Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/19/2016
-
How Firefighters Can Train for Hazmat Transport Incidents
Dec 19, 2016 | Fire Chief
By William E. Offerman
Preparedness means a lot of different things depending on who you talk to. For many communities and emergency responders, a critical part of being prepared is being ready to respond to an incident involving hazardous materials. -
As Trump's OMB Chief, Mulvaney Could Cut Workforce, Rules
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and George Cahlink
Rep. Mick Mulvaney, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for director of the Office of Management and Budget, would bring a zeal for slashing the federal workforce and regulations to the executive branch. -
EPA Considers Changing Definition of 'Small' Chemical Company
Dec 19, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Smaller chemical companies could soon be exempted from certain reporting requirements under the nation's new chemical oversight law. -
Target Takes Aim at 'Unwanted Chemicals'
Dec 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US retailer Target has named the removal of “all unwanted chemicals” from its own-brand products among its 2020 goals. -
5 Ways Trump Could Reshape Environmental Law
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly and Robin Bravender
President-elect Donald Trump is set as early as next month to pick a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but that's just the start of what could be an overhaul of the court and environmental law. -
3 Reasons Trump's EPA Pick is Bad News for Business
Dec 19, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ben N. Ratner
If confirmed as the next head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has said he will fight three of President Obama’s most important environmental initiatives: methane regulations, the Clean Power Plan and United States participation in the Paris climate agreement. -
Electric Utility Leaders See No Change in Trajectory with Trump
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
For Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning, November's presidential election results dovetail nicely with the worldview of electric utility executives more comfortable with time-honored state regulation than what he calls the "overreach of federalism" embodied in the approach of the Obama administration. -
EPA Stops Work on Climate Rule Compliance Program
Dec 19, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stopped work Monday on writing an optional program that states could use to comply with the climate change rule for power plants. -
EPA Re-Releases Carbon Trading Guidance — But No Final Rules
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA today made public its work to date on guidance for states to use carbon trading to meet greenhouse gas standards for the power sector — but the agency stopped short of issuing final rules. -
Obama Administration Parries Challenge to BLM Methane Rule
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Obama administration says oil industry groups and allied state governments have mischaracterized its methane rules for public lands in an attempt to get a federal judge to throw them out. -
The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Importance of Upholding the Rule of Law
Dec 19, 2016 | The Hill - Ballot Box Blog
By Hon. Christopher D. Coursen
One of the positive results of this unprecedented 2016 Presidential election is the expressed sentiment from some leaders from both parties on the importance of upholding the rule of law, and furthermore, safeguarding it against politicians and others who would abuse or ignore it for political gain. -
Will Trump's Army Pick Reverse Obama on Pipeline?
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump nominated U.S. Army veteran and billionaire businessman Vincent "Vinnie" Viola as secretary of the Army, a role with direct oversight of the $3.78 billion Dakota Access pipeline. -
A Fight About Climate Change — But Not Emissions
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its supporters captivated a nation this year with their protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline. -
Ore. LNG Project Backers Look for OK Under Trump's FERC
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Supporters of a rejected liquefied natural gas export terminal on Oregon's south coast are now planning to renew their 12-year-old effort to get the facility built. -
How Will the Oil and Gas Industry Do in 2017?
Dec 19, 2016 | Fuel Fix Blog
By David Hunn
U.S. independent oil and gas drillers will lead the industry out of survival mode in 2017, according to a new report from an energy research firm. -
Corpus Christi Water Deemed Safe After Chemical Spill
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Officials announced that tap water is safe to drink in Corpus Christi, Texas, after a four-day ban following a chemical spill. -
N.D. Cleanup Still Not Complete 3 Years After Spill
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A massive 2013 oil spill in North Dakota still is not fully cleaned up. -
Feds Slow to Assess Health Impacts of Camp LeJeune’s Toxic Water
Dec 19, 2016 | Las Vegas Review Journal
By Keith Rogers
The federal government has been in no hurry to assess the health impacts of two harmful chemicals found in a water supply that Marine veterans from Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, blame for cancer and other maladies. -
Secretary of State Nominee Rex Tillerson’s Climate Con
Dec 19, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Elliott Negin
Donald Trump’s unorthodox selection of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of state touched off a flurry of stories about how an engineer from humble beginnings rose through company ranks to become one of the world’s most powerful corporate titans, negotiating with potentates and presidents in dozens of countries spanning the globe.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
How Firefighters Can Train for Hazmat Transport Incidents
Dec 19, 2016 | Fire Chief
By William E. Offerman
Preparedness means a lot of different things depending on who you talk to. For many communities and emergency responders, a critical part of being prepared is being ready to respond to an incident involving hazardous materials.
As we have seen with several high-profile incidents over this past year, being prepared for these types of disasters is extremely important to protecting the people that live in your community.
For me, every day is about helping people be prepared. Over the past year, I have represented the National Volunteer Fire Council on the National TRANSCAER Task Group. TRANSCAER (Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response) is a voluntary national outreach effort that focuses on assisting communities to prepare for and respond to a possible hazardous material transportation incident.
TRANSCAER members, including companies that manufacture, distribute, store and transport hazardous materials, provide free training to emergency responders across the country.
NVFC routinely hears from our members that they need better access to training. So, the partnership between TRANSCAER and NVFC is pretty straightforward: they put on training events and we promote the events to the volunteer fire and emergency services.
Anyone in the fire service who is not familiar with TRANSCAER should be. TRANSCAER resources, available at no charge to emergency services personnel, include classroom and hands-on training, emergency planning assistance, support for community drills and exercises, technical information, reference and training materials, and national conferences and workshops for sharing best practices and networking.
To celebrate its 30th anniversary in 2016, TRANSCAER held 70 training events in May on a variety of topics. Those included tank car awareness, advanced tank car specialist, rail safety and hazmat emergency response, ethanol response train the trainer, railway crude by rail response, chlorine emergency response, fire considerations and foam tactics for rail emergency response and methanol safe handling.
Getting trained
I attended one of the events in Newark, N.J., held as part of the Dow Chemical North East TRANSCAER training tour.
There, first responders were trained using the new API/Association of American Railroad’s Crude by Rail Safety program, railcar and locomotive anatomy, chlorine emergencies, Indian Springs A, B, C capping kits, Midland capping kit, hands-on leak mitigation and tank truck emergencies.
TRANSCAER’s goal is to provide improved community awareness and emergency preparedness along highly hazardous chemical transportation routes with significantly enhanced outreach, education, and training in coordination with national, regional and state TRANSCAER programs.
The amount of hazardous materials being produced and transported throughout the country has increased dramatically in recent decades. Since 2008, NFPA 1001: Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications has included hazmat awareness and operations training.
Increasingly, hazardous materials emergency response is becoming a core service provided by fire departments. This presents many challenges, particularly in rural areas where resources are scarce and advanced or specialized training can be difficult to access.
By using TRANSCAER resources, fire departments can train and prepare their members to deal with critical hazardous materials threats facing their community at no-cost to the agency.
Visit TRANSCAER.com to register for a nearby TRANSCER training event.
http://www.firechief.com/2016/12/19/how-firefighters-can-train-for-hazmat-transport-incidents/
-
As Trump's OMB Chief, Mulvaney Could Cut Workforce, Rules
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and George Cahlink
Rep. Mick Mulvaney, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for director of the Office of Management and Budget, would bring a zeal for slashing the federal workforce and regulations to the executive branch.
The South Carolina Republican has proposed House legislation to limit agencies' hiring as well as their rules. As a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, Mulvaney is seen as a spending hard-liner who supported the 2013 government shutdown and voted against raising the debt ceiling in the past.
Mulvaney has made cutting the budget a singular pursuit during his time in Congress. Elected in 2010, Mulvaney ousted Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), a onetime House Budget Committee chairman, in large part by raising questions about his support for budgets that increased spending and the debt.
On a conference call with reporters today, Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller called Mulvaney a "very impressive pick."
Miller added, "Congressman Mulvaney has a strong history, has been a loud voice for fighting to rein in out-of-control spending, fighting government waste and pushing for tax policies that will allow working Americans to thrive."
Observers have noted Mulvaney and Trump may differ on the president-elect's plan for government spending, such as a massive infrastructure package, but they look to be in sync on what to do with the federal workforce as well as the regulatory process.
In January 2015, Mulvaney and retiring Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) introduced a bill to limit new hires by federal agencies to one employee for every three who retire or leave government service. The lawmakers estimated their legislation would save about $35 billion over five years without requiring current workers to exit their jobs.
In a statement at the time, Mulvaney called the bill "a big step in the direction of efficiency."
"It's no secret that the federal government is way too big and spends way too much," Mulvaney said.
Federal worker unions pushed back against the bill. J. David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, called the effort "misguided legislation" (Greenwire, Jan. 23, 2015).
Mulvaney has not ranked well with AFGE. The nation's largest federal employee union gave him a score of 18 percent for his 2015 voting record, according to its legislative scorecard.
Mulvaney's wish to cut the federal workforce sits well with Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail. The president-elect has proposed a federal hiring freeze as well.
As part of his contract with the American voter, Trump pledged to reduce the federal workforce through attrition, freezing hiring at all agencies except those involving the military, public safety and public health. The hiring freeze is meant to help Trump "drain the swamp" of corruption and influence-peddling in Washington.
'Starving the agencies'
James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, a liberal-leaning think tank on regulations, told E&E News that compared with other House Republicans, Mulvaney is not as "super-engaged" on regulatory reform.
Still, as the head of the OMB — which oversees the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the federal government's final check on rules to be issued — Mulvaney will have much power over the regulatory process, including its funds.
"He seems to be more interested in the B [budget] side, which is to say he could still have a big impact on the regulatory side," Goodwin said.
Goodwin noted, "One way Trump can wipe Obama's legacy clean is starving the agencies, and if Mulvaney is writing the budget, that's how he can go after regulations."
Last Congress, Mulvaney was co-sponsor of legislation that would create the Regulatory Improvement Commission. The panel would review and recommend federal rules for repeal.
"Regulations, once enacted, linger on the books forever, achieving the political equivalent of immortality, often becoming outdated, irrelevant, and burdensome. But the solution isn't just fewer regulations; it's smarter regulations," Mulvaney said in an op-ed in The Hill with Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.), the bill's author, soon after its introduction.
Also under his voter contract, Trump has proposed that for every new regulation issued, two existing rules must be eliminated.
Instead of having a commission to stop regulations, Mulvaney as OMB chief could just craft a smaller budget for the rulemaking agency.
"If he [Mulvaney] doesn't like EPA, or their regulations, he can write a small budget for the rule-writing office or he can write a small budget for the general counsel's office," Goodwin said.
After all, Mulvaney has repeatedly called for any federal spending to be offset by corresponding budget cuts, an initiative popular with the party's right dubbed "cut, cap and balance." In 2013, he offered a failed plan to force across-the-board spending cuts to pay for tens of billions of dollars in Superstorm Sandy aid.
The South Carolina lawmaker has opposed most budget resolutions and spending bills during his tenure in Congress, arguing they would not balance the budget, even favoring defaulting on the federal debt rather than being forced to raise the nation's $20 trillion debt ceiling. His convictions will be put to a test this spring when Congress will need to raise the nation's borrowing limit.
Unlike past budget directors, Mulvaney does not currently serve on the House Budget Committee, but he's been something of a point man for the Freedom Caucus on fiscal matters. He's among a handful of Freedom Caucus members whom House leaders have sought out to gauge the political temperature of the often rambunctious caucus.
Mulvaney was one of the few conservatives who opposed the election of John Boehner as speaker in 2013, a harbinger of growing opposition on the right that eventually cost the Ohio Republican his gavel.
Mulvaney's hawkish fiscal views could be at odds with Trump's calls for as much as $1 trillion in new infrastructure projects as well as new spending for the Pentagon. He's derided the Defense Department's emergency war spending accounts as a "slush fund."
But in a statement over the weekend, Trump focused on his calls for cuts and said he believes Mulvaney has the "deep convictions for how to responsibly manage our nation's finances and save our country from drowning in red ink."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047425
-
EPA Considers Changing Definition of 'Small' Chemical Company
Dec 19, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Smaller chemical companies could soon be exempted from certain reporting requirements under the nation's new chemical oversight law.
Bloomberg reports that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering changes to how small producers are classified and is currently soliciting public comments on the matter.
Current chemical reporting laws exempt companies with less than $4 million in annual sales from select requirements imposed on their larger counterparts, but the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, in addition to creating new processes for chemical evaluations, requires the EPA to consult with the Small Business Administration about changing that standard.
The $4 million level dates to the 1980s, when chemical prices were less than half their current levels.
The adjustment, Bloomberg reported, could allow more companies to omit plant locations, worker numbers and chemical import or production levels from their reports to the agency.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/12/epa-considers-changing-definition-small-chemical-company
-
Target Takes Aim at 'Unwanted Chemicals'
Dec 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US retailer Target has named the removal of “all unwanted chemicals” from its own-brand products among its 2020 goals.
Its responsible sourcing aspirations for the next decade aim to identify and remove these from the products and manufacturing, “and encourage all supporting industries to incorporate green chemistry principles”.
“More than ever, our guests want to know where their products come from; to be sure those products are made ethically and responsibly,” explained Kelly Caruso, president of Target Sourcing Services. “We recognise that reassuring guests isn’t enough – so we’re committing to using more sustainable resources.”
The company, which is the second largest discount retailer in the US after Walmart, has not yet disclosed further details of the goal. But Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director at NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, told Chemical Watch that the commitment “suggests that Target is going to go deeper and wider in addressing toxic chemicals in their supply chain”.
“This is good news,” added Mr Schade, about the retailer that the NGO recently awarded second place in its ranking of retailer chemicals management programmes.
“We look forward to seeing Target disclose additional information on this new initiative and collaborating with them to drive harmful chemicals out of global supply chains,” he said.
Sustainable Product Index update
Also new this year is an update to Target’s Sustainable Product Index (SPI). Changes since the 2015 version include an expansion of the covered product categories, increased focus on transparency and a broadened list of high priority substances.
Jennifer Silberman, corporate social responsibility vice president, told Chemical Watch that Target uses the SPI “as a framework to inspire conversations, set goals and help us drive toward transparency and innovation within our product assortments.”
Developed in conjunction with stakeholders in 2013, it aims to “to help establish a common language, definition and process for qualifying what makes a product more sustainable,” she added.
Cosmetics have been added to the index, this year, a change which Mr Schade said “expanded significantly” the retailer’s scope of products. The index now applies to personal care (including feminine products), cosmetics, household cleaning and baby care product categories.
But according to the NGO, “without a doubt” the most significant improvement is the expansion of its transparency criteria.
The new SPI will only award full points, in this category, to a product that discloses every ingredient on its label, “including the specific constituents of fragrances or other proprietary components”. Partial points may be given for other disclosure best practices that “support complete and open assessments of a product”.
Transparency has also been given greater weight – the category now accounts for 35% of a product’s base score, up from about 17% in the last SPI.
Mr Schade says he hopes the change will encourage suppliers to disclose fragrance ingredients to consumers.
High priority chemicals
Another key change is Target’s expansion of its high priority ingredient list.
The company has included some 1,300 substances found in Annex II of the European Commission’s cosmetics Regulation. And the EU list of fragrance allergens has been added under the “concern ingredients” list.
Chemical ingredients account for 35% of a product’s base score. A product will receive zero points if it has one or more ingredients on Target's high priority list; partial points may be awarded to those that only contain ingredients of concern.
Ms Silberman said the changes came as part of Target’s continued effort to evaluate its chemicals list.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals have been removed from the 2016 high priority list because the chemicals that are relevant to the company’s covered products were already included within other lists, she added.
Room for improvement
The weight of points awarded for third-party accreditation – such as the EPA Safer Choice or the Cradle 2 Cradle programmes – has decreased in the latest SPI.
Mr Schade said the NGO was a little disappointed by this development.
“While we understand balancing different sustainability issues can be challenging, Target can play an important role in continuing to incentivise suppliers to certify products to credible third-party standards, such as Safer Choice and Cradle 2 Cradle, and expand them to others such as Made Safe,” he said.
Mr Schade said he hopes the company will revisit this in the next version and increase the number of points for this “critical category”.
The Mind the Store campaign has also encouraged Target to continue to improve its safer chemicals programme by:
setting public quantifiable goals, with clear timelines for reducing and eliminating chemicals of high concern;
reporting on its progress in working with suppliers to reduce such chemicals, and developing guidance for suppliers on evaluating alternatives;
expanding its policy to other “chemically intensive products”, such as apparel, electronics and furniture; and
becoming a signatory to the Chemical Footprint Project and pilot it with label suppliers.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51630/target-takes-aim-at-unwanted-chemicals
-
5 Ways Trump Could Reshape Environmental Law
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly and Robin Bravender
President-elect Donald Trump is set as early as next month to pick a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but that's just the start of what could be an overhaul of the court and environmental law.
With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg being 83 and Anthony Kennedy 80, Trump may have a chance to shape a conservative court.
During the campaign, Trump rolled out 21 names of potential nominees for the high court, all of them conservative stalwarts who are likely to have much in common with Scalia if confirmed. So legal experts see the potential for dramatic shifts on — among other things — courts' deference to federal agencies on major rules and how the courts tackle regulatory costs and property rights.
Having Trump pick Scalia's replacement means "in some cases, the ... environmental side is going to lose," said Pat Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School. "But with two picks, two really far-right conservative picks, I think you've changed the institution for a generation."
What will that mean? Here's how that may play out on five major environmental law issues:
Deference to agencies
Some environmental law experts wonder whether courts' deference to agencies' expertise will land on the chopping block.
Several Supreme Court justices have already expressed concerns about the validity of the Chevron and Auer doctrines, two legal tenets that help federal agencies win in environmental litigation.
Courts defer to agency interpretations when Congress has been silent on an issue under the Chevron doctrine (Greenwire, Dec. 9). Several judges on Trump's short list of possible nominees are prominent Chevron foes (Greenwire, Sept. 23).
Under Auer, courts give deference to agency interpretation of regulations. Of the two, Auer is in more danger of being chipped away at — and of being completely overturned.
Scalia began expressing doubts about the doctrine in 2011; Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have also raised concerns about Auer's validity.
Conservatives outside the court have recently blasted both doctrines.
Robert Percival, director of the University of Maryland's Environmental Law Program, said critics of the doctrines might think differently once Trump starts to use them to get his anti-regulatory agenda through the courts.
"When EPA was in the Obama administration, a lot of conservatives were saying it was out of control and should get no deference at all," Percival said. "They may now completely change their tune and say, 'We no longer want to repeal Chevron.'"
Clean Power Plan
Trump has announced his intention of killing the Obama administration's signature climate rule.
A sprawling legal fight over EPA's rule to curb power plants' greenhouse gas emissions is pending in a federal appeals court, where judges could rule at any moment. It's unclear whether the court will opt to rule before Trump is inaugurated.
The Trump administration could decline to defend the rule in court, and might ask the appeals court to hold off on deciding until it has announced its plans about formally rolling back the regulation.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court signaled concerns about the rule even before the federal appeals court took on the case. The high court earlier this year issued an unprecedented hold on the rule while the legal fight plays out.
If the appeals court rejects the regulation, states and environmentalists supporting EPA in the lawsuit could ask the Supreme Court to hear their appeal, even if the Trump EPA doesn't want to defend it.
A Trump appointee on the Supreme Court would be unlikely to side with supporters of the Clean Power Plan, if that case makes it that far.
"At this point, I can't even tell you if that case will reach the Supreme Court," said Tom Lorenzen, an attorney representing electric cooperatives who are challenging the rule.
Property rights
A more conservative-leaning Supreme Court is likely to be more protective of property rights.
Scalia generally ruled in favor of property owners in disputes over land rights, notably in a 1987 opinion that overturned the California Coastal Commission's requirement that the owners of a beachfront property set aside land for public use as a permit condition. The 5-4 opinion in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission set the stage for a host of property rights decisions over the last few decades.
"We're still assessing how the various judges on the [Trump] list address issues like property rights," said Tony Francois, an attorney at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation.
He added, "One expects that most of the judges that are on President-elect Trump's short list would view those types of cases similarly to Scalia."
A dispute over a parcel in Wisconsin may represent an early test for Trump's pick for the vacant Supreme Court seat.
Justices accepted Murr v. Wisconsin nearly a year ago, but they have yet to schedule oral arguments in the case, leading to some speculation that the court is waiting for a ninth justice to avoid a 4-4 split (Greenwire, Oct. 4).
Regulatory costs and benefits
The high court made waves in a 2015 decision, penned by Scalia, that found an EPA mercury rule was illegal because EPA hadn't properly considered costs.
His opinion in the 5-4 Michigan v. EPA decision surprised some environmentalists and supporters of the air pollution rule because it indicated the court might be less deferential to EPA's decisions about how to address costs when issuing rules.
Lorenzen said the cost-benefit issue is another area to watch on the post-Scalia court.
"How does the Supreme Court treat that? Do they try to expand the ruling in Michigan to say that it's always arbitrary and capricious not to [address] costs?" Lorenzen said.
The high court could also battle over how EPA measures the so-called co-benefits of rules.
A prominent conservative, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, predicted last year that EPA's practice of counting health co-benefits in justifying the economic impacts of its clean air rules would soon become a "key battleground" (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2015).
Endangered Species Act
A more conservative court would likely limit the reach of the Endangered Species Act.
That could mean less federal protection for threatened and endangered species and fewer restrictions on activities on private lands and on government activities that could adversely affect listed species and their habitat.
"You could very easily see the ESA on the chopping block in the Supreme Court," Vermont Law School's Parenteau said.
Conservative justices are seen as likely to question the constitutional authority of the federal government to regulate threatened and endangered species. An issue that's been litigated in the lower courts, for example, questions the authority of the government to protect species that are found only in a single state.
"There's been several cases involving Endangered Species Act listings of species that occur only in one state, and that don't have any particular economic value or appeal," said Daniel Rohlf, a law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Oregon.
At least three federal appellate courts have said the law applies in such instances, but if the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules otherwise in a pending case involving prairie dogs, that could create a circuit split that's ripe for the Supreme Court to review.
A conservative court would affect not only the reach of the Endangered Species Act but also who can allow more litigation under the law.
Conservative justices, including the late Scalia, tend to take a more expansive view on who can challenge protections for endangered species. At the same time, Rohlf said, they tend to take a more restrictive view on when environmentalists have legal standing to enforce the statute.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047400
-
3 Reasons Trump's EPA Pick is Bad News for Business
Dec 19, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ben N. Ratner
If confirmed as the next head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has said he will fight three of President Obama’s most important environmental initiatives: methane regulations, the Clean Power Plan and United States participation in the Paris climate agreement.
What he hasn’t said is how bad his anti-environment agenda will be for American business. Consider this:
1. Companies will waste millions more in natural gas if federal methane rules are blocked.
Protecting common-sense standards to reduce oil and gas methane emissions is a winning opportunity for American business.
The market value of wasted natural gas in the U.S. is estimated at $2 billion a year, and experts recognize that methane must be addressed if natural gas is to play a constructive role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.
But that did not stop Pruitt from suing the EPA over its proposed methane rules earlier this year.
Efforts to keep methane and other air pollutants out of the air has already spawned more than 75 firms in 500+ locations nationwide. They support homegrown, well-paying jobs in states such as Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Such jobs help support local economies – as well as oil and gas company bottom lines.
In Colorado, where methane regulations have been in place for some time, operators are reporting that environmental, social and financial benefits outweigh costs as they comply with the state’s clean air rules.
Investors are taking notice, too. Several large public pension funds from California and New York were among investors that recently came out in strong support for the North American agreement to reduce oil and gas methane emissions by 45 percent.
With $3.6 trillion in investment assets, these important economic players understand what’s at stake.
2. Undermining the Clean Power Plan will slow job growth and investments in the clean energy sector.
The plan to cut carbon-dioxide emissions from America’s power plants will boost job growth in fast-growing and innovative segments of the American economy: renewable energy and energy efficiency technology.
The Clean Power Plan is expected to create up to 273,000 new jobs in those and related industries, on top of the hundreds of thousands that already exist.
And yet, Pruitt joined a lawsuit against the plan, parroting scare tactic claims that it would increase electricity prices.
In reality, the Clean Power plan capitalizes on economic progress already under way in many states, such as the booming solar energy industry in North Carolina and California that employed a total of 82,000 people in 2015. With costs plummeting in solar energy, renewables accounted for the majority of new installed power capacity in 2015.
It helps explain why American businesses such as Walmart and Google have committed to sourcing 100 percent of their power from renewable generation.
Google was among leading technology companies that defended the Clean Power Plan in court. Market-oriented government support for clean energy will help their businesses gain access to cheap, clean, stably priced energy for years to come, they argued.
3. A withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty would make U.S. companies less competitive.
In a globalized economy, American businesses can benefit from the goodwill and shared direction we achieve by collaborating with other nations like we did with the historic Paris climate agreement. It’s why 365 American businesses recently declared their support for continued U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement.
But Trump and Pruitt, both of whom question climate science, have said the U.S. should pull out of the treaty.
The reality is that if our country did renege on the Paris Agreement and rolled back efforts to limit emissions from our energy industry, American businesses would have a disadvantage as they compete against China and others to seize the mantle of clean energy leadership.
Indeed, with Pruitt likely the only environmental chief in the world to doubt climate change, we may be holding back our companies for years to come. It’s a risk we can’t afford.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/12/19/3-reasons-trumps-epa-pick-bad-news-business
-
Electric Utility Leaders See No Change in Trajectory with Trump
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
For Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning, November's presidential election results dovetail nicely with the worldview of electric utility executives more comfortable with time-honored state regulation than what he calls the "overreach of federalism" embodied in the approach of the Obama administration.
"I was happy either way on this one to be honest with you," Fanning said in a recent interview.
"We had worked with both teams through the election, and I really felt both candidates, they're going to do it differently, but both candidates would advance the agenda the right way," he said.
Still, midway through his one-year term as chairman of the Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for investor-owned electric utilities, Fanning seems to be breathing a bit easier with the election of Donald Trump.
"We have this opportunity to set policy now based on abundance, not scarcity," he said, echoing a sentiment often voiced by candidate Trump during the campaign.
At the same time, Fanning is sanguine that a Trump administration will not try to influence the trajectory his company and others in the sector have chosen even when it comes to reducing carbon emissions.
"This industry has the DNA to continue on that trajectory. It would be interpreted differently under Clinton or Trump, for sure, but it doesn't change where we come from in addressing all these issues.
"What's driving this change has nothing to do with Trump and has nothing to with state regulators. It has everything to do with customers and technology," Fanning said.
NorthWestern Energy Corp. CEO Bob Rowe expressed similar sentiments, admitting to "a concern at times over the last eight years when there were favored technologies and what appeared to be favored companies" insofar as Obama administration policies were concerned.
"What I'm hopeful the new administration will do is be thoughtful about goals, not be too prescriptive in favoring necessarily one technology or another and support the direction that the industry has been going for operational and efficiency reasons in addition to complying with policy mandates," Rowe said in an interview.
No reprieve seen for coal
Even with the likely demise of U.S. EPA's Clean Power plan, both executives expect carbon emissions — and the use of coal for generating electricity — to decline during a Trump administration.
Since 2005, carbon emissions from the power sector are down 21 percent, according to EEI. And the industry has announced the retirement of 82 gigawatts of coal plants between 2010 and 2024, an EEI spokesman said.
Rowe said such data supports a record of the industry taking action independent of EPA's controversial rule or the goals envisioned by the Waxman-Markey legislation in 2009 that would have established a national cap-and-trade system to curb carbon.
In Montana, for example, NorthWestern's fleet of power plants "is less carbon intensive than was the EPA Clean Power plan goal in 2030," he said.
"If carbon reduction is a goal — and I understand the [Trump] administration is open on that — let the companies and our state regulators figure out the best way to meet that goal. I think we're going in a good direction," Rowe said.
"It's clear that the courts have given the EPA the right to deal with carbon in a certain way," Fanning said, referring to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.
The market price of alternative fuels — chiefly natural gas — are "absolutely" resulting in lower emissions from Southern and its utility brethren, Fanning said.
The path ahead for the coal industry lies in easing export restrictions so the United States "can play offense with coal," he said.
And it's possible coal could benefit if the federal government creates "incentives for companies like ours — and we're way out in front of everybody else, sometimes painfully — to demonstrate that in fact we can use coal in a carbon responsible way" with the development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, Fanning said.
"We've always had a point of view at Southern that there's a reasonable trajectory in which to move the portfolio of the United States to a lower carbon future. There's a way to transition the fleet now," he said.
Advice for Trump transition team
Fanning has had two conversations with officials from the Trump transition team, "one was on energy and one was on national security in relation to cyber and physical terrorism."
He declined to identify who he met with and said, "I don't want to get into the specifics of our conversations. But let me say this, I thought the team was terrific. You know, there's been some noise out there that the transition's in chaos. No they're not."
He is hoping that the new administration would clearly affirm its policies with regard to fuel types, exports and "What do we really mean by 'all the above'?"
Fanning wants the tax treatment of energy revisited from one that he thinks "really tilts the playing field towards renewables at the expense of coal, oil, gas, and even nuclear." Wind and solar "are mature industries now, they don't need all that stuff," he said referent to tax incentives that Congress reaffirmed last year.
But as far as the moves his industry is making to update its business model "the power of the market overwhelms the power of regulators or any kind of administration policy," Fanning said.
"Now, will the [Trump administration] try and put barriers in place to stop this change? Oh I doubt that," he said. "I think they're going to be more accommodating."
For Rowe, he said that the goals of the power sector and the Trump administration "ought to be very, very well aligned with the billions of dollars we invest in critical infrastructure year over year, the role that we play and the responsibility that we have for providing the infrastructure that the rest of the economy depends on."
"I'm hopeful that the new administration will look at that as a huge value and huge opportunity for partnership in terms of growing the economy, promoting good jobs," Rowe said.
Congressional review of federal power laws welcome
Fanning said he would "absolutely welcome" an effort by Congress to look into whether the Federal Power Act needs to be revised. The last time changes were made in the 95-year-old law was in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energywire, Oct. 25).
He singled out the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act as well, a 1978 amendment to the FPA enacted in response to the 1970s energy crisis with the aim of encouraging conservation, more reliance on domestic energy sources and, in particular, developing renewable energy technologies.
Among its controversial provisions is a requirement that utilities sign contracts for power with small generators — usually renewables — of up to 20 years at relatively high costs even if they do not need the power to meet demand for electricity from customers.
"PURPA causes companies do a lot of dumb things. A lot of these old laws may have been well intentioned back in the '70s and '80s. But we're not in the '70s and '80s anymore and taking a comprehensive review is a great thing to do," Fanning said.
The law is an irritant for many of EEI's member utilities, including NorthWestern.
It requires a "tremendous allocation of resources" by both utilities and state regulators for compliance, Rowe said.
Compliance by utilities can clash with their power supply plans and when the power is not needed, the utility typically sells it into the market at a lower price than what was paid, Rowe said.
"Ultimately, at some point, customers are going to be responsible for those costs," he said.
PURPA "was a law based on scarcity, not on abundance" and predated state renewable starts, efficiency programs and open-access transmission, which has made it easier to move power over the grid.
"We're in a different world," he said. "For Congress to look at the world as it is right now would be very helpful," Rowe said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047387
-
EPA Stops Work on Climate Rule Compliance Program
Dec 19, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stopped work Monday on writing an optional program that states could use to comply with the climate change rule for power plants.
Janet McCabe, the EPA’s top air regulator, announced the decision in a blog post, along with the draft, incomplete compliance plans and related documents that the agency had been working on.
McCabe did not say why the EPA stopped work on the model rules for compliance, which the EPA sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final approval in early November, days before the election.
But President-elect Donald Trump, who will take office in just over a month, has pledged to repeal the underlying Clean Power Plan that the model rules would help states comply with. That would make the model rules moot.
“The proposed model rules highlighted straightforward pathways to adopting a trading system, making it easy for states and power plants to use emissions trading to reduce carbon pollution,” McCabe wrote.
“We believe that the work we have done so far may be useful at this time to the states, stakeholders and members of the public who are considering or are already implementing policies and programs that would cut carbon pollution from the power sector.”
The Clean Power Plan, which is on hold thanks to a Supreme Court order that halted it during litigation, assigns each state an individual greenhouse gas reduction level for its private sector.
The model rules outline basic cap-and-trade systems for power plants that states could set up to comply. But states would not be mandated to use the cap-and-trade systems and would be free to find other ways to comply.
Congressional Republicans, state attorneys general challenging the rule and other opponents had argued that the EPA was violating the Supreme Court’s stay on the Clean Power Plan by working on related programs like the model rules.
But liberal states planning to comply with the rule asked the EPA to keep working on the programs.
The Obama administration is still fighting to defend the Clean Power Plan in court. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments for the challenge in September and could issue a decision even if Trump repeals the regulation.
EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison reiterated Monday that the EPA believes the rule is legal and will be upheld in court.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311032-epa-stops-work-on-climate-rule-compliance-option
-
EPA Re-Releases Carbon Trading Guidance — But No Final Rules
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA today made public its work to date on guidance for states to use carbon trading to meet greenhouse gas standards for the power sector — but the agency stopped short of issuing final rules.
EPA originally meant to finalize the model trading rules, although President-elect Donald Trump has sworn to eliminate the underlying regulation, the Clean Power Plan.
The agency instead withdrew the rules and accompanying documents from review by the White House and released the drafts for informational purposes. The agency has not completed several of the procedural steps necessary before the administrator can sign off on the trading rules, including responding to comments.
"While these drafts are not final and we are not required to release them at this time, making them available now allows us to share our work to date and to respond to the states that have requested information prior to the end of the Administration," said a blog post by EPA air chief Janet McCabe.
The Supreme Court in February halted implementation of the Clean Power Plan until judges determine whether it is legal. Many states canceled their planning efforts, although 14 asked EPA to provide guidance on carbon trading and other elements of the regulation.
EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said today that the agency is fully confident the courts will uphold the rule. McCabe also noted that states in 2015 had already cut power plant carbon emissions nearly 25 percent below 2005 levels. The Clean Power Plan aims for 32 percent by 2030.
Under the Clean Power Plan, each state is tasked with achieving a specific power-sector carbon level. With carbon trading, utilities that don't cut carbon emissions enough by switching away from coal could buy compliance credits from companies that exceed their own goals.
EPA's drafts, which cover hundreds of pages, explain the details of how states could set up carbon trading systems. The documents note that states considering entering or expanding emissions trading programs in order to limit greenhouse gases might find the information helpful. A guide on evaluating, measuring and verifying energy efficiency savings may also be of interest to states, the drafts note.
The documents from EPA lay out two model trading rules that states could adopt in order to meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan. One would cap carbon levels, and the other would let states adhere to an average rate of emissions based on how much power they produce. Both were designed to be ready for interstate trading, which EPA and many analysts have said would help to limit the costs of the regulation.
"There is wide-spread agreement among states and stakeholders that a broad-scale emission trading program is particularly effective in achieving pollution control cost-effectively and in alignment with the operation of the electric power system," EPA notes.
The model trading rules and other information are not binding and do not impose any compliance obligations on states or utilities.
They follow a number of standards EPA has finalized in recent weeks ahead of the incoming administration, which has promised to rescind much of the Obama administration's climate work.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047426
-
Obama Administration Parries Challenge to BLM Methane Rule
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Obama administration says oil industry groups and allied state governments have mischaracterized its methane rules for public lands in an attempt to get a federal judge to throw them out.
In a filing late last week, Justice Department attorneys representing the Bureau of Land Management said the BLM methane rule fits squarely within the agency's mandate to prevent waste, but that opponents have wrongly cast it as a "comprehensive air quality regime."
"The waste of public resources and the associated loss of royalty revenues are ongoing harms suffered by the American public and federal, state, and tribal governments," they said in their filing late Thursday. They called industry and states' warning of economic harm "speculative."
The administration's motion in opposition to a request for a preliminary injunction was followed Friday by the industry groups — the Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) — arguing that California and New Mexico officials should not be allowed to intervene in the case. The groups argue that the two states got involved too late.
They argued that the California Air Resources Board and New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas (D) had not filed comments or otherwise been a part of the rulemaking process. In addition, they note that many other New Mexico officials, such as Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, have formally opposed the rule.
The California and New Mexico officials requested to intervene in the case Thursday on the side of the Obama administration and a bevy of environmental groups (Energywire, Dec. 16). They said they "fundamentally disagree" with the states who have joined with the other Western states challenging the rule — Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota.
Finalized last month, the rule would cut methane emissions from oil and gas development. The challengers have asked a federal judge in Wyoming to freeze BLM's rule as the litigation plays out.
A hearing in the case has been scheduled for Jan. 6, where BLM and its opponents will argue over whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction barring the rule from taking effect as scheduled on Jan. 17 (Energywire, Dec. 1).
The hearing will be before Judge Scott Skavdahl, the same Obama-appointed judge who froze and ultimately struck down BLM's rule for hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands earlier this year.
Earlier this month, a coalition of environmental groups entered the fray. The groups also opposed the motion to freeze the rule last week, dubbing a "straw man" the contention that it is an air pollution rule.
Oil and gas operators routinely vent or burn off excess methane, and the gas can leak from well sites, compressor stations and pipelines. BLM's rule would require operators to install equipment to monitor for leaks and to capture large amounts of gas instead of releasing it into the atmosphere (Greenwire, Nov. 15).
The rule is part of the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan, which also features a U.S. EPA rule to cut methane emissions from new oil and gas operations. That rule is also under attack in the courtroom by industry and states, which say it is an expensive regulatory overreach.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047381
-
The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Importance of Upholding the Rule of Law
Dec 19, 2016 | The Hill - Ballot Box Blog
By Hon. Christopher D. Coursen
One of the positive results of this unprecedented 2016 Presidential election is the expressed sentiment from some leaders from both parties on the importance of upholding the rule of law, and furthermore, safeguarding it against politicians and others who would abuse or ignore it for political gain. Such an agreed upon fundamental principle is rare, and, unfortunately, not yet universally recognized and respected.
Take the increasingly rancorous and violent dispute over the Dakota Access pipeline for instance. It is a stark illustration of why adherence to upholding the rule of law is so vitally important to the proper functioning of our democracy.
Over the course of two years, leaders of Energy Transfer Partners, the company that is building the 1,172-mile pipeline, were involved in nearly 560 meetings with local officials and community leaders to ensure the safest and least disruptive route for the pipeline. It was carefully routed almost entirely on private land. That was the result of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ mandated review of each water crossing (just 3 percent of the project), and its possible impact on both historical locations and any artifacts thereon.
After this process and review, the Corps approved all the necessary permits and approvals that were required for the waterway crossings. The Corps strictly adhered to multiple federal laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
When construction was nearly halfway finished, one Native American tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux, and some anti-pipeline protesters and other activists, came out to oppose the project. They alleged that the Corps had failed to consult and meet with tribal leaders as required by federal law. They demanded that construction on the entire pipeline be stopped.
But the facts belie these claims. The Corps held nearly 390 meetings with 55 various tribes. In fact, the Corps notified the Standing Rock Sioux tribe of the pipeline permit application on numerous occasions in mid to late 2014, and subsequently asked dozens of times for meetings with the tribe to discuss the details.
But the Standing Rock Sioux tribe refused every time. When a meeting was finally set up in October, 2014 (after five offers and tribe rejections in September alone), the tribe ended the meeting before the Corps had even arrived! At the November meeting, discussion of the pipeline was pulled from the tribe’s agenda and postponed yet again. This classic “stonewall” by the tribe lasted for a year and a half!
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe then sued in federal court to halt construction and lost. The tribe appealed that decision, and again lost before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled the pipeline was properly and legally approved and found no legal basis to stop construction.
Unable to get its desired result in court, protesters turned to some members of Congress to urge the Obama administration to ignore the law and halt construction of the pipeline through Executive action. President Obama not only bowed to the pressure from those members and the activists opposing the pipeline, he said that his administration was looking at ways to reroute the Dakota Access Pipeline to accommodate the concerns of “Native Americans”, i.e., the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. The result? The Corps recently announced it was going to re-open the examination.
This extraordinary development and Presidential intervention has alarmed developers, legal experts, and court scholars who know the importance of upholding the rule of law, and see this action as directly flaunting that sacred principle.
The only result that will appease the protesters is bringing the pipeline construction to a grinding halt through “any means necessary”. These protests are violent and dangerous, in violation of countless laws, and designed to influence government policy by intimidation and coercion - all of this, by the way, is in the definition of domestic terrorism as outlined in the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act.
Maybe the protestors should ask the tribal leaders what it is they’re really after. According to some reports, the tribe wouldn’t be protesting the pipeline so vehemently if they had received a share of the oil being shipped through it. So is this a principled stand, or the result of the tribe not getting the payout they felt they were due?
At a time when top leaders in both political parties are saying the system is rigged, the Obama administration ought to be extra sensitive to the appearance of impropriety and political favoritism. The only fair and just option is to let construction of the Dakota Access pipeline move forward. Any attempt by the administration and certain Members of Congress to intervene on behalf of a favored constituency will only further undermine Americans’ faith in our government, and do damage to the primacy of the rule of law.
Hon. Christopher D. Coursen spent 3 years working as Republican Majority Counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee, and Chief Counsel of the Communications Subcommittee, and currently is the Pres. & CEO of the Washington DC government consulting firm, The Status Group.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/311004-the-dakota-access-pipeline-and-the-importance-of-upholding-the-rule-of-law
-
Will Trump's Army Pick Reverse Obama on Pipeline?
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump nominated U.S. Army veteran and billionaire businessman Vincent "Vinnie" Viola as secretary of the Army, a role with direct oversight of the $3.78 billion Dakota Access pipeline.
Viola is a West Point graduate who owns the Florida Panthers hockey team and founded the high-frequency trading firm Virtu Financial Inc. He also served as chairman of the New York Mercantile Exchange from 2001 to 2004.
If confirmed, Viola could be called upon under the incoming Trump administration to reverse the Obama administration's decision to withhold a key permit for the 1,172-mile Dakota Access oil pipeline. The president-elect has suggested he would approve both the Dakota Access pipeline and the controversial Keystone XL project when he takes office.
"[The secretary] may sign the papers, but the reality is that the decision will be made by the incoming president's legal and environmental advisers and will likely be coordinated from the White House," said James Lucier, managing director of Capital Alpha Partners.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers earlier this month announced it would not grant Energy Transfer Partners an easement needed for the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River. Instead, the agency said it would undertake an in-depth environmental impact statement to consider risks and alternative routes, a process that could take up to a year to complete (Energywire, Dec. 5).
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe led the effort to halt the pipeline, which would cross within a half-mile of the tribe's reservation, across ancestral homelands that were once promised to the Sioux in a treaty. The project's developers have argued withholding the easement was a political decision that defies multiple federal authorizations and court decisions that favored approval of the pipeline.
Christine Tezak, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, said any official more senior than the assistant secretary of the U.S. Army for Civil Works — including the president or secretaries of Army or Defense — could call for the easement to be issued. In such a scenario, the president would not need to wait until nominees were confirmed to move forward, she said.
Tezak earlier this month also noted that Dakota Access could obtain permission to advance from a federal court, noting that pipeline developers are attempting to show the Army Corps already granted necessary approvals back in July (Greenwire, Dec. 9).
A federal judge overseeing that case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has asked the government to provide all documents underpinning its decision this summer to approve the pipeline.
Still, environmental groups are holding out hope Viola will follow through with a full environmental impact statement.
"Respecting Indigenous sovereignty means listening to the tribe that will be impacted before their sacred land is bulldozed," said Greenpeace spokesperson Mary Sweeters. "We are hopeful that Mr. Viola recognizes this, as the Army Corps has under the Obama administration, and proceeds with a thorough and accurate environmental impact statement."
Trump's transition team said Viola would "combine a deep background in national security affairs with an impressive track record of leading and managing high-performing teams within the military and the private sector."
If confirmed, the bulk of Viola's work will focus on the military. As a graduate of West Point and an Army veteran, Viola trained as an airborne ranger infantry officer and served in the 101st Airborne Division.
Viola said in a statement that his top priority would be ensuring American soldiers have "the ways and means to fight and win across the full spectrum of conflict" and defending "the American people and their right to live free every day."
Viola, according to the transition team, was born and raised in an Italian immigrant family in Brooklyn, and his father, a veteran of World War II, worked as a truck driver. After graduating from West Point in the 1970s and serving in the U.S. Army, Viola earned a law degree from New York Law School and worked as a trader on the New York Mercantile Exchange in the 1980s.
Viola went on to found Pioneer Futures Inc. and Independent Bank Group Inc. and was appointed chairman of NYMEX in 2001.
Before taking Virtu Financial public in 2015, Viola delayed the offering a year following the release of Michael Lewis' book "Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt," which argues that the practice distorts markets and cheats investors, according to an article from April 17, 2014, in The Wall Street Journal. The company later received a letter from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) about any interactions with exchanges and private-trading venues, according to the newspaper.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047424
-
A Fight About Climate Change — But Not Emissions
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its supporters captivated a nation this year with their protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
Their victorious faces beamed from the front pages of newspapers around the country the day after the Obama administration halted construction of the project. In headline after headline posted outside the Newseum in Washington, they were standing up to big business and big government, protecting their way of life and a sacred water source.
Behind the scenes, climate activists were also championing the temporary Dec. 4 win as the start of a grass-roots revolution against fossil fuels. But as environmental groups aim to make protests against infrastructure the new face of the climate movement, there's no proof their efforts are hindering production or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
Industry analysts say companies will keep extracting oil at near the same levels and spending more money to move it by rail if they don't have pipelines. They say international prices have a bigger impact on production than do marginal additional transportation costs.
"Economics tells you when you receive a lower price for a good, you produce less of that good," said Mark Sadeghian, a natural resources analyst for Fitch Ratings. Sadeghian said that while protests may limit some oil production in landlocked regions where transportation costs eat into revenues, global markets are what determine production.
Nonetheless, climate campaigners see Dakota Access as a focusing point in their battle to stop pipelines in the hope of stalling fossil fuel development. They plan to make protests a key part of their strategy under President-elect Donald Trump, who has suggested he would approve both the Dakota Access pipeline and the controversial Keystone XL project when he takes office.
"I will tell you when I get to office, if it's not solved, I'll have it solved very quickly," Trump told Fox News in a recent interview. "I think it's very unfair. So it'll start one way or the other."
Activists who acknowledge that prices have the biggest impact on production say they are playing the long game. Lena Moffitt, director of the Beyond Dirty Fuels project for the Sierra Club, said her group worries that if prices rebound, companies will use the growing network of pipelines to get their products to the Gulf of Mexico to export to other countries.
"When you build a pipeline, you're signaling to the market that drilling and fracking is open for business," said Nebraska anti-Keystone activist Jane Kleeb.
A post-Keystone XL oil production decline
Constructed by Energy Transfer Partners LP, the nearly finished 1,170-mile Dakota Access pipeline would move oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale to refineries and pipelines in Illinois that connect to export hubs. Oil Change International, a climate advocacy group, estimates that using the oil in the pipeline would contribute 101.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, equal to the emissions of about 30 coal plants.
Without Dakota Access, however, much or all of the oil will probably keep moving by rail, argues John Stoody, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines' vice president of government and public relations. Oil by rail is more expensive, and spending more on transporting oil could make it harder for companies in the Bakken to compete with operations closer to the Gulf of Mexico and other access points. So it's possible they might slow down how much they're producing.
"Could it have an impact on the margin? Yeah, it could," said Sadeghian, the Fitch analyst. "But broad brush, I think at this point the global factors, including OPEC decisions ... and global inventory balances and demand are probably having a bigger impact moving the needle than the protests are."
Oil prices right now are low, so every dollar companies spend shipping their product makes a bigger difference to their bottom line, Sadeghian explained. That's why the impact of stalled infrastructure could vary from region to region.
Environmental groups emboldened by the Obama administration's rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline have taken their protests across the country. They take credit for helping to cancel or delay many of the nearly two dozen fossil fuel infrastructure projects that have stalled since the Keystone decision a year ago.
Kleeb counts more than 20 pipeline projects for which plans have changed because of unfavorable economic conditions and resistance from environmentalists.
Fossil fuel companies have paid close attention to the trend, fearing that future activism could make it hard to permit new projects (Energywire, Dec. 6). But projections show that oil production will grow in the United States if and when low prices rebound.
U.S. oil production has fallen from about 9.3 million barrels per day to 8.6 million barrels per day since the Keystone decision. That's likely because global prices have been low. After 2017, however, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects total production will grow to 11.3 million barrels per day in 2040 as prices recover. Higher prices will make it more profitable to extract and transport more oil.
Stoody noted that "pipelines are only built after there are signed contracts to move that amount of crude oil or petroleum product." Stoody said the oil that would move in the Dakota Access pipeline will end up on railways. He also argued that transporting oil by rail can lead to dangerous explosions, and produces more carbon emissions than pipelines.
Moffitt acknowledges that some of the oil destined for the pipeline will likely move by rail, which might not be as safe or environmentally friendly.
"I think that our job as environmental advocates is to fight for the world that we want to see, and that's a world where you don't have to make that choice," she said.
'Interrupt and disrupt'
Sara Shor, the Keep It in the Ground Campaign manager for 350.org, calls stopping all new fossil fuel infrastructure the "rallying cry" of the climate movement.
"If we can interrupt and disrupt as many pipelines and fossil fuel projects as possible, we can have an impact on the industry and an impact on production," Shor said. She believes that eventually, companies will run out of space to move oil on existing railways and pipelines.
Plus, Dakota Access may be just a fraction of the country's infrastructure, but "we've always known that this fight is bigger than one pipeline," Shor said.
"Millions of people, hopefully, will go on to fight local projects," she said.
The groups protesting the Dakota Access pipeline point to the Keystone XL pipeline as the galvanizing event that got activists lining up against infrastructure. The completed Keystone line would have moved 800,000 barrels of oil per day from the oil sands of Canada south to the Nebraska border with Kansas.
President Obama shuttered the project after it became a symbol of the fight against climate change. Several State Department studies, however, found that constructing the pipeline would not have an impact on whether the oil was used because it was already moving to market via rail and other pipelines.
Stoody makes the same argument with the Dakota Access pipeline. In comparison, it would move about 470,000 barrels per day, or 170 million barrels per year, compared to the total 16.2 billion barrels of oil that are transported in pipelines around the country, Stoody said.
"As long as consumers demand energy through their daily lives, their consumer products, their need to work and travel, as long as that demand is present, pipelines are the safest and cheapest way to meet that consumer demand," Stoody said.
Groups like the Sierra Club understand that the world can't stop using fossil fuels immediately, Moffitt said.
Still, she said, "at the end of the day, we're looking at what increasing scientific consensus says, to leave the vast majority of resources in the ground."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047391
-
Ore. LNG Project Backers Look for OK Under Trump's FERC
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Supporters of a rejected liquefied natural gas export terminal on Oregon's south coast are now planning to renew their 12-year-old effort to get the facility built.
Calgary, Alberta-based Veresen Inc. says it has redesigned the proposed $7.6 billion Jordan Cove Energy Project in Oregon. The new proposal will no longer require a separate power plant and will have less environmental and community impacts.
Veresen last week requested a rehearing on the project, which was denied by federal regulators. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission previously rejected the project in March, saying there was not enough market demand.
But under a new administration that is more energy-friendly, Veresen is hoping the regulatory outcome may be different. The company said it will reapply after President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office.
"By all indications, the new administration is going to be more supportive and have FERC's back in a way that the current administration did not," said Betsy Spomer, an executive vice president at Veresen who is heading the Jordan Cove project. "By the time we get through the refiling process, we would be looking at an entirely new commission."
Opponents of the project were disappointed with Veresen's decision to refile. They also question whether the outcome would be any different.
"They still don't have a market. They still don't have agreements with landowners. They've got major issues out there," a local resident said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047379
-
How Will the Oil and Gas Industry Do in 2017?
Dec 19, 2016 | Fuel Fix Blog
By David Hunn
U.S. independent oil and gas drillers will lead the industry out of survival mode in 2017, according to a new report from an energy research firm.
Oil and gas companies that survived the 2-year-old oil price crash have cut their operating expenses in half, paid off debt and increased cash flow, the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie said on Monday. Most will make money in 2017 for the first time since the downturn, according to the report — but only if oil prices hold above $55 a barrel.
U.S. independent exploration and production companies will respond first to rising prices. Operators in the lower 48 states have three competitive advantages, the report said: access to capital, low-cost oil and gas acreage, and the ability to scale back spending if prices dip.
They could increase investment by over 25 percent if oil prices average above $50 a barrel, the report said. Sixty corporations will grow production by an average of 2 percent next year, “which is impressive,” the firms says, since development spending was slashed by over 40 percent between 2014 and 2016.
The rebound still won’t be quick, said Tom Ellacott, WoodMac’s senior vice president of corporate analysis. He called it a “cautious, U-shaped recovery.”
Companies are going to focus on boosting savings, reducing debt, cutting expenses and modestly increasing production. Spending by the major oil companies — Exxon, Chevron, Shell, etc. — will fall by 8 percent as big capital projects wind down.
Still, all of that means some companies — now leaner and more productive — will be more attractive for corporate mergers and acquisitions.
“Overall 2017 will be a year of stability and opportunity for oil and gas companies in positions of financial strength,” Ellacott said. “More players will look at opportunities to adapt and grow their portfolios.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/12/19/how-will-the-oil-and-gas-industry-do-in-2017/
-
Corpus Christi Water Deemed Safe After Chemical Spill
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Officials announced that tap water is safe to drink in Corpus Christi, Texas, after a four-day ban following a chemical spill.
About 85 percent of Corpus Christi residents have relied on bottled water since Dec. 14, when the ban on using tap water for drinking, cooking and bathing went into effect.
The potential contamination came from a leak of about 24 gallons of an asphalt emulsifier.
It was not clear whether the water system was ever contaminated.
U.S. EPA, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the city looked into the incident.
The agencies tested 30 water samples yesterday and found no harmful chemicals, according to Mayor Dan McQueen. Testing will continue this week.
The chemical, known as Indulin AA-86, entered the water system due to a "back-flow incident" in the city's industrial district at a plant operated by a company associated with Valero Energy Corp. (Laila Kearney, Reuters, Dec. 18).
Concerns persist about when officials knew about the leak.
An internal email sent Wednesday by Susan Clewis, a regional director for TCEQ, notes that the leak was reported Dec. 7, a week before the tap water ban was announced.
"Obviously, we are concerned about that initial report, that this may have been known for seven days and it may have been going on for that long," said Luis Moreno, the chief of staff for state Sen. Juan Hinojosa, whose district includes Corpus Christi. "And why did it take so long for TCEQ to get notified? Those are all things that I think are starting to be figured out right now."
Clewis and city officials declined to comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047406
-
N.D. Cleanup Still Not Complete 3 Years After Spill
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A massive 2013 oil spill in North Dakota still is not fully cleaned up.
The Tesoro Corp. pipeline break happened in a wheat field in September three years ago (Energywire, Oct. 11, 2013). Less than a third of the estimated 840,000 gallons spilled has been recovered, and Tesoro has not set a date for completing the cleanup.
State officials said no water sources were contaminated and no wildlife was hurt. The spill occurred on farmer Steve Jenkins' field.
Jenkins' wife, Patty Jensen, said she was upset to learn about the recent pipeline break about 150 miles from the Dakota Access oil pipeline protest site (Greenwire, Dec. 13).
"I get really upset when I hear of a new one, and I wonder what is being done to prevent these spills," she said.
Jenkins discovered the spill in his field after smelling the crude oil for days. The cleanup has become part of their daily life.
"They are there working away 24 hours a day, seven days a week — it's pretty amazing," Jensen said. "The noise from the equipment used to bug us, but we've grown used to it".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/19/stories/1060047399
-
Feds Slow to Assess Health Impacts of Camp LeJeune’s Toxic Water
Dec 19, 2016 | Las Vegas Review Journal
By Keith Rogers
The federal government has been in no hurry to assess the health impacts of two harmful chemicals found in a water supply that Marine veterans from Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, blame for cancer and other maladies.
Nor is it in a hurry to finalize a Veterans Affairs rule that would streamline the process for Camp LeJeune veterans to collect compensation for certain health problems.
On Monday, roughly 40 years after passage of the Toxic Substance Control Act and four years after the Environmental Protection Agency declared one of the chemicals — trichloroethylene, or TCE — a known human carcinogen, the EPA announced in the Federal Register that it will begin evaluating degreasing agents TCE and PCE, or perchloroethylene, as well as eight other chemicals for potential risks to human health and the environment.
On Friday, the EPA was vague about how the human health evaluations for TCE and PCE could affect Camp Lejeune veterans’ claims, noting that “it will be up to the next administration to determine how (or) whether to finalize the (EPA) rule.”
“We can’t say whether the first 10 chemical risk assessments will impact or bolster claims or what the findings will be,” EPA officials said in response to a Review-Journal query.
It’s also unclear why the EPA is even conducting an evaluation of TCE’s health impacts considering that the agency upgraded its status in 2011 from possible human carcinogen to known human carcinogen based on epidemiologic data, experiments and studies.
“TCE poses a potential human health hazard for noncancer toxicity to the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system, and the developing fetus,” the review concluded.
Nevertheless, Linda Furrow, the wife of Marine veteran Stanley Furrow, of Las Vegas, said she is losing hope that he will receive compensation from his veterans benefits claim for consuming contaminated water at Camp LeJeune regardless of the EPA’s health risk evaluations for TCE and PCE, a process that is expected to take up to three years.
“Why are they taking so long?” she said Friday. “I don’t think it’s going to do us any good no matter what. You can’t fight them.”
The Furrows believe Stanley’s migraine headaches and neurological maladies are linked to his exposure in the early 1970s to Camp Lejeune’s contaminated water, which contained TCE measuring 1,400 parts per billion, far in excess of the 5 ppb standard for safe drinking water.
They believe it also explains why Linda had miscarriages and why birth defects are present in their descendants. Their son was born with only three fingers on his left hand; their daughter has battled cysts and tumors on her head all her life; and their teenage grandson, Joseph, was born with twisted legs.
EPA officials said that when the Toxic Substances Control Act became law nearly 40 years ago it “did not provide adequate authority for the EPA to re-evaluate these existing chemicals as new concerns arose or science was updated.”
It wasn’t until June 22 when President Barack Obama signed an amendment to the act mandating the EPA to “evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines” and publish the list of the first 10 chemicals by Monday.
Furrow said she was told recently by Veterans Affairs officials that it could take three decades for the VA to issue a final rule on “presumptive status,” meaning the VA would automatically grant compensation for eight diseases related to exposure to volatile organic compounds like TCE and PCE that were improperly disposed of and infiltrated Camp Lejeune’s water supply.
If the rule is finalized, presumptive status would cover “adult” leukemia, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease and aplastic anemia. The proposed rule would modify a 2012 law that provides VA health coverage for veterans who served at the North Carolina base for at least 30 days between Aug. 1, 1953, and Dec. 31, 1981.
Among those who stand to benefit by presumptive status is Camp Lejeune Marine veteran Richard Zaccara, of Henderson. He was diagnosed with leukemia in 2003 and says his illness was caused by Lejeune’s contaminated water. He is on a registry of veterans exposed to organic solvents when he trained there in 1963.
While he recently won a battle over bills for VA health care coverage under the 2012 Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act, he still waits for compensation from the Veterans Benefits Administration.
Zaccara found out about a week ago that VA workers won’t get around to completing his case until sometime between 2019 and 2023. “That’s insane,” he said. “That’s crazy.”
U.S. Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both R-N.C., have urged the VA to act quickly to finalize the presumptive status rule. They estimate that from 1953 to 1987, nearly 1 million service members and their families were poisoned by Camp Lejeune’s water supply.
Retired Marine Master Sgt. Jerry Ensminger has led a crusade for Camp Lejeune veterans and their families through his website, “The Few, The Proud, The Forgotten.” He said he still hasn’t received a response from the VA from comments he submitted on the presumptive status rule after it was proposed in September.
He said he also doesn’t understand why the EPA’s forthcoming evaluation of TCE’s human health effects is necessary given that the agency has already listed it as a known human carcinogen and a year later, in 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer followed suit.
He said he’s also baffled about why TCE is a known human carcinogen yet PCE, with just an additional chlorine atom, isn’t.
“That doesn’t make any sense,” Ensminger said.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/military/feds-slow-assess-health-impacts-camp-lejeune-s-toxic-water
-
Secretary of State Nominee Rex Tillerson’s Climate Con
Dec 19, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Elliott Negin
Donald Trump’s unorthodox selection of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for secretary of state touched off a flurry of stories about how an engineer from humble beginnings rose through company ranks to become one of the world’s most powerful corporate titans, negotiating with potentates and presidents in dozens of countries spanning the globe.
Much of the coverage has focused on Tillerson’s chummy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has raised eyebrows among Democrats and Republicans alike, including Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Marco Rubio. Tillerson’s bromance with the Russian strongman, however, has largely overshadowed another major area of concern: ExxonMobil’s leading role in promoting climate science denial and blocking government efforts to address global warming.
Instead of exploring those issues, many news organizations have accepted at face value statements Tillerson and his lieutenants have made about company climate policy. A closer look, however, shows that while Tillerson may talk the talk, when it comes to walking, he’s heading in the wrong direction.
Climate Change Risks May Be Serious, But....
As a number of reporters have noted, Tillerson — unlike his crusty predecessor Lee Raymond — acknowledges that climate change is a problem. “At ExxonMobil,” Tillerson said in May at a conference in Washington, D.C., “we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action.”
That sounds promising, right? But Tillerson followed that statement by noting that more than a billion people around the world lack access to electricity, living in what he called a state of “energy poverty.” Cutting back on fossil fuels, Tillerson said, would condemn them to a life of deprivation. His solution: more fossil fuels, especially natural gas. As he has said on other occasions when addressing the same topic: “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”
Tillerson also routinely disparages well-established climate models, insisting they are inaccurate, and recommends societies learn how to adapt to sea level rise and other consequences of global warming instead of trying to reduce carbon emissions.
“Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around — we’ll adapt to that,” he said during a talk at the Council of Foreign Relations in June 2012. “It’s an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions. ...The fear factor that people want to throw out there to say we just have to stop this [carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels], I do not accept.”
Tillerson reiterated his disdain for climate science before a much larger audience the following March. During an hour-long interview on PBS’ Charlie Rose, he emphasized uncertainty — exactly what ExxonMobil did after its own scientists warned upper management in the late 1970s about the potential for climate catastrophe. “We have continued to study this issue for decades,” he told Rose. “... With all of that [new data, better models, and more competent analysis], though, the facts remain there are uncertainties around the climate, climate change, why it’s changing, what the principal drivers of climate change are.”
Social scientists call that “manufacturing doubt.” That’s just what the tobacco industry did to stave off tighter government controls on its product despite the fact the science linking smoking to cancer and other diseases was conclusive — just as climate science is today.
Does ExxonMobil Really Support a Carbon Tax?
Stories about Tillerson’s nomination in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Timesand other publications have uncritically repeated ExxonMobil’s hollow assertion that it endorses a carbon tax. As I have previously pointed out, Tillerson first claimed to back a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2009 in a cynical attempt to derail congressional approval of a rival approach — a market-based, cap-and-trade system — that was gaining ground at the time. In fact, a cap-and-trade bill did pass narrowly in the House, only to die later in the Senate.
Not only was Tillerson undoubtedly aware back then that a carbon tax had virtually no political support, since 2009 ExxonMobil’s friends on Capitol Hill have made sure that no carbon tax bill will ever see the light of day. There have been a handful of nonbinding carbon tax resolutions in recent years, however, and the overwhelming majority of ExxonMobil-funded senators and representatives consistently voteagainst it. Meanwhile, the company has ignored members of Congress who have actually sponsored carbon tax legislation. Earlier this year, for instance, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz — who get no financial support from ExxonMobil — introduced a revenue-neutral carbon tax bill. Did they hear from the company? No.
“Regarding ExxonMobil’s alleged seven years of support for a carbon fee, we’ve seen no meaningful evidence of that,” the senators said in a letter they sent to the company in August. “None of the top executives that make up ExxonMobil’s management team has expressed interest in meeting with any of us to discuss the Whitehouse-Schatz proposal or any carbon fee legislation.”
Still Spreading Lies About Climate Science
In an otherwise critical editorial on Trump’s pick for secretary of state, The New York Times applauded Tillerson for pulling the plug on climate science denier groups. “On a positive note,” the paper of record opined, “Mr. Tillerson has reversed Exxon Mobil’s long history of funding right-wing groups that denied the threat of global warming, and he could perhaps persuade Mr. Trump not to pull out of the landmark Paris agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
In fact, Tillerson did not completely pull that plug. Despite company denials, ExxonMobil has continued to spend millions of dollars on denier groups since Tillerson took over the tiller in 2006. Outed by a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the company spent more than $18.6 million from 1998 — a year before it merged with Mobil — through 2005 on more than 40 think tanks and advocacy organizations. The company did drop some deniers from its roster in response to negative publicity, but from 2006 through 2015, it spent another $14.3 million on its climate disinformation network. Sixteen groups received ExxonMobil funding last year, and 10 of them — including the American Enterprise Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, Federalist Society and Hoover Institution — were listed in the 2007 UCS report.
As for the Times‘ hope that Tillerson, as secretary of state, could persuade Trump to uphold the Paris climate accord, it’s not clear he would try. After all, his company stands to profit handsomely if it fails.
It is true that ExxonMobil endorsed the agreement, at least on paper. A close reading of the company’s statement of support, however, suggests that it hinges on whether its own agenda is satisfied.
After calling the accord “an important step forward by world governments” and insisting that ExxonMobil “has a constructive role to play in developing solutions,” the statement urges policymakers to reduce carbon emissions “at the lowest cost to society, keeping in mind that access to affordable and reliable energy is critical to economic growth and improved standards of living worldwide.”
Ensuring worldwide access to energy is a not-so-veiled reference to Tillerson’s pet energy poverty argument, and as we know, his solution for the developing world is to buy more of what his company sells.
The statement’s conclusion, meanwhile, is especially ironic. It declares the best policy option to meet the challenges of curbing carbon and providing energy to all is — you guessed it — a carbon tax, which the company has been working overtime to make sure never happens.
Let Tillerson Retire
When senators begin to weigh the pros and cons of Tillerson as the nation’s top diplomat a few weeks from now, they need to take into account the fact that he has spent his entire professional career at a corporation whose foreign policy is not only often at odds with U.S. interests, but one that has done more than any other oil company over the last two decades to spread climate science disinformation and prevent urgently needed government action. If they take the confirmation process seriously — and consider the harm Tillerson has inflicted on the planet to protect ExxonMobil’s bottom line — they will reject him. Let him retire next year with his $69.5 million pension and $218 million in company stock. He’ll be fine — and hopefully won’t be able to do any more damage.
Elliott Negin, a former managing editor of American Journalism Review, is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/secretary-of-state-nomine_b_13713292.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested