Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/8/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) NASA, Industry Criticize EPA's Perchlorate Model Peer Review Plans
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and industry groups are critiquing EPA's plan to use a private contractor to peer review the model that will guide its efforts to propose a drinking water standard for the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate, calling for the review to include features used by the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB). -
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: 'Trump Effect' Lifts US Chemicals
Dec 7, 2016 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
US chemical equity prices are getting a lift from optimism on a major fiscal spending/infrastructure boost in a Trump administration, while concerns over Trump’s policies on global trade have largely been set aside for now. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes First Substance Ban in 27 Years
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has proposed a prohibition on the use of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) as an aerosol degreaser and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Grapples with Crafting Proposal to Create TSCA Industry Fee System
Dec 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is grappling with how to craft its planned proposed rule to create a first-time structure for assessing industry fees to supplement the costs of operating core aspects of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including what actions should trigger the fee requirements and how to “weight” costs for various activities. -
EPA Proposes Prohibiting Use of Trichloroethylene
Dec 8, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, and Margaret R. Graham
On December 7, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)announced it would be issuing a rule proposing to prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of trichloroethylene (TCE) for certain uses under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), due to its determination that there are significant health risks associated with TCE use in aerosol degreasing and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities. -
US EPA Round-Up
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The agency has announced receipt of test data for 1,3-propanediol, 2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate (ester), submitted pursuant to testing requirements for a group of high production volume chemicals under TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) Cause for Concern: Traces of BPA in Baby Teethers
Dec 8, 2016 | Growing Your Baby
By Vicki+
A new study published on Wednesday in the Environmental Science and Technology Journal is raising red flags after researchers with the New York Department of Health suggested that babies who chew on teethers could be ingesting small doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDC’s.) -
Echa/Efsa EDC Guidance Proposes Two Starting Points
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Guidance to accompany the European Commission's proposed criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors (EDCs) could offer two different starting points, according to newly published minutes from October's guidance kick-off meeting. -
Agencies From Around the Globe Agree Alternative Test Case Studies
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
International agencies are to produce a series of case studies for non-animal methods, says Robert Kavlock, deputy assistant administrator for science in the US EPA's Office of Research and Development. -
Murkowski, Cantwell Slam House Over Conference Collapse
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The top senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last night laid blame for the failure of conference talks squarely on the House of Representatives, saying their colleagues across the dome intentionally ran out the clock in their rush to adjourn and go home. -
Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.
Dec 8, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton
President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, signaling Mr. Trump’s determination to dismantle President Obama’s efforts to counter climate change — and much of the E.P.A. itself. -
Trump EPA Pick Sought to Unravel Endangerment Finding
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Evan Lehmann and Camille von Kaenel
The selection of Scott Pruitt to lead U.S. EPA puts a sharp critic of the agency in line to oversee climate policies that he's sought to reverse in court, including a key decision that underpins every agency rule on greenhouse gases. -
Trump Names EPA Administrator Nomination
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
US president-elect Donald Trump has designated Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as his nominee to be the next EPA administrator. -
Pruitt Has Mixed Court Record in EPA Showdowns
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs and Amanda Reilly
As Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead U.S. EPA, built a record of filing politically charged lawsuits against the agency. -
Possible Manchin Pick for DOE Draws Mixed Reviews
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
Climate change policy will be the big open question if Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is nominated as the secretary of the Department of Energy. -
Army Corps Decision on Dakota Access Pipeline is Pure Politics
Dec 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andrew Wilford
Earlier this week, the Army Corps of Engineers decided to block the final easement needed for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe. -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘10/12 Industry Report’: Industry Coalition, Freight Railroads Fighting Over New Tank Car Standards
Dec 8, 2016 | Business Report
By Daily Report Staff
A battle is brewing over just how stringent industry standards for tank cars should be, and the outcome will have dramatic implications for Louisiana. -
Fertilizer Institute President: Farmers, Consumers Need Freight-Rail Reform
Dec 8, 2016 | Grand Forks Herald
By Chris Jahn
When it comes to marketplaces, competition shouldn't be a dirty word. From cable and satellite networks to gasoline stations, consumers uniformly benefit when competition for their business exists. -
What Does Scott Pruitt Believe About Climate Science?
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Environmental groups yesterday sounded off against Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) leading U.S. EPA, calling him a climate denier with deep fossil fuel ties who has relentlessly aimed to thwart greenhouse gas standards. -
Democrats Vow to Make Pruitt Confirmation Vote a Climate 'Litmus Test'
Dec 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan & Doug Obey
Senate Democrats are vowing to make President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) for EPA chief a “litmus test” for lawmakers who have said they accept mainstream climate change science, arguing that several Republicans who accept such science could be persuaded to vote against Pruitt. -
As Trump Knocks Obama on Climate, Firms Recommit to Carbon Reduction
Dec 8, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson and Cassandra Sweet
Many big corporations continue to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions, vowing to stay the course despite the election of Donald Trump, who has promised to dismantle the Obama administration’s climate agenda and this week chose a global-warming skeptic to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. -
Trump Take Note — 'All of the Above Energy' Means 'All of the Above Jobs'
Dec 8, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Sarah E. Hunt
“All of the above energy” is no mere pithy industry spin, and truth be told it is actually “all of the above jobs.” -
Leonardo DiCaprio Meets with Donald Trump on Renewable Energy
Dec 8, 2016 | The Hill - In the Know Blog
By Brooke Seipel
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio met with President-elect Donald Trump Wednesday night to talk green jobs and environmental policy.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) NASA, Industry Criticize EPA's Perchlorate Model Peer Review Plans
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and industry groups are critiquing EPA's plan to use a private contractor to peer review the model that will guide its efforts to propose a drinking water standard for the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate, calling for the review to include features used by the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB).
Among the commentors' requests are for EPA to ensure that the peer reviewers' report requires consensus among the panel and is compiled by the reviewers themselves, rather than the contractor -- things that are not generally features of EPA's contractor-managed peer reviews.
NASA, for instance, questions EPA's plan for Versar to "summarize the peer reviewers' comments and draft the final peer review report. Generally, an independent peer review report is drafted by the participating members. EPA's approach with the lack of clear direction, support for open sharing of information and the peer reviewers' control over their deliberations presents a troubling approach that threatens to cripple the independent and informed nature of peer review for the proposed Perchlorate model." Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 196947)
Further, NASA adds in its Nov. 25 comments that "EPA is silent on whether the peer review serves as a majority report, delineating next steps or simply a collection of opinions (often referred to as a letter report) for EPA to consider. NASA again stresses the value of a rigorous, independent peer review to address outstanding scientific and technical issues in the development of sound policy and regulatory actions. We request EPA provide clear direction and transparency for a robust and effective peer review of the proposed Perchlorate model."
The chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Chlorine Institute, representing users and makers of chlor-alkali, both reiterate these concerns about EPA's peer review plans. "Due to the complexity of the model and the SAB Perchlorate Panel's call for transparency, like the SAB process, the panel should be responsible for drafting the report, not the contractor Versar," the Chlorine Institute's Nov. 23 comments state. "Additionally, it is unclear whether Versar has the necessary expertise to summarize the complex science and science policy questions involved with the [biologically based dose--response (BBDR)] model and therefore may not accurately reflect the issues, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel."
The trade association's comments reference an SAB panel that reviewed EPA's research supporting its 2011 determination to regulate perchlorate nationally in drinking water. In a 2013 report, SAB recommended that EPA do so using a BBDR model, based on perchlorate's unusually well-understood mode of action. The chemical inhibits the body's ability to uptake iodine, an essential nutrient that helps regulate proper thyroid function and hormone levels. Fetuses and infants are particularly susceptible to improper thyroid hormone function, which can disrupt proper development -- leading to EPA's focus on these lifestages in their analyses. EPA's efforts to craft the recommended model, however, lingered over technical difficulties, causing the agency to miss a two-year statutory deadline to propose a drinking water standard. The agency now has a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 31, 2018 to meet.
ACC, like NASA, also says "EPA's peer review process should result in a consensus-driven report rather than simply reflect the individual perspectives of the panel members."
EPA announced in a Dec. 5 Federal Register notice that Versar has selected the eight experts on the final panel of peer reviewers, who will meet Jan. 10-11 in Arlington, VA. Half of the panel members served on the SAB perchlorate panel that recommended EPA use a modeling approach to set its perchlorate health goal rather than the traditional algebraic approach, including Stephen Roberts, a toxicology professor at the University of Florida who also served as the chairman of the SAB panel. Roberts is joined by Hugh Barton, a research fellow at Pfizer, Inc. and Claude Emond of the University of Montreal, both modeling experts who served on the 2013 panel with Roberts and urged their colleagues to recommend using the BBDR modeling approach. The fourth member of the new panel who served on the previous panel is Joanne Rovet, a senior scientist in the neuroscience and mental health program at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.
While stakeholders are generally praising EPA's effort to follow recommendations from its science advisors to craft the model, they are also raising concerns with what they see as the model's flaws.
The Chlorine Institute, for example, urges EPA to look to a newly published model from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) modelers who worked in the past with EPA scientists on the model soon to be under peer review. The document, known as Lumen et al. and published last month, describes "a population based pregnancy model that estimates iodine nutrition and thyroid status in late gestation pregnant women in the United States. The BBDR model accounts for a wider range of iodine deficiencies and homeostatic mechanisms. . . . The prevalence of iodine inadequacy for third-trimester pregnant women in the U.S. was estimated to be between 21% and 44%," the institute says.
In contrast, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in joint Nov. 25 comments say the BBDR model is an improvement over FDA's 2013 model but add they "have serious concerns that the model does not address the first and second trimesters of pregnancy . . . We maintain that in setting [a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG)] EPA must consider the impacts on a pregnant women's fetus during the first two trimesters and on pregnant women with serious iodine deficiency and hypothyroidism . . ."
The groups say EPA in correspondence with them has said the first two trimesters are not included "due to data limitations," but this "means that the life stages of greatest risk are not modeled. EPA should specifically ask the expert reviewers to consider the implications for the model's relevance. As EPA moves forward with perchlorate drinking water regulations, this shortcoming must be addressed."
The environmentalists also raise concerns that the model does not address other chemicals that inhibit the body's ability to uptake iodine -- something that is also an issue for several of the industry groups.
"Nitrates and thiocyanates do not appear to be considered in any way in the model despite evidence that they also interfere with the same symporter affected by perchlorate," the environmentalists write. "EDF and NRDC maintain that EPA cannot ignore the cumulative effects of nitrates and thiocyanate on the transport of iodine into the thyroid. Pursuant to Section 1412(b)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the [MCLG] 'shall be set at the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.' If nitrates are in drinking water, they will increase the impact of perchlorate. To fulfill its responsibilities under the law, the safe level of perchlorate needs to be adjusted downward to address the contribution of nitrates and thiocyanates. . . . At a minimum, EPA must add a safety factor to account for the presence of nitrates and thiocyanate in the water and the diet."
A safety factor is a multiplier that EPA uses in its risk analyses to provide an extra margin of safety in its calculations, usually to address uncertainties of various types.
ACC also says it is concerned the model does not account for other chemicals besides perchlorate, as well as raising concerns that because the draft model "does not account for well-understood compensatory (homeostatic) control mechanisms that mobilize stores of iodine from the mother in the infant's thyroid," the model's "results may contribute to an unduly conservative [reference dose (RfD)]/MCLG."
NASA and drinking water utilities also question EPA's choice of endpoint and question whether the model's outputs are consistent with existing epidemiological studies, among other concerns.
For example, NASA writes, "The first major issue is EPA's fundamental assumption of using hypothyroxinemia as the end point. NASA understands that the SAB took this very conservative approach to target a specific condition not directly associated with a health impact. However, EPA's use of this endpoint in the proposed model lacks any substantiation in the available literature, especially for critical criteria, such as the Mode of Action (MOA), links to a disease state, or key thyroid endpoints."
And the American Water Works Association writes that while it is appropriate for EPA to focus on one or more sensitive subpopulations in developing a drinking water standard, choosing "a nutritionally deficient subgroup as the basis of a revised RfD, specifically, an iodine-deficient subpopulation of one of these sensitive populations may be a first."
"If EPA selects an iodine-deficient subpopulation of one of these sensitive populations as the basis for its RfD, then it should acknowledge that this choice is conservative, and further consider whether an uncertainty factor for within human variability is needed," the drinking water utility group adds.
And NASA urges EPA to either calibrate and validate the model, or provide documentation to the peer reviewers of having done so, noting that EPA lacks documentation to prove it has calibrated the model. "Questions over the proposed model's ability to track with results in existing literature further fuel the need for an independent validation," NASA says, urging EPA to "expand the peer review charge questions to explicitly ensure model validation with substantiating documentation."
The Chlorine Institute seconds this concern, arguing that "[i]f the appropriate data are not available to validate the model, then data must be collected from biomonitoring studies or generated in animal prior to use of the model to most accurately predict outcomes from exposures to perchlorate."
https://insideepa.com/inside-epa/nasa-industry-criticize-epas-perchlorate-model-peer-review-plans
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: 'Trump Effect' Lifts US Chemicals
Dec 7, 2016 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
US chemical equity prices are getting a lift from optimism on a major fiscal spending/infrastructure boost in a Trump administration, while concerns over Trump’s policies on global trade have largely been set aside for now.
US President-elect Trump has proposed a direct $550bn infrastructure spending plan in the US, along with tax credit that is meant to spur another $1 trillion in private investment.
And on energy, it is all about deregulation – lifting restrictions on US energy development. Trump’s energy plan includes streamlining the permitting process, which would apply to energy, and potentially chemicals. This could spur yet another energy revolution in the US that could benefit the chemical sector and get more projects going.
“If Trump carries out his policies, it will be a net positive to our industry. Fiscal stimulus is positive for the construction sector, and less regulations for oil and gas can potentially increase feedstocks for us,” said Albert Chao, president and CEO of US-based polyethylene (PE) and polyvinyl chloride(PVC) producer Westlake Chemical. PVC is a key polymer in the housing and construction sector, mainly used to make pipes.
Chao spoke as part of an audience discussion at the Young & Partners Senior Chemical Executive Conference in New York on 29 November.
“In addition, a lower corporate tax rate will mean more cash for companies, and a lower personal tax rate will be positive for the stock market,” he added. Chemical equity prices have surged post-election, along with other industrial/infrastructure-related plays.
GLOBAL TRADE RISK
However, global trade is an area that could face downside risk. For the US chemical industry, which enjoyed a global trade surplus of $33.4bn (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 2015, this is particularly relevant.
About 40% of that trade surplus, or $15.3bn, came from Mexico, to which the US sent $20.1bn in chemicals in 2015.
US President-elect Donald Trump has promised to renegotiate the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Mexico and Canada, and threatened to withdraw from the free trade agreement.
Yet the value chains between the US, Mexico and Canada are highly intertwined, noted Jose Luis Uriegas, CEO of Mexico-based Grupo Idesa, at the Latin American Petrochemical Association (APLA) annual meeting in November.
Uriegas noted that of every $1 of exports from Mexico to the US, 40 cents is comprised of US materials whereas for every $1 of exports from China to the US, US materials represent only 4 cents.
“The US is a large exporter of products to Mexico and they add a lot of value to exports from Mexico to the US and other regions,” said Uriegas.
Mexico uses US chemicals, not just for its own consumption, but also to manufacture products such as autos and appliances, to export to the US and other countries.
Any tariff placed on Mexican imports into the US would have both a direct and indirect negative impact on US chemicals. And the same for any retaliatory measures Mexico puts on US imports to Mexico.
Uriegas expressed optimism that NAFTA can be renegotiated in a way that is “healthy” for all countries involved.
From Mexico’s standpoint and on the chemical front, retaliatory tariffs would be less likely for some products and more likely and beneficial for others.
“I do not think there is any chance the Mexican government would put tariffs on chemicals [where none or little is made in Mexico, such as vinyl chloride monomer (VCM)] since it would only make the Mexican industry less competitive,” said Antonio Carrillo Rule, CEO of Mexichem, a major PVC producer, in a discussion with ICIS.
However, for chemicals or polymers that are made both in the US and Mexico, if the US places a tariff on imports, the Mexican government would likely retaliate, he said.
“Since there is less competition in general in Mexico than in the US, that would be good for the Mexican industry. For example, if there is a tariff placed on PVC or polyethylene (PE), then Mexichem and Braskem Idesa can raise prices [locally],” said Carrillo.
However, he said that “in the long run, my belief is that tariffs make companies complacent”.
In the meantime, Mexico’s economy is already taking a hit from the uncertainty being caused by an impending Trump presidency in the US.
“On the investment side in Mexico you are already seeing it. Carrier [the air conditioner manufacturer] stopped their plans to move to Mexico. And a hotel company announced delaying building new hotels,” said Carrillo.
However, it is unlikely the US would engage in a trade war with every part of the world, Westlake’s Chao said, allowing for an outlet for US chemical and polymer exports that would eventually find their way to where the demand is.
“There’s a lot of negotiating to do, but Trump’s a good negotiator. He may go after some low hanging fruit [when it comes to trade], and will definitely look at tax reduction,” said Chao.
“Corporate tax reform and regulatory reform would be positive but there are some concerns related to trade, as the US chemical industry is the largest exporting sector in the US economy,” according to Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
“There’s also a lot of chemistry associated with infrastructure spending and that would be positive as well. Yet at this point, no one knows how things will play out,” he added. The US chemical industry is also unique in that unlike many other industrial sectors, much of its business is intra-company trade – a company sending product from one region to another between its divisions, Swift noted.
About 72% of US chemical imports are from related parties (or intra-company trade) and 42% of US chemical exports are to related parties, he added.
US CAPACITY FOR EXPORT
Global trade takes on a greater importance for the US chemical sector given all the new chemical capacity being built in the US, much of which is targeted for export.
There are eight ethane crackers under construction in the US – six of them worldscale and most of the downstream product being PE. Plus there are another four expansions of existing crackers and one restart of an idled cracker taking place.
In all, the new crackers and expansions are meant to bring on an additional 10.3m tonnes/year of ethylene, or 36% of the existing capacity base in the US by 2018, according to statistics compiled by ICIS. It will be important to have clear trade policies and open avenues for export product as the 1st wave of these plants come on line.
Regarding the new US crackers, about 55% of the downstream polymers could be exported, noted the ACC’s Swift.
Yet some aspects of Trump’s policies may help spur the second wave of US cracker construction being planned, particularly the lifting of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restrictions on energy development and production, and streamlining the permitting process, along a proposed reduction in corporate taxes from 35% today to 15% sometime in the future.
“In that second wave, you have many foreign companies continuing to seek investments in the US. With a new tax policy, that probably looks even better,” said Chao.
OIL PRICES, CAPEX DECLINES
The first and second wave of US crackers may also get a tailwind from rising crude oil prices as chemical prices tend to follow crude, while the US chemical sector uses cheaper natural gas liquids (NGL) as feedstock.
The OPEC deal announced on 30 November to cut production by 1.2m bbl/day boosted oil prices, with additional follow-through on 1 December with Brent hitting a 16-month high of about $54/bbl.
Oil prices could have been poised to rise in the mid to long term anyway, as major producers have severely cut back on capital spending (CAPEX) in the past two years.
On top of major cuts in 2015, CAPEX has fallen even further through Q3 2016 on an annualised run-rate basis versus reduced 2015 levels.
For example, US-based ExxonMobil’s annualised CAPEX through Q3 2016 is down 37% versus 2015 levels, which were down 19.2% from 2014.
Brazil-based Petrobras annualised CAPEX through Q3 2016 is down 28.1% from 2015 levels, which were down 38.1% from 2014.
For China’s Sinopec, which has major refining and chemical operations in addition to upstream oil and gas, annualised CAPEX through Q3 2016 is down 70.3% versus 2015 levels, which were down 27.4% from 2014.
In the oil and gas, which ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson calls “a depletion business”, these cuts will eventually have a clear impact. The point of rebalance may be well on its way of being reached.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/12/07/10060995/commentary-trump-effect-lifts-us-chemicals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes First Substance Ban in 27 Years
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has proposed a prohibition on the use of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) as an aerosol degreaser and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities.
The move represents the EPA's first attempt to ban a substance since a court overturned the agency's 1989 section 6 rule banning asbestos. Many view this rulemaking as a key test of the effectiveness of the new TSCA law.
Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said the proposal represents "the first time in a generation we are able to restrict chemicals already in commerce that pose risks to public health and the environment.
"I am confident that the new authority Congress has given us is exactly what we need to finally address these important issues.”
The proposal follows a 2014 work plan risk assessment of TCE. This identified cancer risk concerns and short‐ and long‐term non‐cancer risks for workers and occupational bystanders.
It called for:
a prohibition on the manufacture, processing and distribution in commerce of TCE for use in aerosol degreasing and in spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities;
a ban on commercial use of TCE for these uses; and
a requirement that manufacturers, processors, and distributors – except for retailers – provide downstream notification of these prohibitions, such as via safety data sheets (SDS), and to keep certain records.
Hurdles remain
Jennifer McPartland, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said the measure is necessary to protect public health. Its prompt finalisation "would represent the first tangible risk reduction actions taken under the Lautenberg Act."
But Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney, health and environment programme at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told Chemical Watch hurdles remain.
First, he said, is the question of whether the incoming Trump administration will allow the rule to be finalised. And, if it does, whether it will be weakened or watered down.
Adoption of a weaker rule could have broader implications for public health under the new TSCA, he pointed out, as final EPA action will block states from implementing rules on that substance use.
Lawrence Culleen, a partner with law firm Arnold & Porter, told Chemical Watch that while proposed and final rules typically do not differ considerably, "all appearances are that the incoming administration might be less supportive of measures that are perceived to be draconian in nature. So it's arguable that a new administration might want to take a hard look at anything that's a ban."
And according to Mr Rosenberg, even if the agency does finalise a ban, legal challenges could remain. Chemical manufacturers have fought against every effort to regulate TCE and other substances, he said, and it is "highly likely they will challenge a final rule banning these uses".
The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance could not be reached for comment. The American Chemistry Council did not respond by deadline.
The direction the Trump administration takes and how the court rules in a future legal challenge – whether on TCE or other agency action – will shape the future of TSCA, said Mr Rosenberg. And it will probably be several years before we see where the programme is headed.
Additional Section 6 actions
The proposed rule is one of three that have been under consideration at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): proposals for TCE in vapour degreasing, and for methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint stripping remain under review.
The EPA plans to issue the separate section 6 proposal for TCE in vapour degreasing before the end of the year, but aims to issue one final rule covering both proposals.
In a recent blog post, the EDF expressed disappointment at reports that there has been industry pushback on this as-yet-to-be published proposal.
Chemicals and health project manager Lindsay McCormick told Chemical Watch that industry objection to the EPA's section 6 rules remains a concern, and one that will continue to play out over time.
The EDF, she said, "strongly believes that blockage of, or efforts to block, even these modest early actions (proposals) of clearly high risk chemicals will call into question whether industry’s motivations for getting TSCA reform done in the first place have shifted, and certainly won't help to restore public confidence in new law."
Nevertheless, the EDF was encouraged by the recent bipartisan letter sent to president-elect Trump urging vigorous implementation of the law. And it is pleased the EPA is "sprinting to meet the deadlines Congress imposed" in issuing proposed framework rules.
Further work on TCE
According to the EPA, the majority of TCE is used as an intermediate for manufacturing refrigerants. Much of the remainder – about 15% – is used as a solvent for metals degreasing. Other uses include as a spotting agent in dry cleaning and in consumer products.
The EPA named TCE among the first ten chemicals to be subject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA. It says it "will assess the other remaining uses of this chemical", as defined by a scope that it is required to set out within the next six months.
Mr Culleen noted that this timing may prove challenging. Shortly after the close of the 60-day comment period on the first TCE section 6 proposal, the EPA will be formulating the scope of its risk evaluation. The remaining TCE proposed rule may well be released in the same timeframe.
"Arguably, the agency will want to consider the overall risk picture, including those that they're proposing to eliminate," he said. And it may prove difficult to calculate that risk again proposed bans on certain uses.
But, he said, the statutory deadlines that exist for the first ten risk evaluation targets could serve as a something of an insurance policy for the EPA.
The new law requires finalisation of a risk management approach within two years of a substance's being determined to pose an unreasonable risk. In the case of TCE, this could "compel some regulatory activity at the end of the day, even if it might not be the one that the current administration" has put forth.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51561/epa-proposes-first-major-risk-management-action-under-new-tsca
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Grapples with Crafting Proposal to Create TSCA Industry Fee System
Dec 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is grappling with how to craft its planned proposed rule to create a first-time structure for assessing industry fees to supplement the costs of operating core aspects of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including what actions should trigger the fee requirements and how to “weight” costs for various activities.
The agency initially hoped to issue the proposed fee rule in mid-December, alongside two TSCA section 6 proposed rules on how to conduct chemical risk evaluations as well as designating chemicals as high- or low-priority under the revised TSCA. However, although the law mandates proposed risk evaluation and prioritization rules by mid-December and final rules by mid-June of next year, it does not include any deadline for the fee rule.
EPA officials have said they would like to complete the rule early in the process of implementing the law, but at press time the agency has not sent any fee proposal to the White House for mandatory review.
That is in contrast to the risk evaluation proposal it submitted to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) for review on Nov. 10 and the prioritization proposal sent to OMB on Nov. 7.
One chemical industry source says EPA appears to be on pace to release the fee rule before President Barack Obama leaves office, they acknowledge it might not be released until some time in January. While EPA views the fee rule as necessary for successful implementation of the reform law, the two section 6 risk review rules have been a key focal point as they are “so central to the operation of the program,” the source says.
A second industry source says EPA officials have publicly said they are “still working through a couple of things” in crafting the proposed rule, including “how much to charge for different things,” a crucial question EPA posed to stakeholders during meetings with the chemical sector held in August and September in Washington, D.C.
Specifically, EPA sought comment on how funding will be divvied up among the TSCA section 4 chemical test actions, pre-manufacture notices and significant new use notices for new chemicals and uses reviewed under section 5, section 6 existing chemical risk evaluations, and section 14 confidential business information claims.
While the agency is “anxious” to at least issue a proposed rule before the close of the administration, the second source says, it is also seeking to reach “as big a consensus as it can” on how the fee system should be structured to ensure industry is amenable to the fee structure and avoid a “big dispute” that could stymie a final rule.
The first industry source points out that under the previous TSCA, EPA only assessed user fees for some new chemical reviews, and that the agency is “struggling to figure out the correct amount” or percentage to assign to each type of TSCA action, and “what are the attachment points” that would trigger the fee requirements.
An EPA spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Review Costs
Under the TSCA reform law, which took effect June 22, EPA can for the first time establish a fee structure to defray the costs of reviewing new chemicals and a range of actions on existing chemicals by collecting user fees from chemical manufacturers and processors. EPA can collect up to 25 percent of the costs of implementing several key programs under the chemical safety law, or up to $25 million, whichever number is lower.
Industry is required to pay 100 percent of the costs for the risk reviews it requests from EPA, unless the chemical is already on the agency’s 2014 TSCA work plan, in which case the company making the request must pay 50 percent. The work plan was EPA’s attempt to review chemicals using its limited authority under the original 1976 TSCA, but the limitations of that law led to the revised TSCA that expanded the agency’s oversight on chemicals.
During the stakeholder meetings, agency presentations estimated that section 6 existing chemical risk evaluations would incur the highest costs under the new law at approximately $56.6 million, with the next highest being new chemical reviews under section 5 at an estimated $36.1 million.
The slides indicated that EPA assesses the costs of administering section 4 test requirements at roughly $8.7 million and of reviewing CBI claims under section 14 at roughly $8.9 million.
EPA was also weighing an approach that would “treat CBI as overheard versus per claim,” following comments from industry on the rulemaking, and whether certain types of submissions or actions identified in the law for fee collection should either not be included or assessed at a nominal rate.
But industry groups have cautioned that the agency must be careful in how it “weights” certain activities in assessing fees under the new TSCA. For example, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) in Aug. 25 comments said EPA should avoid setting fee mandates that would stymie innovation, and that although the new law grants the agency authority to assess individual fees for activities under sections 4, 5 and 6 of TSCA, “not all of that authority must be exercised.”
ACC said EPA should not assess fees for submission of data under section 4, as is the current practice under TSCA, and “fees for submissions and Agency actions under sections 5 and 6 should reflect the level of effort required of EPA,” according to the comments.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-grapples-crafting-proposal-create-tsca-industry-fee-system
-
EPA Proposes Prohibiting Use of Trichloroethylene
Dec 8, 2016 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, and Margaret R. Graham
On December 7, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)announced it would be issuing a rule proposing to prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of trichloroethylene (TCE) for certain uses under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), due to its determination that there are significant health risks associated with TCE use in aerosol degreasing and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities. The proposed action is significant for several reasons, including that it represents the first use in a very long time of TSCA Section 6 as well as the first Section 6 control action taken under new TSCA. Specifically, EPA is proposing to prohibit the use of TCE in “aerosol degreasing and for use in spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities; to prohibit commercial use of TCE for aerosol degreasing and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities; to require manufacturers, processors, and distributors, except for retailers of TCE for any use, to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require limited recordkeeping.” We look forward to a close reading of the proposed rule and to evaluating the arguments, the policy points, and the evidence provided by EPA to satisfy the various legal requirements, including those under Section 6(c) and Section 26.
EPA’s online Fact Sheet on TCE lists questions and answers as related to the proposed rule. In response to Question 3, What are the potential risks of TCE to people?, EPA states that its 2014 risk assessment found TCE to be “carcinogenic to people through all routes of exposure, which include inhalation, dermal (skin), and ingestion.” The pre-publication of the proposed rule is available on EPA’s website. Once it has been published in the Federal Register, comments must be submitted within 60 days of publication.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-proposes-prohibiting-use-trichloroethylene
-
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Receipt of information under TSCA
The agency has announced receipt of test data for 1,3-propanediol, 2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate (ester), submitted pursuant to testing requirements for a group of high production volume chemicals under TSCA.
The EPA has received the information on:acute toxicity to daphnia; andacute toxicity to fish.
The substance is used in manufacturing demolition explosives and blasting caps.
Information collection request
The EPA has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Notice of Supplemental Distribution of a Registered Pesticide Product, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
It would continue the agency’s collection of notifications for distribution or sale of a registered pesticide product under a different name than under the original registration (“supplemental distribution”).
The EPA estimates it will receive 1,885 respondents annually, over the next three years.
Research grant
The Office of Research and Development National Center for Environmental Research has announced a funding opportunity under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) programme.
The agency anticipates awarding $7m to the project, "Using a total environment framework (built, natural, social environments) to assess life-long health effects of chemical exposures".
https://chemicalwatch.com/51476/us-epa-round-up
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cause for Concern: Traces of BPA in Baby Teethers
Dec 8, 2016 | Growing Your Baby
By Vicki+
A new study published on Wednesday in the Environmental Science and Technology Journal is raising red flags after researchers with the New York Department of Health suggested that babies who chew on teethers could be ingesting small doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDC’s.)
These EDC compounds are a variety of chemicals that could potentially interfere with hormones and have harmful developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects.
The research result was shocking, especially since many of the teethers were labeled as “BPA-free.” The chemical BPA is already banned from baby bottles.
This new study raises concerns because parents typically look for the BPA-free label on products, and the research suggests that the chemical – in lower levels – is still present in products labeled as safe and chemical-free.
Some of the tested teethers released triclosan, an antimicrobial linked to liver cancer. Others contained parabens, a type of preservative linked to thyroid problems. The new report did not release names or brands of the teethers tested in this research.
Health Canada has not yet reviewed the study, so declined comment.
But the American Chemistry Council is already disputing the findings, casting doubt on the amount of potentially harmful chemicals that can leech from these teethers. One official wrote that “it should be noted that the chemicals studied here are shown to be at extremely low exposure levels and well below government-set safe levels.”
The research team counters those comments by pointing out that there remains an ongoing debate over what safe levels for children really means.
Some parents are upset because they now realize that product packaging could be misleading.
For those concerned with the potential of chemical traces in plastic teethers – and pending additional, more definitive research – a safer choice might be found in one of several types of natural soothers available that are made from wood, natural rubber, or metal.
http://www.growingyourbaby.com/2016/12/08/bpa-in-baby-teethers/
-
Echa/Efsa EDC Guidance Proposes Two Starting Points
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Guidance to accompany the European Commission's proposed criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors (EDCs) could offer two different starting points, according to newly published minutes from October's guidance kick-off meeting.
DG Sante director-general Xavier Prats Monné wrote to Echa head, Geert Dancet, and European Food Safety Authority director, Bernhard Uri, requesting "common guidance" for implementing the proposed scientific criteria. In his letter, he stressed an "urgent need" for the guidance.
"It is important that a guidance document is available ensuring for an immediate, consistent and transparent implementation of the new criteria by the agencies and regulatory authorities," he said.
Echa and Efsa are to compile it, with help from the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC); DG Sante will be an observer.
The guidance group agreed on two starting points, during brainstorming at the meeting, hosted by Echa on 27 October. A first approach would consider starting with studies of so-called apical effects - seen in whole organisms - that point to endocrine disruption. It would then be necessary to assess if adverse effects had indeed been caused by an endocrine mechanism.
A second approach would begin with mechanistic information. A "key issue" will be to describe which apical effects could be considered to show ED effects or indicate such mechanisms and which are not linked to endocrine disruption.
The group also agreed that guidance would only cover tests on vertebrates, including mammals, fish, birds, amphibians and reptiles.
The intention is to refer to OECD guidance document 150, but update it using additional information sources, while also taking into account JRC methodology.
The minutes include a draft table of contents, each listing covering a wide area. For example, the seventh heading covers how to conclude on three elements: endocrine mode of action, adverse effect and biologically plausible link.
Because of Echa and Efsa's very different work practices, the drafting group has adopted an "ad hoc" approach. Member state experts will only be involved though an advisory body.
A draft version of the ED guidance will be prepared during the first half of 2017 and made available for public consultation. It is expected to be finalised next year.
Echa will host the next guidance group meeting on 8-9 December.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51527/echaefsa-edc-guidance-proposes-two-starting-points
-
Agencies From Around the Globe Agree Alternative Test Case Studies
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
International agencies are to produce a series of case studies for non-animal methods, says Robert Kavlock, deputy assistant administrator for science in the US EPA's Office of Research and Development.
Speaking at a European Commission organised conference on non-animal approaches, Dr Kavlock reported back on a closed workshop held this autumn for government agencies. This had been attended by the US EPA, Health Canada, Echa, the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), the OECD, and agencies from South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Australia.
Barriers to progress include different regulatory regimes around the world, as well as inconsistent characterisation of data and methodology, Dr Kavlock told the conference in Brussels.
"Finally, there is a low confidence in the methods due to a lack of understanding. Many of the regulators … are not molecular biologists, so that when you present some of this information, you see a lot of eyes glazing over."
Dr Kavlock said the agencies agreed there is a need for data sharing across the international scene. They also outlined a possible classification scheme for alternative test methods.
He warned that efforts to benchmark new approach methodologies (Nams), such as in silico, in chemico and in vitro techniques, against laboratory animal studies show "it's impossible that we will get a one-to-one replacement for chronic studies and so we need to think about the validation process."
The agencies have agreed an action plan that includes a possible classification system for Nams. Echa, the OECD and the JRC are also discussing using the OECD's eChem Portal as a data repository for Nams data.
The proposed case studies include "revisiting and updating chemical categorisation with Nams". Another will use Nams to assess endocrine disrupting properties. Meanwhile, a case study on lead aims to link exposure to toxicology.
"There really was a lot of enthusiasm ... There is a ray of hope for international collaboration," said Dr Kavlock.
'Overwhelmingly positive response'
Meanwhile, Warren Casey, director of the US National Toxicology Program's Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (Niceatm), told the conference of US agencies' efforts to develop a roadmap for developing and using Nams.
The idea follows that of the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs).
"I have been flabbergasted by the overwhelmingly positive response," he said. "The process of toxicology itself is rooted in animal testing. Changing that is extremely complicated and we really have to completely rethink what we are doing."
Traditionally, validation has followed a bottom-up approach, he added. "What we have done with this approach that we are taking now is actually flip it around. We have regulators that have become motivated to implement alternative methods.
"When it is coming from the inside, things happen very quickly; the evaluations are much easier."
The Brussels conference – Non-Animal Approaches, The Way Forward – was held in response to last year's public petition to the Commission. This had more than a million signatures, urging it to propose legislation banning all experiments on animals.
The Commission rejected the call, but set out a series of actions in response to the ECI, including the conference.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51526/agencies-from-around-the-globe-agree-alternative-test-case-studies
-
Murkowski, Cantwell Slam House Over Conference Collapse
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The top senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last night laid blame for the failure of conference talks squarely on the House of Representatives, saying their colleagues across the dome intentionally ran out the clock in their rush to adjourn and go home.
Murkowski took issue with the statement issued by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) yesterday afternoon, which said the two bodies had failed to resolve "various outstanding issues" (E&E News PM, Dec. 7).
"The House may want to claim that this bill cannot move forward because we are running out of time," she said in a statement last night. "The reality is that the House is attempting to run us out of time, in order to prevent this bill from moving forward, even though it contains the priorities of dozens of its members. I urge my House colleagues to reconsider and to allow our conference report to come up for a vote before we adjourn."
In a separate statement, Cantwell noted that conferees had agreed to "breakthrough" deals on forest wildfire budgeting and management reforms, as well as Western water issues and sportsmen's provisions.
"We should capitalize on these long and hard-fought agreements and should enact them before going home for the year and having to start over again in the next Congress," Cantwell said. "If we miss this opportunity now, we are not likely to have another one next year. Our House colleagues should be less concerned about going home this week and more concerned about giving communities the tools they need to deal with wildfire problems and other key issues."
Other agreed-to items cited by the pair included nuclear, cybersecurity, efficiency, hydroelectric and innovation policies. Murkowski also noted that the House repeatedly rebuffed Senate overtures on natural gas exports and noted that all but two issues were resolved.
"Both of those issues can easily be resolved, in plenty of time before congressional adjournment, if the will exists in the House to work through them in good faith," she said. "In fact, on both issues, the Senate has already written and proposed the modifications we know are necessary to reach final agreement, only to receive no substantive response."
The conference dynamic took some unusual twists and turns over the past six months, during which a bill that was intended to address a broad range of outdated federal energy policies essentially turned into legislation with thorny issues on the natural resources side of the committees' jurisdiction.
While the House's decision to add a host of difficult issues from the Natural Resources Committee to the mix was initially seen as problematic, Murkowski and Cantwell appear to have made more headway with Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) than Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Upton spent much of the last few weeks finalizing his medical innovation bill, which kept him away from several conference meetings with the senators.
By contrast, Cantwell and Bishop met in Utah before lawmakers returned after Thanksgiving, a meeting that transpired after Cantwell found herself on a visit to his state for unrelated reasons.
Bishop yesterday praised both senators and has signaled interest in moving parts of the agreed-to items early next year.
"If they're willing to, I'd like to try and see what happens, we'll see how they feel," he told reporters. "They were heavily invested in this. I actually thought Murkowski and Cantwell were wonderful with whom to work. I appreciated what they were doing. They may have to have some time to think about if they want to start over again. So really it will be up to how they feel."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/08/stories/1060046849
-
Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.
Dec 8, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton
President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, signaling Mr. Trump’s determination to dismantle President Obama’s efforts to counter climate change — and much of the E.P.A. itself.
Mr. Pruitt, a Republican, has been a key architect of the legal battle against Mr. Obama’s climate change policies, actions that fit with the president-elect’s comments during the campaign. Mr. Trump has criticized the established science of human-caused global warming as ahoax, vowed to “cancel” the Paris accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to fight climate change, and attacked Mr. Obama’s signature global warming policy, the Clean Power Plan, as a “war on coal.”
Mr. Pruitt has been in lock step with those views.
“Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind,” he wrote inNational Review earlier this year. “That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”
A meeting on Monday between the president-elect and former Vice President Al Gore may have given environmental activists a glimmer of hope that Mr. Trump was moderating his campaign stance. Mr. Trump told New York Times editors and reporters that he does “think there is some connectivity” between human activity and a warming planet.
With the choice of Mr. Pruitt, that hope will have faded.
“During the campaign, Mr. Trump regularly threatened to dismantle the E.P.A. and roll back many of the gains made to reduce Americans’ exposures to industrial pollution, and with Pruitt, the president-elect would make good on those threats,” said Ken Cook, head of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington research and advocacy organization.
“It’s a safe assumption that Pruitt could be the most hostile E.P.A. administrator toward clean air and safe drinking water in history,” he added.
Mr. Pruitt, 48, is a hero to conservative activists, one of a group of Republican attorneys general who formed an alliance with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda. Fossil fuel interests greeted Mr. Trump’s selection with elation.
“Attorney General Scott Pruitt has long been a defender of states’ rights and a vocal opponent of the current administration’s overreaching E.P.A.,” said Laura Sheehan, a spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which works on behalf of the coal industry. “Mr. Pruitt will be a significant voice of reason when it comes to energy and environmental regulations.”
At the heart of Mr. Obama’s efforts to tackle climate change are a collection of E.P.A. regulations aimed at forcing power plants to significantly reduce their emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution. Mr. Trump cannot unilaterally cancel the rules, which were released under the 1970 Clean Air Act. But a legally experienced E.P.A. chief could substantially weaken, delay or slowly take them apart.
Beyond climate change, the E.P.A. itself may be endangered. Mr. Trump campaigned on a pledge to greatly shrink — or even dismantle — it. “We are going to get rid of it in almost every form,” he once pledged.
Mr. Pruitt may be the right man to do that. As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt created a “federalism unit” in his office, explicitly designed to fight President Obama’s health care law and environmental regulations.
“You could see from him an increasing effort to delegate environmental regulations away from the federal government and towards the states,” said Ronald Keith Gaddie, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma.
Although Mr. Obama’s climate rules were not completed until 2015, Mr. Pruitt and a handful of other attorneys general began planning as early as 2014 for a coordinated legal effort to fight them. That resulted in a 28-state lawsuit against the administration’s rules. A decision on the case is pending in a federal court, but it is widely expected to advance to the Supreme Court.
As Mr. Pruitt has sought to use legal tools to fight environmental regulations on the oil and gas companies that are a major part of his state’s economy, he has also worked with those companies. A 2014 investigation by The Times found that energy lobbyists drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send, on state stationery, to the E.P.A., the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget and even President Obama, outlining the economic hardship of the environmental rules.
The close ties have paid off for Mr. Pruitt politically: Harold G. Hamm, the chief executive of Continental Energy, an Oklahoma oil and gas company, was a co-chairman of Mr. Pruitt’s 2013 re-election campaign.
Mr. Pruitt, who grew up in Kentucky, moved to Oklahoma to go to law school. An avid baseball fan, for eight years he co-owned and managed the Oklahoma City Redhawks, a minor league team. He won a seat in the Oklahoma Legislature and opened a small legal office, which he called Christian Legal Services, to challenge government actions that he saw as compromising individual rights.
As he ran for attorney general of Oklahoma in 2010, he made clear that he intended to use his power as the state’s top law enforcement official to attempt to force the E.P.A. to back down, convinced that it was wrongly stepping on state government powers.
“There’s a mentality emanating from Washington today that says, ‘We know best.’ It’s a one-size-fits-all strategy, a command-and-control kind of approach, and we’ve got to make sure we know how to respond to that,” Mr. Pruitt was quoted as saying during his election campaign in 2010.
But that campaign, once Mr. Pruitt was sworn in, quickly became an opportunity to work secretly with some of the largest oil and gas companies, and the state’s coal-burning electric utility, to try to overturn a large part of the Obama administration’s regulations on air emissions, water pollution and endangered animals, documents obtained by The Times show.
As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt took the unusual step of jointly filing an antiregulatory lawsuit with industry players, such as Oklahoma Gas and Electric, the coal-burning electric utility, and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, a nonprofit group backed by major oil and gas executives, including Mr. Hamm.
Behind the scenes, he was taking campaign contributions from many of the industry players on his team, or helping deliver even larger sums of money to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which he became the chairman of.
Mr. Pruitt’s office also began to send letters to federal regulators — including the E.P.A. and even President Obama — that documents obtained through open records requests show were written by energy industry lobbyists from companies including Devon Energy. Mr. Pruitt’s staff put these ghostwritten letters on state government stationery and then sent them to Washington, moves that the companies often then praised in their own news releases, without noting that they had actually drafted the letters in the first place.
Mr. Pruitt understood that he was being painted as a tool of industry, but in interviews and his own writing, he rejected that analysis, saying that he at times formed alliances with private sector players that shared his views — and was determined to help the energy industry and individual citizens in his home state.
“It is the job of the attorney general to defend the interests and well-being of the citizens and state of Oklahoma,” Mr. Pruitt’s office said in a statement in 2014 to The Times. “This includes protecting Oklahoma’s economy from the perilous effects of federal overreach by agencies like the E.P.A. The energy sector is a major driver of the Oklahoma economy.”
Mr. Pruitt repeatedly explained that he thought states themselves were in the best position to regulate local industries, be it oil and gas companies, or other players that might affect the local environment, such as Devon Energy, which has been a contributor to his political causes, and which he has helped push back against federal regulations.
With so much at stake, Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation hearings promise to be heated.
“At a time when climate change is the great environmental threat to the entire planet, it is sad and dangerous that Mr. Trump has nominated Scott Pruitt to lead the E.P.A.,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, who sits on the committee that must confirm him. “The American people must demand leaders who are willing to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels. I will vigorously oppose this nomination.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?_r=0
-
Trump EPA Pick Sought to Unravel Endangerment Finding
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Evan Lehmann and Camille von Kaenel
The selection of Scott Pruitt to lead U.S. EPA puts a sharp critic of the agency in line to oversee climate policies that he's sought to reverse in court, including a key decision that underpins every agency rule on greenhouse gases.
Pruitt, the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, joined 14 other states in an unsuccessful attempt to undermine EPA's endangerment finding in 2012. That finding allowed EPA to issue rules for the first time limiting the release of carbon dioxide from cars, power plants and natural gas wells.
Without it, those gases wouldn't be air pollutants in the eyes of agency regulators. And EPA couldn't make companies reduce them.
Now, some observers wonder if Pruitt might try again to unravel the endangerment finding, this time from the inside.
"It would be bold to undo the endangerment finding," said Marcus Peacock, a deputy administrator of EPA under President George W. Bush. "You could do it. It would be difficult. It would take time."
EPA issued its endangerment finding in 2009 by pointing to scientific evidence about the impacts of global warming on events like heat waves, drought, and sea-level rise. The finding asserts that human health is threatened by the release a greenhouse gases. That tripped a trigger under the Clean Air Act. The agency had to regulate to ensure the safety of Americans.
Pruitt joined other state attorneys general to stop it. Unlike his later efforts to undo the Clean Power Plan, a regulation arising out of the endangerment finding, Pruitt didn't take a lead role in trying to unspool EPA's underlining determination about climate and human health. He was one of 15 attorneys general to join Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to argue that the endangerment finding was unlawful. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) led the states' effort; he was Texas' attorney general at the time.
They claimed that EPA failed to establish at what point rising temperatures become dangerous. Lead is poisonous, they said, pointing to a clear threat. But greenhouse gases are a natural substance, and it's unclear when, exactly, it becomes a pollutant with adverse effects, they argued. Pruitt and others also claimed that EPA failed to consider whether adaptation and mitigation could relieve potential dangers.
They lost in court. The D.C. Circuit upheld the agency's endangerment finding, dismissing industry and state claims that EPA overly relied on outside scientific bodies, like the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question," the ruling said.
'Totally mobilized'
Pruitt met yesterday with President-elect Donald Trump, who has called global warming a "hoax." Trump seemed to have softened his outlook recently by saying he believes there's "connectivity" between human activity and rising temperatures. Trump met with former Vice President Al Gore on Monday, giving hope to some environmentalists that the next president might be persuaded by science.
Those expectations came crashing to the ground with the pick of Pruitt. Senate Democrats immediately vowed to oppose the nomination of a man who they say threatens to undo President Obama's climate policies and, potentially, dramatically compress EPA's authority.
"We're totally mobilized for this one," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who sits on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which will vet the nominee. "We're going to draw a line in the sand, because this is the worst-case scenario when it comes to clean air and clean water, to nominate a climate denier to the agency in charge of protecting our natural resources."
Democrats have talked in the past about ways to block a nomination in anticipation of the EPA pick, he said. Pruitt, he added, "is among the most alarming of choices even among a group of people who didn't look good to progressives in the first place."
"It's not so much his philosophy; it's his commitment to the responsibilities of EPA, and that's something that I'll be asking about," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.). "I certainly believe that believing in science is an important qualification for most positions in government, and we want the compliance with clean air and clean water and so many matters to be based in science."
In announcing Pruitt's nomination this morning, Trump said, "For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn. As my EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, the highly respected attorney general from the state of Oklahoma, will reverse this trend and restore the EPA's essential mission of keeping our air and our water clean and safe."
Trump added that his administration "strongly believes in environmental protection."
Pruitt would be confirmed if senators voted along party lines, but he could be blocked by a simple majority if a few Republicans chose to oppose the nomination. Democrats are planning to lobby those potential swing voters, like Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine.).
"In the end, we're going to need Republican cooperation," Schatz said. "We anticipate they will be under some pressure both from their constituents and their consciences."
Republicans rejoice
Collins, who has sometimes voted with Democrats on environmental issues, said she had not heard of Pruitt before and would consider his record before voting.
Republicans said they are looking forward to working with Pruitt to roll back many of President Obama's greenhouse gas regulations, though they stopped short of saying they would repeal the endangerment finding, calling it "theoretical."
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who will lead the Environment and Public Works Committee next year and would oversee Pruitt's confirmation hearing, said he doesn't anticipate major problems confirming the Oklahoman.
"I want to get an administrator on the ground quickly to be at EPA to focus on things that are important to make sure the environment stays clean but the economy is not hurt," said Barrasso. "He's very thoughtful. He's done a good job in Oklahoma."
The Oklahoma delegation also heaped praise on their attorney general.
"I'm very excited," said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who will give up his chairmanship of the committee at the end of the year. "He's one of my closest personal friends, and I flew him around the state his first race in my plane, places where my numbers were good. So I've been working with him really closely for a long time. ... He's very familiar with all the issues; he's been involved in every issue having to do with the EPA that I've been involved in."
Inhofe was headed to a prescheduled meeting with Pruitt yesterday afternoon.
"He's someone who studies the issues, is knowledgeable, argued in front of the Supreme Court on issues of law, what's the federal responsibility versus the state responsibility," said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). "That's a balance that must be restored."
Lankford said he would defer to Pruitt to "make the policy decisions" like rolling back the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
"I'm going to have to dig into the specifics," he said about legislation countering the finding.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/08/stories/1060046865
-
Trump Names EPA Administrator Nomination
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
US president-elect Donald Trump has designated Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as his nominee to be the next EPA administrator.
The US Senate must vote to confirm the appointment. This is likely to be held shortly after Mr Trump officially takes office on 20 January 2017.
Outlook for TSCA under a new administration
Speaking via video to a Chemical Watch TSCA event in Berlin, some hours before news of the appointment broke, Jeffrey Morris, deputy director for programmes at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), provided commentary on how a new administration may affect TSCA implementation.
“As someone that has been through several administrative changes, there is no question that each administration tends to provide a certain policy flavour to the implementation of the laws,” said Mr Morris. “But it’s been my experience that, in our TSCA regulatory space, there has always been a strong commitment to implementing the law.
“Given the strong bipartisan support that existed for enacting this law, and from stakeholders in making this law a success, we feel very optimistic that the support is going to continue into the next administration.”
Also speaking in Berlin, Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), questioned how the interplay between the bipartisan support for TSCA reform and a Trump-appointed administrator may play out.
On the one hand, said Dr Denison, there is the support of Congress, as exemplified in a recent letterurging the Trump administration to stay on course with the implementation timeline and to provide adequate resources and staffing to support the new law. But on the other, there is a law being administered by an agency “which is under very broad attack by the Trump administration”.
“How that is going to play remains to be seen,” added Dr Denison.
Mr Morris noted, in his remarks, that what perspective a new administration will bring to various aspects of TSCA’s implementation will not fully be known until it is in place in 2017.
“It’s going to take several months from January, when people are in place in my office and we begin to have that dialogue about what their perspective on implementation is going to be.”
Agreed Dr Denison: “We are entering very uncertain times for everybody, including the business community.”
Congress, stakeholders divided
Republican leadership welcomed the announcement.
Jim Inhofe (R–Oklahoma), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee, said: “Mr Pruitt has fought back against unconstitutional and overzealous environmental regulations. He has proven that being a good steward of the environment does not mean burdening taxpayers and businesses with red tape.”
Mr Inhofe has expressed confidence in the Trump’s administration’s continued implementation of TSCA, in recent weeks.
But across the aisle, sentiments were the polar opposite.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D–California), ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, said that in his role as Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr Pruitt has sued the EPA to “overturn common-sense public health protections”, and has fought on the side of special interests over the health of people.
“There can be no doubt that Mr Pruitt is the wrong choice, because he will continue to try to roll back our landmark environmental laws.”
Concerns were shared in the NGO community.
EDF president Fred Krupp called the decision “deeply troubling”.
“There has been no bigger antagonist from the states against efforts to protect public health than Pruitt”, added the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “The nation’s public health protection laws will be under withering assault,” it added.
But the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) said it believes the EPA, under Mr Pruitt, "can drive continued environmental quality improvements, while reducing overreaching, inflexible federal policies that threaten manufacturing’s competitiveness”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51562/trump-names-epa-administrator-nomination
-
Pruitt Has Mixed Court Record in EPA Showdowns
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs and Amanda Reilly
As Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead U.S. EPA, built a record of filing politically charged lawsuits against the agency.
Almost all of those lawsuits failed.
Since Pruitt became attorney general in 2011, the Republican has used the office to launch an offensive against EPA as well as other major Obama administration policies, including the Affordable Care Act.
But a review of those lawsuits by E&E News shows Pruitt lost the majority of those cases, some of which were quickly tossed by federal judges.
Pruitt's most significant win was the Supreme Court's decision to put President Obama's landmark greenhouse gas emissions program on hold. But legal experts say his primary argument — that EPA was overstepping constitutional limits and trampling states' rights — is unlikely to prevail.
Yet Pruitt has drawn a significant following on the right for his tenacity in challenging the Obama administration. And Pruitt's legal strategy appears in line with Trump's strong statements on the campaign trail about rolling back Obama administration regulations that he views as threatening the economy.
The president-elect commented along similar lines in announcing Pruitt's nomination today.
"For too long, [EPA] has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn," Trump said in a statement. "As my EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, the highly respected Attorney General from the state of Oklahoma, will reverse this trend and restore the EPA's essential mission of keeping our air and our water clean and safe."
Pruitt's critics, however, say the Republican is more interested in scoring political points than advancing sound legal theories.
"He clearly files politically motivated lawsuits aimed at protecting polluters," said Bill Snape, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. "And he's done some odd things legally."
Howard Learner of the Environmental Law & Policy Center was more direct in assessing Pruitt's record.
"Look, as Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt consistently challenged EPA clean air and clean water standards," Learner said. "And mostly, he did not achieve success."
Pruitt has filed no fewer than eight lawsuits against EPA or other environmental agencies on behalf of Oklahoma.
Some have been high-profile, such as the ongoing multistate litigation against the Clean Power Plan and EPA's controversial rule establishing what bodies of water qualify for federal Clean Water Act protections. Both those lawsuits are ongoing, though courts have put both rules on hold while the cases play out.
But others have been smaller-scale cases, in which Pruitt's "federalism unit" has made similar arguments against EPA's intrusion on what he considers state matters.
One in particular stands out. Pruitt's work against the Clean Power Plan succeeded when the Supreme Court stayed the regulations that would cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
But Pruitt's was one of more than a dozen states that also filed cases against EPA that sought to block the agency from finalizing the regulations.
The Kentucky native filed that case in federal district court in Oklahoma, even though the Clean Air Act clearly says challenges must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Pruitt's move may have been an attempt to get a friendlier judge than those on the D.C. Circuit, where there are more Democratic-appointed judges than Republican. Nevertheless, a judge swiftly dismissed the suit because the rule hadn't been finalized — a basic legal principle of administrative law — and should have been filed in the D.C. Circuit anyway (Greenwire, July 20).
Jim Rubin, an environmental attorney at the firm Dorsey & Whitney, said the Clean Power Plan case had little to do with its legal merits.
"Those were as much political statements as litigation strategy," he said, adding the lawsuit doesn't mean Pruitt is unqualified to be EPA administrator.
In another lawsuit, Pruitt sued EPA over air standards for reducing haze in Oklahoma. He lost, eventually taking the case to the Supreme Court, which declined to review it (Greenwire, May 27, 2014).
A separate lawsuit filed by Texas and energy companies — but not Pruitt — was successful in persuading a court to put a related haze plan on hold (Greenwire, July 18).
Pruitt was part of a large lawsuit challenging EPA's program for air pollution that drifts across state lines. There, too, he ultimately lost (Greenwire, July 28, 2015).
Despite his record, Pruitt has maintained that there is a benefit to going ahead with litigation.
Regarding the case on regional haze, he told StateImpact Oklahoma in June 2014 the litigation served to delay the regulations.
"The court put a stay in place, preventing our utility companies from having to spend 2-plus billion dollars," he said. "That saved us three years of costs and oh, by the way, I think led to some alternative plans that were perhaps more accommodating."
Pruitt, 48, has long been politically ambitious. After becoming a state senator in Oklahoma in 2006, he quickly ascended to leadership roles, including Republican whip and assistant floor leader.
But he was less successful in running for office until he was elected attorney general in 2010. In 2001, he ran for Congress, coming in a distant third in an open-seat race. In 2006, he ran for lieutenant governor and failed to win the Republican nomination.
Once attorney general, he sought to capitalize on Republican anti-EPA talking points. He was one of a dozen state attorneys general who filed a Freedom of Information Act request to EPA seeking correspondence between agency leadership and environmental groups — an attempt to show collusion as part of the Republicans' "sue and settle" campaign, which has been debunked by multiple nonpartisan watchdogs (E&E News PM, Jan. 14, 2015).
Pruitt and others sued EPA over its response. There again, he lost in December 2013.
He has filed other, more successful sue-and-settle lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service over endangered species listings, including the controversial lesser prairie chicken (Greenwire, Nov. 29).
The Republican has denied that he has been driven by politics as attorney general.
"The narrative on the left, the narrative with respect to our opponents, is that we're simply engaging in political exercise," Pruitt told the conservative Federalist Society in February. "The opposite is true. It is a very important time to be attorney general, because this is about the rule of law, things that are much more transcendent, in my view, than whether we agree or disagree with the policy aspirations of the Affordable Care Act."
Jonathan Adler, a law professor who knows Pruitt, cautioned against reading too much into his record in court.
Adler noted that courts are by default inclined to rule for agencies and against challengers.
"The fact that a lot of his suits have been unsuccessful indicates nothing more than it's hard to challenge environmental regulations in court," said Adler, who teaches at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Ohio. "If the EPA is doing its job, it should win the vast majority of cases."
Adler also said some of Pruitt's cases were likely designed not necessarily to win, but to increase political pressure on EPA and the Obama administration.
That, Adler said, is a page straight out of environmental groups' playbook.
"Pruitt," he said, "is one of the state attorneys general who is something of a pioneer in terms of adopting the same broader strategy in terms of pushing back against the federal government."
And while Adler said some of Pruitt's lawsuits, such as the Clean Power Plan challenge before it was finalized, may have been legally suspect, he ultimately got the result he wanted.
"They got the stay," Adler said. "At some point along the way, they clearly did something right."
Clean Power Plan
The stay on Obama's signature climate rule has been Pruitt's most high-profile success.
Oklahoma filed a lawsuit challenging the Clean Power Plan on Oct. 23, 2015, the day the contentious rule was published in the Federal Register. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated it and other challenges to the rule into one massive lawsuit.
In February, the Supreme Court granted an unprecedented stay of the rule until litigation is resolved. In another surprise move, the D.C. Circuit said it would hear the case en banc in front of the entire active court. A panel of 10 judges heard nearly seven hours of oral arguments in September.
Opponents of the rule have said the high court stay and the decision to review the case en banc signaled that judges would ultimately rule the Clean Power Plan was illegal.
But even Pruitt has cautioned that the state foes of the rule may be disappointed in the ruling in the D.C. Circuit, given its 7-4 liberal tilt among active judges (Greenwire, Nov. 14).
"We are not terribly optimistic that ... we're going to win as a collection of states," Pruitt told the Conservative Political Action Conference in March.
Others have suggested that Pruitt's main argument — his constitutional claims against EPA usurping states' rights and commandeering them into a regulatory scheme to which they don't agree — appears unlikely to determine the case.
Most legal experts following the case believe it will be decided not on constitutional issues but rather on whether the rule goes beyond EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act.
"We feel a little bit like, going into the D.C. Circuit, that we're fighting an uphill battle there with the makeup of the court," Pruitt said a few days ahead of the arguments at a Federalist Society event in Washington, "but I'm hopeful that the strength of our arguments that there's some persuasion there about the importance of the states."
At that same event, Pruitt said EPA has a "valuable and important role to play in regulation of the environment." But he called the Clean Power Plan an example of the executive branch "trying to fill a space" left open by Congress, referring to the failure of lawmakers to pass comprehensive cap and trade in 2010.
"I don't blame the administration for taking a policy position — addressing carbon regulation — that obviously is an important matter for them," Pruitt said. "But despite that, it doesn't make it right."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/08/stories/1060046900
-
Possible Manchin Pick for DOE Draws Mixed Reviews
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
Climate change policy will be the big open question if Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is nominated as the secretary of the Department of Energy.
President-elect Donald Trump is slated to meet with the senior West Virginia senator tomorrow (Climatewire, Dec. 7). E&E News has reported he is one of two Senate Democrats being "seriously considered" to head the Energy Department (Climatewire, Dec. 5).
Observers said Manchin would be well-equipped to take on DOE, but his antipathy toward past legislative efforts on climate change leaves them uncertain about whether he would maintain the agency's contributions to the fight against carbon emissions or dial them down.
"In terms of energy, he's got a range of experience," said Dan Reicher, executive director of the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University, who led DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under President Clinton.
DOE's wheelhouse includes nuclear weapons, national laboratories, nuclear waste cleanup and energy research, and Manchin's resume aligns with this portfolio, Reicher said.
Manchin serves on the Armed Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over DOE's nuclear weapons mission, and he serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has a say in the department's activities in research and work in national laboratories.
He was also governor of West Virginia, the fourth-largest energy-producing state. Morgantown, W.Va., is home to DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, which conducts fossil fuels research.
Manchin told E&E News last week that he would want an Energy secretary who would "favor an all-of-the-above energy strategy."
Serving under a Republican administration as a senior Democrat, Manchin could muster bipartisan support for some energy policies. "As a Democrat, it certainly sends a good signal," said Reicher, who worked as an adviser to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. "He's got well-established relationships across the Senate and across D.C."
This sets Manchin apart from other names suggested to lead DOE, most of whom are drawing solely on experience in the energy sector, Reicher said.
A Manchin-led Energy Department would bode well for coal, industry advocates say. "He understands the history of coal, where it fits in relation to other forms of energy, and he understands the industry well," said Jason Bohrer, president and CEO of the Lignite Energy Council, though he noted that his No. 1 pick for the job is Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).
Bohrer pointed out that DOE is tasked more with research and development than regulation, so Manchin could direct more resources to projects examining carbon capture and storage, which keeps fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions from reaching the atmosphere.
The Energy Department is also conducting research in supercritical carbon dioxide turbines. The technology would improve the efficiency of thermal power plants, including coal-fired power plants, thereby shrinking their carbon footprints (Climatewire, Oct. 17).
Many in the coal sector are counting on investments in these kinds of technologies to revitalize a sector undermined by low natural gas prices and plagued with layoffs and bankruptcies.
"The future of coal is tied directly to our ability to innovate," Bohrer said.
Manchin has spoken in favor of carbon-capture technologies, but he also described Trump's promise of a coal renaissance as "BS" (Climatewire, Sept. 29).
"I think that is an indication of his understanding that the challenges that face this industry are not just regulatory," Bohrer said. "It's not just about rolling back the Clean Power Plan; it's about rolling back the Clean Power Plan and providing innovative solutions for coal in the marketplace."
One environmental activist, however, was aghast.
"I realize there's a tradition of putting a token member of the other person's party [in the Cabinet], but Joe Manchin is a horrible pick," said Ben Schreiber, climate and energy program director at Friends of the Earth.
Though Manchin has acknowledged that climate change is a concern, Schreiber recalled that Manchin filmed a campaign ad where he shot at the text of a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade bill with a rifle.
"We really need to have a massive transition to renewable energy at a really rapid speed," Schreiber said. "The next head of the DOE should be the one making that case and leading us in that transition."
Manchin at DOE is unlikely to move the needle on climate change in either direction on his own, but the department under his leadership would be a major player in shaping climate change under a president who has described it as a "hoax."
"That is going to be a much larger question that is going to be answered inside the White House across multiple agencies," Reicher said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/08/stories/1060046863
-
Army Corps Decision on Dakota Access Pipeline is Pure Politics
Dec 8, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andrew Wilford
Earlier this week, the Army Corps of Engineers decided to block the final easement needed for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe. Tribal groups and environmentalists celebrated the federal government’s decision to reject the permit, claiming that the pipeline threatens tribal land and the environment. Unfortunately, the easement was blocked for reasons that are motivated by political pressure. The Army Corps’s decision has little to do with scientific evaluations or concern for economic benefits, providing further evidence of the extreme politicization in the federal regulatory process.
In its 2015 environmental assessment, the Army Corps specifically addressed the concerns surrounding the portion of the pipeline that would cross under Lake Oahe. The Army Corps rejected these concerns, noting Dakota Access’s effort to include safety features that would “minimize the risk of spills and reduce or remediate any potential damages.” The environmental assessment concluded that there was such a minimal effect on the environment that there was not even a need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
One will note that the Army Corps’s sudden reversal on this is based on no new evidence at all.
Instead, the Army Corps based their decision on “a need to explore alternative routes.” This statement misleads the reader into thinking that alternative routes have not already been explored, despite the fact that the environmental assessment did study other routes and found that the planned route under Lake Oahe was the “preferred route” due to minimization of environmental impact. Not only this, but the environmental assessment determined that building the pipeline was a superior alternative to not having the pipeline at all, due to the lack of transport alternatives available to meet demand for crude oil as well as the greatly increased potential for spillage when transporting crude by rail or truck.
The other factor the Army Corps cited in its decision to block the permit was the need for “discussions” with the Standing Rock tribe. Again, this seems to indicate that discussions have yet to occur, but the Army Corps had previously pointed out its “good faith effort to consult with the tribes and that it considered all tribal comments.”
And yet, despite the fact that the Dakota Access developers and Army Corps engineers have followed the regulatory and legal process, the pipeline’s construction has suddenly been halted. The reason for this is the Obama Administration’s decision, “mere minutes” after a federal judge had declined to block construction of the pipeline, to block construction itself.
This unilateral decision is especially rash considering the economic benefits the pipeline promises. Construction of the pipeline is a $3.7 billion project which would support between 8,000-12,000 jobs and raise an estimated $201 million in taxes.
This decision threatens the entire regulatory and judicial process that had sided with the scientific evaluations that determined the Dakota Access pipeline should not be blocked. President Obama should reconsider this decision instead of allowing political pressure to cloud his judgment.
Andrew Wilford is an associate policy analyst based in Washington, D.C. He graduated from American University in 2016 and is a Young Voices Advocate.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/309324-army-corps-decision-on-dakota-access-pipeline-is-pure
-
Dec 8, 2016 | Business Report
By Daily Report Staff
A battle is brewing over just how stringent industry standards for tank cars should be, and the outcome will have dramatic implications for Louisiana.
As 10/12 Industry Report details in a feature from the current issue, freight railroad interests want higher standards than those imposed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. But a national coalition representing chemical, gas, fertilizer and other industry groups wants to block that initiative to streamline oversight of new tank car safety standards and control rising rail transportation costs.
The outcome of the debate is particularly important to Louisiana’s chemical and petroleum producers, since tank cars are purchased or leased by the customers that use them. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ranks Louisiana second in the U.S. in chemicals transported by rail and first in the U.S. in the amount of crude oil transported.
“I don’t think a lot of people realize that our industry owns and/or leases a lot of these tank cars,” says Jeff Sloan, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council in Washington, D.C., a participant in the petition. “When it comes to adhering to any standards, those are the sorts of things that fall on our industry.”
The new federal guidelines aimed at strengthening tank car standards are the direct result of recent high-profile accidents, most significantly a July 2013 incident in Quebec when a runaway train carrying 72 tank cars of crude oil derailed, igniting 1.5 million gallons of oil and killing 47 people.
In the months that followed, industry groups worked with PHMSA to improve the standards for tank cars, primarily those carrying crude oil and toxic materials. Since the federal guidelines were announced in 2015, there have been many challenges to the rule—both in federal court and in administrative proceedings before PHMSA.
While all parties agree that new industry standards for stronger, safer tank car designs are needed, there is disagreement over the extent of the design changes and who has authority to mandate those changes. Industry manufacturers are petitioning the PHMSA—a direct response to efforts by the Association of American Railroads to impose tank car manufacturing guidelines that go beyond standards issued by PHMSA in 2015—seeking to establish that PHMSA is the ultimate authority for imposing new standards.
Sloan says the petition is currently under official review, with no definitive timeframe given for a decision. Should PHMSA determine that the petition has merit, and subsequently accept it, a rulemaking process will follow.
https://www.businessreport.com/article/1012-industry-report-industry-coalition-freight-railroads-fighting-new-tank-car-standards
-
Fertilizer Institute President: Farmers, Consumers Need Freight-Rail Reform
Dec 8, 2016 | Grand Forks Herald
By Chris Jahn
When it comes to marketplaces, competition shouldn't be a dirty word. From cable and satellite networks to gasoline stations, consumers uniformly benefit when competition for their business exists.
So why, then, should America's freight railroads be allowed to ship fertilizer, grain, feed and other essential products inside and through North Dakota in an antiquated, competition-free environment?
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan told Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." The 1980's also saw congressional passage of the Staggers Act, which was intended to take down the figurative wall between shippers and the railroads by fostering a competitive and fair market environment.
In 1996, Congress created the Surface Transportation Board to ensure that railroads remain profitable and that shippers have access to reasonably priced and efficient rail service.
Since then, Congress' vision for the STB has not yet been realized, and rail-to-rail competition has even been reduced substantially. In 1981, there were 31 Class I rail carriers; today, there are only seven—and of those, four dominate the industry.
What's more, the system for lodging official rate concerns is so costly and time-consuming that rail customers in the North Dakota fertilizer industry—and nationwide—are at a significant disadvantage.
For instance, the STB estimates that it takes an average of 3½ years and costs a shipper more than $5 million to complete a rate challenge. Some cases take longer and cost much more.
Such a costly and lengthy process makes challenges to rail rates impossible. In an environment where freight-rail rates have increased at three times the rate of inflation over the past 15 years, this is unworkable and unacceptable.
Rules and government procedures administered by the STB are simply not working. They block competition between railroads and, when no competitive options are available, deprive rail customers of ways to resolve rate and service concerns.
Many shippers—from fertilizer producers and retailers to car manufacturers and corn farmers—are captive to a single railroad, and are without real recourse if rates or service are unacceptable.
Fertilizer is essential to food production as it allows farmers to replace nutrients removed from the soil with each harvest. Growers don't have the luxury of time when it comes to planting and harvesting of crops.
Our network of 1,158 retailers in North Dakota serves the state's farmers, contributes 4,341 jobs and has an overall economic impact of $1.36 billion. Both planting and harvesting take place in a very narrow window of time that is dictated by weather and plant conditions.
On-time rail transportation of fertilizer is critical to making this system work, and thus to the state's economy.
Congress recently recognized the need for change and called on the National Academies of Sciences to conduct a review of the U.S. freight rail industry. The Academies' Transportation Research Board report confirmed what rail customers had known for years: STB procedures to address shipper concerns "lack a sound economic rationale and are unusable by most shippers," and many current policies "should be replaced with practices better suited for today's modern freight rail system."
Congress—with the support of the entire North Dakota congressional delegation—took another important step last year by passing legislation to help improve how the STB operates. Now the STB is making a good-faith effort to be more transparent and do a better job resolving long-standing freight rail problems. These efforts should continue without interference.
The U.S. freight rail industry is an indispensable partner and key to our competitiveness in the global economy. The Fertilizer Institute's members are committed to practical reforms to modernize the Surface Transportation Board so that it works better for both the railroads and their customers.
Competition is one of the fairest and most efficient ways to promote improved service. The efforts of Congress and the STB can help farmers and manufacturers be more competitive in the global marketplace, and this is good news for consumers everywhere.
Jahn is president of the Fertilizer Institute, the trade association representing the fertilizer industry.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/letters/4175530-fertilizer-institute-president-farmers-consumers-need-freight-rail-reform
-
What Does Scott Pruitt Believe About Climate Science?
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Environmental groups yesterday sounded off against Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) leading U.S. EPA, calling him a climate denier with deep fossil fuel ties who has relentlessly aimed to thwart greenhouse gas standards.
Pruitt is among the chief attorneys general leading a 28-state fight against the agency's carbon regulations for power plants, and he joined a lawsuit against methane emissions limits for the oil and gas sector.
He has also managed to challenge those rules while saying surprisingly little about whether humans are contributing to climate change.
Pruitt has instead pushed the argument that the federal government is usurping states' rights. He has fought his battles more in the courts than in public opinion. One environmental advocate called the strategy "skillful" but "denial all the same." A Democratic Senate staffer said Pruitt's "MO seems to be to try to dodge the question."
In one co-authored National Review op-ed highly cited by climate advocates yesterday, Pruitt and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R) did question whether climate science is settled and said it's a policy debate that should be encouraged:
Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress.
Although Pruitt's public record on climate science may be limited, David Arkush, managing director of Public Citizen's climate program, said the op-ed line "is denial, particularly in the context of [Pruitt's] record of devotion to the oil and gas industry."
Pruitt sent a letter to EPA complaining that federal regulators were overestimating air pollution from new natural gas wells, but The New York Times found that the letter had actually been written by a major Oklahoma oil and gas company.
Energy industry lobbyists drafted other letters for him to send to EPA, the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget and President Obama, according to that report. Industries he regulates also join him as plaintiffs in court challenges, "a departure from the usual role of the state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to force compliance with state law," the Times noted.
"His denial is somewhat more skillful than that of someone who just says they don't believe the science," Arkush said. "But it's denial all the same. The goal of the denier is to sow doubt and cause delay, and that is precisely what his words and actions do.
"He even goes so far as to try to take the question away from scientists, calling it a 'policy debate' that should be held in 'public forums, and the halls of Congress.' No, it's a scientific question, and he does not demonstrate any expertise or argument that justifies questioning the science," Arkush continued.
Scott Segal, an industry lawyer at Bracewell, however, said the comment "suggests a more thoughtful position on the topic than perhaps environmentalists are willing to give him credit for."
"Climate change these days is less about science, and more about policy choice. There are fundamental questions about what policies would be effective and how much of society's resources should be spent on climate," Segal said. "Environmentalists are too quick to label policy disagreement or questions of legal authority as 'denial.'"
In any case, Democrats are likely to try to nail down Pruitt's full views on climate change in confirmation hearings. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in a statement promised that those hearings would reveal Pruitt's full background to the American public.
Pruitt credits fracking for CO2 drops in Okla.
Pruitt's challenges to power plant climate standards have focused mostly on states' rights. More political or ideological points about climate action wouldn't have earned any points with judges.
In a House Science subcommittee in May, he told lawmakers he would begin by "explaining to you why I so jealously guard Oklahoma's sovereign prerogative to regulate in a way that is both sensible and sensitive to local concerns."
"In Oklahoma, our air is clean, our electricity is cheap, and our unemployment rate is low," he said according to submitted testimony. "We are proud of these things. We are proud of our nation-leading innovation in wind energy and our thoughtful regulation of the energy industry."
Environmental groups have disagreed that Oklahoma's air is clean.
Pruitt noted that Oklahoma produces more wind power than all but three states. He added that carbon dioxide levels have fallen because of a shift away from coal and toward natural gas.
"This didn't happen as a result of the heavy hand of the EPA. Rather, it happened because of fracking and the positive market forces that those sorts of Oklahoma innovations create," he said. "As natural gas becomes increasingly affordable, it becomes an increasingly attractive alternative to coal. And because coal still accounts for 34 percent of power generation, we will continue to see market driven emissions reductions for years to come.
"There are some who wish to create a false dichotomy between those who are 'for clean power' and those who are 'against clean power,'" Pruitt added. "I urge this committee to resist such rhetoric. We are all for clean power."
Over the last couple of years, as natural gas and renewable power have continued to overtake coal's market share, the state standards of the Clean Power Plan have appeared less and less stringent. Most states are on track to meet them in the early years, although that won't be nearly enough to meet the United States' international climate agreements. Regardless of whom Donald Trump picks to head EPA, the president-elect and the Republican-controlled Congress are almost certain to attack the rule.
Despite resistance to the Clean Power Plan from Pruitt and Gov. Mary Fallin (R), Oklahoma was "pretty well-positioned" to comply," according to comments last year from Michael Teague, the state's secretary of energy and environment.
The state Legislature passed a bill to prohibit planning, but Fallin vetoed it and instead issued an revocable executive order to prevent the state from submitting a carbon-cutting blueprint. Teague noted that every power company was eager to avoid getting stuck with a federal plan. One utility, American Electric Power Co. Inc., has noted that its emissions in Oklahoma have fallen year after year.
Pruitt's focus on state authority dates back years.
Comments submitted by his office in 2014 on behalf of states opposed to the draft Clean Power Plan argued that EPA was trying to override states' energy policies and impose a national energy and resource-planning policy that picks winner and losers.
It would force states to "favor renewable energy sources and demand-reduction measures over fossil fuel-fired electric production," they said, adding that EPA had decided it had "breathtakingly broad authority to reorganize states' economies."
In a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing about standards for new power plants in 2013, he didn't rail against action to curb climate change, either. He noted that Oklahoma had written a plan to control regional haze by requiring six plants near a wildlife refuge to burn low-sulfur coal instead of installing scrubbers or over time eliminating coal-fired power as an EPA rule mandated. EPA rejected it, and Pruitt argued that was because the proposal included fossil fuels.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/08/stories/1060046869
-
Democrats Vow to Make Pruitt Confirmation Vote a Climate 'Litmus Test'
Dec 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan & Doug Obey
Senate Democrats are vowing to make President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) for EPA chief a “litmus test” for lawmakers who have said they accept mainstream climate change science, arguing that several Republicans who accept such science could be persuaded to vote against Pruitt.
Democrats' quick sharp negative reaction to Pruitt -- who has been an ardent legal foe of many EPA climate and other regulations -- underscores that they plan for a heated nomination battle.
“This is a litmus test for every member of the Senate who claims not to be a denier,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) said during a Dec. 8 press call organized by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).
Schatz charged that Pruitt is “not just a climate denier,” but a “professional climate denier.”
Schatz told MSNBC Dec. 7 that he hopes to win over four or five Republicans, but it is unclear whether the 48-member Democratic caucus can attract even a handful of Republican senators to join them to form a majority to reject Pruitt's nomination.
Even if Democrats do court some Republicans, they must also ensure that moderates within their own party do not break ranks to support the president-elect's pick.
To that end, top Republican senators warn it is Democrats who will struggle to maintain a unified front on the vote, adding they are comfortable with a narrow victory for Pruitt.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) during a separate Dec. 8 event hosted by the Heritage Foundation told reporters that in the 2016 election, there were twice as many Republican senators up for re-election as Democrats, but the situation will be reversed in the 2018 mid-terms. “I think we are going to be picking up a lot of Democrats” on the Pruitt confirmation vote, Inhofe said.
He claimed that many Democrats vote for the liberal position in Congress but then run for re-election as a moderate, arguing they would have a “hard time doing that” on Pruitt's vote.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) noted that Democrats' move in late 2015 to require only a majority vote to confirm all executive branch nominees “is going to make it a lot harder for them to do anything about” Pruitt.
In his formal Dec. 8 statement announcing Pruitt's nomination, Trump said for too long EPA promoted “an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn.”
'Rallying Point'
During the LCV call, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said Pruitt's nomination should be a “rallying point” for both climate advocates and corporations who support addressing global warming.
Often, he said such businesses have worthy internal climate policies, but do not “take any serious interest on doing anything on climate in Congress.”
Both Whitehouse and Schatz declined to cite Republican colleagues who they believe could be persuadable on the issue, but Whitehouse said “we have a lot of Republican senators who have courted climate change bills in the past” and voted for non-binding amendments that say human-caused climate change is a problem.
Those senators “need to be put on the spot about this” nomination, he said.
The lawmakers were referring to a series of amendments during a January 2015 legislative battle over the Keystone XL pipeline, in which senators were forced to go on the record about whether humans contribute to climate change.
One amendment, authored by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) sought to acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change while simultaneously downplaying the impacts of the pipeline. Specifically, the measure included statements that “climate change is real” and “human activity contributes to climate change.”
Fifteen Republicans voted in favor of that amendment: Sens. Lamar Alexander (TN), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Susan Collins (ME), Bob Corker (TN), Jeff Flake (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC), Orrin Hatch (UT), Dean Heller (NV), Mark Kirk (IL), John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rand Paul (KY), Rob Portman (OH), Mike Rounds (SD) and Pat Toomey (PA).
All will be returning in the next Congress but Ayotte and Kirk, who each lost to Democratic challengers in last month's election.
Also, three returning GOP senators voted for a Schatz measure that said human activity “significantly contributes” to climate change: Alexander, Collins and Graham.
Many of those lawmakers have been involved in previous attempts to craft bipartisan climate legislation, however nearly all have been critical of specific Obama EPA climate regulations, including its signature power plant GHG standards.
As such, it is not clear whether any of the GOP senators will view Pruitt's nomination through Democrats' preferred lens of climate science, or whether they will see his selection as providing necessary regulatory relief.
Environmentalists and their supporters in Congress object to Pruitt because he has been an aggressive critic of many EPA regulations under President Obama, including EPA's power plant GHG standards, its Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, oil and gas regulations and other air quality measures.
They point to earlier comments from Pruitt that climate science is “unsettled” and is subject to “debate.”
Top Democrats are backing efforts by Schatz and Whitehouse to make Pruitt's nomination a test. In a Dec. 7 statement, incoming Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Pruitt's “reluctance to accept the facts or science on climate change couldn't make him any more out of touch with the American people -- and with reality.”
And Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the incoming ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, also warned that he will resist Pruitt's nomination if Pruitt seeks to roll back Obama's legacy.
“I’m not interested in rolling back the significant progress we have made over the past eight years. I’m not interested in attacking the clean water or clean air standards meant to protect public health or in denying the science of climate change. Any individual charged with leading the EPA who wants to ignore science or look out for special interests at the expense of public health can expect a fight with me,” he said in a statement.
During the press call, LCV President Gene Karpinski said Trump's selection of Pruitt is “totally consistent with the campaign Mr. Trump ran,” despite suggestions during a high-profile New York Times interview that he has an “open mind” on climate change and suggesting there is some link between humans and global warming.
“This nomination just shows he lied to the New York Times,” Karpinski charged.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-vow-make-pruitt-confirmation-vote-climate-litmus-test
-
As Trump Knocks Obama on Climate, Firms Recommit to Carbon Reduction
Dec 8, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson and Cassandra Sweet
Many big corporations continue to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions, vowing to stay the course despite the election of Donald Trump, who has promised to dismantle the Obama administration’s climate agenda and this week chose a global-warming skeptic to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
From Houston to Silicon Valley, executives in the oil, power, retail, transportation and technology industries said their companies were locked into a lower-emissions trajectory driven in part by market forces, such as cheaper prices for natural gas and wind power.
Expectations from investors, activists and customers are also factors, along with pressure from regulators in states and other countries, they added.
On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump called climate change a “hoax” and promised to abandon an international pact reached last year in Paris to reduce carbon emissions. He also pledged to repeal the Clean Power Plan, an Obama administration rule which aims to cut carbon emissions from power plants 32% by 2030.
On Wednesday, the president-elect selected Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, an ardent critic of Obama administration regulations, as his EPA head.
Mr. Trump had promised in an interview since his election to “keep an open mind” on the climate issue and met Monday in New York with former Vice President Al Gore, a leading climate activist.
While many companies shared their positions with The Wall Street Journal on climate regulations before Mr. Pruitt’s selection, several reached again afterward, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Google parent Alphabet Inc., said their stance remained unchanged.
“Part of our plan to invest in renewables is to diversify our generation portfolio,” said Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for utility American Electric Power Co. “All of those investments don’t change with a change in administration, it’s a long-term strategy.”
While the question of how and whether to respond to warming global temperatures continues to be debated in politics, especially among Republicans, many big corporations appear to see the transition to less carbon-intensive energy as a foregone conclusion—and ultimately good for business. Companies world-wide committed a record $285 billion to clean energy projects in 2015, according to a study by the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management.
Days after the Nov. 8 U.S. election, Exxon Mobil Corp. signaled its continued support for the Paris climate deal. Suzanne McCarron, Exxon’s vice president of public and government affairs, said on Twitter that the agreement was “an important step forward by governments in addressing the serious risks of #ClimateChange.”
Exxon this year lobbied other energy companies to support a carbon tax and to avoid a posture of opposing all regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. Large European oil companies have also pushed for a global price on carbon.
Big utilities that burn coal such as AEP say they will continue their transition to cleaner energy sources, even if Mr. Trump makes good on his pledge to reverse the Clean Power Plan.
“With Donald Trump being elected, I think you’ll continue with that movement” regardless of whether the clean-power regulation takes effect, said AEP Chief Executive Nick Akins. He cited cheap natural gas and falling prices for wind and solar power as factors also driving the utility’s decisions.
Wal-Mart, General Motors Co., Google and Gap Inc. also said their goals for renewable-energy use or emissions reductions remained intact.
GM set a goal last September to get all its power from renewable sources world-wide by 2050. It estimates it is now saving about $5 million a year as a result of that shift and conservation measures. Wal-Mart plans by 2025 to power half its operations with renewable energy and cut its greenhouse gases 18%.
Google said Tuesday it would reach its goal of buying enough renewable energy to match 100% of the amount of power that it uses, about 2.6 gigawatts, in 2017, earlier than it initially expected. It attributed that in part to cheap wind power in Oklahoma, where Google operates a data center.
“We do believe climate change is real and that businesses should do what they can to address it, but we’re doing this because it’s good for business,” said Gary Demasi, Google’s director of global infrastructure.
After Mr. Trump’s victory, more than 350 companies, including IntelCorp., DuPont Co. and Monsanto Co. signed a pledge expressing support for the Paris climate agreement and U.S. efforts to cut carbon emissions. That sentiment extends to international companies based outside the U.S.
Andrew Mackenzie, chief executive of BHP Billiton Ltd., the world’s largest miner by market value, told shareholders last month that he hoped Mr. Trump would stand by the U.S. commitment to the Paris accord.
“More needs to be done” to achieve the agreement’s goal of limiting global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius, said BHP sustainability and climate change vice president Fiona Wild.
If Mr. Trump makes good on earlier promises to cancel regulations limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, it would benefit a number of smaller energy companies, who are more supportive of such actions.
Smaller refinery companies, for example, have also been pushing hard for an overhaul of the renewable fuel standard, a federal mandate enforced by the EPA that requires refineries to blend an increasingly large amount of ethanol into U.S. gasoline.
Big oil companies including Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, and BP PLC have been reaping millions by selling renewable fuel credits associated with the ethanol program, while smaller refiners have been forced to spend hundreds of millions to buy the credits to comply with the rules.
But environmental rules established by the Obama administration that have already taken effect can’t be canceled as easily as some industry executives expect, said Larry Nettles, the head of the environmental and natural resources practice at law firm Vinson & Elkins LLP.
That would require new legislation or a lengthy executive branch process that could be challenged in court by environmentalists, he said.
“The concept that there’s going to be a significant change in environmental regulatory policy and enforcement is a little naive,” Mr. Nettles said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-trump-knocks-obama-on-climate-firms-recommit-to-carbon-reduction-1481218505
-
Trump Take Note — 'All of the Above Energy' Means 'All of the Above Jobs'
Dec 8, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Sarah E. Hunt
“All of the above energy” is no mere pithy industry spin, and truth be told it is actually “all of the above jobs.”
By embracing energy policies that rely on markets versus executive fiat to pick “winners and losers,” President-elect Trump can spur job creation across America’s energy resources, including coal, natural gas, nuclear, oil, solar, wind and the ingenuity of our scientists, engineers, and energy financiers.
All of the above jobs can become reality in a nation where policy choices create a culture of innovation across sectors.
In energy, innovation culture requires national leadership that is courageous enough to stop making energy policy through the tax code. Sadly, America’s national energy policy has of late become about scrapping over tax incentives.
These incentives usually favor one energy source over another, until the disfavored sources manage to get their own new tax benefits. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for wind and solar, 45Q for coal, incentives for nuclear in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the fact carbon tax proponents look to corporate tax reform as the solution to climate change, all demonstrate how accustomed the government is to making energy policy synonymous with tax policy.
President Trump has the ability to end this tax code chicanery by taking a hard look at how tax policy is creating market distortions that may be impeding American energy leadership and job creation.
The new era of energy careers will also require our Departments of Energy and Defense to be research leaders by making investments that benefit both our national security and our energy future.
Nuclear power and hydraulic fracturing are two energy innovations these two agencies helped bring to market. The Department of Energy provided crucial, early support to hydraulic fracturing technology. The Army Corps of Engineers, a division of the Department of Defense, ran the Manhattan Project, which brought forth the atomic era. Both innovations are responsible for tens of thousands of good, stable American jobs.
Nuclear research was key to hastening America’s victory in World War II. Hydraulic fracturing, further, has been instrumental in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas.
With this precedent in mind, President Trump’s administration should encourage “all of the above investments” in our energy future, rather than ideologically driven “research” investments in renewables only.
The next great innovation in clean energy, for example, might be zero emissions natural gas and coal fired Allam cycle power plants. This new technology is not only zero emissions, it has potential to create jobs in research, in construction, in coal mining, and in plant operations and maintenance.
“All of the above research” means improved national security and all of the above jobs.
President Trump must encourage research by cutting regulatory red tape that cripples innovation. A company wastes up to ten years and $100 million dollars in fees to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) permits necessary to conduct research into critical advanced nuclear technologies.
The deleterious effect of this regulatory burden on energy innovation and baseload security cannot be understated. This red tape is driving the best thinkers and investment dollars in nuclear energy to research facilities in Asia.
ThorCon and Terrapower are but two American projects in advanced nuclear research that the lengthy regulatory timeframe of NRC permitting has forced to Indonesia and China, respectively. Streamlining permitting for advanced nuclear research will keep atomic energy leadership and jobs here in America.
All of the above job creation also requires the government to scrap regulatory barriers to entry for new energy innovators.
The Federal regulatory process is roughly a three to five year process. Technology innovation moves much faster than this clunky speed of the administrative state. By the time a rule is done, it is often technologically out of date and checkered with provisions that favor big companies over the small business innovators who create most of America’s new jobs.
At a recent forum I attended, CISCO executive chairman John Chambers recently told a global audience of youth innovation leaders that he thinks President Trump is well positioned to lead the United States into the innovation future because of his business acumen.
For this reason, American workers should be optimistic our new president will take these simple steps, and more, to create all of the above jobs, all of the above careers in energy innovation across the states.
Sarah E. Hunt is the Director for the Center for Innovation and Technology and leads the Center’s Energy Innovation Project at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/309301-trump-take-note-all-of-the-above-energy-means-all-of
-
Leonardo DiCaprio Meets with Donald Trump on Renewable Energy
Dec 8, 2016 | The Hill - In the Know Blog
By Brooke Seipel
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio met with President-elect Donald Trump Wednesday night to talk green jobs and environmental policy.
The press wasn't notified of the secretive meeting, which was reported to have lasted 90 minutes. A source told The Associated Press that Trump suggested the two meet a second time next month.
During the meeting, DiCaprio gave Trump a copy of his climate change documentary, "Before the Flood," and discussed job creation in renewable energy fields.
Terry Tamminen, the CEO of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, confirmed the meeting in a statement to the AP, adding that he and DiCaprio gave a presentation to Trump, Ivanka and other members of Trump's team on renewable energy and the millions of jobs that could be created in the industry.
"Today, we presented the President-elect and his advisers with a framework — which LDF developed in consultation with leading voices in the fields of economics and environmentalism — that details how to unleash a major economic revival across the United States that is centered on investments in sustainable infrastructure," Tamminen told the AP.
DiCaprio had previously met with Ivanka Trump to give her his documentary.
Donald Trump, whom former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) once compared to the grizzly bear in DiCaprio's film "The Revenant" on the campaign trail, announced Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a well known climate change doubter, as his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday.http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/309391-leonardo-dicaprio-meets-with-donald-trump
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested