Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/11/17
-
Possible Ethical Dilemma for Sessions Could Complicate Pruitt's Nomination
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Scott Pruitt's chances of becoming the next EPA administrator face a significant roadblock if Sen. Jeff Sessions heeds calls to recuse himself from voting on the nomination. But while a Democratic senator and others are pressuring Sessions to abstain from any vote, leading Republicans say it's unlikely. -
Cardin Says Senators Will Be 'Responsible' For Pruitt Vote
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) says senators will be “responsible for their votes on Scott Pruitt's nomination to head EPA, suggesting Senate Democrats realize they do not have enough votes to block the nomination but will be seeking to hold their colleagues accountable for efforts to roll back Obama-era environmental rules. -
Pruitt's Hearing To Be Next Week — Carper
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
It looks as if Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for U.S. EPA administrator, is heading to Capitol Hill next week. -
Carper Seeks Details on Pruitt's PACs
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) wants more information about political groups affiliated with Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for U.S. EPA administrator. -
Report: New Law Sharply Curbs Approval of New Chemicals
Jan 10, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The number of new chemicals approved for the market by federal regulators was reportedly cut in half after the passage of new federal regulations in the middle of 2016. -
Rocket Fuel Chemical Increasingly Found in Food, Agency Says
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker and David Schultz
Young children in the U.S. are more exposed to perchlorate, a toxic chemical that can affect hormone production, through their food than they were a decade ago, federal researchers found. -
US FDA: Amount Of Perchlorate Increasing In Food Products
Jan 11, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
By David Stegon
A study from the US FDA has revealed a rise in the amount of perchlorate found in food products, including those traditionally given to infants and toddlers. And some in the NGO community believe the increase may be linked to the FDA allowing the substance in food packaging materials. -
NY Village Relinquishes Future Claims in PFOA Settlement
Jan 11, 2017 | AP (In The Wall Street Journal)
The settlement agreement between an upstate New York village and two companies blamed for contaminating its water supply prohibits local officials from filing future claims in the case. -
Don’t Ban Fracking In Maryland
Jan 10, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
TO COMBAT global warming, you need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions — and you have to do so at reasonable cost, because everyone relies on affordable energy. The principles are simple, but the policy is hard to get right. See, for example, the debate the leaders of Maryland are waging. -
Putin's Other American Propaganda Effort: Anti-Fracking News
Jan 10, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Eric Roston
Energy politics makes strange bedfellows, none stranger than Robin Hood and Russian President Vladimir Putin. -
Natural Gas Is The Future Of Energy, And It's Not Even Close
Jan 10, 2017 | Forbes
By James Taylor
Natural gas is the wave of the future in U.S. and global electricity production, with no other power source even close to matching natural gas’s potential over the next few decades. The United States is in perfect position to take advantage of this if American policymakers will remove government obstacles to natural gas production and export. -
Perry Touts Carbon Cuts In Hill Meetings
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
His future boss has called climate change "bullshit," but behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, Energy secretary-in-waiting Rick Perry is talking up reductions in carbon emissions that occurred during the 14 years he served as Texas governor. -
6th Circuit Ruling Could Boost EPA's Authority To Enforce NSR Permitting
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has reversed for the second time a lower court's ruling that rejected an EPA enforcement action against a power company for failing to properly conduct emissions projections required by the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permit program, a case seen as vital to EPA's ability to enforce NSR. -
House CRA Resolution Targets EPA's Oil & Gas Methane Rule
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
A Pennsylvania Republican lawmaker has introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) seeking to reverse EPA's rule regulating methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the first this Congress to target an EPA rule, though it is not clear whether the resolution can proceed given uncertainty about whether the rule can be subject to rollback under the CRA. -
House GOP to Try Blocking Methane Rules With 'Larger Bill'
Jan 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
House Republicans are working on "a larger bill" to block final rules on methane emissions -- and possibly others -- from taking effect after one GOP lawmaker's plan to invoke a rare parliamentary procedure to block the rules failed because too much time elapsed since their introduction. -
Power Grid Bill Would Require Study Of 'Retro' Tech To Prevent Cyberattacks
Jan 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Tim Starks
A bipartisan group of senators today reintroduced legislation mandating a study of how to make the electricity grid less connected as a way of bolstering its defenses against cyberattacks. -
Flake Hopes For Long-Shot Vote On Blocking EPA Rule
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
The Senate could vote on a proposal later today that would lead to scrapping U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standards as the chamber considers a pending budget resolution. -
Senator Seeks 10-Year Delay of EPA Ozone Rule in Budget Amendment
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
An Arizona Republican is launching one of the first of what are likely to be several attempts to delay or roll back the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone rule, with an amendment he hopes to attach to a budget resolution being debated this week on the Senate floor. -
Bipartisan Caucus Wants to Engage Trump on Climate Change
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The fledgling Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus wants to engage the incoming Trump administration on climate change policy in the new Congress after the group spent much of its first year raising awareness and building its membership. -
Will Obama's Green Legacy Survive?
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Robin Bravender
Just a few months ago, President Obama's environmental legacy seemed bulletproof. His team had put the final touches on keystone policies, and a friendly successor appeared poised to keep his environmental work chugging along. -
California Budget Plan Calls for Carbon Trading Program Extension
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) wants the Legislature to pass an “urgency” measure to extend the state's carbon cap-and-trade program beyond 2020. -
Businesses Tout Economic Benefits of Paris Climate Deal to Trump
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
More than 600 companies made the economic case Jan. 10 for keeping the U.S. in the international Paris climate deal in a bid to woo support from businessman and President-elect Donald Trump, who has teased pulling the country out of the agreement. -
Steyer Plans Green Attack on Trump
Jan 11, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Environmentalist Tom Steyer is laying plans to put his vast wealth to work to "activate a resistance" to President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican Congress.
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
-
Possible Ethical Dilemma for Sessions Could Complicate Pruitt's Nomination
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Scott Pruitt's chances of becoming the next EPA administrator face a significant roadblock if Sen. Jeff Sessions heeds calls to recuse himself from voting on the nomination. But while a Democratic senator and others are pressuring Sessions to abstain from any vote, leading Republicans say it's unlikely.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), several political observers and a watchdog official argue that Sessions’ situation before his potential confirmation to head the Justice Department poses a conflict of interest that prevents an objective vote from the 20-year Senate veteran from Alabama.
Sessions is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the panel poised to vet Pruitt's nomination. Should Sessions bow out of the vote, that would pave the way for lockstep Democratic opposition in committee to stall, or even torpedo, the nomination .
So far, however, Sessions or EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) aren't signaling an abstention is in the pipeline. “I don't see it,” Barrasso told Bloomberg BNA. No historical precedent exists to guide protocol in such a circumstance, those interviewed said.
Pruitt Cleared for Hearing
The Office of Government Ethics cleared Pruitt Jan. 9 and released his financial disclosure. The disclosure, which is only four pages long, is likely far less controversial than those of many of the other wealthier Cabinet nominees. Pruitt resigned in December as director of the Rule of Law Defense Fund, which Environment and Public Works Democrats have raised as a concern, the documents show.
Barrasso didn't specify a date for Pruitt's hearing, but the committee's Democrats agreed to host the nominee on Jan. 18 for the beginning of potentially multiple days of questioning, committee ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) told reporters.
Consistent with Barrasso's position on Sessions's votes for other Cabinet nominees, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Bloomberg BNA those votes would be in line with Sessions’ current elected role. “He's either a senator or the attorney general,” Cornyn said. He's one or the other, so as long as he's a senator, I think he ought to exercise his rights as a senator.”
But Blumenthal called on Sessions Jan. 10 to withdraw from voting for himself and other Cabinet nominees during Sessions’ high-profile confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
Potential Impact on Pruitt
The Senate confirmed seven high-level Cabinet nominees for President Barack Obama on Inauguration Day in 2009. That swift process, which allowed those nominees to sidestep committee votes, has surfaced as a point of contention.
Republicans now regularly reference their willingness to approve Obama's picks as Democrats pledge to stall Trump's nominees over ethical questions, paperwork submission and the basic merits of nominees. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised a delay Jan. 10 of several nomination hearings that originally had been set for Jan. 11.
A Pruitt nomination could be cleared by the full Senate quickly if Democrats agree to give unanimous consent, but many Democrats criticize Pruitt as a climate change skeptic who is too close to the fossil fuel industry. Pruitt is still involved in active lawsuits against the EPA over the Clean Water Rule, Clean Power Plan and methane limits for the oil and natural gas industry.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the second-highest ranking Democrat on the committee, told reporters Jan. 10 he had “major concerns” with Pruitt following a meeting between the two. “Why does he want to be EPA administrator if he's taken so much of his time to try to block what the EPA was trying to do? That's a fundamental question,” Cardin said.
Cardin said Pruitt didn't discuss climate change. Cardin said he doesn't have a position on recusal by Sessions.
Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), told Bloomberg BNA a committee vote is likely. “I bet if you asked any [Democrat], none of them would say that they'd give consent,” Stewart said, referring to all nominees.
Democrats hold 10 seats on the environment committee compared to 11 Republican seats, meaning a Sessions abstention would leave the committee at a deadlock. Among its Democratic ranks, the committee includes some of the chamber's fiercest environmental advocates.
An unsuccessful vote out of committee would require 60 votes in the full Senate to advance the nomination, said Stewart. Unanimous consent is far and away the smoothest path to confirmation.
In addition to the environment committee, Sessions currently sits on the Judiciary, Armed Services and Budget committees. That means he faces the prospect of voting in committee for Gen. James Mattis, Trump's choice for defense secretary, and Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), whom Trump has nominated as director of the Office of Management and Budget.
But neither of those nominees has sparked as much opposition as Pruitt.
Ethics Question Raised
In response to Blumenthal's questioning Jan. 10, Sessions said he did not plan to vote for himself. Sessions, however, did not speak directly to the question of whether he would vote for other Cabinet nominees. “I have not thoroughly examined all of the issues. But I think there could be a conflict of interest or violation of ethics rule. And I would comply with the rules,” he told Blumenthal.
Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, told Bloomberg BNA there is no “straightforward violation” at play with potential Sessions votes on other nominees, yet she still echoed Blumenthal's call.
“He's still a sitting senator, and his votes wouldn't be conflicting in a way that would definitely require recusal, such as a financial or personal relationship conflict of interest,” Gilbert said. “But there are real reasons for him to consider pulling out. It's highly inappropriate for him to help pick a Cabinet that he wants.”
None of those interviewed cited a specific ethics violation tied to the voting prospect. Blumenthal initially outlined his concerns in a December letter to Sessions. There, Blumenthal added that the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges urges recusal with mere appearance of a conflict of interest. Sessions did not respond to the memo, a Blumenthal aide told Bloomberg BNA.
The Connecticut senator reiterated that argument in the Jan. 10 exchange with Sessions. “I believe it would be a conflict of interest for you to vote on other Cabinet secretaries as they are nominated by the president, who is also your boss,” Blumenthal said. “I hope you will consider refusing yourself from those votes as well because i think it will set a tone for what you will do in cases of conflicts of interest.”
Most Democratic lawmakers declined to comment on whether they support or oppose Blumenthal's call. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a Judiciary Committee member and former ranking member, however, weighed in on a personal level. “Senators have to determine what they're going to do. I would,” he said.
Too Close to Home
Gilbert pointed to a potential “outsized interest” for Sessions in the votes, alluding to the reality that the senator, as attorney general, would have to work directly with other Cabinet members or potentially take action against agencies run by those members.
Meanwhile, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, told Bloomberg BNA that Sessions’ votes on other nominees would violate constitutional due process, pointing to a long-held legal maxim “nemo iudex in causa sua” (no one should be a judge in his own cause).
“It certainly applies to Sen. Sessions voting on his own confirmation, and its spirit applies to his sitting in judgment on nominees the legality of whose policies and proposals as confirmed officials he would be entrusted to evaluate,” Tribe told Bloomberg BNA.
The Sessions endorsement of Pruitt could create a improperly cozy relationship between the two in the future, Sarah Binder, a Brookings Institution fellow and George Washington University Congress and legislative professor, told Bloomberg BNA. “In theory [the Sessions vote] could pressure Pruitt to be more responsive to [the Justice Department] once both were in office,” she said, adding that, as attorney general, Sessions may be “more receptive” to Senate colleagues who supported his Cabinet colleague.
Both Hillary Clinton, a New York senator before becoming Obama's secretary of State at the outset of his presidency, and Ken Salazar, a Colorado senator before becoming Obama's first Interior secretary, faced a potentially similar situation in 2009. But ultimately, neither had to vote on fellow nominees, according to data relayed to Bloomberg BNA by the Senate Library. Bloomberg BNA found no instances of a scenario in modern history similar to the one Sessions faces.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103182623&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103182623&jd=103182623
-
Cardin Says Senators Will Be 'Responsible' For Pruitt Vote
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) says senators will be “responsible for their votes on Scott Pruitt's nomination to head EPA, suggesting Senate Democrats realize they do not have enough votes to block the nomination but will be seeking to hold their colleagues accountable for efforts to roll back Obama-era environmental rules.
Speaking with reporters Jan. 10 on Capitol Hill after meeting with Pruitt, Cardin said he still had significant concerns about Trump's nominee to lead EPA. He also vowed he and other Democratic lawmakers would try to stop rollbacks when possible while seeking to extract a political price should they happen.
“We will have a strategy to protect the advancements that we have made. We are not going to concede one point of the progress that we have made for clean water, clean air to deal with our environment,” Cardin said.
He added, “There is a large group of senators . . that will be focused on any efforts to take us back. We believe every Congress has a responsibility to add to the protections of clean air and clean water and to deal with the realities of climate change. Any effort to move in the other direction will be fought with all of our tools that we have at our disposal, but at the end of the day this is a democracy and members will be responsible for their votes.”
Cardin said that during his meeting with Pruitt, he “certainly didn't get a positive answer” when he asked the Oklahoma attorney general about EPA's role in addressing climate change.
While the nominee gave more promising replies on some other topics, Cardin said that overall, it will be a “real uphill battle” for Pruitt to earn his vote. “I have major concerns,” Cardin said.
Cardin told reporters that he and Pruitt discussed several policy areas related to lawsuits Pruitt has joined against the agency -- including the Chesapeake Bay and its regulation through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMLD) program; the “longstanding ambiguity” in the regulation of waters of the United States; and “some of the areas involved in energy policy in this country.”
Cardin said that Pruitt's role in such litigation has “raised issues as to his commitment to the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in protecting our national environment.”
The senator's remarks come amid expectations that the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee will hold a Jan 18 hearing on Pruitt's nomination and as Pruitt faces tough scrutiny from other Senate Democrats, including EPW ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE).
Carper had sent a Dec. 28 letter to the EPA nominee, requesting the answers to six pages of preliminary questions by Jan. 9, but a spokeswoman for Carper's office told Inside EPA on Jan. 10 Pruitt had not yet provided responses.
Carper told InsideEPA/climate Jan. 10 that he will hold a “roundtable” on EPA in the coming days, suggesting he plans to tout the benefits of the agency's policies.
Cardin said Pruitt during the hearing is likely to face questions from Senate Democrats on why he wants to head the agency, given his efforts to block much of the Obama EPA's work. While calling his meeting with Pruitt “the beginning of a process,” Cardin added, “I must be candid, I don't think today's conversations alleviated my concerns.”
In reference to his energy policy discussion with Pruitt, Cardin added, “It was not terribly helpful to me, because I was trying to connect it to carbon emissions, and I didn't get very far.”
Nonetheless, Cardin cited a discussion with Pruitt on water infrastructure as a bright spot, describing the presumed EPA nominee as interested in the topic.
“That is a positive thing,” Cardin said, adding that Pruitt also “did not discount a federal role” in regional agreements to protect areas like the Chesapeake Bay, though it was not clear a Pruitt EPA would be proactive in that area.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/congress-cardin-says-senators-will-be-responsible-pruitt-vote
-
Pruitt's Hearing To Be Next Week — Carper
Jan 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
It looks as if Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for U.S. EPA administrator, is heading to Capitol Hill next week.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters today that he agreed with the panel's chairman, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), to a hearing date of Jan. 18, Wednesday of next week, for Pruitt.
"Jan. 18, yes," Carper said.
Pruitt's nomination has been one of the tougher battles for the incoming Trump administration.
The Oklahoma attorney general has been a vocal critic of the agency that he has been picked to lead, suing EPA several times over its air and water regulations, including the Clean Power Plan. That has led to opposition to his confirmation from environmental groups and several Senate Democrats.
Despite a hearing being set, Carper told reporters that Pruitt still has information he has to share with the committee. Carper said Democrats have not received an FBI background check on Pruitt, nor has he responded yet to a letter sent last month from the ranking member.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/10/stories/1060048147
-
Carper Seeks Details on Pruitt's PACs
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) wants more information about political groups affiliated with Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for U.S. EPA administrator.
Pruitt, the Republican Oklahoma attorney general, is tied to a super PAC, Liberty 2.0, and another political committee, Oklahoma Strong Leadership PAC, that raised money from energy interests — many of which Pruitt would regulate if confirmed as EPA chief. After E&E News reported Friday that Pruitt's super PAC could continue raising money while he led the agency, the EPA nominee decided this week to shut down the groups (Energywire, Jan. 10).
Carper, ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters yesterday that he wants to get a better grasp of Pruitt's PACs.
"I want to more fully understand the PACS that are involved," Carper said. "Who started them, who established them, who solicited funds for them for what purpose, where did the money come from."
Carper added, "Maybe once we have a understanding of that we'll better know the actions [Pruitt] says he's going to take are sufficient."
Carper has agreed with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the panel's chairman, to hold Pruitt's confirmation hearing on Jan. 18. Still, the Delaware Democrat is pushing the Oklahoma attorney general for more information before that hearing, including responses to roughly 50 questions.
"We want the opportunity to review those questions and maybe ask some follow-up questions to them if the responses are not comprehensive," Carper said.
Furthermore, the committee hasn't received Pruitt's FBI background check either.
"We want to have a chance to drill down on the FBI review as we would for any nominee," Carper said.
Pruitt has shared his ethics agreement and financial disclosure form, unlike some other Trump nominees. In those documents, the EPA pick disclosed that he had parted ways with the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a group that had been involved in legal challenges against the agency and has attracted scrutiny from Democrats as well (E&E Daily, Jan. 9).
Environmental groups have campaigned against the nomination of Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general, sued EPA several times over its air and water regulations.
Yesterday, EDF Action released a video making the case against confirming Pruitt.
"EDF Action has never before opposed a candidate for EPA Administrator," said Elizabeth Thompson, the group's president in a statement, "but Mr. Pruitt's record and principles are so dangerous we are strongly opposing his confirmation."
In the meantime, Pruitt continued to make the rounds on Capitol Hill yesterday to help gin up support for his confirmation. He met with senators in both parties, including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a member of the EPW Committee.
Cardin spoke to reporters after meeting with Pruitt. Cardin said that he was withholding his judgment on the EPA pick for now but indicated that he was leaning toward voting down Pruitt.
"I must be candid. I don't think today's conversation alleviated my concerns, but it was the beginning of the process and I will certainly be listening at the hearing," Cardin said.
Cardin said he and Pruitt discussed several issues, including the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, a multi-state plan to clean up the bay of pollution; the agency's controversial Waters of the U.S. rule; and energy policy.
"What is common in every one of these instances is it's one of the areas that Mr. Pruitt has filed lawsuits, raised issues or joined lawsuits," Cardin said.
Cardin also said that he asked Pruitt about climate change — given the nominee's past statements doubting the science behind warming. "He didn't express a view," Cardin said.
Asked what is Senate Democrats' strategy surrounding Pruitt's nomination, Cardin said, "It's a pretty simple direct question: Why does he want to be EPA administrator if he's taking so much of his time to try to block what EPA was trying to do?"
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/11/stories/1060048179
-
Report: New Law Sharply Curbs Approval of New Chemicals
Jan 10, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The number of new chemicals approved for the market by federal regulators was reportedly cut in half after the passage of new federal regulations in the middle of 2016.
Wired reports that the Environmental Protection Agency effectively approved 81 new substances between the beginning of 2016 and June 22, when the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act was signed into law.
After that date, just 39 new materials were approved through the end of the year.
The Lautenberg Act replaced the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act and was largely supported by both environmental advocates and the chemical industry. It also passed with bipartisan support in Congress.
But both industry groups and the EPA warned of growing pains under the new law, which, in part, requires regulators to make affirmative safety decisions for new chemicals used in commerce.
Under the TSCA, the agency could simply drop a safety review — and thereby approve the chemical — if it felt that the substance was unlikely to pose a safety risk.
Experts urged companies to exhaustively prepare their applications for new chemicals — known as pre-manufacture notices — in order to reduce the EPA's workload, but a backlog of new applications had already formed by late last year.
Analysts warned that the trend could lead to chemical companies paring back their ambitions in hopes of receiving faster approval for new materials.
"If I were advising a client, I would tell them to only try to develop something low-hazard, because those are the only ones proceeding through right now," Rich Engler, a former EPA official now serving as an industry consultant, told Wired.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/01/report-new-law-sharply-curbs-approval-new-chemicals
-
Rocket Fuel Chemical Increasingly Found in Food, Agency Says
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker and David Schultz
Young children in the U.S. are more exposed to perchlorate, a toxic chemical that can affect hormone production, through their food than they were a decade ago, federal researchers found.
A recent study conducted by Food and Drug Administration researchers found higher levels of perchlorate in certain foods including salami, bologna and rice cereal for kids sampled from 2008 to 2012 than from 2003 to 2006.
Nearly all foods tested—97 percent —had measurable levels of perchlorate, up from the previous study's finding that nearly-three quarters of food had perchlorate detections.
The estimated mean intake for the total U.S. population was 0.13 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, well below the Environmental Protection Agency's risk limit for perchlorate. The EPA's reference dose is 0.7 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, the estimated level at which exposure to humans is likely to be without noticeable risk of harm during a lifetime, the researchers said.
But the amount ingested by infants between six and 11 months and two-year old children also went up by 34 percent and 23 percent, respectively.
March Decision on Packaging
Perchlorate can block the thyroid gland's uptake of iodine, which affects hormone production considered critical to growth. The chemical also has been linked to defects in fetal and child brain development.
The findings, published last month in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, has renewed calls from activists for restrictions on the chemical. In 2005, the FDA allowed the use of the chemical in plastic packaging, a decision environmental groups have taken to court.
“FDA approved adding it to plastic packaging without any evidence of whether it was getting into food or not,” Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg BNA. “And that's just, from my perspective, wrong.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health and other groups sued the agency in March 2016 after the FDA failed to respond to a December 2014 petition to ban perchlorate in food packages (Breast Cancer Fund et al v. FDA, 9th Cir., No. 16-70878, 3/31/16). The FDA told the court on Aug. 30, 2016, that it would respond to the petition by March 2017.
The decision, requested by the now-defunct Ciba Specialty Chemical Corp., allowed as much as 12,000 parts per million of the chemical to be added as an anti-static agent to plastic packaging. Perchlorate is best known as an oxidizing agent in rocket and missile fuel but is also used to manufacture some plastics. It can also form when bleach breaks down.
The highest concentrations of perchlorate were found in lunch meats bologna and salami, as well as rice cereal baby food, according to an analysis of the study's data from the Environmental Defense Fund.
For the total U.S. population, 22 percent of perchlorate intake comes from dairy products; 21 percent comes from vegetables, and 17 percent from meat, poultry and fish. Infants received most of their intake from infant formula (56 percent) and dairy (35 percent). Perchlorate is both man-made and naturally occurring.
Science Unclear
The high concentrations of the chemical in dairy foods perplexes Neltner.
“We think that the water is contaminated from bleach,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “But it doesn't answer all of the questions.”
The EPA also is expected to issue decisions on regulating perchlorate this year. The agency will examine whether hypochlorite bleach, an antimicrobial pesticide, degrades to perchlorate as part of the chemical's registration review that occurs every 15 years. The EPA is also set to complete the peer review for a biological model this year and issue a proposed rule to regulate perchlorate in drinking water next year.
However, the science on exactly how perchlorate affects the body is far from certain, as evidenced by a meeting the EPA convened this week in Arlington, Va.
The agency's Office of Water is developing the model that could predict how different levels of exposure to the chemical affect different people—particularly children in the months immediately before and after birth. The model could help regulators get a better sense of how those most vulnerable to a chemical respond to it, especially since scientists can't intentionally expose pregnant women to perchlorate.
Because the model could eventually be used to impose new anti-contaminant requirements on water utilities, EPA officials commissioned eight independent scientists to meet this week and look over the data they used to develop it.
Eric Burneson, the head of standards and risk management in the Office of Water, said the agency will convene multiple peer review sessions like this one to examine different aspects of their perchlorate biological model.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103182609&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103182609&jd=103182609
-
US FDA: Amount Of Perchlorate Increasing In Food Products
Jan 11, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
By David Stegon
A study from the US FDA has revealed a rise in the amount of perchlorate found in food products, including those traditionally given to infants and toddlers. And some in the NGO community believe the increase may be linked to the FDA allowing the substance in food packaging materials.
The study, US Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study: dietary intake of perchlorate and iodine, compared the amount found in food from two different time periods.
The perchlorate in food sampled between 2008 and 2012 was higher than similar samples from 2003 to 2006. The amount increased 34% in food for toddlers and 23% in that for infants, a “concerning” number as the substance has been known to threaten fetal and child brain development, according to the agency.
Perchlorate are salts derived from perchloric acid and are used commercially as oxidisers in propellants for rockets and fireworks. It is also used in some fertilisers that has been reported to contaminate drinking water if overused.
The substance is also used in food packaging, both to seal gaskets on food containers and to reduce static in dry food packaging.NGO concerns
Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and Maricel Maffini, an EDF consultant, say the increase may come from a 2005 decision by the FDA to allow perchlorate as an anti-static agent in plastic food packaging.
Citing the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Mr Neltner and Ms Maffini said this was based on a “flawed and outdated assumption” that the substance would not migrate into food at a significant level.
They said that the FDA’s study provides significant data that shows a rise in exposure, since the substance was allowed in food containers. They added the agency should act now to ban perchlorate for use in contact with food.Petitioning FDA
In 2014, nine NGOs petitioned the FDA to revoke the substance's use in dry food packaging as both a conductivity enhancer in the manufacture of antistatic agents to be used in food contact articles, and as a permitted additive in sealing gaskets for food containers.
The petition argued that the company that sought approval for the use made a mathematical error in its application that “underestimated the perchlorate exposure by 83 times”.
Six of those NGOs filed suit against the FDA in March last year over its failure to act on the petition.
In a July response, the agency said it needed additional time to properly review the necessary data.
“The issue with respect to standing is not whether there is a risk that petitioners may be harmed by perchlorate, but whether there is an actual, imminent injury caused by the claimed marginal increase in exposure, resulting from the limited uses of perchlorate in food packaging,” the FDA argued in its opposition to the lawsuit.
The agency was granted a stay until 31 March, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.https://chemicalwatch.com/52040/us-fda-amount-of-perchlorate-increasing-in-food-products
-
NY Village Relinquishes Future Claims in PFOA Settlement
Jan 11, 2017 | AP (In The Wall Street Journal)
HOOSICK FALLS, N.Y. — The settlement agreement between an upstate New York village and two companies blamed for contaminating its water supply prohibits local officials from filing future claims in the case.
The Hoosick Falls Village Board is scheduled to approve the $850,000 settlement with Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell International at a special meeting on Thursday.
The agreement includes a clause that requires Hoosick Falls to agree to discharge the companies of any and all future claims regarding PFOA contamination.
PFOA, a type of acid, is a hazardous and potentially cancer-causing chemical once used in manufacturing.
Approximately half of the settlement money will cover losses that village officials say stemmed from the community's decreased water and sewer revenues. The rest pays off legal fees and a public relations firm.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/APf9fb34d7732743a4a89a5d44a30b155d
-
Don’t Ban Fracking In Maryland
Jan 10, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
TO COMBAT global warming, you need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions — and you have to do so at reasonable cost, because everyone relies on affordable energy. The principles are simple, but the policy is hard to get right. See, for example, the debate the leaders of Maryland are waging.
Gov. Larry Hogan (R) and the Democrat-dominated General Assembly agreed last year that the state should cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 2006 levels by 2030. But Mr. Hogan then vetoed a policy that would help achieve the goal: expanding how much of Maryland’s electricity must come from renewable sources. The existing mandate requires the state to reach 20 percent renewable by 2022; the vetoed bill would have upped that to 25 percent by 2020. The General Assembly is likely to try to override the veto in its new session, beginning Wednesday.
There were some good reasons for Mr. Hogan to be concerned. Maryland’s Department of Legislative Services estimates the mandate would add between $0.77 and $3.03 to the average monthly energy bill in 2020, the costliest year of implementation. More efficient policies, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, would reduce emissions at lower cost by eliminating government micromanagement.
But Mr. Hogan did not propose a market-based alternative; in fact, his counterproposal is worse than the legislature’s. The governor would spend on green-jobs training, electric car tax credits and a Green Energy Institute at the University of Maryland. At a cost of $65 million, his initiatives might not prevent a single ton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. Mr. Hogan, that is, would micromanage more and accomplish less. The legislature’s plan is less than ideal but possibly the best that current politics allow. The governor’s is not much of a plan at all.
Hydraulic fracturing is the other major energy issue the General Assembly will take up. Here, the tables are turned: Some lawmakers appear determined to push through a senseless ban on the technique, which is used to extract oil and natural gas from underground shale formations. Mr. Hogan counters that fracking should be allowed to proceed, with serious regulation. The governor is right. Fracking’s major risks can be regulated to a minimum, as the Obama administration, various Western-state governors and others have concluded. Natural gas, meanwhile, burns much cleaner than coal, its direct competitor. The fracking revolution has made the fuel very affordable, and substituting gas for coal has reduced carbon and other pollution.
The legislature should be working with the governor to finalize fracking rules, not indulging unfounded anti-fracking absolutism. Mr. Hogan, meanwhile, should be pushing the legislature to make Maryland’s climate change policy more efficient, instead of acting as a roadblock to significant emissions-cutting policy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-ban-fracking-in-maryland/2017/01/10/cfbcf542-d6b8-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.e157dc961db3
-
Putin's Other American Propaganda Effort: Anti-Fracking News
Jan 10, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Eric Roston
Energy politics makes strange bedfellows, none stranger than Robin Hood and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
RT, a media organization that the U.S. intelligence community calls "the Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet," published an article on Jan. 2 under the unlikely headline: “Robin Hood’s Sherwood Forest hideout under threat from frackers.” The article, which carries no byline and cites the work of environmental activists, laments plans of a unit of Ineos Group, a Switzerland-based chemical company, to conduct seismic testing for natural gas near Major Oak, the millennium-old tree that served in legend as headquarters to Robin Hood and his merry fellows. (Ineos Shale and Friends of the Earth have been involved in a public dispute over the environmental group's depiction of fracking, with the U.K.'s Advertising Standards Board weighing in.)
This wasn't the only foray by RT, formerly known as Russia Today, into anti-fracking coverage. The media organization has regularly published articles and aired segments that appear to oppose fracking, the fossil-fuel extraction technique that has made the U.S. an energy superpower again. One "exclusive" interview about the extraction technique features the opening question: "There are a lot of studies that say fracking is dangerous, so why do you think some countries and companies think it’s worth the risk?"
RT's practice is so marked that U.S. intelligence officials used it last week as an example of how Russia promotes its national interests abroad. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) states in the public version of its report on Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election (PDF):
“RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom's profitability (5 October).”
Russia is currently the world’s second-largest natural gas producer, after the U.S., and the third-largest producer of petroleum and other hydrocarbons, after the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. As weird as it sounds for Russia to throw in with American and British environmental activists, it may be a case of the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend, at least from the Russian perspective. Interfering with fracking-driven U.S. fossil-fuel production—one way or another—could boost global prices of oil and natural gas, which made up about 63 percent of Russian exports, according to this helpful visualization from MIT's Observatory of Economic Complexity.
"This is probably the most high-profile example that points to a direct attempt by Russia to undermine the shale revolution in the United States," said Katie Brown, a spokesperson for Energy-in-Depth, an education and research project run by the Independent Petroleum Association of America. The group frequently provides counterpoint to environmentalists opposed to fracking in the U.S.
"This raises a lot of questions regarding where funding for anti-fracking foundations comes from," Brown added. Public charities are not required to disclose all of their funding sources.
Russian opposition to fracking abroad may be significant not because it exists—which is widely known among analysts—but because the Office of the Director of National Intelligence thinks it's noteworthy within the context of alleged Russian election tinkering. "It's not exactly news," said Joe Barnes, a research fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. "It's only news at this point because it appears in the [intelligence community assessment]."
RT wrote about the release of the U.S. intelligence report and has continued to devote attention to it.
Russia's economy is bolted to oil and gas the way the Statue of Liberty is bolted to its pedestal. Energy prices driven low by U.S. production have caused economic and regional political headaches for Russia, which has seen its leadership erased or eroded in both natural gas ...
The relationship between the U.S. and Russia is anything but simple. Competition for fossil-fuel market share is made even more complicated by an array of issues the countries do or don't cooperate on—or, in some cases, even talk about. These include the multi-nation deal on Iranian nuclear security (to which Putin was a party), the state of NATO, to Russia's harboring of Edward Snowden. The U.S. maintains economic sanctions on Russia that range from Cold War-era measures that support people's freedom to emigrate to penalties imposed after Putin's incursion into Ukraine.
How President-elect Donald Trump, with his sunnier view of Russia and Putin, will navigate this complexity is anybody's guess. "I literally can not make a prediction," Barnes said. "Literally. Can you? Can anyone?"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/putin-s-other-american-propaganda-effort-anti-fracking-news
-
Natural Gas Is The Future Of Energy, And It's Not Even Close
Jan 10, 2017 | Forbes
By James Taylor
Natural gas is the wave of the future in U.S. and global electricity production, with no other power source even close to matching natural gas’s potential over the next few decades. The United States is in perfect position to take advantage of this if American policymakers will remove government obstacles to natural gas production and export.
Michael Bastach points out in the Daily Caller that coal is likely to maintain its status as the global leader of electricity production through 2040. The reason for this is most countries – and especially rapidly developing countries – will continue to take advantage of the least expensive available power source. That energy source is coal.
However, a closer look at the numbers Bastach cites – taken from the ExxonMobil 2017 Outlook for Energy – shows that while coal will remain the leading power source, its share of global electricity production will fall from 40 percent today to 30 percent in 2030. This is because there is growing pressure in many countries to put the brakes on debilitating air pollution. That is where natural gas comes in. The Outlook for Energy anticipates dramatic growth in global electricity production, with natural gas providing the lion’s share of that growth. Coal will remain king, but it will lose substantial market share to natural gas.
Natural gas is an on-demand energy source that substantially reduces air pollution relative to coal. The Outlook for Energy projects a 45 percent increase in global natural gas production and use by 2040. Also, although the Outlook for Energy projects coal will hold a narrow edge over natural gas in terms of electricity production, natural gas will surpass coal by 2040 in terms of all energy uses combined. Coal is more confined to electricity production, whereas natural gas is valuable in a wider range of energy uses.
In the United States, natural gas is cost-competitive with coal. The global market is a different story. Natural gas has gained cost parity with coal in the United States because of our abundant natural gas resources and technological advances related to fracking. Globally, however, natural gas is not as abundant, nor are fracking technologies and production infrastructure on a par with those in the United States. The anticipated growth in global natural gas power is tied to its value reducing air pollution rather than an anticipated cost parity with coal.
Even though American energy companies can produce natural gas more cost-effectively than other nations, the ability of American energy companies to export natural gas is currently limited. Our federal government and politically blue coastal states foolishly impede the construction of natural gas export facilities. Build export facilities and American companies will be able to take advantage of the projected increase in global natural gas usage.
Exporting natural gas will not come at the expense of American coal production or American coal jobs. China currently produces four times as much coal as America. Also, Australia, Indonesia, and Russia each dwarf America in terms of coal exports. Rather than American natural gas exports cannibalizing American coal exports, American natural gas exports will supplant Chinese, Australian, Indonesian, and Russian coal.
The global growth in natural gas usage forecast in the Outlook for Energy is expected to be met by more natural gas production and export from Russia, China, and other nations. This can and should change. Allow lower-priced American natural gas to compete in this growing global market and America will reap the economic windfall.
American natural gas is so abundant and inexpensive that natural gas exports will do little to constrict supply here in the United States. Foreign money will pour into the United States as other nations purchase American natural gas, and Americans will still pay low prices here at home.
At the federal level, the Trump administration and the new Congress should reverse restrictive natural gas policy that recently blocked construction of a large new export facility planned in the state of Washington. At the state level, policymakers in blue states should recognize that natural gas exports not only bring revenue to their states and our nation, but natural gas exports will also improve global air quality. If coastal blue states fail to recognize this and fail to eliminate export restrictions, Congress can and should act to eliminate the ability of local obstructionists to impede interstate commerce. As broadly as courts have interpreted the Interstate Commerce clause to give liberal federal government policies preemption over state laws, a more conservative Congress and Trump administration should give the goose the same treatment as the gander. Conservatives should apply these same legal precedents to end coastal extremists shutting down interstate and international commerce opportunities from states with abundant natural gas production.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2017/01/10/natural-gas-is-the-future-of-energy-and-its-not-even-close/#302592ad255b
-
Perry Touts Carbon Cuts In Hill Meetings
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
His future boss has called climate change "bullshit," but behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, Energy secretary-in-waiting Rick Perry is talking up reductions in carbon emissions that occurred during the 14 years he served as Texas governor.
As Perry has made the rounds to Senate offices during the past two weeks, increased use of cleaner-burning natural gas and innovative carbon capture utilization and sequestration projects have been a recurring theme of the discussions, several GOP senators said.
"He points out as they converted to a natural gas economy for an eight-year period, they created more jobs than any other state in the nation," Energy and Natural Resources Committee member Bill Cassidy (R-La.) told E&E News last week. "At one point for three years, more jobs than all the other states put together, simultaneously cutting their greenhouse gases, because they progressively converted to natural gas. So that's part of his pitch."
As the Trump administration readies to take over the federal bureaucracy next week, it's unclear what, if any, climate policies it may retain from the Obama presidency. On the campaign trail, Trump famously promised to "rip up" the Paris climate agreement, although he walked back the pledge after the election, saying he would keep an "open mind" on the deal.
Nonetheless, after nominating Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) — the chief foe of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan — as agency administrator, the pillar of President Obama's climate agenda seems certain to be dismantled one way or another in the coming months.
Perry's emphasis on carbon emissions suggests the incoming administration is readying to answer the many critics who have decried Trump's climate comments and his appointees.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is hoping to schedule a hearing for Perry next week, said she and and the nominee had a "good conversation" about carbon emissions when they met last week.
"He's got a pretty strong record when he was governor of Texas in terms of what they did to really make a difference as a state," she told E&E News this week. "He talked about the growth in the state, in terms of the number of jobs, the number of new people moving to the state. By all counts, your emissions should rise but in fact they went exactly the other way. And he's got a pretty good record for management when it comes to how you deal with emissions and effectively the impact on your climate."
According to figures in a 2015 handout of Perry's "accomplishments" that is circulating on the Hill, Texas added 2.2 million jobs while he was governor.
That document also credits Perry for leading his state to the No. 1 spot in crude oil and natural gas production, becoming the largest producer of electricity in the nation, as well as being the "hands-down leader in wind production."
It notes that air quality in the Lone Star State has "significantly improved" between 2000 and 2013, with reductions on ozone, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide levels.
The handout is silent on carbon dioxide emissions, but data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows Texas emitted 646.9 million metric tons of CO2 from fossil fuel generation in 2001 — Perry's first full year in office — falling to 556.8 million metric tons in 2009, the height of the great recession, when emissions fell nationwide from a slowdown in industrial activity.
In 2014, the last year of Perry's governorship, carbon emissions measured 641.7 million metric tons, according to EIA.
Murkowski noted the growing contribution of wind and solar to the state's energy mix but said natural gas use "was big."
Asked whether more natural gas would be Trump's de facto climate policy, Murkowski said it's too early to tell.
"Is this the plan? I don't know," she said. "But does [Perry] have a lot to point to when it comes to moving a significant and large economy toward reduced emissions? I think so."
Cassidy said the natural gas emphasis dovetails with Trump's focus on boosting domestic manufacturing, noting China's growing dependence on coal to power its own economy.
"If we return manufacturing here with both our cleaner-burning natural gas and renewables, we will lower global greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "In a sense, if they just pursue their goal of returning manufacturing to the United States and keeping China from gaming and picking off our businesses, it's just going to happen."The methane factor
Bill Snape, the senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, scoffed at the notion of natural gas as a climate solution, saying it ignores emissions of methane associated with oil and gas production, given that the warming potential of methane is far greater than CO2.
"His natural gas numbers don't add up," Snape said yesterday. "It's ridiculous, in fact."
Industry groups have repeatedly pointed to EPA estimates of shrinking methane emissions, but Snape noted that "even Obama's EPA struggled to quantify methane."
However, he noted that among Trump's nominees, Perry "does seem to be the one open to renewables."
GOP senators said there was plenty of discussion about natural gas during their meetings with Perry, including about liquefied natural gas exports.
"I think they're going to be pro-exports and recognize that as a very valuable national asset for job creation and help and supply our allies around the world with the energy resources they need," Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told E&E News this week.
He predicted that the Trump administration will move administratively to put a deadline on the Energy Department to make decisions on LNG export applications, but he signaled that Congress may continue to push a legislative solution as well.
"We might want to go ahead and put it into statute too, just for future administrations," he said.
With Trump in the White House, Cornyn said that lawmakers may look at other legislative remedies to speed exports, including the permitting process for the multibillion-dollar export facilities.
"I think there might be some others, that was sort of the low-hanging fruit, but I hope we look at the whole thing comprehensively to see what sort of impediments we can remove to facilitate exports," he said.
Coincidentally, Perry's Hill visits are coinciding with the announcement by NRG Energy Inc. that its Petra Nova project — the world's largest retrofit of a coal plant with CCS technology — is operational near Houston (Energywire, Jan. 10).
Other Republicans said they talked at length with Perry on carbon-capture technologies.
"I emphasized a lot how important research and development on CCS and CCUS is for us as a state, to elongate the life of coal," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told E&E News this week. "We're sort of like-minded on that."
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) is already angling to have Perry visit two CCS projects in his state.
"I've invited him to come out to North Dakota, and he said he would do that," Hoeven told E&E News this week.
Cassidy said he and Perry also talked about tidal energy projects off the Texas coast, nuclear power, CCS, as well as a pilot project in which liquefied CO2 is used to drive a turbine.
"So he can rightfully say that he is about all of the above, and it's over a state that has expanded economically but has cut greenhouse gas emissions," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/11/stories/1060048172
-
6th Circuit Ruling Could Boost EPA's Authority To Enforce NSR Permitting
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has reversed for the second time a lower court's ruling that rejected an EPA enforcement action against a power company for failing to properly conduct emissions projections required by the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permit program, a case seen as vital to EPA's ability to enforce NSR.
The appellate court's 2-1 ruling issued Jan. 10 backs EPA's authority to enforce NSR permits based on projected emissions increases before a facility seeking air permits begins construction, and not actual emissions levels after construction takes place, affirming what EPA says is a core principle of the NSR program. It also supports the agency's ability to determine whether a regulatory exemption can apply for projects based on electric demand growth, and backs EPA's discretion to determine what may be exempted as “routine maintenance.”
Although one judge dissented from the court's overall opinion, all three judges that heard the case agreed on the principle that “the applicability of NSR must be determined before construction commences and that liability can attach if an operator proceeds to construction without complying with the preconstruction requirements in the regulations.”
The Department of Justice earlier in the litigation had warned that the lower court's opinion which rejected that principle could “potentially eviscerate Clean Air Act enforcement in the Sixth Circuit.”
Instead, the appellate court's split decision to reverse the district court is a major win for EPA's approach of filing NSR enforcement actions, and will apply throughout the 6th Circuit states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. While it is not binding in other appellate courts, it could be raised as persuasive in future NSR cases there.
The 6th Circuit case, USA v. DTE Energy Company, et al., involves 2010 upgrades to utility company DTE's Monroe, MI, power plant that the company said constituted routine maintenance.
Although DTE projected that the boiler replacement project would produce increases in nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide air pollution beyond the point necessary to trigger NSR, DTE said these could be excluded under EPA's “demand growth” exclusion. Under EPA's NSR program, projects can avoid potentially expensive NSR permit requirements if their projects qualify as routine maintenance, or if projected increases in pollution would have happened regardless of the project because of growth in electric demand -- and hence generation -- beyond the power plant's control.
EPA found that DTE failed to provide the necessary documentation to support its assertions on either routine maintenance or demand growth, and the agency commenced long-running enforcement proceedings that the company contested in court.
Long-Running Litigation
The district court has now twice granted summary judgment to the company, based in part on measurements of actual emissions resulting from the project that were far lower than its initial projections, and hence would not have triggered NSR. The lower court found in favor of the company in 2011, and again in 2014.
The 6th Circuit in its first reversal and remand of the district court in 2013 rejected this view, accepting EPA's interpretation that NSR is a preconstruction permit program, and that EPA must be able to enforce it using projections of pollution before construction begins. This issue is key to EPA's enforcement authority, EPA and environmentalists argue. Sierra Club intervened on EPA's behalf to defend this point.
However, the appeals court in its first ruling in 2013 (DTE I) cautioned that EPA cannot just “second-guess” companies' technical projections of likely emissions, and substitute its own judgment.
The district court relied on this finding in its second grant of summary judgment for DTE, in 2014, finding that EPA had indeed wrongly second-guessed DTE's projections. The court said that EPA, under the 6th Circuit's opinion, is restricted to a “surface” review of DTE's emissions projections.
The 6th Circuit then took up EPA's appeal of that second ruling, and in its new decision says the lower court misinterprets the appellate court's earlier ruling, and that the 6th Circuit clearly accepts EPA's right to enforce NSR based on preconstruction projections of pollution increases.
In her opinion for the court, 6th Circuit Judge Martha Daughtrey says, “The problem with the district court’s analysis is two-fold. First, the focus on so-called 'second-guessing' is misplaced. That language from our earlier opinion is, technically speaking, dictum, because the holding of the opinion was, as noted above, that the EPA could bring a preconstruction enforcement action to challenge DTE’s emissions projections.
“Second, in reviewing an operator’s attribution of increased emissions to demand growth, the EPA definitely is not confined to a 'surface review' or 'cursory examination,'” Daughtrey writes.
EPA has the right to conduct a review based on a sufficient record and justification from the company, she writes, but the court notes that DTE provided its emissions estimates to the Michigan state air regulator only the day before construction was due to commence, and without enough supporting paperwork.
DTE claimed the emissions could be discounted under the demand growth exclusion, but “EPA cannot evaluate a fact-dependent claim on a case-by-case basis unless the operator supplies supporting facts, which the record establishes was not done here,” Daughtrey writes.
She says DTE's claim was “a thoroughly superficial calculation,” that was “devoid of any support,” and subsequent efforts by the company to further justify its calculations also failed to support its case. “In fact, not one of DTE’s attempts to justify its application of the demand-growth exclusion was supported by documentation, without which the EPA could not meaningfully evaluate DTE’s projections. There was, in truth, nothing to evaluate,” the ruling says.
Approval Process
Daughtrey further disagrees with the dissent by Judge John Rogers on the 6th Circuit panel, who argues that EPA's approach risks creating a de facto prior approval process for projects.
Daughtrey says “this reading is patently too expansive, because the [NSR] regulation does not say that the EPA has to accept projections at face value or that it is prohibited from questioning their legitimacy.”
Instead, “once the required information has been submitted to the EPA for review, the operator does not have to delay construction until it receives a decision on the necessity of a permit, but may commence construction prior to a 'determination from the Administrator.'” However, if a company opts to do this, it does so at its own risk.
Further, Daughterey says, “In terms of the remand, it is important to note that the panel unanimously agrees -- now that DTE I is the law of this case and of the circuit -- that actual post-construction emissions have no bearing on the question of whether DTE’s preconstruction projections complied with the regulations.”
“The district court erred initially and again on remand when it ruled that post-construction data could be used to show that a construction project was not a 'major modification,'” Daughterey says. “Postconstruction emissions data cannot prevent the EPA from challenging DTE’s failure to comply with NSR’s preconstruction requirements.”
Judge Alice Batchelder, in a concurring opinion, rejects Daughterey's analysis of the situation but sides with her overall opinion anyway based on the precedent established by DTE I. Batchelder dissented from the appeals court's earlier 2013 ruling, but now says she will abide by it.
She writes, “we again face the question of whether USEPA may second guess DTE’s preconstruction emission projections, using its own hypothetical projections, without regard to actual events. The [2013] dissent here would affirm this grant of summary judgment on the basis that USEPA has not raised a valid claim of regulatory non-compliance and mere second guessing is impermissible.
“That was my view during the prior DTE I appeal, as explained fully in that dissent, and I would very much like to agree. But, unlike the prior appeal, this appeal does not present an open issue and I cannot ignore the DTE I opinion or pretend that it means something other than what it says. Despite my continuing disagreement with it, DTE I is the law of the Sixth Circuit.”
Judge's Dissent
However, Judge Rogers in his dissent says, “Contrary to EPA’s contention, there is no genuine issue of material fact about whether DTE’s projection complied with the basic requirements for making projections. EPA does not contend that DTE violated the regulations by failing to make any projection. Nor does EPA contend that DTE violated the basic requirements of the regulations.” Rather, EPA questions the detail of the company's projections, he says.
“EPA also does not point to any regulation that describes the amount of detail that an operator is required to include in order to comply with the requirement to maintain an explanation of the operator’s use of the demand growth exclusion,” he writes.
Because DTE complied with its basic requirements, there is no need to rely on actual emissions post-construction to justify the company's position, Rogers writes.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/6th-circuit-ruling-could-boost-epas-authority-enforce-nsr-permitting
-
House CRA Resolution Targets EPA's Oil & Gas Methane Rule
Jan 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
A Pennsylvania Republican lawmaker has introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) seeking to reverse EPA's rule regulating methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the first this Congress to target an EPA rule, though it is not clear whether the resolution can proceed given uncertainty about whether the rule can be subject to rollback under the CRA.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) Jan. 6 introduced H.J. Res. 22, which seeks to “disapprove” EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) regulating emissions of methane, the potent greenhouse gas, from the oil and gas sector.
The CRA, enacted in 1996, gives Congress 60 legislative days during which it can disapprove rules issued toward the end of the previous administration by a majority votes in both chambers, avoiding a Senate filibuster.
Such disapproval resolutions must be signed by the president, meaning the law is most likely to be successfully used during a transition to a new administration with a different view of the rule in question.
To date, the statute has been successfully used only once -- in 2001 -- to overturn an Occupational Safety & Health Administration ergonomics rule.
But the rare use of the statute is attributable in part to the fact that Congress and the White House have often been controlled by opposite parties -- a scenario that is not in play in 2017, when Capitol Hill and the White House will be under unified GOP control.
That has GOP lawmakers and their off-the-Hill allies salivating over using the CRA to overturn a barrage of recent Obama administration regulations. Dozens of rules are potentially at risk of a CRA attack given that the Congressional Research Service recently projected a June 13 deadline after which rules issued this year could be overturned by a CRA resolution in the new Congress.
That would likely exclude from the CRA's reach EPA's NSPS, which appeared in the Federal Register on June 3.
Sources also say that the law's procedural limitations and a likely crowded legislative agenda in 2017 make it unlikely that GOP leaders will allow many of them to advance.
Perry's spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. But top GOP lawmakers, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), did not list EPA's rule in their recent statements on their deregulatory plans. Instead, they suggested that the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) recently finalized stream protection rule and its rule governing methane and other “waste” gases from oil and gas drilling sector, are likely targets.
In addition, Freedom Partners, a free-market group run by officials from Koch Industries, indicated in a recently released deregulatory roadmap for Congress and the Trump administration that EPA's NSPS is likely not subject to rollback under the CRA because it was issued prior to CRS' anticipated June 13 cutoff date.
The group cited four examples of the kind of Obama administration rules that could be subject to a CRA resolution, all issued after the June 13 cutoff.
They include EPA's phase 2 GHG rule for heavy-duty trucks, the agency's recently issued rule setting renewable fuel blending obligations for 2017-2018 under the renewable fuels standards, and the BLM's stream protection and waste gas rules.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/congress-house-cra-resolution-targets-epas-oil-gas-methane-rule
-
House GOP to Try Blocking Methane Rules With 'Larger Bill'
Jan 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
House Republicans are working on "a larger bill" to block final rules on methane emissions -- and possibly others -- from taking effect after one GOP lawmaker's plan to invoke a rare parliamentary procedure to block the rules failed because too much time elapsed since their introduction.
Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans began girding for a showdown over GOP plans to repeal or rescind environmental legislation and policies enacted during the Obama administration.
Last Friday, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) introduced HJ Res. 22, which calls on Congress to invoke the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to block three finalrulesfor methane emissions from new oil and gas wells. The rules were unveiled last summer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Under the CRA, Congress has a 60-day window where it can expedite the rejection of proposed regulation. But Perry spokesman George O'Connor told NGI's Shale Dailythat shortly after HJ Res 22 was introduced, legislative staff discovered that it had been more than 60 days since the rules were published in the Federal Register.
"We came to this [situation] because there had been public quotes from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy saying that this methane rule is something that we'd like to see the CRA invoked for," O'Connor said Tuesday. "We heard from the legislative council that we were good to go. And then just the other day we heard that this is outside the 60-day [period] for invoking the CRA...
"It will still be officially introduced and on the record, but it's just not going to move."
O'Connor said Perry and his Republican colleagues in the House would continue to work toward blocking the methane rules. "Our legislative guys are putting together a larger bill right now," he said. "We're moving forward with a legislative vehicle [to block the rules]."
The GOP's plans aren't sitting well with Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. In a letter dated Monday to other Democrats on the committee, Grijalva called GOP efforts to invoke the CRA "a colossal waste of taxpayer money for the sole benefit of the oil, gas and coal industries."
Grijalva specifically took issue with McCarthy's comments last week to use the CRA to target two final rules issued last fall by the Department of Interior (DOI) -- the Stream Protection Rule and the Methane Waste Prevention Rule (MWPR). The latter, to be implemented over time by the DOI's Bureau of Land Management, requires oil and gas producers to use currently available technologies and processes to cut flaring by half at oil wells on public and tribal lands.
"The MWPR seeks to modernize and improve outdated 35-year-old standards on venting and flaring and comes after a years-long public process of input and comment, yet there have been no hearings on that rule since it was finalized in November," Grijalva said. "Rather than an open discussion on the merits of these rules, [McCarthy] has simply parroted industry talking points and scare tactics."
Two industry groups -- the Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America -- sued the DOI in U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming immediately after the MWPR was introduced. Montana and Wyoming followed with a separate lawsuit, which was later joined by North Dakota. Both cases were consolidated on Nov. 30.
Opening arguments over a preliminary injunction to block the MWPR were heard last Friday, with District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl presiding. The lead case is State of Wyoming et al v. United States Department of the Interior et al [No. 2:16-cv-00285-SWS].
Last week, the House lawmakers passed HR 21 and HR 26. The former, also known as the "Midnight Rules Relief Act," calls for amending the CRA to allow Congress to issue a joint resolution of disapproval for a block of rules, or "en bloc."
Meanwhile, HR 26, officially the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act," would require federal agencies promulgating a major rule to publish information about it in the Federal Register, and include a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office that would include a cost-benefit analysis.
The three EPA rules, collectively updates to the New Source Performance Standards, are designed to reduce methane, volatile organic compounds and toxic air pollutants. EPA said its actions will help the Obama administration meet its goal of slashing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45% from 2012 levels by 2025.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109002-house-gop-to-try-blocking-methane-rules-with-larger-bill
-
Power Grid Bill Would Require Study Of 'Retro' Tech To Prevent Cyberattacks
Jan 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Tim Starks
A bipartisan group of senators today reintroduced legislation mandating a study of how to make the electricity grid less connected as a way of bolstering its defenses against cyberattacks.
The bill, first introduced last year, seeks to mimic security steps taken in Ukraine after a December 2015 cyberattack knocked down its grid, prompting a move toward manual operation.
“More than a year has passed since we saw Ukraine plunged into darkness as a result of a cyberattack that cut electricity to hundreds of thousands of people,” said Sen. Angus King, one of the bill's lead cosponsors with Sen. Jim Risch. “Meanwhile, here in the United States, we have been too slow to take meaningful action to protect ourselves from similar attacks. It’s vital that we act now to bolster the grid’s cyber defenses or we risk a potentially catastrophic attack."
Under the legislation, the National Laboratories would study "retro," or analog, technologies to isolate the most critical systems from hackers. The energy secretary would then report to Congress on the results of the pilot program.
Other co-sponsors include Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich, and Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Mike Crapo.
The senators reintroduced the legislation on the same day new reports surfaced that the Ukraine grid was hacked again.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Flake Hopes For Long-Shot Vote On Blocking EPA Rule
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
The Senate could vote on a proposal later today that would lead to scrapping U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standards as the chamber considers a pending budget resolution.
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has proposed an amendment to the budget that would call for suspending enforcement of the air quality benchmarks until 2025 and require lawmakers to draft new standards.
The language does not say what those benchmarks should be, but the Republican-led Congress would almost certainly call for less stringent pollution controls than the Obama administration's EPA.
Flake, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said his goal is to come up with "a rational standard that states and localities can actually meet. They can't now."
It's not clear yet whether the Senate will consider the amendment as it seeks to adopt the budget resolution as soon as tonight. Flake was not confident, saying that "very few of the amendments" would get votes.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set the ozone standard that lowered the ambient air quality threshold from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb in October 2015, citing the need to protect public health.
The new rule is now the subject of competing lawsuits by business groups that argue EPA should have left the standard alone. Environmental and public health organizations, for their part, say the scientific evidence warrants lowering it to 60 ppb.
Budget rules allow for the Senate to consider dozens of amendments in rapid-fire fashion to the nonbinding budget blueprint, but leadership has the ultimate say over what comes up during the so-called vote-a-rama.Obamacare focus
While GOP leaders would favor Flake's policy, they are using the 2017 budget resolution solely to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.
By moving the repeal as part of a budget package, it would not be subject to a Senate filibuster and could overcome Democratic opposition.
GOP leaders have repeatedly said any other numbers or provisions in the plan are only placeholders to allow a repeal.
Budget vote-a-ramas typically are free-for-all votes on a variety of policy ideas aimed at putting the Senate on record on issues. Members took about 40 votes during the last one two years ago, including on language to ban a carbon tax.
Today's vote-a-rama is set to begin at 6 p.m. and could last several hours.
As of last evening, senators had filed 106 amendments, but only Flake's was directly related to the environmental policy.
Nearly all the others focused on issues tied to repealing or preserving parts of the Affordable Care Act and sundry other federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.
"Any Democrat has the right to offer anything they want," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters yesterday. However, he said, he had not heard of any amendments emerging from Democrats not related to health care.
Democrats seem eager to use the budget debate to highlight their opposition to GOP plans to dismantle Obamacare, which they say has been successful in insuring 20 million Americans. Offering amendments on other topics would only take the focus off the issue, Democrats believe.
Republicans, for their part, are also interested in moving quickly and don't want to be sidetracked by fights over policy. They are eager to send the budget resolution to the House to make quick work of a campaign promise to repeal the health care law.
Moreover, both parties will have another chance to offer amendments later this spring when the chamber is expected to take up its fiscal 2018 budget resolution.
That blueprint will be a more traditional one with full spending proposals based on the Donald Trump administration's budget request.
"I expect we'll see some now and more later," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, who himself has only offered a few health-related amendments to the current budget plan.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/11/stories/1060048166
-
Senator Seeks 10-Year Delay of EPA Ozone Rule in Budget Amendment
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
An Arizona Republican is launching one of the first of what are likely to be several attempts to delay or roll back the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone rule, with an amendment he hopes to attach to a budget resolution being debated this week on the Senate floor.
The amendment by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) would delay enforcement of the EPA's 2015 limits, which the agency is supposed to update every five years, until January 2025. He is pushing to get a vote on the amendment during debate over S. Con Res. 3, the Senate budget resolution that Senate Republican leaders hope to wrap up in the days ahead.
Because the budget resolution is non-binding—it is more a congressional blueprint for spending, and doesn't get signed by the president—underlying amendments such as Flake's also would not have the force of law.
But the amendment is a preview of things to come for the Republican-controlled Congress. Both chambers are expected to target specific environmental and other rules under the Congressional Review Act, which provides for a relatively quick up-or-down vote to kill regulations.
Senate Republican leaders have yet to decide whether Flake's offering will get a vote during a stack of expected votes, which both parties have dubbed a “vote-a-rama” that began this week on the budget resolution.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said no final decision has been made on “which votes will happen or when during the vote-a-rama.”
Flake has introduced legislation in the past to target the ozone limits, echoing complaints from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Mining Association and other industry organizations calling for greater regulatory certainty. Environmental groups and other critics of Flake's approach say the EPA already has repeatedly failed to meet five-year deadlines for updating the standard under the Clean Air Act and has only done so after it was sued over the delay.
His most recent bill introduced in the 114th Congress, known as the ORDEAL Act—the Ozone Regulatory Delay and Extension of Assessment Length Act—drew 13 co-sponsors, all of them Republicans.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103182612&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103182612&jd=103182612
-
Bipartisan Caucus Wants to Engage Trump on Climate Change
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The fledgling Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus wants to engage the incoming Trump administration on climate change policy in the new Congress after the group spent much of its first year raising awareness and building its membership.
Caucus co-founder Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), told Bloomberg BNA that he has concerns about the climate change records of some of the people President-elect Donald Trump has tapped for his administration.
“There are some people whose records on the issue are concerning and there are others who have been very forward-thinking on the issue and we want to engage them,” Curbelo said.
Many senior Republicans and even Trump himself have questioned whether the world is warming or how much humans contribute to it. The bipartisan caucus, established in February 2016, is intended to offer a forum to depoliticize the issue and propose realistic solutions.
“We want to take this issue to a point where Republicans and Democrats can jointly proffer solutions and ideas,” Curbelo said. “I'm very hopeful that in this Congress—and the sooner the better—we'll bring forward some solutions that Republicans and Democrats can support.”
More Republicans Interested
More Republican members, freshmen and older members, have also expressed interest in joining the now 20-member caucus, Curbelo said. The new members will likely be announced later this month, he said.
The first caucus meeting this session is still being scheduled, Curbelo's office told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103182614&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103182614&jd=103182614
-
Will Obama's Green Legacy Survive?
Jan 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Robin Bravender
Just a few months ago, President Obama's environmental legacy seemed bulletproof. His team had put the final touches on keystone policies, and a friendly successor appeared poised to keep his environmental work chugging along.
Then Donald Trump won the White House.
Trump made promises on the campaign trail to torpedo the Obama administration's signature energy and environmental rules, pledging to upend an international climate deal along with major air and water rules from U.S. EPA.
Now, rather than taking a victory lap as Obama did last night (see related story), environmental officials and green groups are clinging to the hope that some of the work done over the last eight years can survive Trump's wrecking ball. Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters in industry are eager to start chipping away at the energy policies they have long assailed as grievous examples of government overreach.
The administration shake-up has energy and environmental observers wondering: How far can the Trump administration go in unraveling Obama's work?
Obama's allies and critics alike insist that his administration will have a lasting environmental impact, even if it's not what the outgoing president had hoped for.
"I think a majority of President Obama's legacy in the environmental and energy area will stick," said David Hayes, who served as deputy Interior secretary under Obama. "There tends to be an overstatement or a tendency to assume that new administrations can wipe the slate clean or that they even want to. They can't, and in many cases they don't want to."
Among the factors that could work in Obama's favor are the time-consuming bureaucratic process, a potential backlash from the public if Trump is perceived as going too far and complex environmental statutes designed to force the hands of federal agencies when setting air and water policies. And some policies that have been on the books for years have already had big impacts.
"Some of the things that they have done have already kind of done their damage and they're baked into the system," said Jeff Holmstead, an energy industry lobbyist at Bracewell LLP and a former George W. Bush administration EPA official. Holmstead cited an Obama rule to cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants as an example, noting that coal-fired units shut down rather than comply with that regulation.
Scott Fulton, who was EPA general counsel during the Obama administration, said he thinks that the "predominance of what the Obama administration has accomplished" will survive the Trump years.
"The truth is that most of what the Environmental Protection Agency does is carefully cabined in by the environmental legislation that it's charged to administer," Fulton said.
Obama's early efforts to tackle fuel economy standards and limit greenhouse gases from automobiles are credited with already taking a big bite out of emissions. Trump's team will be charged with finalizing the next round of fuel efficiency standards.
League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said yesterday in a statement that Obama has "cemented his legacy as the greenest president we've ever had. His administration has taken historic strides to make our planet cleaner and healthier for our children and grandchildren by combating climate change, protecting our public lands, implementing stronger protections for our air and water, and so much more."
LCV credited Obama's team with historic achievements like investing more in clean energy, protecting more public lands and waters, and protecting more endangered species than any previous president.Enviro policies in crosshairs
Still, Obama's critics are bullish about what the incoming Trump administration can do.
The president spent eight years "trying to make climate change one of his staple legacy issues, and I think it'll be very short-lived," said Nick Loris, an energy and environmental policy fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Among the big-ticket policies that Trump's team appears poised to revoke are EPA's Clean Power Plan to cut power plants' greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean Water Rule to clarify which waters are subject to Clean Water Act protections and U.S. participation in the international climate treaty inked in Paris.
Trump's team is also expected to halt Obama's moratorium on coal mining leases for federal lands and could attempt to roll back some of Obama's national monument designations.
"It remains to be seen whether his Antiquities Act designations will be undone by Trump," said Loris, who added that he thinks the new administration will take a shot at unraveling them.
Environmentalists contend that the Trump administration will be unable to resolve designations under the Antiquities Act, but congressional Republicans are pushing the incoming administration to test that authority (Greenwire, Jan. 6).
In the absence of significant energy and climate legislation during Obama's tenure — despite efforts to push a massive climate bill during his first term — many of Obama's key policies were implemented through executive actions. That makes them easier for Trump to tackle.
"By choosing to circumvent Congress, [Obama] really put a lot of his big signature initiatives at risk," Holmstead said.
"He kind of rolled the dice and lost."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/11/stories/1060048167
-
California Budget Plan Calls for Carbon Trading Program Extension
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) wants the Legislature to pass an “urgency” measure to extend the state's carbon cap-and-trade program beyond 2020.
The $122.5 billion budget proposal for fiscal year 2017-18 Brown unveiled Jan. 10 calls for the legislation, which requires a two-thirds vote.
The vote to confirm the California Air Resources Board's authority to continue the trading program is preferred “early in the year” rather than later, California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matt Rodriquez said in a press briefing on the proposed budget.
Brown's budget plan allocates spending $2.1 billion of the cap-and-trade auction proceeds. State law requires 25 percent of the revenue be spent on projects in disadvantaged communities.
Absent passage of the bill, none of the auction revenue would be spent in the next fiscal year, Rodriquez said.
The auction revenue became a bargaining chip in the passage of last year's S.B. 32, a bill that set an ambitious 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goal, 30 percent below 1990 levels.
Two-Thirds Vote Uncertain
Legislation extending the cap-and-trade program past 2020 would eliminate the legal uncertainties about the future of the trading program and have contributed to the volatility of the quarterly auctions of carbon allowances, he said.
Even though California's Democrats now hold a supermajority of the Legislature, a coalition of business friendly lawmakers could block passage of such a bill.
CARB's proposed strategy for meeting the 2030 goals calls for continuing the program. The state agency is moving to extend the program administratively but would likely face legal challenges.
Budget Details
Brown's $122.5 billion spending plan would cut general fund allocations for Cal-EPA by 1 percent, from this fiscal year's $90 million to $89 million. The Natural Resources Agency would face a 9.6 percent cut, from $3.1 billion to $2.8 billion.
Under the proposal, the auction revenue would provide $900 million for high-speed rail, affordable housing and sustainable communities and transit projects; $500 million for transportation projects; $363 million for low carbon transportation; $142 million on the transformational climate communities program; $127.5 million on carbon sequestration programs, like healthy forests and healthy agricultural soils; $95 million to reduce methane emissions; and $27.5 million on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
The spending plan continues to address the state's long-standing drought, despite recent rain and storms, Natural Resources Secretary John Laird said.
Brown's budget would provide $19 million for water supply and conservation projects and $11.7 million to protect fish and wildlife. Another $157.7 million would be spent to help forestry officials deal with 102 million trees that have died from bark beetle infestation and to improve emergency response programs.
Climate Policies to Continue
At an earlier press briefing, Brown said the reduced spending is needed to address a projected small statewide deficit. Many of the cuts also reflect “one time” spending on projects that will not be continued in the next year.
The governor will revise the proposal in May and begin negotiations with lawmakers to have a final budget in place by July 1.
Despite the cuts to Cal-EPA and Natural Resources, Brown remains steadfast in his commitment to address climate change. Right now, Brown said he's not concerned about potential roll backs in federal climate and energy policies.
“I'm very optimistic that what's going on in Washington is a just a pause,” Brown said.
“We're going to continue our efforts” and do more, the governor said. “The science is not going to change.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103182622&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103182622&jd=103182622
-
Businesses Tout Economic Benefits of Paris Climate Deal to Trump
Jan 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
More than 600 companies made the economic case Jan. 10 for keeping the U.S. in the international Paris climate deal in a bid to woo support from businessman and President-elect Donald Trump, who has teased pulling the country out of the agreement.
Walking away from the international climate deal reached in 2015, which has a goal of keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, would place the U.S. at an economic disadvantage, the 630 companies, including DuPont, Mars Inc., General Mills Inc., Hilton, Royal DSM and Johnson & Johnson, said in a statement to Trump, President Barack Obama and members of Congress.
“Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk. But the right action now will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness,” the companies said.
Trump has alternately said he plans to “cancel” U.S. participation in the Paris deal while telling the New York Times in November that he will keep “an open mind” to taking part in the international effort.
The businesses’ statement calls on the U.S. to continue to take steps to address climate change, provide investment in low-carbon technologies globally and continue support for the Paris Agreement.
Some of the largest U.S. companies, including Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., had pledged to continue their support for global initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during a United Nations climate summit in Morocco in 2016 as nations gathered to begin implementation of the Paris deal.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103182599&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103182599&jd=103182599
-
Steyer Plans Green Attack on Trump
Jan 11, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Environmentalist Tom Steyer is laying plans to put his vast wealth to work to "activate a resistance" to President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican Congress.
"I think you cannot flout the will of the American people forever," the billionaire former hedge fund trader told POLITICO in an interview, arguing that the public will turn on Trump once he starts governing.
Steyer's super PAC, NextGen Climate, is hoping to act as a counterweight to Trump and his Cabinet nominees by organizing Democrats and progressives in an effort to undercut the president-elect's agenda.
"Our job is to make sure Americans are informed about who is being nominated, what that means, what they are trying to pass, what that means and what I believe will be a consistent and shocking divide between the rights of American citizens and their actions," Steyer said.
Steyer has spent tens of millions of dollars over the last several years trying to make climate change a higher-profile voting issue — with mixed results. He endorsed Hillary Clinton for president last year.
Two months after Clinton's defeat, NextGen is still fleshing out its strategy for 2017. But Steyer said the group hopes to tap the network of college students it built during the presidential campaign. As part of its bid to engage young voters who care about climate change, NextGen built a presence on more than 300 college campuses across the country last year.
Steyer has long resisted putting a price tag on his campaigns, and when asked how much he's willing to spend in 2017, he said, "I have no idea. Truthfully."
The group is also mulling advocacy and advertising campaigns aimed at highlighting what Steyer sees as Trump's anti-environmental agenda.
NextGen kicked off its anti-Trump campaign this week with a seven-figure television ad running in Washington, D.C., Arizona, Nevada, Florida, California, Maryland and Virginia. The ad alleges that former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick for secretary of state, put his company's interests "before America's."
Steyer said he hopes Democrats press Tillerson on his environmental record at Exxon, including allegations that the company misled the public and investors about the risks posed by climate change.
But Steyer isn't holding his breath that Tillerson will say anything damning during his testimony under oath on Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"I don’t expect him to say something stupid that is going to be a huge fact in any criminal case against the Exxon Mobil corporation," he said.
Steyer dismissed Tillerson's public statements acknowledging climate change and in support of the Paris climate agreement.
"I don’t believe his public statements," he said. "What does it cost him to say he acknowledges climate change at the same time he runs the biggest private oil and gas company in the world?"
Steyer — a politically active megadonor who many suspect harbors political ambitions of his own — said he does not yet have a preferred candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
A vocal critic of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, the billionaire pressed President Barack Obama to reject fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy. Last year, his group pushed the White House to permanently block offshore oil drilling in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. Obama later did just that.
But Steyer said his group wasn't instrumental in influencing Obama's decision.
"My experience with the Obama administration, including on that topic, is they were always really, really well informed before we talked to them," he said. "In general, it isn’t an administration when you bring up an idea and they say, 'Whoa that’s a mind-blower.'"
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/01/pro-energy-steyer-restuccia-143566
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