which signed the Stockholm Convention in 2001 during the George W. Bush administration, provides financial support for implementing the treaty, Walls said.
Adopted by 180 countries, the Stockholm Convention restricts and aims to eliminate chemicals that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in the food chain, are toxic and are capable of being transported far from where they are made or used.
The treaty initially focused on the so-called dirty dozen substances, 12 chemicals, unintentionally produced byproducts and pesticides such as DDT that largely already had been banned or restricted in developed countries. Fourteen more chemicals and chemical groups have been added to the treaty since it entered into force.
The chemicals and chemical groups proposed for inclusion in the convention are:
• decabromodiphenyl ether, a flame retardant;
• dicofol, an organochlorine pesticide that is chemically related to DDT;
• short-chained chlorinated paraffins, which are primarily used in metal working fluids, as sealants, as flame retardants in rubbers and textiles and for some other purposes; and
• pentadecafluorooctanoic acid, more commonly known as PFOA, and related chemicals used to make high-performance chemicals used in fire-fighting foams, wetting agents and cleaners, textiles and leather, paper and cardboard and other products.
As participants in a global industry, U.S. chemical manufacturers already are subject to the treaty's rules as they are adopted in world markets, Walls said.It is important that the U.S. contribute to that risk-based chemical review and decision process the Stockholm Convention was intended to use, he said, repeating a position the council has held since the U.S. negotiated the treaty.
Why Now?
Asked why Congress would act now, when it has never moved legislation that would allow U.S. ratification, Walls pointed to the recent amendments made to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The overwhelming bipartisan support that legislative effort received suggests there is interest in having the U.S. participate effectively in chemical regulations, he said.
The updated TSCA and work the U.S. and Canada have underway to jointly assess chemical risks are providing a new model for regulatory cooperation, Walls said. He referred to the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council's Chemicals Management Workplan.
Ratifying the Stockholm Convention would be another important step, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101233964&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101233964&jd=101233964
-
Group Grades Retailers On Safer Chemicals In Products
Dec 5, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Walmart, Target get highest marks for reducing priority chemicals of concernA new report gives 11 major U.S. retailers an average grade of D+ in meeting rising consumer demand for safer products, though it also found major progress at some firms.
The assessment is part of the three-year-old Mind the Store campaign by the advocacy group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. It scored the companies on policies and actions that remove hazardous chemicals from products they carry, disclose product ingredients, and promote third-party product safety standards.
The Mind the Store campaign found that three companies—Walmart, Target, and CVS Health—have made big strides in reducing or eliminating chemicals such as phthalates, triclosan, bisphenol A, formaldehyde, and polyvinyl chloride.
But the report called out Amazon, Costco, Albertsons, and Kroger for lacking public, written safer chemical policies. In addition, it found that “Costco was surprisingly the only major retailer that did not publicly report any progress in eliminating chemicals of high concern over the past three years.” The group warned retailers to ensure phased-out chemicals are not replaced with substances that have similar hazards or have not been closely evaluated.
-
'Maybe, Perhaps' A Deal Will Happen— Bishop
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss
With lawmakers looking to shut the door on the 114th Congress by the end of the week, it's D-Day for the two-year push to enact the first major energy bill in almost a decade.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) on Friday said a conference report would likely have to be signed and filed today to allow time for passage in both chambers.
"I don't think you physically have time to do it if you don't do it Monday," he told reporters, offering a more pessimistic outlook of the conference process than he has in recent days.
"The last nail is not in the coffin," Bishop said, "so there could be something, maybe, perhaps."
The House and Senate have been at odds over natural gas exports and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. House negotiators have gone as far as dropping both issues from a recent offer. Senators have pushed back.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has said several times that she believes an agreement will be reached, but the scope of a potential deal remains in question.
Bishop last week said "a lot of stuff has been jettisoned," suggesting a slimmer package could emerge.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) met twice Thursday with Murkowski and Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to hash out issues under his panel's jurisdiction.
Asked how the meeting went on Friday, Upton paused before responding, "We'll see."
He added: "We've got more discussions that are going on."
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), ranking member on the Energy and Power Subcommittee, told reporters Friday that he believes a top priority of his — language intended to boost minority participation in the energy workforce — is among the issues that have been agreed to.
Reporter George Cahlink contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/05/stories/1060046611
-
Celebration Quickly Turns To Trump Strategy
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Northey
The Obama administration's decision last night to withhold a final approval for the Dakota Access pipeline not only signaled a major victory for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — it also deepened the battle lines between anti-fossil activists and the incoming Trump administration.
While Twitter exploded with celebratory messages after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers withheld an easement for pipeline developers to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, activists quickly turned their attention to the next challenge: President-elect Donald Trump.
"Trump, of course, can try and figure out a way to approve the pipeline right away, though the Obama administration has done its best to make that difficult," Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, wrote in an editorial yesterday in The Guardian. "But if Trump decides to do that, he's up against people who have captured the imagination of the country."
Indeed, Trump will likely face off against a formidable grass-roots movement that now includes a historic gathering of tribal nations opposing the 1,172-mile-long Dakota Access pipeline. If approved, the pipeline would transport up to 570,000 barrels of Bakken Shale crude each day from North Dakota to markets in Illinois.
Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics partners, companies developing the pipeline, blasted the Army Corps' decision in a statement as "Washington code for a political decision" that in no way changed the Bakken project's trajectory. Noting the nearly complete pipeline has survived regulatory and legal tests, the companies said the decision is "just the latest in a series of overt and transparent political actions by an administration which has abandoned the rule of law in favor of currying favor with a narrow and extreme political constituency."
Other industry groups including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and American Petroleum Institute yesterday called for immediately approve of the Bakken project after the White House changes hands next month.
"I am hopeful President-elect Trump will reject the Obama administration's shameful actions to deny this vital energy project, restore the rule of law in the regulatory process, and make this project's approval a top priority as he takes office in January," said API President and CEO Jack Gerard.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a Trump energy adviser, also registered his disapproval, tweeting last night: "I can't wait for the adults to be in charge on January 20," which is Inauguration Day.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) tweeted: "This is big-government decision-making at its worst. I look forward to putting this anti-energy presidency behind us."
Even so, President Obama's move was seen as a major victory for tribal nations and their allies. Some say it may have been fueled by behind-the-scenes maneuvering to draft legislation that would have created a national monument surrounding and underneath Lake Oahe, an area that tribes have said contains religious and burial sites, said Jane Kleeb, president of Bold Alliance. The land is also ground zero for the Dakota Access easement fight.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources panel, and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who's in the running to chair the Democratic National Committee, had already begun drafting legislation to create a monument, Kleeb said.
"I think the White House had seen that was gaining attention, there were a lot of forces at play that [pushed] the president to make a decision," she said. Kleeb credited "water protectors" for taking action a year ago, saying Dakota Access as an issue "wouldn't have gotten to the halls of Congress" otherwise.Pipeline 'in limbo'
Sanders, who led the call to halt the Dakota Access pipeline, and Democratic Sens. Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall of New Mexico hailed the Army Corps' decision as a victory last night. While Sanders cast Obama's decision as a victory for protecting the climate and Native American sovereignty, Udall and Heinrich simply said it was the right thing to do. Both senators have a strong native presence in their state.
"I commend @POTUS for doing the right thing. Much appreciation for Standing Rock Sioux Tribe & protectors for fighting so valiantly. #DAPL," Heinrich tweeted.
"Glad @USArmy listened to Native Americans protesting #DAPL. More work is needed to ensure H2O safety, consultation," tweeted Udall.
Other Democrats were quick to join. "The Corps did the right thing, and I'm so happy for the Standing Rock Sioux, who deserve clean water. #NODAPL," tweeted Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
"The power of the people is greater than the people in power #standingrock," tweeted Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
But not every Democrat was pleased.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), rumored to be under consideration for a Cabinet job in the Trump administration, said the Obama administration's delay in making a decision despite her continued push doesn't actually bring finality to the Dakota Access drama.
"The pipeline still remains in limbo," Heitkamp said in a statement. "The incoming administration already stated its support for the project and the courts have already stated twice that it appeared the Corps followed the required process in considering the permit. For the next month and a half, nothing about this project will change."
In the meantime, Heitkamp called on protesters facing North Dakota's harsh winter to avoid endangering their health and safety and move off the Army Corps' land north of the Cannonball River. The senator also called on the Obama administration to provide funds for law enforcement working around the clock to maintain safety in communities near the protest site.
"The administration needs to provide those funds — whether the protesters remain or not," she said.
Indeed, the limbo is fueling more strategizing among activists on how to fight the project and how to hold a presence at the Cannonball site through the winter.
Kleeb said it could take a full year for the corps to conduct a full environmental impact statement, speculating that landowners in Iowa may file more lawsuits against state regulators there who relied on the corps' work.
Should the corps decide to reroute the pipeline closer to Bismarck, N.D., that could also trigger local political battles, she added.
"I think we could hold them off with various legal challenges an easy two years," Kleeb said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/05/stories/1060046603
-
Army Blocks Drilling of Dakota Access Oil Pipeline
Dec 4, 2016 | The New York Times
By Jack Healy and Nicholas Fandos
CANNON BALL, N.D. — The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe won a major victory on Sunday in its battle to block an oil pipeline being built near its reservation when the Department of the Army announced that it would not allow the pipeline to be drilled under a dammed section of the Missouri River.
The Army said it would look for alternative routes for the $3.7 billion Dakota Access pipeline. Construction of the route a half-mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation has become a global flash point for environmental and indigenous activism, drawing thousands of people out here to a sprawling prairie camp of tents, tepees and yurts.
“The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing,” Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army’s assistant secretary for civil works, said in a statement. The move could presage a lengthy environmental review that has the potential to block the pipeline’s construction for months or years.
But it was unclear how durable the government’s decision would be. Sunday’s announcement came in the dwindling days of the Obama administration, which revealed in November that the Army Corps of Engineers was considering an alternative route. The Corps of Engineers is part of the Department of the Army.
President-elect Donald J. Trump, however, has taken a different view of the project and said as recently as last week that he supported finishing the 1,170-mile pipeline, which crosses four states and is almost complete.
Though the Army’s decision calls for an environmental study of alternative routes, the Trump administration could ultimately decide to allow the original, contested route. Representatives for Mr. Trump’s transition team did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Trump owns stock in the company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, but he has said that his support has nothing to do with his investment.
There was no immediate response from Energy Transfer Partners, but its chief executive, Kelcy Warren, has said that the company was unwilling to reroute the pipeline, which is intended to transport as much as 550,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields of western North Dakota to a terminal in Illinois.
Reaction was swift on both sides, with environmental groups like Greenpeace praising the decision. “The water protectors have done it,” a Greenpeace spokeswoman, Lilian Molina, said. “This is a monumental victory in the fight to protect indigenous rights and sovereignty.”
But Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the MAIN Coalition, a pro-infrastructure group, condemned the move as “a purely political decision that flies in the face of common sense and the rule of law.”
“Unfortunately, it’s not surprising that the president would, again, use executive fiat in an attempt to enhance his legacy among the extreme left,” Mr. Stevens said in a statement. “With President-elect Trump set to take office in 47 days, we are hopeful that this is not the final word on the Dakota Access Pipeline.”
Representative Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota and a Trump supporter, called Sunday’s decision a “chilling signal to others who want to build infrastructure in this country.”
“I can’t wait for the adults to be in charge on Jan. 20,” Mr. Cramer said, referring to Mr. Trump’s inauguration.
Still, the announcement set off whoops of joy inside the Oceti Sakowin camp. Tribal members paraded through the camp on horseback, jubilantly beating drums and gathering around a fire at the center of the camp. Tribal elders celebrated what they said was the validation of months of prayer and protest.
“It’s wonderful,” Dave Archambault II, the Standing Rock tribal chairman, told cheering supporters who stood in the melting snow on a mild North Dakota afternoon. “You all did that. Your presence has brought the attention of the world.”
The decision, he said, meant that people no longer had to stay at the camp during North Dakota’s brutal winter. The Corps of Engineers, which manages the land, had ordered it to be closed, but the thousands of protesters had built yurts, tepees and bunkhouses and vowed to hunker down.
“It’s time now that we move forward,” Mr. Archambault said. “We don’t have to stand and endure this hard winter. We can spend the winter with our families.”
Law enforcement officials and non-Native ranchers in this conservative, heavily white part of North Dakota would like little more than to see the thousands of protesters return home. The sheriff has called the demonstrations an unlawful protest, and officials have characterized the demonstrators as rioters who have intimidated ranchers and threatened and attacked law enforcement — charges that protest leaders deny.
But on Sunday, several campers said they were not going anywhere. They said that there were too many uncertainties surrounding the Army’s decision, and that they had dedicated too much time and emotion to this fight to leave now.
Federal and state regulators had issued the pipeline the necessary permits to proceed, but the Corps of Engineers had not yet granted it a final easement to drill under a stretch of the Missouri River called Lake Oahe.
The Standing Rock Sioux had objected to the pipeline’s path so close to the source of their drinking water, and said any spill could poison water supplies for them and other reservations and cities downstream. They also said the pipeline’s route through what are now privately owned ranches bordering the river crossed through sacred ancestral lands.
News of the government’s denial came after the size of the camp had swelled with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Native and non-Native veterans who had arrived to support the tribe. As word spread, people who had camped out here for months, sometimes in bitterly cold temperatures, and who had clashed violently with local law enforcement, linked arms and cheered and cried.
They screamed, “Mni wiconi!” — the movement’s rallying cry — which means “Water is life.”
Jon Eagle Sr., a member of the Standing Rock Tribe, said the announcement was a vindication for the thousands who had traveled here, and for the multitudes who had rallied to the tribe’s fight on social media or donated. Millions of dollars in donations and goods have flowed into the camps for months as the tribe’s fight and the scenes of protesters being tear-gassed and sprayed with freezing water stirred outrage on social media. (Law enforcement officials have insisted the entire time that they have acted responsibly and with restraint.)
“I don’t know quite how to put into words how proud I am of our people,” Mr. Eagle said. “And I mean our people. I don’t just mean the indigenous people of this continent. I mean all the people who came to stand with us. And it’s a beautiful day. It’s a powerful day.”
Ken Many Wounds, who has served as a tribal liaison to express concerns and questions to law enforcement, said he had been standing by the camp’s main fire — one that is tended constantly — when he heard the news from the tribal chairman’s wife. He said he did not believe it at first.
“I hugged her, I cried,” he said. “Our prayers have been answered. A lot of people didn’t believe that prayer was going to be the answer. But our people stayed together. In our hearts, we knew.”
Jack Healy reported from Cannon Ball, and Nicholas Fandos from Washington. Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York, and Coral Davenport from Washington.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/federal-officials-to-explore-different-route-for-dakota-pipeline.html
-
Ban Fracking In Maryland? Extending Moratorium Seems More Likely
Dec 4, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Josh Hicks
Maryland fracking opponents are pushing hard for a state law to prohibit the controversial gas-extraction method, but lawmakers seem more likely to extend the existing moratorium on the practice during the upcoming legislative session.
Advocates for a ban expect resistance from Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore), who chairs a committee that oversees environmental affairs and has stopped previous attempts to prohibit the drilling technique, also known as hydraulic fracturing.
Activists, expecting a major fight over the issue during the lawmaking session that begins Jan. 11, have spent the past few months putting pressure on Conway and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert), including by holding demonstrations in each of their districts.
But with Conway showing no signs of changing her position, and Gov. Larry Hogan (R) saying for years that he supports fracking with strict safeguards in place, even the staunchest supporters of a ban are preparing for compromise.
Sen. Robert A. Zirkin (D-Baltimore County), who has promised to sponsor a bill to ban fracking, said he would accept a moratorium as a last resort to stop the drilling practice, which is already prevalent in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, from moving into Maryland.
Zirkin said he would consider trying to steer a bill proposing a ban through the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which he chairs, to allow the full Senate to vote on the issue.
“I believe this should and will get to the floor in one form or another,” he said. “This issue is not going away quietly.”
Fracking, which involves injecting sand and chemicals deep into the ground to break up rock and release natural gas, could bring jobs and economic benefits to western Maryland, where drilling is most likely to occur. But opponents say it contaminates drinking water and can cause earthquakes and environmental damage, particularly when wastewater from the process is pumped back into the ground.
In 2015, the legislature approved a two-year moratorium on fracking and ordered the state environmental department to draft regulations for the practice. The hold ends in October, and the Hogan administration proposed its guidelines this fall, creating a sense of urgency among fracking opponents.
[Maryland fracking regulations include enhanced buffers around wells]
“It would be the height of legislative malfeasance if we don’t put a stop to this,” Zirkin said. “We’re standing on the edge of a cliff, and if we don’t act this session, we would be jumping off.”
Conway, who did not respond to requests for comment last week, has long questioned whether a ban on fracking is necessary. She opposed efforts to move a ban bill out of her committee in 2015 and worked to amend the moratorium passed that year so it would expire sooner than originally proposed.
Activists working to win over the Baltimore Democrat may have damaged their chances by holding a rally outside her district office last month. Conway told the Daily Record newspaper at the time that she felt “insulted” because the participants did not consult with her before holding the protest.
Del. A. Shane Robinson (D-Montgomery County), who has sponsored past legislation to prohibit fracking, questioned whether the rally made sense strategically. “I’m not against protesting, but I don’t think it helped bring her to the table,” he said.
Activists from the anti-fracking group Food and Water Watch also organized a parade of advocates to speak at a League of Women Voters forum in Miller’s district last month, calling on the Senate president to support a ban. The organization held a rally in Miller’s district last week.
Aeryn Boyd and Kim Alexander, who attended the forum after completing a 313-mile walk across the state to promote a fracking ban, said they met with Miller afterward and he promised to keep an open mind.
“I hope he’ll keep listening,” Boyd said.
Miller’s office declined to comment for this article.
Food and Water Watch organizer Thomas Meyer said his group wants the Senate leader to know that voters in his district are “concerned about fracking and paying attention to what he does on the issue.”
House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) has said little about fracking, largely deferring to Del. Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery), a fracking opponent who chairs the chamber’s environmental committee.
Barve said he expects his committee to “move forward decisively” with legislation to either ban fracking or extend the moratorium.
“The majority of people in Maryland want to ban fracking, and I think the majority of legislators on the House side feel the same way,” he said.
Robinson, a member of the House environmental committee, said he will consider sponsoring legislation to ban fracking if no one else on the panel does so. But he expressed doubts about whether such a bill could end up on Hogan’s desk next year.
“I think in all likelihood we’ll end up with a moratorium of some amount of time,” Robinson said.
A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll in September showed that 60 percent of Marylanders oppose fracking, compared with 56 percent in 2015. Sixty-six percent said they think the practice would pose significant risks to the environment, while 43 percent said they think it would provide an economic benefit to the state.
“The more people find out about fracking, the more they’re opposed to it,” Meyer said.
Some businesses in Western Maryland, particularly those associated with tourism, have sided with the anti-fracking movement. But lawmakers from the region say only a small number of residents there oppose the drilling method, and noted that in 2014, the most recent General Assembly elections, voters in western Maryland elected exclusively pro-fracking candidates.
“In general, I think it would be unfair to suggest that there’s been a significant movement of people opposed to fracking in Allegany or Garrett,” said Del. Jason C. Buckel (R-District 1B).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/ban-fracking-in-maryland-extending-moratorium-seems-more-likely/2016/12/04/63529f26-b730-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html?utm_term=.b562279c4981
-
EPA Accused of ‘Whitewashing’ Conclusions About Fracking
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Environmental Protection Agency “whitewashed” a June 2015 report on the impacts hydraulic fracturing has on drinking water sources, critics charged and called on the regulators to justify their conclusion of no “widespread, systemic impacts.”
Environmentalists and academics told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 2 they are hoping the EPA, which is expected to release the final version of its fracking study before the end of the year, heeds the guidance of its Science Advisory Board, which in August said the highlighted conclusions made by EPA were not consistent with the data in the report.
Recent media reports have cited documents indicating EPA officials downplayed the risks of fracking to drinking water, even changing the verbiage in a news release distributed along with the report, the critics said.
‘Mismatch with Data’
The “top-line conclusions were obviously inserted at the last minute and were intended to skew media coverage and public reaction,” John Noel, national oil and gas campaigns coordinator with Clean Water Action in Washington, D.C.
“The headline for the news release, which was changed the day before it was sent out, was a mismatch with the data,” Rob Jackson, professor of Earth System Science at Stanford University in Palo Alto, told Bloomberg BNA. “The body of the report did not go with that headline.”
Jackson said the addition of the sentence indicating there were no “widespread, systemic” fracking impacts to drinking water was “demoralizing for the EPA scientists who provided their time in the report, some of whom felt betrayed by that conclusion” which was not borne out by the data.
The study, Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, was requested by Congress in 2009. It was issued in draft final form in June 2015 and submitted to the SAB for review.
‘Quantitative Analysis’ Needed
In August, the SAB said if the EPA stands by its conclusion it did not find evidence of “widespread, systemic” evidence, it should provide “quantitative analysis that supports its conclusion.”
The advisory board's review included an appendix with the dissenting view of four members from the hydraulic fracturing panel who said the summary statement about the lack of “widespread, systemic impacts” was accurate, unambiguous and supportable with the facts studied by the EPA.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in remarks at the National Press Club Nov. 21 the agency is “certainly going to listen to the direction of the Science Advisory Board.” She said the board was “as fractured as the subject,” coming up with “many different conclusions, some of which conflict with one another.”
A Science Document
The study report was not a policy document, but a science document, McCarthy said. “And there was some clear indications from the Science Advisory Board that we needed to do a better job at explaining the science,” she said.
McCarthy's contention that the SAB arrived at “many different conclusions” was a “false equivalency,” Noel said. “If 26 out of the 30 members of the board agree, and only four are dissenting, and those four clearly have ties to the oil and gas sector, then I think it's inaccurate to say they were fractured.”
The SAB ground rules require disclosure of financial investments and other relationships to prevent bias and those four members were approved by the SAB.
In its August statement, the SAB advised the agency to include in its final report information on three controversial cases of water pollution that have been linked to fracking—in Dimock, Pa., Pavillion, Wyo., and Parker County, Texas.
‘Upended Lives’
Hugh MacMillan, senior researcher with Food and Water Watch in Seattle, told Bloomberg BNA the group is calling on the EPA to meet with residents of those and other communities and “hear about how fracking has contaminated their water and upended their lives.”
The EPA should do this in addition to finalizing its study and justifying its claim that fracking has no widespread effects on drinking water, he said.
The edits made to the news release and the draft report's executive summary shows that the EPA was influenced by a “tangle of very powerful interests—oil and gas, big banks, think tanks and other government officials—that succeeded in equating the need for fracking to the need to maximize energy production and energy security,” he said.
‘Safe,’ Industry Says
Reid Porter of the American Petroleum Institute told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 2 he could not comment on the reports that the EPA changed the report at the last minute, but said the organization has “long agreed with the EPA regarding the safety of hydraulic fracturing, even before this study.”
He said API released a report in November showing that the EPA's finding of “no widespread effects” of fracking to drinking water quality is supported by state and federal regulatory reviews and dozens of recent peer-reviewed studies.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101233973&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101233973&jd=101233973
-
Environmentalists Raise New Concerns Over EPA's Draft Fracking Study
Dec 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are raising new concerns based on recent press reports that EPA officials made last-minute changes to the agency's draft assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing to drinking water to downplay risks associated with the findings, leading to the study's finding of no widespread impacts on water.
The reports, published in Marketplace Nov. 30 in collaboration with APM Reports, charge that the Obama administration made high-level, last-minute edits to the top-line conclusion that fracking does not lead to “widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water, and to press releases highlighting the draft findings.
Environmental groups are pointing to the reports to bolster their previous calls for EPA to revise the conclusion in their final report, in accordance with advice from the agency's Science Advisory Board.
SAB's final Aug. 11 recommendations urge the agency to revise the report, saying that EPA did not “support quantitatively its conclusion about lack of evidence for widespread, systemic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, and did not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water), the scale of impacts (i.e., local or regional), nor the definitions of 'systemic' and 'widespread.'”
"EPA should listen to the Science Advisory Board, remove the spin, finalize the study and outline a plan to address vulnerabilities to our water,” John Noel, oil and gas campaign coordinator for Clean Water Action, said in a Nov. 30 press release, saying the study must be finalized to highlight harms to drinking water and to identify the persistent gaps in data and to outline a process to address these in areas in future research.
“Things aren't going to get better under Trump administration leadership on environmental and public health issues.” Noel said in the press release. “EPA must finalize the study now, before President Obama leaves office, so there is no question of the threats to drinking water from fracking activities.”
Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter in a Nov. 30 statement said, “We’ve suspected for months that the White House egregiously manipulated the headlines and summary findings of a draft study in order to obfuscate the details buried within -- details confirming that fracking has caused numerous cases of water contamination.”
The group is calling for the agency to issue a final version of the study that “clearly and conclusively highlights that fracking does indeed cause water contamination” and for President Obama to meet with impacted individuals and hear directly their stories of suffering from serious health effects related to fracking, and reiterating calls for Obama to also block the Dakota Access pipeline project.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-raise-new-concerns-over-epas-draft-fracking-study
-
NAS Highlights Data Gaps On Oil & Gas Seismic Factors, Surface Impacts
Dec 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A two-day National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop on certain risks associated with oil and natural gas operations highlighted several areas where, despite data collection efforts by EPA and others, information gaps still exist on factors that influence induced seismicity and surface impacts such as habitat issues and legacy wells.
Though speakers at the Dec. 1-2 NAS workshop noted efforts by EPA and many other agencies and groups to collect and assess information related to such issues, the data gaps would appear to continue to pose challenges for state governments seeking to manage risks in the absence of uniform EPA or other federal regulation.
For example, Kris Nygaard, of ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, said Dec. 2 that EPA, Ground Water Protection Council, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and NAS have all closely examined seismic risks linked to fracking and disposal of oil and gas wastewater, but acknowledged that gaps persist despite those efforts.
EPA and states have been closely examining potential seismic risks associated with underground injection wells used to dispose of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations in recent years, as a series of earthquakes in Ohio, Kansas, and Texas were linked to increased volumes of injected wastewater from booming oil and gas development.
During the workshop, “Onshore Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development: Legacy Issues, Induced Seismicity, and Innovations in Managing Risk,” panelists identified a number of lingering data gaps, including baseline data related to seismic factors such as rock and reservoir properties, fracking fluid viscosity, and information related faults and core stressors, orphan wells and habitat issues such as forestation and re-vegetation.
The workshop examined what is currently being done by states and operators to manage risks and understand lifecycles related to decommissioning and reclamation of wells and related surface and pipeline infrastructure; and fluid injection and its relationship to induced seismicity, according a workshop scoping document.
Eric Vendel, of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas, for example, on Dec. 1 discussed challenges related to legacy wells, or wells no longer in operation that may be at risks for leaks, including that such issues can divert state resources away from enforcement against active facilities.
Vikram Rao, of Research Triangle Energy Consortium, said Dec. 1 that better measurements are needed for locating and mapping of all wells, acknowledging that was “trickier for legacy wells, but certainly for new wells.”
The same day, Alan Krupnik of Resources for the Future noted that tightening conditions of well responsibility transfer might be one way to mitigate potential impacts from orphan or abandoned wells.
Peter Stahl of the University of Wyoming during a Dec. 1 panel on surface impacts noted issues related to consistency in monitoring forest and vegetation restoration and said, “We can't improve what we're doing if we're not monitoring, and very few operators want to spend the time monitoring” and referenced resulting data quality issues.
Data Gaps
During the second day of the workshop, which mostly focused on induced seismicity, Environmental Defense Fund's Scott Anderson said that data gaps on spills, including frequency and toxicity data on the fluids spilled, and information on beneficial reuse of water are two areas in need of improvement.
In response, David McBride, of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, said that there is in general “pretty good data” on the recycled wastewater used for beneficial purposes, such as irrigation, saying “I challenge that a little bit, we know exactly what nature gives us.”
Also during the panel, Tandis Bidgoli, of Kansas Geological Survey, said that many common science-based approaches to induced seismicity identify the location of wells within a certain radius in an area of known seismic events, or earthquakes, but “ignore properties of reservoirs themselves,” and that more “geomechanical information” is needed in such case studies.
Similarity, Mark Zoback, of Stanford University, said that an absence of high quality baseline data on such features has prevented more useful modeling on induced seismicity.
Shawn Maxwell, of Itasca Microseismic and Geomechanical Evaluation, noted that many of the potential mitigation issues for reducing risks from seismicity “become very difficult to quantify because” of a lack of such data.
Meanwhile, Kyle Murray, of Oklahoma Geological Survey, also noted that the survey is “trying to monitor for rock properties” in certain Oklahoma formations, and has a working group to examine approaches for managing produced water in a way that does not overwhelm vulnerable formations.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/nas-highlights-data-gaps-oil-gas-seismic-factors-surface-impacts
-
Too Early To Tell Next Role On Energy & Commerce — Shimkus
Dec 5, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
One day after falling short in a tough race for the coveted Energy and Commerce Committee gavel, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) told reporters it's too soon to know what the future holds for him on the panel.
"I don't know what my role will be," Shimkus told reporters this morning after voting. "It will be somewhere. You know I love the job. I love the committee."
Going into the contest, Shimkus was the most senior Republican on the panel who had not already served as chairman, but he was leapfrogged by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who won the backing of the Steering Committee last night (E&E Daily, Dec. 2).
Walden's role as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee gave him a boost; the full GOP caucus ratified the Steering Committee's choice this morning.
Of Walden, Shimkus said, "Greg was very kind on the floor, and I appreciate that."
While Walden's victory statement pledged to use "America's great energy resources," his tenure on the committee is known more for his focus on telecommunications and health care issues than environmental and energy policy.
Shimkus, on the other hand, leads the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy and is a longtime member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. He's worked extensively for years on nuclear waste issues — which are expected to rise in prominence next year, with a new administration and the retirement of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), whose clout has stalled the Yucca Mountain repository that Shimkus favors.
Shimkus also notched a major win this year with the overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act that President Obama signed into law earlier this year. The achievement was notable for the wide bipartisan margins that carried the bill through the House twice, under Shimkus' hand.
With the retirement of Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) earlier this year, lobbyists have speculated that Shimkus could clinch that gavel next year.
However, Shimkus today noted that he's also been active on other subcommittees, and pointed out he may be competing against two former full committee chairmen — Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and current Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who is stepping down because of term limit rules — who may want subcommittee roles.
"I've been on a lot of subcommittees and I'm very active, and I'm impassioned on all of them, but some I get more excitable than others, depending upon the issue," he said. "I'm willing to serve wherever the chairman will have me serve."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/02/stories/1060046592
-
Walden Slated To Lead Energy And Commerce Committee
Dec 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) has won the Republican race to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee in the next Congress, a move that is winning praise from a top Trump transition adviser who says the lawmaker will be a key ally in efforts to help “reset” several federal policies to curb greenhouse gases.
Walden “understands the issues and recognizes that policies such as the renewable fuel standard, unrealistic fuel economy mandates, and the EPA’s carbon regulations for power plants harm American families and businesses," Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance who also leads the Trump transition team for the Energy Department (DOE), said in a Dec. 1 statement.
Walden, who chaired the committee's communications and technology subcommittee and also led House Republican's election efforts as head of the National Republican Campaign Committee for the last four years, beat out Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who was expected to prioritize legislation including measures that would revise EPA's coal ash disposal rule and potentially alter aspects of the Superfund program
As a lawmaker, Walden appears to have had little direct interaction with EPA, though the issues he has addressed with the agency appear to be tied to his rural and agricultural district in eastern Oregon.
In 2013, he was among a group of seven GOP congressmen who backed efforts by onion growers who successfully urged the Food & Drug Administration to drop its plan to require irrigation water for some crops to meet EPA's water quality criteria for bacteria.
"Many farmers have pointed out that the proposed rule lacks common sense and a crop-specific approach, resulting in many of the proposed provisions being unworkable in the field, literally speaking," Walden and the other lawmakers said in a joint statement.
And in 2011, he co-sponsored bipartisan legislation that sought to get EPA to reaffirm its past stance that forestry roads are exempted from stormwater permit requirements.
His more recent voting record on environmental and climate issues appears to be consistent with traditional Republican stances.
In 2015, he scored a 10 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters, voting against environmentalists' preferred stances in all but one recorded vote. In that case, he voted against an amendment to the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would have eliminated all funding for DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
But he voted for a host of other bills that would have blocked EPA climate, coal ash, ozone and other measures in 2015.
His voting record for 2016 was not available at press time though he joined with the vast majority of lawmakers who voted for the bill overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act that President Obama later enacted.
Walden will lead the committee opposite Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who Democrats affirmed for another term as the committee's ranking Democrat.
http://insideepa.com/daily-feed/congress-walden-slated-lead-energy-and-commerce-committee
-
Carbon Standards for New Power Plants Go to Court in April
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Three months after the new administration takes office, President-elect Donald Trump's Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency will head to court to defend one of President Barack Obama's signature climate change rules (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 12/2/16).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit scheduled oral arguments over the EPA's carbon dioxide standards for new power plants for April 17, 2017, according to an order issued Dec. 2. The three judges who will hear the argument have yet to be announced.
The carbon dioxide emissions limits for new power plants (RIN:2060-AQ91), along with similar standards for existing units, are at the core of Obama's domestic efforts to address climate change and have been challenged by an array of states as well as utilities and industry groups. Opponents of the new standards argued in briefs filed in October that the EPA had overstepped its Clean Air Act authority by setting limits for new coal-fired units that effectively require the use of some form of carbon capture in an effort to foster cleaner energy sources. The EPA's response is due Dec. 14.
Though arguments have been scheduled, the incoming Trump administration, which opposed climate change regulations on the campaign trail, could seek to hold the case in abeyance while it evaluates the EPA's rule. Trump campaigned on rolling back the EPA's climate change regulations even though he has given conflicting answers on whether humans contribute to climate change, once calling it a Chinese hoax.
In September, 10 judges of the D.C. Circuit heard nearly seven hours of argument over the carbon dioxide standards for existing power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan. A decision is expected in early 2017 (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, 9/27/16).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101233959&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101233959&jd=101233959
-
In Surprise, D.C. Circuit Slates Oral Arguments In EPA NSPS GHG Case
Dec 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a surprise order is scheduling April oral arguments in a case that challenges EPA's greenhouse gas rule for new power plants, with at least one source noting the order is unusual because it was issued in the midst of briefing, and the court generally waits until briefing is complete before slating arguments.
The Dec. 2 order in the case, North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al., sets arguments for April 17 and comes as only the petitioners' opening briefs have been filed. EPA's response is due Dec. 14, meaning it will be filed by the Obama administration rather than the incoming Trump administration. Briefing is slated to end Feb. 6, just after President-elect Trump is inaugurated.
“The composition of the argument panel will usually be revealed thirty days prior to the date of oral argument,” says the order, issued on the court's own motion. “The time and date of oral argument will not change absent further order of the Court.”
One source familiar with the case says the timing of the order is unusual, given that it comes in the midst of a transition from the Obama administration, which crafted the rule, to the Trump administration, which is expected to oppose it.
The new administration is expected to end its defense of the new source performance standards (NSPS) but it is unclear what it will say to or ask of the court. It is also unclear whether the case could go forward with only the intervenors -- which include states, cities, power companies and environmental groups -- left to defend it.
The NSPS requries new coal-fired power plants to meet an emissions rate of 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour (lbs CO2/MWh). That level is based on installation of partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, though the rule does not require use of any particular technology to comply.
The rule requires new gas-fired plants to achieve a rate of 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh, which can be met using combined-cycle technology.
An internal Trump transition memo, first reported by the Associated Press, shows that the administration plans to stop defending the related existing source performance standards (ESPS) in litigation that has already been argued, as well as other Obama-era rules “that have been the subject of long-running legal challenges filed by Republican-led states and the fossil fuel industry.” The memo does not, however, appear to directly mention the NSPS.
Litigation over the NSPS is critical because the rule is a legal prerequisite to the ESPS, which is also known as the Clean Power Plan. Trump and congressional Republicans have pledged to scrap the ESPS next year, but vacating the NSPS could still be important because that would make it more difficult to craft any future ESPS rule for the power sector.
Briefing Schedule
The current briefing schedule in North Dakota was jointly proposed by all parties and accepted by the court in August after a protracted battle over an earlier schedule that was scrapped to add new parties challenging EPA's denial of their administrative petitions to reconsider the regulation.
The schedule requires EPA to submit its response brief Dec. 14, with the brief for respondent intervenors due Dec. 21. Petitioner reply briefs are due Jan. 19 and final briefs are due Feb. 6.
Opening briefs from petitioners and intervenors supporting them were filed in October and they largely focused on the rule's CCS-based standards for coal plants. Petitioners -- which include 23 states, power companies and a host of industry associations -- argue that CCS is too speculative to be the basis for regulatory standards, and say there are no commercially operating power plants in the United States with the technology.
EPA relies heavily on a Canadian plant that was retrofitted with CCS to support its conclusions. North Dakota filed a separate brief arguing it is particularly harmed by the NSPS because of its dependance on lignite coal.
Parties supporting EPA in the litigation include a separate coalition of 17 states and the District of Columbia, several large cities, multiple national and local environmental groups and several “clean” utilities.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/surprise-dc-circuit-slates-oral-arguments-epa-nsps-ghg-case
-
Congress Should Take The Lead On Our Nation’s Energy Policies
Dec 2, 2016 | The Hill
By Margo Thorning
Almost a year ago, Congress made history by lifting the ban on crude oil exports – an archaic provision in the law that stifled America’s ability to become global energy leader. Now, Congress has the opportunity to make history once more by refocusing on long overdue items in the final days before the end of the year, specifically on the much-needed Energy Policy Modernization Act (EPMA).
The Senate voted earlier this summer to conference with the House in an effort to hammer out final provisions between the two chambers’ competing energy bills. However, before conferees could complete their work, members became sidetracked by the elections and the negotiations stalled. As a result, legislative language to improve the time it takes to review applications for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is in jeopardy.
Earlier this month, House Democrats sent a revised offer to the Senate that did not include the LNG export language, which would give the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 45 days to finish its review of a project – instead of the open-ended process currently in place – after environmental analysis has concluded.
This much needed change would make the DOE review process more efficient and ensure that projects don’t face unnecessary and costly delays. A more predicable process would also reduce uncertainty and restore the advantage for U.S. LNG projects to compete for a share of the global market. That share can translate into billions of dollars in new investments, and thousands of jobs.
The failure to include the LNG provision was disappointing. Some LNG export applications have been pending for years, tied up in the bureaucratic process somewhere between DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), including an application for an export terminal in Georgia that was pending for more than 1,000 days before finally being approved.
The United States has an estimated 2,200 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable natural gas – the equivalent of 84 years of domestic consumption at current rates. With an abundant supply of U.S.-produced, low-cost natural gas to meet domestic demand for decades, exporting LNG is the next obvious step on the path to increased economic prosperity and global energy leadership.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., LNG was the world’s second-most traded commodity last year. Demand for LNG around the world is projected to continue to grow. Our allies in Europe are especially interested in buying U.S. LNG, which would provide a stable source of baseload energy that offers a cleaner alternative to other traditional fossil fuels. IEA and Goldman also pointed out that U.S. natural gas is an affordable alternative in many emerging markets where prices for locally produced energy have been high and supplies limited.
During the past year, both chambers of Congress have recognized the necessity of modernizing our national energy policies to reflect the recent energy renaissance, yet LNG export applications continue to languish. It is disappointing that the LNG language was stripped from the House’s counter to the original Senate bill, but there is still time to correct the error.
America has not seen a major energy policy bill since the Bush administration – an error that is threatening our energy security. U.S. LNG is already being exported in limited quantities, but the application process remains slow and cumbersome, resulting in lost opportunities for U.S. businesses as other global projects come online.
As the year comes to a close, the debate over LNG exports and modernizing out energy policy is at a tipping point. Before the 114th Congress comes to a close, we encourage lawmakers to reconcile differences and send a final energy bill to the president for signing that includes overdue reforms to the DOE review process for LNG export licenses.
Dr. Margo Thorning is Senior Economic Policy Advisor with the American Council for Capital Formation.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/308395-congress-should-take-the-lead-on-our-nations-energy
-
Court Sets May 8 Arguments on EPA's Malfunction Emissions Rule
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal appeals courts scheduled May 8 arguments over an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring 36 states to make changes to plans for addressing excess air pollution emissions that occur during startup, shutdown and malfunction periods at industrial facilities (Walter Coke Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1166, 12/2/16).
Several states and industry organizations are challenging the rule, alleging that the EPA lacked the authority to find the previously approved state implementation plans to be legally deficient.
The rule, known as a “SIP Call,” required states to alter their state implementation plans (SIPs) to remove language that exempted industrial facilities from compliance with emissions standards during startup, shutdown and malfunctions. Some states also were required to remove affirmative defense provisions that shielded facilities from being assessed civil penalties due to excess emissions incidents linked to equipment malfunctions.
The EPA argued that the objectionable language in the state plans violated “bedrock principles” of the Clean Air Act and must be removed.
A Bloomberg BNA survey of states covered by the rule found that states took varied approaches to responding, ranging from simply deleting the language highlighted by the EPA to establishing alternative work practice standards that facilities can comply with instead of numerical emissions limits. Some states, including Ohio and Alabama, opted not to respond by the Nov. 22 deadline.
While it's unclear what the incoming Trump administration's view of the SIP Call will be, Rich Alonso, a partner at Bracewell LLP and a former enforcement official at EPA, told Bloomberg BNA that the Trump EPA will be reviewing the revised state plans in a “totally different light” than the Obama administration would have.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101233967&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101233967&jd=101233967
-
McCabe Sees States Working On Climate 'Concern' Despite Trump Doubts
Dec 2, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe says states under President-elect Trump will likely lead on policies to target their “concern” over climate change despite the incoming president's doubts about whether climate change is real, saying states are well-positioned to “step up” on the issue if Trump's EPA pulls back on climate regulations.
Speaking at a Dec. 1 meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) in Washington, D.C., McCabe said that, “Climate is a huge concern. It will continue to be a huge concern.”
Committee members, who represent state, industry, tribal and environmental groups, discussed the likelihood that states and cities will once more be in the vanguard of U.S. climate and energy policy, as they were under the George W. Bush administration. “To the extent that there is increased attention on state authority, the states are very well placed to step up,” McCabe said. Action by states and cities “will not be stopped,” she said.
Trump during the election campaign dismissed climate change as a device by China to undermine U.S. industry. In subsequent comments to the New York Times, he softened his position somewhat to concede some relationship between human activity and climate. However, several of Trump's potential picks for key positions including EPA Administrator are leading climate skeptics, and Trump has advocated deregulation across government.
That has led to concern from environmentalists and some Democrats that Trump will try to follow through on his vow to undo EPA's Clean Power Plan greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for existing and future power plants, as well as pull back on stricter air regulations including efforts to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas drilling. Senate Democrats are vowing strict scrutiny of Trump's eventual nominees for top EPA posts.
Several CAAAC members, predicting a reversal of federal climate policies under Trump, thought that states and some industry groups will continue with many of their policies to curb GHGs in lieu of federal action.
For example, the power generation sector has made enormous investments in cutting GHGs and other pollutants, driven in large part by the availability of cheap natural gas and retirement of old coal-fired plants. Also, renewable energy technologies have advanced greatly since the Bush administration, including not only generation but also battery storage necessary to deliver renewable power when needed, which is rapidly becoming more cost-effective, members noted.
State Action
CAAAC member Don Neal, director of corporate environmental, health and safety services with electric utility Southern California Edison, said McCabe -- a President Obama appointee -- is leaving EPA as the country is on the brink of a revolution in electricity generation and transportation. “It is happening because it is being driven by the states,” Neal said, noting California's ambitious programs to cut GHGs and other pollutants.
In one example, Neal said that California's recent approval for utilities to set up charging stations for electric cars should significantly boost the state's zero-emissions vehicle program, which will rely heavily on electrification of the transportation system to reduce emissions. Neal also said that battery power storage, previously prohibitively expensive, is now at least “somewhat” cost-effective.
Fellow CAAAC member John Busterud, an environmental executive with electric utility PG&E, said the country is likely moving toward a more federalist system, where EPA and other federal agencies defer more to the states on policy issues. With respect to utilities' established technology investments and choices of fuel supply, “we are on a path we are not retreating from. We are not not turning back,” he said.
With the expectation that more responsibility may fall to states under Trump, and less to EPA, CAAAC member Nancy Kruger of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) -- representing many state and local air agencies -- made the case for increased grant funding to state air agencies under Clean Air Act section 105.
While NACAA frequently advocates for increased resources for states, Kruger said that more grant funding would be “consistent with the president-elect's signal that he is inclined to delegate more responsibility to the states.”
McCabe noted that President Obama has tried to increase resources for the states. However, future funding decisions will be made by the Trump White House and the next Congress.
Pending Rules
Before the current administration ends on Jan. 20, EPA still has a handful of rules to finalize, McCabe said in response to CAAAC members' questions.
For example, the agency's final rule streamlining the regional haze regulation, which aims to restore visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, is still outstanding, as is EPA's update to its “Appendix W” air quality modeling rules.
McCabe said a couple of risk-and-technology review rules to update air toxics limits for specific industry sectors are also likely, under court-ordered deadlines, before Jan. 20. Under such rules EPA reviews air toxics standards years after their implementation to determine whether it needs to impose stricter controls.
McCabe was unclear, however, if the agency will finalize its mid-term review of the light-duty vehicle GHG standards, where EPA has proposed to leave fuel economy and GHG reduction targets unchanged. EPA issued the proposal Nov. 30 and is taking comment through Dec. 30. McCabe said the agency will carefully consider the comments before finalizing the rule, and did not commit to a Jan. 20 deadline for the final version.
In conclusion, McCabe expressed optimism that EPA's GHG and conventional air pollution programs will continue. “EPA is the career staff,” who will not leave when the political appointees do. “I'm not worried, really, the work will go forward,” she said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/mccabe-sees-states-working-climate-concern-despite-trump-doubts
-
Trump's Cabinet Nominations Spark Concern, Letter From Scientists
Dec 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeannie Baumann
Growing concern the new White House will let politics interfere with science and health policies has prompted thousands of scientists to sign an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump.
The letter, dated Nov. 30 and organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, called on both Trump and the new Congress to use science to develop federal policies and maintain the independence, integrity and transparency of the scientific process.
“Many of us are deeply troubled that some transition team members, senior administration officials and people nominated to head up federal agencies have a history of attacking scientists and misrepresenting science,” Peter Frumhoff, chief scientist for the union's climate campaign, said in a Nov. 30 blog post.
Their concerns represent a stark contrast to President Barack Obama, who is a self-proclaimed “science geek” and has said his initiative to advance targeted treatments through precision medicine is a top priority of his administration.
Concerns for Congress Too
Frumhoff said the scientists’ concerns extend beyond the president-elect to include Congress.
“We're concerned as well that an emboldened Congress may attempt to pass legislation that cuts science out of existing public health and environmental laws, and cut funding for research critical to understand our changing planet,” Frumhoff added, “putting at risk the health and well-being of Americans and people around the world.”
The letter came out as Trump selected a well-known climate change skeptic to lead the Environmental Protection Agency transition. While his transition website lists “[a]dvance research and development in healthcare” among his health priorities, the president-elect has said little about specific research policies.
The letter also called for adequate funding of science agencies. “The consequences are real: without this investment, children will be more vulnerable to lead poisoning, more people will be exposed to unsafe drugs and medical devices, and we will be less prepared to limit the impacts of increasing extreme weather and rising seas,” it said.
The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than 2,300 scientists from across all 50 states have signed the letter.
Appoint Science Adviser
The letter from the concerned scientists was released one week after 29 science-based organizations called on Trump to appoint a high-level science adviser to his White House.
“We know that one of your top priorities will be to focus on ensuring that the U.S. economy remains strong and continues to grow,” the science groups’ Nov. 23 letter said. “If we are to maintain America's global leadership, and respond to the economic and security challenges currently facing the nation, we must build on our strong history of federal support for innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology.”
John Holdren, director of the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy, has served that role for Obama since his appointment in December 2008.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101233966&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101233966&jd=101233966
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested