Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/14/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cheap, Abundant Natgas Continues Fueling U.S. Chemical Industry: ACC
Dec 14, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
The U.S. chemistry business is strong, and getting stronger, according to the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) just-released “Year End 2016 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Plastics Industry Effort to Combat Marine Litter Grows in 2016
Dec 14, 2016 | Packaging Europe
Seven new signatories were added to The Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, also informally known as the “Joint Declaration” in 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Unified in Combatting Marine Litter
Dec 14, 2016 | Recycling International
By Martijn Reintjes
Vietnam: This year, a further seven plastics industry associations have signed the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, also known as the Joint Declaration. -
The Canary in Donald Trump’s Literal Coal Mine
Dec 14, 2016 | TIME
By Evan Hepler-Smith
This election season, the central concern of American environmental politics has been the future of the country’s climate and energy policies. -
Remarks at EPA Stakeholder Meeting on New Chemicals Review Program
Dec 14, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Joanna Slaney
Today the EPA held a public meeting on the new requirements for the New Chemicals Review Program under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. EDF oral comments, as prepared for delivery, follow below. -
Your Calls Worked! Congress Passes Vital Bill on Lead
Dec 13, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than a half million children under the age of 6 are poisoned by lead each year, causing developmental and speech delays as well as long-term health effects on the kidneys, heart and brain. -
Shareholders OK Monsanto, Bayer Merger
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Shareholders of Monsanto Co. approved a $57 billion takeover by Bayer AG yesterday in a deal that would combine two of the biggest agricultural companies in the world. -
Christmas Comes Early for the Hard-Pressed Oil and Gas Industry
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold and Jenny Mandel
Drillers and producers in the Lone Star State have had a few grim years, badly wounded by the 2014 oil price collapse and weak natural gas prices. But December has brought treats from both the markets and now Washington. -
4 Most Disturbing Things About Scott Pruitt and the EPA
Dec 13, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
Every day, the Trump transition team seems to deliver more devastating news. The latest includes the choice of Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of state; and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who calls climate action “nonsense,” for the top job at the U.S. Department of Energy. -
Quote-Unquote: Pruitt’s EPA and the Next Environmental Agenda
Dec 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
Most of the comments relate to the future of climate-change regulations, but we start with one on the renewable fuel standard: -
Trump Taps Rick Perry, Vocal Climate Critic, to Lead DOE
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
When Texas was enduring thousands of wildfires and extreme drought in 2011 that scientists said was amplified by global warming, then-Gov. Rick Perry (R) never once mentioned climate change. -
Rick Perry Will Bring Progress to Our Nation's Energy Sector
Dec 14, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Philip Van Horne
This week, President-elect Donald Trump chose former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) to be secretary of the Department of Energy in his administration. -
Dems Vow to Drill Down on Climate in Tillerson Confirmation
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
The controversy around Exxon Mobil Corp.'s understanding of climate change, and if it hid those risks from the public, will be prominent in CEO Rex Tillerson's confirmation hearing, according to Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. -
Transition: Trump Taps Rep. Zinke to Lead Interior
Dec 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly picked Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) -- a former Navy SEAL and freshman congressman who largely backs Trump's stances on energy, climate and public lands issues -- to lead the Interior Department, despite earlier indications he had selected Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), a top-ranking GOP lawmaker. -
EPA Assessment Now More a Guide Than a Verdict
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
It hardly seems controversial to say that hydraulic fracturing and related drilling activities can contaminate water. -
Kinder Louisiana Pipeline Files Project to Serve Sabine Pass Expansion
Dec 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC (KMLP) has filed at FERC for a project to modify its existing pipeline system in order to serve the Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Louisiana. -
Trump Team Disavows Request for Names of Energy Staffers on Climate Programs
Dec 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is distancing itself from a questionnaire that asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to name employees involved with President Obama’s climate change priorities. -
Dems Concerned Trump Trying to 'Target' Energy Dept. Employees
Dec 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Top Democrats on Capitol Hill are raising concerns about the Trump transition team's push to identify Department of Energy (DOE) employees who have worked on climate change issues. -
New Tool Calculates Reserves' Potential Greenhouse Gases
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
With President-elect Donald Trump promising an energy policy that embraces fossil fuels, his critics have a new tool to estimate the potential greenhouse gas emissions from oil, gas and coal reserves.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cheap, Abundant Natgas Continues Fueling U.S. Chemical Industry: ACC
Dec 14, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
The U.S. chemistry business is strong, and getting stronger, according to the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) just-released “Year End 2016 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook.”
Full Article Found Here: https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2016/12/14/cheap-abundant-natgas-continues-fueling-u-s-chemical-industry-acc/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Plastics Industry Effort to Combat Marine Litter Grows in 2016
Dec 14, 2016 | Packaging Europe
Seven new signatories were added to The Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, also informally known as the “Joint Declaration” in 2016. New participants include the American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA), the Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers & Exporters Association (BPGMEA), the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA), the Ghanaian Plastics Manufacturers Association (GPMA), the Myanmar Plastics Industries Association (MPIA), the Indonesian Olefins, Aromatics and Plastics Association (INAPLA), and the Vietnam Plastics Association (VPA).
“We’re excited to welcome each of these new partners, who bring perspectives from countries in Asia and Africa, or types of plastic not previously represented in our Joint Declaration ” said Steve Russell, Vice President, Plastics, American Chemistry Council, at the 27th Global Meeting on Plastics and Sustainability in Hanoi, Vietnam. At the meeting, delegates also agreed that going forward the group will become the “Global Plastics Alliance.”
Delegates from 17 countries and four continents participated in the Global Meeting – making this the largest and best attended meeting to date.
“Addressing marine litter issues effectively requires that we bring local, regional and global stakeholders together,” said Karl-H. Foerster, Executive Director of PlasticsEurope. “Broadening our fold helps us find new partners and opportunities to tackle this very serious problem.”
“Plastic producers from around the world are coming together to keep used plastic out of the environment, and to further improve the sustainability of these energy and resource efficient materials. The strong participation at this meeting demonstrates that this industry is committed to providing solutions to ensure a more sustainable future” said Callum Chen, Secretary General of the Asia Plastics Forum. “Together, as a united, global industry, we’re involved in hundreds of marine litter prevention programs in all regions of the globe,” added Chen. “But there is still much to do. Growing our ranks helps further grow our work.”
The Global Declaration was launched in March 2011 at the 5th International Marine Debris Conference. Today, the Declaration has been signed by 69 plastics associations from regions across the globe. Recognizing their important role in fighting marine litter, these plastics associations have launched and are supporting projects in six key areas aimed at contributing to sustainable solutions. The six focus areas of the Global Declaration are education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery, and plastic pellet containment.
In May, leaders from plastics organizations across the globe announced that there were approximately 260 projects planned, underway or completed.http://www.packagingeurope.com/Packaging-Europe-News/70253/Global-Plastics-Industry-Effort-to-Combat-Marine-Litter-Grows-in-2016.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Unified in Combatting Marine Litter
Dec 14, 2016 | Recycling International
By Martijn Reintjes
Vietnam: This year, a further seven plastics industry associations have signed the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, also known as the Joint Declaration.
These are: the American Fiber Manufacturers Association; the Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers & Exporters Association; the Flexible Packaging Association; the Ghanaian Plastics Manufacturers Association; the Myanmar Plastics Industries Association; the Indonesian Olefins, Aromatics and Plastics Association; and the Vietnam Plastics Association.
‘We’re excited to welcome each of these new partners, who bring perspectives from countries in Asia and Africa, or types of plastic not previously represented in our Joint Declaration,’ stated Steve Russell, vice president plastics at the American Chemistry Council during the latest global meeting on plastics and sustainability held in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Also at the meeting, it was agreed by delegates from 17 countries that the group will be known henceforth as the Global Plastics Alliance.
‘Addressing marine litter issues effectively requires that we bring local, regional and global stakeholders together,’ stressed Karl-Heinz Förster, executive director of PlasticsEurope. ‘Broadening our fold helps us find new partners and opportunities to tackle this very serious problem.’
Callum Chen, secretary general of the Asia Plastics Forum, added: ‘Together, as a united, global industry, we’re involved in hundreds of marine litter prevention programmes in all regions of the globe. But there is still much to do. Growing our ranks helps further grow our work.’
The Declaration was launched in 2011 and has been signed by 69 plastics associations. Together, they claim to have some 260 projects planned, under way or completed.
http://www.recyclinginternational.com/recycling-news/10189/plastic-and-rubber/vietnam/plastics-industry-unified-combatting-marine-litter
-
The Canary in Donald Trump’s Literal Coal Mine
Dec 14, 2016 | TIME
By Evan Hepler-Smith
Evan Hepler-Smith is a historian of modern science and technology and Ziff Environmental Fellow at the Harvard University Center for the Environment
Watch this act to see how environmental policy will fare
This election season, the central concern of American environmental politics has been the future of the country’s climate and energy policies. Political divisions over coal, climate change and government regulation are likely to intensify with Donald Trump’s nomination of Scott Pruitt, who has rejected the scientific consensus that human actions are responsible for climate change, to head the Environmental Protection Agency—the very agency that Pruitt, as Oklahoma’s attorney general, has sued to prevent it from enforcing regulations. The nominations of Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State and former Texas Governor Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy will likely add fuel to the fire.
However, at least one environmental policy enjoys strong bipartisan support, as well as the endorsement of both the chemical industry and environmental and public-health advocacy groups: the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. The fate of the Lautenberg Act will be an early sign of the prospects for any cooperation in the near future of American environmental politics. Call it the canary in the coal-fired power plant.
On Nov. 30, 10 senators wrote to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, urging the incoming administration to prioritize the implementation of this new law. The letter’s signatories include such unlikely allies as Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey and Republican James Inhofe from Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma. Inhofe has called the link between human activities and global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” and Markey once suggested that global warming deniers start their own country on an iceberg. But they are united in support for the robust implementation of this chemical safety law.
From the water crisis in Flint, Mich., to the chemical spill that left hundreds of thousands of West Virginians without water in January 2014, chemical hazards affect the health and well-being of millions of Americans. The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is a revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act, one of the principal statutes by which the EPA assesses and controls such hazards.
The original Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides a cautionary tale in how the achievements of legislative compromise can break down in their implementation. Passed in 1976 in the waning days of the Ford administration, the act was to extend an umbrella of safety over the chemicals in use in America that were not already addressed by clean air, clean water and occupational health laws. The EPA had barely finished developing the apparatus to enforce the law when the Reagan administration de-prioritized and de-funded it. In one signature case, during the late 1980s, the EPA sought to phase out the use of asbestos in the U.S. under the provisions of TSCA, but a federal court ruled that the asbestos ban did not constitute the “least burdensome” mechanism of enforcement mandated by the law.
After the asbestos ban foundered, environmental and public health advocates shifted their political efforts to the states. State legislatures took action, creating a patchwork of chemical regulatory regimes across the U.S.The resulting situation was not especially satisfying to anybody. EPA scientists and administrators chafed against the limitations of TSCA, environmental and public health advocates were appalled at lax federal oversight, and corporations found state-by-state chemical regulations cumbersome and expensive.
Around 2010, a combination of current and former EPA scientists, consumer health advocates, environmental groups, chemical industry representatives and legislators from both parties (especially the late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, for whom the final bill was named) began pushing for reform. Over years of negotiations, stakeholders worked out compromises to prioritize and fund the evaluation of new chemicals and potentially hazardous existing ones, to allow safety to outweigh economic impact when warranted, to protect vulnerable populations and to smooth out the regulatory landscape by permitting federal safety determinations, once completed, to preempt state laws. In the summer of 2016, the Lautenberg Act passed Congress by overwhelming majorities and was signed into law.
On Nov. 29, the EPA issued a list of the first 10 “high-priority” chemicals for expedited safety assessments under the Lautenberg Act (the list includes asbestos), which sparked the letter from Inhofe, Markey and their Senate colleagues.
How the Trump administration and its new EPA leadership respond to this call has serious consequences for the protection of the environment and public health, for public confidence in government and for providing private industry with a clear road map of chemical hazard and regulations, which could incentivize firms to develop and use safer alternatives.
The Lautenberg Act could also provide a roadmap for environmental politics in the near future. Since the election, many observers have predicted a shift away from federal regulatory efforts towards state and local government action. In the case of the Lautenberg Act, state-level lawmaking catalyzed the emergence of a bipartisan coalition that developed legislation on the national level.
Yet the law’s future is uncertain. While President-elect Trump has called attention to political and regulatory failures in Flint, he has also expressed skepticism regarding certain generally recognized chemical hazards, including asbestos. In Oklahoma, Pruitt fought EPA regulations that targeted emissions of mercury and other toxins. If the bipartisan canary of the Lautenberg Act ends up expiring, the near-term prospects for environmental protection and environmental politics in America would appear dim indeed.
http://time.com/4596033/donald-trump-environment/
-
Remarks at EPA Stakeholder Meeting on New Chemicals Review Program
Dec 14, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Joanna Slaney
Joanna Slaney is the Legislative Director for EDF Health.
Today the EPA held a public meeting on the new requirements for the New Chemicals Review Program under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. EDF oral comments, as prepared for delivery, follow below.
Strong implementation restores public and market confidence.
EDF believes that the reforms to the New Chemicals program in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, and the robust implementation of these reforms by the EPA, are absolutely essential to the task of restoring public and market confidence in our national chemical safety system. It is this shared objective, restoring public and market confidence, that allowed disparate stakeholders and lawmakers to come together to support the Lautenberg Act in the first place. And without a strong New Chemicals program, there is no restored public confidence.
It’s a public health issue.
With between 500 and 1,000 new chemicals entering the market every year, ensuring the safety of these chemicals is clearly a public health priority. It is critical that new chemicals clear a safety bar before they are allowed in products and in our homes. For decades, chemicals have been allowed on the market simply because there wasn’t enough information to make a safety decision one way or another. In 2007 EPA reported that 85% of pre-manufacture notices contained no health data. That’s not right, and it puts the public’s health at risk, most especially the health of vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women, and workers. Any chemical entering the market should be reviewed and managed to provide a reasonable assurance of its safety. In fact, I expect that most Americans believe that their government already does so in order to protect their health and the health of their families.
It’s congressional intent.
Many in Congress worked hard to drive significant improvements to the new chemicals provisions in the new law; indeed, for some it was a central reason for their involvement in reforming TSCA. And the record is clear that even where certain Members were less inclined to see the need for change, they acknowledged that significant changes were made to the New Chemicals program as part of the compromise legislation. The changes that were made were a compromise on both sides but they were not insignificant, and the new requirements are clearly laid out in the language of the Lautenberg Act.
It’s a primary purpose of TSCA.
It has been argued that EPA’s implementation of the new chemicals program under the Lautenberg Act risks impeding innovation and is at odds with the intent of the law. In fact, the intent of the law is quite clear:
It is the policy of the United States that— authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this Act to assure that such innovation and commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
While innovation is central, it cannot come at the expense of protection for public health and the environment. Innovation without safety is not true innovation.
The changes made to the New Chemicals program are fundamental to the reform of TSCA and the promise of the new system. Given that the development and application of new chemicals are a clear source of innovation, how else is that primary purpose of TSCA – providing an assurance that innovation and commerce in chemicals do not present unreasonable risk – to be realized other than through robust scrutiny of new chemicals prior to their commercialization.
The public has a right to expect that chemicals to which they may be exposed will not be allowed into use without adequate assurance of their safety. The lack of that basic assurance has undermined consumer confidence in our chemical safety system. The most efficient and effective stage at which to provide assurance of safety is before commercial production and use begins, rather than waiting and then having to try to mitigate risks that arise after a new chemical is embedded in commerce.
Environmental Defense Fund supports the actions taken by EPA to date in implementing the New Chemicals Program and believes they are clearly required under the new law. We look forward to EPA continuing to implement a robust New Chemicals program that can restore public and market confidence in our national chemical safety system, while both protecting human health and the environment and fostering safe innovation.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/12/14/remarks-at-epa-stakeholder-meeting-on-new-chemicals-review-program/
-
Your Calls Worked! Congress Passes Vital Bill on Lead
Dec 13, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than a half million children under the age of 6 are poisoned by lead each year, causing developmental and speech delays as well as long-term health effects on the kidneys, heart and brain.
That’s a shocking statistic in 2016 — so many years after lead was banned in paint and gasoline– but in the city of Flint MI, the idea of lead poisoning is more than a statistic. Thousands of Flint children have been exposed to high lead levels from their drinking water since 2014, and have waited far too long for help from the federal government to address a crisis that began nearly three years ago.
When you say something can’t happen soon enough, it rarely has been more true than in the case of the water resources bill that was finally passed by the House and Senate last week.
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families staff participated in the National Lead Summit early last week, which brought together leaders of the health, housing and environmental world to strategize around the goal of ending lead poisoning in the next five years. The lunchtime speaker at the summit was Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, who sounded the alarm that late breaking changes to the bill were putting its passage in jeopardy in the last week that Congress was expected to be in session.
Our group of more than 250 advocates, scientists and health professionals took seriously her call to pick up the phone and urge the 114th Congress not to leave DC without passing a bill that gave relief to Flint and contained provisions that will help to prevent future lead crises. Safer Chemicals Healthy Families activists amplified the call throughout the week with your social media posts and phone calls.
This bill’s passage is certainly a case study in the crazy legislative chess game that happens at the end of a session, proving the old adage that says if you like sausage or legislation, you might not want to watch either being made.
On Thursday, the House voted 330-61, and then early Saturday morning, the Senate voted 78-21 to pass a package of legislation that authorizes $170 million to respond to the Flint water crisis, with additional resources to address the national problem of lead exposure. The bill (S. 612) is now on President Obama’s desk.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/12/13/your-calls-worked-congress-passes-vital-bill-on-lead/
-
Shareholders OK Monsanto, Bayer Merger
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Shareholders of Monsanto Co. approved a $57 billion takeover by Bayer AG yesterday in a deal that would combine two of the biggest agricultural companies in the world.
Ninety-nine percent of the votes cast favored the deal, which was announced in September and would bring shareholders $128 per share in cash, according to Monsanto.
"This is an important milestone as we work to combine our two complementary companies and deliver on our shared vision for the future of agriculture," said Monsanto Chairman and CEO Hugh Grant.
The deal, however, must still be approved by regulators, and the path to approval could be rough. Critics say it would shrink competition in the agricultural market, drive prices higher for consumers and damage the environment.
The National Farmers Union is concerned that "these megadeals are being made to benefit the shareholders of multinational corporations at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural economies," said Roger Johnson, NFU president.
And Rebecca Riley, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the deal "would escalate the use of dangerous toxic pesticides and create a bad deal for farmers, bees, consumers and the planet."
The companies both contend that farmers will benefit from the deal and that the combined corporation would be more able to address climate change.
Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said the deal is "driven by our strong belief that this combination can help address the growing challenges facing farmers and the overall agriculture industry today and in the future."
As part of the deal, Bayer would pay $57 billion to Monsanto shareholders and assume $9 billion in Monsanto debt.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/14/stories/1060047181
-
Christmas Comes Early for the Hard-Pressed Oil and Gas Industry
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold and Jenny Mandel
Drillers and producers in the Lone Star State have had a few grim years, badly wounded by the 2014 oil price collapse and weak natural gas prices. But December has brought treats from both the markets and now Washington.
President elect-Trump has said he'll nominate Rex Tillerson, CEO of Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp., to head the Department of State, while Trump this morning said Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is his pick to lead the Department of Energy. Other solidly pro-oil and -gas officials are on tap to head U.S. EPA and the Department of the Interior. Experts say Texas' approach to energy policy will soon become the nation's, both at home and abroad.
That means deference to the industry's needs and desires ahead of other competing interests and a regulatory approach that seeks to minimize costs and oil and gas concerns.
Word of the appointments follows news that OPEC will intervene to support higher crude prices, and that Russia and other non-OPEC countries will join in, pushing down global oil production as soon as January (see related story). Meteorologists are even predicting a mean winter, which brings a warmer outlook for natural gas prices.
The abundance of good news for industry has Texas officials sounding giddy.
"Tillerson and Perry will advance American energy security and prioritize American energy development," said Texas Railroad Commissioner Ryan Sitton yesterday from his Austin office (the Texas Railroad Commission regulates mining, oil and gas operations in the state, and not railroads).
"These picks make clear that President-elect Trump recognizes our energy potential and will pave the way for important energy decisions, whether that be expeditious approval for interstate energy infrastructure or trade deals with nations who need American energy," Sitton said, calling Tillerson and Perry "two hard-working, down-to-earth Texans who will without a doubt make America great again."
Barry Smitherman, a former Texas energy regulator who is now at law firm Vinson & Elkins LLP, was similarly enthusiastic. "I think it's great for Texas and great for America, and I think it's great for the economy," he said. "Job creation associated with the energy industry is good. It's great-paying jobs. It's good for everyone."
R&D sway
Texas seems poised to exert outsized influence over Washington's energy policy should both men pass Senate confirmation. Announcements on other Cabinet-level positions and the Tillerson and Perry choices strongly suggest that the incoming Trump administration will lean on the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) and like-minded organizations long known for their policy clout within the state (Energywire, Dec. 6).
For Perry, the nomination process could air old pay-to-play allegations related to a 2007 executive order issued in his role as governor of Texas, which would have required all 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas to get Merck & Co., Inc.'s Gardasil vaccine, developed to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted infection that can lead to cervical cancer.
Perry was the first governor in the country to issue such a mandate, and it caused a firestorm in religious and other communities, where the vaccine was seen as linked to early sex and promiscuity. The mandate was overturned by the Texas Legislature over Perry's objections. But news reports from 2011 say Perry reversed his position on the issue as he launched his presidential bid, and after The Washington Post reported extensive financial contributions from Merck to various groups with which Perry was associated over several years, as well as lobbying connections.
At DOE, Perry would have a hand in authorizing many energy export projects. He also would control how the federal government commits its energy research and development dollars within the national labs, the network of government-funded research centers sprinkled across the country. Under the Obama administration such R&D support swung toward renewable energy technologies, though the federal government continues support to fossil fuel research. As DOE secretary, Perry could shift the emphasis back to fossil fuels (see related story).
A company man
Perry's time in the political limelight means he is unlikely to face major new revelations during the Senate review process. Tillerson, by contrast, has no political or government experience in his biography, having started his career at Exxon as a production engineer and worked his way up the ladder to the top leadership job (Energywire, Dec. 13).
In announcing Tillerson's selection for the job, Trump's transition team highlighted the loyalty seen in his steady rise through the Exxon ranks, as well as the deal-making abilities he evidenced.
"Among the most accomplished business leaders and international dealmakers in the world, Mr. Tillerson has spent his career protecting the jobs of his employees, who number more than 70,000," Trump's organization said in a statement. "As secretary of state, he will be a forceful and clear-eyed advocate for America's vital national interests, and help reverse years of misguided foreign policies and actions that have weakened America's security and standing in the world."
As Tillerson's name has circulated in connection with the State Department job, some have pointed to his lack of government experience as a liability. The Trump team and its allies have hailed it, however, as evidence of his ability and suitability for the job.
Ed Hirs, an energy economist at the University of Houston, argued that Tillerson's lack of government experience wouldn't be a hindrance at the helm of the State Department
"He's had to work with the government," Hirs argued. "He had to work with the U.S. and certainly with the State Department, and he had to work with different regimes."
The United States is a rising energy exporter, and exports could match imports as soon as 2028, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Texas is shipping growing volumes of natural gas to Mexico by pipeline, as well as liquefied natural gas and crude oil by tankers from ports along its Gulf of Mexico coast. The State Department will have some role in facilitating this expanding trade.
Hirs doesn't see the likely State and DOE appointments as a particular breakthrough for Texas, noting that Washington was under the sway of a prominent Texan for eight years under President George W. Bush, while Houston-born James Baker led the Department of State for four years under the George H.W. Bush administration. But Texan influence has been considerably less visible in Washington during the Obama administration.
The Russian card
As the oil and gas industry celebrates the nomination of one of its heroes to lead State, though, some signs point to potentially tough nomination hearings for Tillerson.
A key talking point in the days since his name first appeared in speculation for the job centered on his ties to Russia, where Exxon Mobil has billions of dollars of investments, and a close working relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin that earned Tillerson Russia's "Order of Friendship" in 2013.
That came after his tenure as president of Exxon Neftegas Ltd., a subsidiary that oversaw the company's holdings in Russia and the Caspian Sea, and his help in striking a deal with Rosneft in 2011 to explore in the Arctic, the Black Sea and Siberia.
That venture has been curbed by U.S. sanctions on Russia, leading many to question how Tillerson, as secretary of State, might navigate conflicts between the country's foreign policy goals and domestic industry interests.
In a press briefing yesterday, Sean Spicer, the Republican National Committee's communications director — responding to a question about the possible appointment of Perry to lead DOE — stressed that it would be Trump's agenda, rather than that of his Cabinet, that would guide national policy.
"Remember that what President-elect Trump is looking for are people that have been very successful, whether it's in government, business, academics or other facets of society, to implement his agenda. And it's his agenda that's being implemented, not somebody else's," Spicer told reporters. "A lot of times, he looks for somebody who's been successful ... who will embrace it, the agenda, and the goal and the vision that he seeks to accomplish."
But Tillerson's selection arrives at a sensitive time in Washington, as senators consider his Putin ties in the context of reports from the CIA that Russia intended to intervene in the presidential election through cyberattacks against U.S. political organizations.
Trump was quick to dismiss the report, appearing to side with Russia against the CIA and saying in a Fox News interview, "I think it's ridiculous. I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it."
But some Senate Republicans, including John McCain of Arizona, with whom Trump feuded during the election campaign, have called for an inquiry into Russian hacking and the ways in which it may have influenced the election.
On Sunday, a bipartisan group of senators encompassing McCain, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), incoming Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), issued a joint statement calling for an inquiry into the allegations of election interference.
"Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks," the joint statement said, adding, "This cannot become a partisan issue. The stakes are too high for our country. ... [W]e will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security."
Still, in a separate press release issued yesterday, McConnell praised Tillerson's nomination and made clear he would support it.
"We need a full review of our national security policy, and I know Rex will face each problem head on with American interests and security as his top priority. I look forward to supporting his nomination," McConnell said.
The University of Houston's Hirs had a simple explanation for why Tillerson's work in Russia should not be disqualifying for the State position, pointing to his status as an Eagle Scout and a recent president of the Boy Scouts of America.
"Exxon Mobil has operations in several different countries, and Russia is just another one," Hirs said. "He's going to take an oath of office to the Constitution, and not to Exxon Mobil. He is quite literally a Boy Scout."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/14/stories/1060047162
-
4 Most Disturbing Things About Scott Pruitt and the EPA
Dec 13, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
Every day, the Trump transition team seems to deliver more devastating news. The latest includes the choice of Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of state; and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who calls climate action “nonsense,” for the top job at the U.S. Department of Energy.
If his campaign and transition are an indication, the president-elect’s method is to generate daily spectacles and outrages – each one distracting the public from the last, until chaos is the new normal.
So where should we put our focus?The most radical pick so far is the man chosen to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. No federal program is more important for our environment. But Trump’s pick, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has built his political career around attacking the EPA, and protections for clean air and water are now clearly at risk.
How bad is he? Well, here are four of his most disturbing actions so far:
1. He’s not a good neighbor.
Pruitt sued the EPA in 2011 to stop the “good neighbor rule,” which reduces hazardous soot and smog pollution that crosses state lines. You’d think someone claiming to stand up for “state’s rights,” as Pruitt says he does, would want to protect each state from the pollution produced next door – which they have no way to limit without EPA rules. Apparently not.
2. He blocked policies to limit neurotoxins.
Pruitt also went to court to block policies to reduce toxic mercury, arsenic and acid gases from power plants, even though most coal plants and other facilities emitting such pollution were already on track to comply with the standards. All three are seriously dangerous to our health, but mercury may be the worst because of its devastating impacts on the brain development of children.
3. He fought clean air standard for national parks.
For years, tourists to the Grand Canyon complained about haze obscuring the view of one of the world’s seven natural wonders. That didn’t stop Pruitt from suing to block standards requiring power plants near this and other national parks and wilderness areas to cut pollution that creates such haze. The U.S. Supreme Court turned him down.
4. A climate skeptic, he wants to kill the Clean Power Plan.
Pruitt says he doubts “the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” Apparently he doesn’t believe the scientists at NASA and all other major scientific organizations who know that pollution is causing dangerous changes to our climate. Pruitt has played a leading role in lawsuits, and called on states to resist the Clean Power Plan before it was even finalized.
Not surprisingly, his nomination has raised questions even among some who don’t always agree with the EPA.What can you do about it?
Start out by e-mailing your senators. Then call them. Then post on their Facebook page. Then do it again tomorrow. Set your calendar to do something every day.
Do the same thing with your congressperson, who has influence with the senators. Ask your local elected officials to do the same. If you can get a day off work, make an appointment to meet with the senator’s staff in your state to express your concerns.
Most of us aren’t used to doing this kind of activism. But these aren’t normal times. It’s time to focus and fight, and your kids and grandkids will thank you for it.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/12/13/4-most-disturbing-things-about-scott-pruitt-and-epa
-
Quote-Unquote: Pruitt’s EPA and the Next Environmental Agenda
Dec 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
Most of the comments relate to the future of climate-change regulations, but we start with one on the renewable fuel standard:
RFS: calling on Pruitt for a ‘thoughtful, national look’. “As an Oklahoman, he should be aware of how quickly OPEC can collude to run down domestic fuel industries. . . . With OPEC agreeing just last week to crank oil prices back up, why would Mr. Pruitt engineer an attack on the RFS and help OPEC attack renewable fuels in a part of the country that got Trump elected? We think Mr. Pruitt will take a thoughtful, national look at the issue. . . .” Brooke Coleman, executive director of the Advanced Biofuels Business Council, in a December 7 statement, noting that EPA-administrator-designate Scott Pruitt has been an opponent of the renewable fuel standard.
Climate change: the bumpy road to rescission. “The agency has to do a public comment period -- that’s typically something like 60 days, though it can be up to 120 days. Then the agency has to take time to consider and respond to all the public comments on the proposed rule and develop a record that shows they thought carefully about them. If they try to shortchange this process and rush out a brand new rule, it really will not go well for them when they get into court. The procedural checks the agency has to go through are very important, and a court will invalidate a rule that wasn’t done correctly.” Harvard law professor Jody Freeman, a former Obama climate advisor, describing the process the Trump administration would go through if it seeks to undo EPA’s climate controls.
Vowing, ahead of time, to keep the climate faith. “If the EPA under Scott Pruitt fails to uphold our nation’s environmental laws, I stand ready to use the full power of my office to compel their enforcement by the agency. As New York’s top law enforcement officer, I am proud to be leading a coalition of states that is already aggressively fighting back against efforts to reverse the progress this country has made in combating climate change over the past eight years.” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), vowing to file suit if he concludes EPA administrator-designate Pruitt fails to adequately address climate change and enforce federal environmental laws.
Considering Congress in the climate equation. “In this case [Congress] can clarify the Clean Air Act and simply remove carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant by declaration. They could certainly invite and have hearings to talk about carbon dioxide and its role and all that stuff and decide later to add it as an ostensible pollutant. But they simply can clarify the Clean Air Act. . . .It would be a good fight to have.” Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a New York-based free-market think tank.
NRDC: ‘Carefully vet Scott Pruitt’. “Tell Your Senators to Carefully Vet Scott Pruitt, Trump's Disastrous Pick for EPA. . . . Pruitt's nomination is troubling. Pruitt has a long record of hostility toward the EPA, mocks climate change science as "speculative guesswork" and is leading the charge to kill President Obama's signature climate initiative, the Clean Power Plan, in court. Email your U.S. senators using the form below to let them know you're deeply concerned about Pruitt's nomination and what it means for our environment, our climate progress and the future of the EPA itself.” The Natural Resources Defense Council, on its web site.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/quote-unquote-pruitt%E2%80%99s-epa-and-next-environmental-agenda
-
Trump Taps Rick Perry, Vocal Climate Critic, to Lead DOE
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
When Texas was enduring thousands of wildfires and extreme drought in 2011 that scientists said was amplified by global warming, then-Gov. Rick Perry (R) never once mentioned climate change.
Instead, he called for an official three days of prayer. The drought worsened. Major rains didn't come for another 170 days.
Of all of President-elect Donald Trump's picks to run energy and environment agencies, Perry has been the loudest critic of climate science. He proudly opposes action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the impacts he has witnessed in his own coastal state, including sea-level rise and alternating droughts and heavy rains that research says are amplified by global warming, Perry believes "there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects."
"I think we are seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change," he said while campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in New Hampshire in 2011. "Yes, our climate's changed; they've been changing ever since the Earth was born."
At the debate that year, he said "the science is not settled," and acting on it would jeopardize the U.S. economy.
"The complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists," he concluded in his book, "Fed Up!"
At the same time, during Perry's governorship from 2000 to 2015, Texas became the top U.S. producer of both wind power and natural gas. Rich resources, low taxes and limited regulation drew the industries to the state. A massive state government effort to expand power lines spurred the unprecedented wind growth (see related story).
Trump this morning formally announced his intention to nominate Perry to be the nation's next secretary of the Department of Energy, calling him "of the most successful governors in modern history." Perry, Trump said, "led Texas through a sustained period of economic growth and prosperity by developing the state's energy resources and infrastructure, and making low-cost energy available to companies and families."
"My administration is going to make sure we take advantage of our huge natural resource deposits to make America energy independent and create vast new wealth for our nation, and Rick Perry is going to do an amazing job as the leader of that process," Trump said.
Perry in a statement said, "I know American energy is critical to our economy and our security. I look forward to engaging in a conversation about the development, stewardship and regulation of our energy resources, safeguarding our nuclear arsenal, and promoting an American energy policy that creates jobs and puts America first."
Environmentalists and Democrats decried Perry's expected nomination.
"Rick Perry has made loud and clear that he's a climate change denier and doesn't think that the federal government should ensure that every American has access to clean air, land or water," said a statement from the Democratic National Committee.
But how much can Perry's stances on the environment really shift policies at DOE? Examining the agency's funding priorities is helpful for context. DOE spends most of its money on nuclear weapons activities and waste cleanup and basic science. Only about 20 percent of its budget goes to electricity issues like fossil fuels and renewable power, noted Miles Keogh, research director for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
"There are a lot of problems out there that can be solved and a lot of issues that can be addressed," Keogh said. "If you take climate off of the list of those that's most urgent, there are still plenty of urgent things that can be addressed using the portfolio of the secretary of Energy."
Experts say that although DOE doesn't spend most of its money or time on climate change, small efforts Perry could undo could have a ripple effect. Current Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz frequently appeared at international conferences to promote climate work. DOE scientists have worked with others from around the world to calculate overall carbon reduction targets. The agency helps to figure out the "social cost of carbon," an official estimate of how much carbon dioxide emissions affect the public. That work could get lost if Perry de-emphasizes climate change and if Trump's team fulfills early expectations that it might target federal employees who have worked on climate issues (Greenwire, Dec. 12).
If Perry ignores or dismisses the agency's current climate work, he could miss out on a huge diplomatic opportunity, said Jonathan Levy, formerly the deputy chief of staff to Moniz.
"The moral authority you can have, and the work the secretary can do in setting the vision and talking about climate engagement on an international level and on a state level, gives the country the opportunity to take advantage of this trillion-dollar market for clean energy as the rest of the world moves toward a low-carbon future," said Levy, now director of policy and strategy at Vision Ridge Partners LLC.
Whither clean energy under Perry?
As a Gulf Coast state with energy operations up and down the coastline, Texas faces threats from rising oceans as climate change melts ice sheets.
In 2011, Perry's appointees reportedly removed all mentions of climate change in a report on sea-level rise in Galveston Bay, according to Mother Jones.
Despite Texas' renewable power growth under Perry, the state's energy and environment agency websites neatly evade the subject of greenhouse gases and global warming.
Simon Nicholson, director of the Global Environmental Politics program at American University, said Perry could prevent DOE employees from talking about climate change in the same way the George W. Bush administration did.
He said that under Bush, "even basic scientific findings couldn't come out without a political thumbprint," and reports had large sections redacted or words and phrases changed.
Nicholson pointed to news stories from The New York Times and The Washington Post that reported that the Bush administration softened greenhouse gas links to climate change and let oil and gas industry chiefs sway policy.
Perry could also affect how much the agency focuses research on bringing cheaper renewable power technologies to market, although that will also depend on budgets approved by Congress and Trump.
DOE spends about $2 billion per year now on research and development in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Research will continue, and "outside of government, the technology curves and the costs have come down so that in a lot of markets you're at cost parity or better, and you're going to see the private markets continuing to deploy," Levy said.
A study last week from the University of Texas, Austin, for example, showed that when all costs and subsidies are considered, natural gas and wind power are the cheapest electricity sources in most parts of the country.
"The biggest question in my mind is: Does the Trump administration want to take advantage of the opportunities to deploy through DOE or not? What do they want to do with technology transfer and commercialization of ideas out of the national labs? Do they want to take advantage of the loan guarantee program that is responsible for paving the way for the utility-scale [photovoltaic solar] market in this country, or do they want to sit on the sidelines and basically have the private sector do all the heavy lifting ourselves?" Levy said.
Renewable advocates say they don't see why Trump's team would want to cut that research or other incentives, because green power creates jobs and economic growth. They expect the industries to expand even without as much federal support.
"We don't see any reason why anyone would want to make renewables or solar less competitive, given the market stretch right now," said Dan Whitten, a spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association. "The amount of investment in solar is increasing dramatically. ... There's really no benefit to putting a stop to that growth."
Experts familiar with DOE suggest that as secretary, it would be difficult for Perry to incentivize oil and gas or coal development. The better position for that would be at the Interior Department or U.S. EPA. DOE could provide loan guarantees for nuclear power or carbon capture projects, but only if the agency is certain those projects would pay back the loans. Economics would have a bigger impact on those industries.
Basic science research at DOE could help a number of industries. For example, Keogh explained, the agency studies membrane technologies that might allow the passage of oxygen but not carbon dioxide. Those could be useful for carbon capture for fossil fuels but also for reducing the cost of creating various chemicals. Multipurpose programs might not be on the chopping block.
Analyst: Don't be fooled by Perry gaffes
Critics of Perry have also suggested he might just not have the experience or knowledge to run the agency.
As governor and when he ran for president, Perry has never come across as the most polished of politicians.
"Rick Perry was on 'Dancing with the Stars.' I can't really take him seriously after watching him rap with Vanilla Ice," noted climate activist Jane Kleeb, who has led a grass-roots push against oil and gas infrastructure.
In a famous "oops" moment, Perry forgot the name of the Department of Energy during a primary debate while listing the three federal agencies he would eliminate.
Keogh said it may be easy to underestimate Perry, though.
"I think people have pointed at his stumble in the election and sort of said, 'Well, that means he doesn't know anything about energy,'" Keogh said. "But to be a governor, you've got to be a really smart guy. You can't just fake that."
Plus, Perry was a governor of an energy-oriented state that is also an island on the electric grid. It hardly connects by power lines to other regions, making it an "ain't-no-cavalry-coming-over-the-hill kind of state," Keogh noted. Energy planning is critical there.
"You're not coming into this without an understanding of the difference between a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/14/stories/1060047164
-
Rick Perry Will Bring Progress to Our Nation's Energy Sector
Dec 14, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Philip Van Horne
This week, President-elect Donald Trump chose former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) to be secretary of the Department of Energy in his administration.
The choice may seem odd to some Americans. But based on his time spent as governor of Texas, it is clear how he fits into Trump’s previously described plans for the energy sector.
Under Perry's leadership in Texas, retail energy market deregulation continued. Many believe consumers in Texas now have the best energy prices and options in the country.
It is important to note that the deregulatory actions were not Perry’s doing while he was governor. Initial actions to deregulate Texas stemmed from George W. Bush’s time as governor, when Pat Wood was head of the Texas Utility Commission. Once Perry came into office, retail deregulation flourished and Texas consumers cited significant benefits.
Perry’s reputation is that he is not a fan of renewable energy. But based on his decisions in Texas, this seems to be a misconception. Texas has the highest number of wind turbines and wind energy supply of any state in the country.
Additionally, based on precedent, nuclear power has always been a key responsibility of the U.S. energy secretary. Texas has two operating nuclear power plants. There is no question that the federal government’s position on nuclear waste disposal must be advanced soon.
The popular destination for disposal is the Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But until now, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has successfully blocked expansion of that site. With Reid out and Perry in under the next administration, we can expect to see a change in legislation regarding our national nuclear waste disposal plan.
It is interesting to note that Texas was in the news a few years ago when a new nuclear plant was proposed in the state. It was hailed at the time as an example of the resurgence of the nuclear industry, but obviously, it didn't succeed.
Beyond nuclear, the other significant near-term issue is the construction of oil and gas pipelines. Perry sits on the board of the company building the Dakota Access pipeline, which been making headlines over the last few weeks. Just last week, the Obama administration halted construction of pipeline altogether.
It is probably safe to assume that a Trump administration with Perry leading energy policy will issue the permits that are necessary to complete the project. That being said, how Trump and Perry navigate the obvious conflicts of interest will be an issue to watch. We can be sure that the outcome will set the tone for other discussions on this recurring topic.
We can also expect hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, to come up as an issue. Both Perry and Trump have been vocal on their support for continued and expanded oil and gas production in the United States. Coming from Texas, Perry is very familiar with the technology and benefits to both national security and consumers.
There are many sides to take in regards to Perry’s role as U.S. energy secretary. But based on his history in the industry, naysayers might very well be surprised by his support of renewable energy and his ability to bring progress to our country’s energy sector. Either way, it is safe to say we can expect to see multiple changes to our country’s energy infrastructure.
Philip Van Horne is chairman and chief executive officer of Blue Rock Energy, an energy solutions company based in Syracuse, New York.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/310371-rick-perry-will-bring-progress-to-our-nations-energy
-
Dems Vow to Drill Down on Climate in Tillerson Confirmation
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
The controversy around Exxon Mobil Corp.'s understanding of climate change, and if it hid those risks from the public, will be prominent in CEO Rex Tillerson's confirmation hearing, according to Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
President-elect Donald Trump's intended nominee for secretary of State landed a job with Exxon 40 years ago, as the oil giant was first examining the risks of global warming. Those scientific findings are now the subject of at least three investigations, and in the new year, they promise to rise in importance.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, which will conduct Tillerson's confirmation hearing, said yesterday that Exxon has "a troubling history with climate science and the environment."
Another committee member, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), suggested that Exxon's business interests, which crisscross 50 nations, including Russian and Ukraine, "raise serious questions about conflicts of interest for Mr. Tillerson."
"Donald Trump doesn't want to drain the swamp, he wants to drill in it," Markey said.
Trump's decision stands to thrust a successful oilman into one of the most prominent positions in his Cabinet. Even as Democrats and their environmental allies questioned Tillerson's ability to advance America's foreign policy impartially, many Republicans applauded the choice as a creative and gutsy break from tradition.
GOP members of the Foreign Relations Committee signaled early support for the CEO, despite his close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Mr. Tillerson is a very impressive individual and has an extraordinary working knowledge of the world," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the panel. "I congratulate him on his nomination and look forward to meeting with him and chairing his confirmation hearing."
Others were more measured. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who is seen as a potential opponent of Tillerson if his colleague Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) were to vote against him, said he is persuaded by the support Tillerson has received from former top diplomats, like Condoleezza Rice. That carries "considerable weight," he said. "I look forward to the hearings."
McCain and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have expressed concern with Tillerson's ties to Putin.
'Dooms our climate'
The selection of Tillerson comes as Exxon faces multiple investigations into its finances and how they relate to the risks of climate change. The attorneys general in New York and Massachusetts opened investigations into whether Exxon hid potential impacts of warming from its shareholders, following reports that the company examined the science around greenhouse gases in the 1970s but didn't publicly disclose its findings.
The attorneys general seemed to refocus their investigations more recently on Exxon's valuation of its assets and whether the company is inflating its worth during a period of low oil prices. Related to that is how Exxon estimates the cost of carbon.
Other oil majors attach a price of about $40 per ton to each ton of carbon they extract to account for potential climate regulations in the future. It's unclear how Exxon extrapolates the cost of carbon. Assuming a lower price could make the future appear less risky, and that could increase its value.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is reportedly conducting its own investigation into similar issues.
Those details are bound to surface during Tillerson's confirmation hearing or on the Senate floor.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Exxon has "a questionable record" on climate change.
"Ensuring a coordinated, global response to prevent catastrophic climate change is one of the singular national security and foreign policy challenges of our time, and many Americans have reason to be skeptical that a wealthy CEO of an energy company would put their interests first in this regard," he said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who routinely raised concerns about climate change as Hillary Clinton's running mate, said, "The documented efforts by Exxon Mobil to fund organizations denying climate science during Tillerson's tenure at the company deserve critical attention as Virginia grapples with sea-level rise in Hampton Roads and other climate-driven issues."
Other committee Democrats say that elevating an oil executive as the nation's top diplomat could poison relationships with countries that prioritize action on climate change. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Tillerson's selection "dooms our climate."
"With an oil industry executive at the helm of U.S. climate policy, polluters will be rewarded and all the progress the Obama administration has made to control global greenhouse gases will be destroyed," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/14/stories/1060047148
-
Transition: Trump Taps Rep. Zinke to Lead Interior
Dec 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly picked Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) -- a former Navy SEAL and freshman congressman who largely backs Trump's stances on energy, climate and public lands issues -- to lead the Interior Department, despite earlier indications he had selected Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), a top-ranking GOP lawmaker.
Numerous press reports say Trump has offered Zinke the position, though the transition team has not officially announced it and some say that Zinke has not accepted the offer yet.
If confirmed, Zinke -- along with Trump and other top picks like Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to run EPA and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to run the Energy Department -- would be another top administration official who questions whether anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change.
Like Trump's other nominees, Zinke voted with Republicans to oppose EPA climate rules. The Washington Postreports that Zinke, an early Trump supporter, criticized the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule for oil and gas drilling on federal land as “duplicative and unnecessary.”
But Zinke's stances appear to track more closely to Trump's than McMorris Rodgers', especially on the issue of public lands. For example, McMorris Rodgers reportedly favored privatizing significant federal land holdings while Zinke, like Trump, supports the federal Land & Water Conservation Fund, which uses oil and gas revenue to purchase and protect federal land.
This past summer, Zinke quit his post as a member of the committee writing the Republican National Committee platform after the group included language to transfer federal land ownership to the states -- a position consistent with the president elect's.
Like Trump, Zinke, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, campaigned on a platform on achieving energy independence. And as expected, his selection is drawing criticism from environmentalists, though some groups cautiously welcomed Zinke's past support for the conservation fund.
Tom Steyer of NextGen Climate said in a statement that Zinke's nomination is a concern. “Donald Trump continues to build out his cabinet of polluters. . . . We need a Secretary of the Interior who will protect our air, water and endangered species, not someone who supported construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, said climate change isn't 'proven science,' and would give Big Oil and Big Coal unfettered access to our public lands.”
The Wilderness Society also said it had “serious concerns” with Zinke's nomination because of his “repeated support for logging, drilling and mining on cherished public lands.”
But the group adds that while he has taken some positive positions -- like supporting the Land & Water Conservation Fund and opposing the sell off of public lands -- “far more often Rep. Zinke has advanced policies that favor special interests. His overall record and the backdrop of cabinet nominations with close ties to the fossil fuel industry cause us grave concern.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/transition-trump-taps-rep-zinke-lead-interior
-
EPA Assessment Now More a Guide Than a Verdict
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
It hardly seems controversial to say that hydraulic fracturing and related drilling activities can contaminate water.
That's especially true when you define those related activities to include wastewater disposal and injecting fracking fluid directly into underground water sources. Disposal, after all, is already regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act because of concerns about groundwater contamination.
But the controversy yesterday revolved around what U.S. EPA didn't say, or what it stopped saying.
A year and a half ago, EPA issued a draft assessment concluding that fracturing had not caused "widespread, systemic" problems with drinking water. But when the agency released the final report yesterday, the phrase "widespread, systemic" was nowhere to be found (Greenwire, Dec. 13). In its place was a far more guarded statement: "hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources ... under some circumstances."
Yesterday's change led to a neck-snapping reversal between environmentalists and oil industry trade groups. Suddenly, the industry was seething about political interference, while environmentalists were crowing that they had known it all along.
The announcement of the 2015 draft report had similarly cited "specific instances" in which oil and gas activity had "impacted drinking water resources." But the assertion was overshadowed by EPA's apparent conclusion that drinking water contamination wasn't a problem.
It's not clear how much any of this matters now with an incoming Republican administration and a GOP-controlled Congress. Both have made clear that they want less regulation of fossil fuel production, not more.
Still, Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona warned that "The Trump administration will answer to the public if they ignore this."
But Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) in a statement dismissed yesterday's announcement as "a clear political move to appease disgruntled environmentalists with the 'Keep It in the Ground Movement' as the Obama administration comes to an end."
Yet Inhofe, who has been known to demand investigations into EPA reversals, didn't do so this time (Energywire, June 19, 2012).
The walk-back turned the report into less of a verdict on the safety of America's oil and gas boom and more a reference document for federal, state and local policymakers.
EPA science adviser Thomas Burke made it clear that's how he would like it to be viewed. He led off a briefing for reporters by saying he wanted to get discussion "out of the way" regarding the contentious "widespread, systemic" phrase.
"Providing useful information was the point of the study," Burke said. He called it "the most complete compilation to date of national scientific data on the relationship of drinking water resources and hydraulic fracturing."
EPA also renewed the emphasis on how difficult it is to make broad conclusions, saying data gaps prevented the agency from issuing a sweeping verdict on the safety of fracking.
There is a separate section in the 50-page executive summary about "Data Gaps and Uncertainties." It notes the difficulties with observing what is going on underground and incomplete data about the chemicals used in fracturing fluid.
The Science Advisory Board, which criticized the "widespread, systemic" phrase, also pressed EPA to be more clear about such uncertainties.
Semantics
Much of the angst about the deleted conclusion is likely the result of wording and definitions in the six-year, $29 million study.
There are few, if any, examples of the specific practice of hydraulic fracturing fluid rising through rock to contaminate groundwater. But by broadening its examination to include hydraulic fracturing "activities" and the full "water cycle" of fracking, EPA ventured into areas where water contamination is already a widely acknowledged concern.
Surface spills, for example, happen at the rate of several a day at oil and gas production sites nationwide. Several hundred each year affect surface water or groundwater (Energywire, Aug. 8). Spills during frack jobs were identified by EPA among several "conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe."
So while it might be true that the specific practice of hydraulic fracturing hasn't been proved to contaminate underground drinking water, it's also true that oil and gas operations frequently harm surface water or groundwater in some way. Such distinctions are often lost in debates between advocates about whether fracking is "safe."
While Inhofe called yesterday's announcement a political move by the Obama administration, the draft report had also come under scrutiny for potential political interference.
The EPA team working on the study met with top White House environmental officials a month before the June 2015 release. The public radio program "Marketplace" recently reported that drafts of the executive summary and press release did not include the controversial "widespread, systemic" phrase until after that meeting (Energywire, Dec. 5).
But Burke also made a point yesterday to knock down speculation about such interference by stressing, repeatedly, that the phrase was written by EPA scientists.
"EPA scientists wrote that sentence in the draft report," Burke said. "And EPA scientists chose not to include it in the final report."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/14/stories/1060047155
-
Kinder Louisiana Pipeline Files Project to Serve Sabine Pass Expansion
Dec 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC (KMLP) has filed at FERC for a project to modify its existing pipeline system in order to serve the Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Louisiana.
KMLP plans to offer 600,000 Dth/d of firm service on a north-to-south path of its system. The pipeline wants to abandon and remove facilities at an existing meter station and replace the facilities with a larger meter station at the same site. The facilities would specifically serve the Sabine Pass Expansion Project.
The KMLP project will also require construction of a tap and lateral to connect to the Sabine Pass terminal; modification of three existing delivery interconnects; construction of additional compression at a previously certificated compressor station; construction of header pipelines to connect the compressor station to three existing pipeline interconnects that KMLP proposes to modify; as well as the abandonment of the old meter station and its replacement.
"The proposed facilities will provide for gas flow on a north-to-south path on KMLP's system to deliver natural gas from existing pipeline interconnects to the natural gas liquefaction and...LNG export facility constructed (and currently being expanded) and operated by Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC at Sabine Pass in Cameron Parish, LA. This project is known as the Sabine Pass Expansion Project..." the pipeline told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [CP17-22].
The project would increase north-to-south capacity by at least 600,000 Dth/d, the pipeline said.
"The project is a market-driven response to the availability of increasing domestic natural gas supplies, coupled with a rising and robust international demand for natural gas to assist in reducing emissions from the increased electrification of developing nations as well as maturing international economies," the pipeline said. "The total cost for the new KMLP facilities proposed herein is approximately $151 million...
"In addition, the project is expected to result in additional throughput for the interconnected pipelines, which will now be able to deliver gas into KMLP's system as a result of modifications enabling bidirectional flow and will provide shippers on these interconnected pipelines with increased access to new markets."
KMLP asked the Commission to issue an order on the project by Feb. 28, 2018. In-service is planned for April 1, 2019.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108722-kinder-louisiana-pipeline-files-project-to-serve-sabine-pass-expansion
-
Trump Team Disavows Request for Names of Energy Staffers on Climate Programs
Dec 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is distancing itself from a questionnaire that asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to name employees involved with President Obama’s climate change priorities.
Five days after numerous news outlets reported on the questionnaire, the transition team blamed a rogue employee for it.
“The questionnaire was not authorized or part of our standard protocol,” a transition official told CNN on Wednesday. “The person who sent it has been properly counseled.”
The survey had set off red flags among DOE employees and congressional Democrats, who feared that it might be part of a “witch hunt” to improperly punish staffers who helped a previous president’s priorities.
It asked for the names of employees who attended international climate change negotiations and worked on developing the administration’s accounting method for the costs of climate change, among other questions.
The DOE said Tuesday that it would not comply with the transition team’s request for names, citing concerns among workers and leadership.
Nonetheless, the leading Senate and House Democrats in the committees overseeing the DOE were alarmed and asked for more details from Trump’s aides and the agency.
The transition team had previously avoided commenting on the questionnaire.
Trump promised on the campaign trail to roll back major climate regulations from Obama and take the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, and the DOE could play a role in those efforts.
Laws and regulations regarding civil service employees protect them from political interference and attempts to punish them for their beliefs, among other protections.
Trump formally announced Wednesday morning that former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), a climate change doubter, would be nominated to lead the DOE.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310380-trump-team-disavows-request-for-names-of-doe-staffers-on-climate
-
Dems Concerned Trump Trying to 'Target' Energy Dept. Employees
Dec 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Top Democrats on Capitol Hill are raising concerns about the Trump transition team's push to identify Department of Energy (DOE) employees who have worked on climate change issues.
In a Wednesday letter to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, top Democrats on the House Oversight and Energy committees called the inquiry "troubling," saying it could pose an “ideological 'litmus test' to career civil servants.”
“We are concerned that these efforts to single out particular Department employees involved in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be an attempt to target DOE employees whose scientific views on climate change differ from those of the incoming Trump administration,” Democratic Reps. Frank Pallone (N.J.) and Elijah Cummings (Md.) wrote.
The letter comes after Trump’s tradition team asked the DOE for a list of employees who have worked on climate change issues during the Obama administration, including the Paris climate deal and carbon emissions accounting.
Democrats want a copy of the letter the transition team sent to the department seeking names of employees who have worked on climate change as well as other communications between Trump officials and federal agencies related to work employees might have done under President Obama.
Energy officials said Tuesday they would not comply with that request, saying in a statement, “We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.”
Trump’s team backed away from the inquiry on Wednesday.
"The questionnaire was not authorized or part of our standard protocol. The person who sent it has been properly counseled," a Trump transition official told CNN.
Democrats fear the effort will endanger DOE employees whose work on climate change may go against the beliefs of Trump, who has called global warming a hoax created by China.
“These unprecedented questions suggest the incoming administration may be preparing to take arbitrary action against civil servants and government contractors simply because they worked, at the request of the Obama administration, on issues pertaining to climate change,” Sen. Maria Cantwell(Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wrote in a Tuesday letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
“The potential ramifications are chilling.”
The White House supported the Energy Department’s decision on Wednesday.
“Our principle — and this is a principle that presidents in both parties have long abided by — is that we should observe the protections that are in place that ensure that career civil servants are evaluated based on merit and not on politics,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310344-democrats-warn-trump-on-energy-department-letter
-
New Tool Calculates Reserves' Potential Greenhouse Gases
Dec 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
With President-elect Donald Trump promising an energy policy that embraces fossil fuels, his critics have a new tool to estimate the potential greenhouse gas emissions from oil, gas and coal reserves.
Stephen Russell, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute, has developed a first-of-its-kind method for estimating and reporting potential full life cycle emissions from reserves that companies have not yet started to extract. He offered this new tool for investors seeking more information and "civil society groups" interested in lobbying for more disclosure of climate risk.
Research previously touted by environmental groups shows even if coal were phased out, emissions from reserves of oil and gas in current extraction operations or those under construction would take the world beyond the goal established last year in the Paris climate agreement of a 1.5 degree Celsius or less temperature rise (Greenwire, Sept. 22).
Russell recommends that companies quantify the size of reserves, then add in the amount of fossil fuels that a company uses as fuel in internal operations, plus the amounts of fossil fuels lost through flaring and venting. He then offers calculation methods to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and methane emissions from leakage, which the analysis notes could account for between 5 and 37 percent of emissions. The method does not account for potential projects to capture and store carbon.
"By reporting potential emissions, a company would acknowledge its contribution to the carbon budget and implicitly show that it is preparing to respond to policies and market signals for a low-carbon future, such as a price on carbon pollution," Russell wrote today in a blog post outlining three reasons why oil, gas and coal companies should use his method.
Russell notes investors or stock market listing authorities could also incorporate it.
The calculations could be used to reinforce the arguments of activists in the "keep it in the ground" movement, who warn that much of the world's fossil fuel reserves must be kept buried in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Under the Obama administration, they launched a campaign urging the Interior Department to stop leasing federally owned minerals. However, Trump's team has signaled the next White House will show no deference to such arguments.
Doug Domenech, the leader of Trump's Interior Department transition team, called keeping fossil fuels in the ground "a ridiculous construct" yesterday in an opinion piece that acknowledged humans may affect the climate in small ways but dismissed the notion that the phenomenon is catastrophic.
"Climate models are like political polling," Domenech wrote in The Hill. The director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Fueling Freedom Project said the United Nations' climate models "fail the test of reliability," much like voter polls did during the last election cycle.
Russell, who leads the corporate greenhouse gas accounting project at WRI, unveiled his work today to coincide with the release of an extensive report from a Group of 20 panel that was set up to study how businesses should disclose climate-related financial risk calls. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, headed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, offered four recommendations that could be applied to large asset managers, including banks, insurance companies and asset managers (Climatewire, Dec. 14).
A spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America argued the emission estimates cited by WRI are overstated to further the "keep it in the ground" effort.
"Why should we when the United States has reduced carbon emissions to near 20-year lows while its leading the world in oil and natural gas production?" said IPAA's Neal Kirby in an email to E&E News.
"At the end of the day, we firmly believe that the safe, responsible production of our abundant natural resources provides a better standard of living for society, while displacing far worse energy sources still being used around the world," Kirby added.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/14/stories/1060047199
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested