Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/17/2017
-
Pruitt Hearing on Wednesday Promises Fireworks
Jan 17, 2017 | E&E Power Plays
By Rod Kuckro
Expect some hyperpartisan questioning for Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) from members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee starting at 10 a.m. tomorrow, as senators meet to consider Pruitt's nomination for U.S. EPA administrator. -
Scott Pruitt Is Chief Target of Opposition to Trump’s Environmental Policy Plan
Jan 16, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Rebecca Ballhaus
After a series of sometimes bumpy hearings for his national security picks, President-elect Donald Trump enters a week of potentially tough scrutiny for the individuals he has tapped to reverse eight years of Barack Obama’s environmental policies. -
Dems Seek Clarity from Zinke — But All-Out Assault Unlikely
Jan 17, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
Democratic senators at Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke's confirmation hearing this afternoon are likely to be more interested in getting clarity about how he would lead the Interior Department than in stoking opposition to his nomination to be secretary. -
"Roosevelt Republican" Zinke to Face Smooth Path to Interior Post
Jan 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
Rep. Ryan Zinke, the former Navy SEAL who has cast himself as a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican," is likely to get a smooth ride through his confirmation hearing to become secretary of Interior on Tuesday when he goes before the Senate Energy and... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rule Proposes Process to Evaluate Chemical Risks in Commerce
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule Jan. 13 that describes the process it will use to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce in accordance with the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul. -
(ACC Mentioned) Process to Select Chemicals for Risk Review Proposed: EPA
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule Jan. 13 describing a risk-based process it would use to identify chemicals in commerce that are high priorities for risk evaluation and low priority chemicals that don't warrant scrutiny. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Strategy to Identify, Review Commercial Chemicals
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released three proposed rules that would establish its first-ever, comprehensive regulatory strategy to evaluate—and regulate, if needed—chemicals in commerce. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Issues Nanomaterials Reporting Rule
Jan 17, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety
EPA issued a final regulation Jan. 11 requiring one-time reporting and recordkeeping of exposure and health and safety information on chemical substances at the nanoscale level. -
EU Commission Notifies WTO of Proposed Cosmetics Regulation Changes
Jan 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has notified the WTO of a draft Regulation amending Annex II of the cosmetics products Regulation to ban three fragrance allergens. -
Reconsideration of Power Plant Carbon Rule Denied by EPA
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency will not entertain revisions to its carbon dioxide limits for power plants, which are already under review by a federal appellate court. -
Pipeline Agency Expands Inspection, Reporting Requirements
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration released newly expanded reporting, inspection and assessment requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines in the final version of a wide-ranging rule Jan. 13. -
For Shale Drillers, Rising Oil Prices Also Come With Rising Costs
Jan 16, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Lynn Cook, Erin Ailworth and, Christopher M. Matthews
U.S. shale drillers that proved resilient during the oil downturn face a new test in 2017: Can they make money producing more now that prices have stabilized? -
If Big Oil Drowns Trump, Green Energy Could Cast Him a Lifeline
Jan 16, 2017 | Forbes
By Ken Silverstein
As President-elect Donald Trump plans to take the oath of office on Friday January 20, he will be coming to Washington with a cloud over his head. -
Energy Efficiency: How Mayors Can Fight Climate Change and Save Money
Jan 17, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Laila Partridge
Right now, leaders across America are gathering in Washington, D.C., for the 85th annual winter meeting of the Conference of Mayors to discuss the most urgent issues facing cities—including energy. -
Obama EPA Locks Trump Team Into Air Standards Decisions
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump administration will need to make a decision by this summer on whether to retain or revise an air quality standard for nitrogen oxides after the Obama Environmental Protection Agency agreed to a court deadline for reviewing its regulations. -
Not Even Trump Can Easily Reverse Our Progress on Climate Change
Jan 16, 2017 | Washington Post
By David Ignatius
f you’re worried about climate change, it’s scary to think that the incoming Trump administration could reverse gains made in recent years. But a recent conversation with departing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz convinced me that the progress is probably irreversible. -
British Scientists to Theresa May: Urge Trump to Support Climate Research
Jan 16, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
In the final week leading up to the presidential inauguration, British scientists are urging their prime minister to stand up for climate science in the U.S. An open letter signed by 100 leading climate researchers in the United Kingdom warns of the incoming Trump administration’s... -
Obama EPA Racing Through Finish Line With Civil Rights Plan
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
States and other federal-funding recipients will receive additional tools and reviews by the Environmental Protection Agency as part of its efforts to beef up anti-environmental racism protections, according to a recently released final agency plan. -
What Readers Would Ask Scott Pruitt, Trump’s E.P.A. Nominee
Jan 17, 2017 | New York Times
By Tatiana Schlossberg
On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will consider President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice of Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general since 2011, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Trump’s Nominee to Head EPA Has Opposed the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup
Jan 17, 2017 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Oklahoma is 1,400 miles from the entrance of the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, Md., halfway across the country. But the distance didn’t matter to Oklahoma’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt, after the Environmental Protection Agency drew up a plan to clean the polluted bay. He tried to stop it.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Pruitt Hearing on Wednesday Promises Fireworks
Jan 17, 2017 | E&E Power Plays
By Rod Kuckro
Expect some hyperpartisan questioning for Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) from members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee starting at 10 a.m. tomorrow, as senators meet to consider Pruitt's nomination for U.S. EPA administrator.
Conservative activists last week stepped up their lobbying on behalf of Pruitt in a letter to senators pushing for Pruitt's confirmation.
The groups said Pruitt has been a defender of states' rights against "federal intrusion," noting his legal battles against EPA over the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. At the same time, the groups said they hope that EPA under Pruitt would work with the states on its mission to keep the nation's air and water clean.
Look for Committee Chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to square off with Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the panel, who has expressed "grave concerns" over the nomination.
Late last week, Carper raised the prospect that Democrats on the committee would hold their own hearing on Pruitt that features separate witnesses, something Barrasso was refusing to allow.
"I am not going to call it a shadow hearing; I am going to call it a sunshine hearing," Carper said.
He said the hearing, which would not be a formal EPW Committee event, could include people who have worked with Pruitt in the past as well as independent experts on EPA and state relationships.
One moderate Democratic senator facing a tough re-election fight in 2018, North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp, said yesterday that she was undecided on whether she will support Pruitt. "I don't know yet, but we certainly had a very candid and very direct and nerdy conversation about energy," she said of her meeting with Pruitt last week.
Other Democrats and environmental groups have been quick to pounce. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), an EPW Committee member, said he was doubtful that Pruitt will be able to rein in his antipathy for the agency he hopes to lead at this week's hearing.
"He has made it his primary professional mission to undermine the authorities the EPA operates under, and so I can't imagine that he's going to try to hide that," Schatz said.
There is an outside chance that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could issue its opinion on challenges to EPA's Clean Power Plan this week, just ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration.
In September, a panel of 10 judges on the D.C. Circuit held nearly seven hours of oral arguments in the massive litigation.
In case you missed it:
· Conservative politicians in Washington are subtly shifting their arguments on climate change as the body of evidence grows to show how the Earth is affected by humans (Climatewire, Jan. 13).
· California lawmakers introduced a bill to extend the state's signature cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases beyond 2020, in line with Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) call to preserve the program (Climatewire, Jan. 13).
· The Obama administration denied a slew of petitions from states, industry and others that in 2015 asked EPA to reconsider or pause its landmark Clean Power Plan for cutting carbon emissions from the power sector (Energywire, Jan. 13).
· U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue pledged to be a partner to Trump and questioned the extent of human contributions to climate change, but advocated for "sensible" and economically sound policies to address environmental issues (Climatewire, Jan. 12).
· A hopeful President Obama delivered his farewell address to America, making a final plea for democratic engagement and fact-based debate as he advocated for "bolder action" on climate change (Climatewire, Jan. 11).
· Two federal political action committees associated with Pruitt will be shut down before he faces senators at his confirmation hearing this week. The announcement followed publication of an E&E News story Friday that reported a super PAC associated with Pruitt, Liberty 2.0, could continue soliciting donations, even if the Sooner State politician is confirmed as EPA administrator (Climatewire, Jan. 13).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060048462
-
Scott Pruitt Is Chief Target of Opposition to Trump’s Environmental Policy Plan
Jan 16, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Rebecca Ballhaus
After a series of sometimes bumpy hearings for his national security picks, President-elect Donald Trump enters a week of potentially tough scrutiny for the individuals he has tapped to reverse eight years of Barack Obama’s environmental policies.
Democrats have signaled that among Trump officials they will fight the hardest is Scott Pruitt, Mr. Trump’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Pruitt, who faces a hearing Wednesday, has indicated he is skeptical that humans are responsible for climate change, and he has challenged an array of Obama environmental rules in court as Oklahoma’s attorney general since 2010.
Rep. Ryan Zinke (R., Mont.), Mr. Trump’s selection for interior secretary, faces lawmakers Tuesday, and the hearing for former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Mr. Trump’s pick to head the Energy Department, is scheduled for Thursday.
But it is Mr. Pruitt’s hearing that is shaping up as center stage for the battle over the divergent environmental views of the incoming and outgoing administrations.
Mr. Pruitt has said he would focus on repealing regulations issued by Mr. Obama’s EPA, including a centerpiece climate regulation cutting carbon emissions from power plants and another rule bringing more bodies of water under federal jurisdiction.
The Democrats’ goal this week is to paint Mr. Pruitt and Mr. Trump’s other picks as out of step with Americans, scientists and the international community when it comes to climate change. They also hope to grill Mr. Pruitt on his ties to oil, natural gas and coal companies, in particular two political-action committees funded by energy companies that have supported Mr. Pruitt as Oklahoma attorney general.
“Mr. Pruitt has blurred the distinction between official and political actions, often at the behest of corporations he will regulate if confirmed to lead EPA,” said a letter sent recently by Democratic members of the Senate environment committee to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s transition team declined to comment on those concerns. A coalition of more than 20 conservative interest groups sent another letter, also last week, urging senators to back the nominee and seeking to rebut the attacks from environmentalists and Democrats.
“These senators and the national environmental lobby fail to provide any evidence that Mr. Pruitt would not protect the people, uphold the constitution, or the rule of law,” said Chris Warren, a spokesman for the American Energy Alliance, which coordinated the letter.
In recent years, energy companies have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to two PACs linked to Mr. Pruitt: Liberty 2.0 and Oklahoma Strong Leadership PAC. In many cases, energy companies serving alongside Mr. Pruitt as parties to lawsuits filed against the EPA also made contributions to his attorney general campaigns.
Both PACs are now expected to cease operations later this month. Liberty 2.0 initially said it would continue raising money even if Mr. Pruitt entered the Trump administration, but has since changed course. “The PAC’s purpose is no longer relevant and its leadership doesn’t want its existence to be a distraction,” Charlie Spies, counsel to both PACs, said in a statement.
Liberty 2.0, a super PAC formed in 2015 with ties to Mr. Pruitt, has raised at least $165,000—more than one-third of the $450,000 it has raised in the last two years—from companies and individuals in the energy industry.
That includes $50,000 apiece from the Ohio-based coal mining company Murray Energy Corp. and the California oil company Lucas Oil Products Inc. The super PAC, which is technically independent from Mr. Pruitt, isn’t legally required to shut down.
Oklahoma Strong Leadership PAC has also drawn sizable contributions from the energy industry, including $5,000 apiece from Devon Energy Corp. founder Larry Nichols and coal magnate Joseph Craft.
Mr. Pruitt’s supporters say the contributions don’t represent a conflict of interest, but rather reflect his understanding that excessive regulation can choke businesses.
“General Pruitt will be a strong advocate for sensible policies that are good for our environment, as well as mindful of the need for affordable and reliable electricity,” said Paul Bailey, a senior vice president at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which represents coal producers and other businesses.
It remains unclear whether Protecting America Now, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit supporting Mr. Pruitt’s nomination, will continue to solicit funds. The group, which isn’t required to disclose its donors, says its goal is “to restore the EPA to its original intent through smart, certain regulation that protects the environment and creates jobs,” according to its website.
A request for comment to the group’s email available on its website went unanswered.
Messrs. Zinke and Perry also have histories of drawing donations from the oil and natural-gas industry. It was the top sector donating to Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and allied super PACs. Oil and gas was also the No. 1 industry donating to Mr. Zinke in the 2016 election cycle, giving a total of $184,000 to his campaign and leadership PAC.
Environmental groups are funneling most of their time and money into opposing Mr. Pruitt and Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO who is Mr. Trump’s pick to be secretary of state and will have influence over the U.S.’s global climate policies.
Clean Air Moms Action, a project of the Environmental Defense Fund’s political action arm, launched a six-figure advertising campaign against Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation this month in seven states, some of which have politically vulnerable Democratic senators up for reelection in 2018.
Mr. Pruitt is the first EPA nominee the environmental group has opposed in its 50-year history, a spokesman said, adding that the group isn’t running advertising against either Messrs. Zinke or Perry.
Mr. Zinke, a first-term congressman and former Navy SEAL, has generally embraced traditional GOP issues when it comes to the environment, including opposing most Interior Department regulations, but he has departed from his Republican colleagues on one relevant issue. Mr. Zinke has opposed legislative efforts to sell federal lands to states, a position shared by Mr. Trump and notably embraced by his son, Don Trump Jr. Most Republicans have pushed for more state ownership.
Mr. Perry, who presided over the nation’s biggest-energy producing state for nearly 15 years, has spent much of his life in Texas politics, including stints as lieutenant governor, agriculture commissioner and state lawmaker. He faced ridicule in 2011 after forgetting, during a GOP presidential primary debate, that the Energy Department was one of three federal agencies he had promised to eliminate were he elected president.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scott-pruitt-is-chief-target-of-opposition-to-trumps-environmental-policy-plan-1484604960
-
Dems Seek Clarity from Zinke — But All-Out Assault Unlikely
Jan 17, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
Democratic senators at Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke's confirmation hearing this afternoon are likely to be more interested in getting clarity about how he would lead the Interior Department than in stoking opposition to his nomination to be secretary.
In a sign that the minority party doesn't have a full day's worth of questions or concerns for Zinke, the timing of his Energy and Natural Resources hearing was pushed back last week from this morning to 2:15 p.m. today to accommodate the schedules of senators who were taking part in Martin Luther King Day events back home.
That leaves less than three hours until the beginning of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on philanthropist Betsy DeVos' nomination to serve as Education secretary. ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and several other Energy Committee members also sit on the education panel, which is led by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), an ENR member.
While Zinke has faced questions in the press about travel fraud he allegedly committed while serving on the elite Navy SEAL Team 6, lawmakers from the minority party have given no indications that they plan to delve into the ethical questions, considering the likelihood that the Montana Republican will be confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate (Greenwire, Dec. 22, 2016).
It is also unclear whether Democrats will respond to Zinke critics who yesterday issed a report questioning his ties to an oil pipeline technology company (see related story).
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is marshaling his forces to fight other more controversial Cabinet picks by President-elect Donald Trump, including U.S. EPA nominee Scott Pruitt and secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson (E&E Daily, Jan. 3).
As a result, Democrats are likely to focus on nailing down Zinke's stance on public lands, climate change, coal, sage grouse conservation efforts and other hot-button topics.
Zinke began his legislative career in 2009 as a moderate Republican in the Montana Senate. But during his second term in Helena, Mont., environmentalists claim he moved to the right on many energy issues (Climatewire, Jan. 6).
The Interior secretary nominee — who if confirmed would oversee nearly a fifth of the nation's landmass — has recently caused some to question his commitment to protecting public lands.
On the House Natural Resources Committee last Congress, he bucked Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) to support permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a five-decade-old program that buys property for environmental and recreational purposes. And both he and Trump have spoken out against Republican efforts to turn federal lands over to states.
Yet earlier this month, Zinke alarmed many sportsmen who had previously supported him when he voted in favor of a House rules package that made it easier for Congress to dispose of land managed by Interior and other federal agencies (Greenwire, Jan. 5).
Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on ENR, said last week that one of her priorities for Zinke's confirmation hearing will be to ensure he's committed to preserving public lands.
"Public lands issues are very important, and how good this [incoming] administration or a new Interior secretary is going to be on the notion of stewardship is really important," Cantwell said. "In the West, we have a big outdoors economy and want to continue to see that happen and don't want it be undermined by policies that might disturb those beautiful parks that are out there."
Zinke's views on climate change have also shifted over the years. In 2010, he signed onto a letter urging President Obama and Congress to pass strong legislation to slow global warming. Four years later, however, he said during a debate that climate change is "not a hoax, but it's not a proven science, either."
The nominee's record on coal is clearer. As a lawmaker from a coal-mining state, he has consistently voted to support the industry and block regulations on it.
But Democrats may want him to explain, for example, why the Trump administration wants to abandon the first comprehensive review of the economic and environmental impact of coal mining on federal lands in three decades (Greenwire, Jan. 11).
Cantwell said she had talked with Zinke "a lot about coal." The Washington Democrat also said "of course" when asked if she had concerns about Zinke, but declined to offer specific examples when pressed to elaborate.
Wildlife advocates are troubled by votes Zinke has made to prevent Endangered Species Act protections for the wide-ranging sage grouse, an imperiled bird that the Obama administration and states made an agreement to protect.
Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to strongly support Zinke. Their allies at the American Petroleum Institute said on Friday that they want him to commit to expanding drilling on public lands and the outer continental shelf, to overturning methane emission regulations, and to quickly approve permitting for energy infrastructure like pipelines.
And Murkowski will likely press Zinke to support building an 11-mile road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge that the Alaska congressional delegation argues is necessary to connect the community of King Cove, Alaska, to an all-weather airport in nearby Cold Bay. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell's rejection of the road project continues to be a major source of irritation for the chairwoman (E&E Daily, Jan. 12).
Zinke considers himself a conservationist like former President Theodore Roosevelt (Greenwire, Jan. 16). Left-leaning group Public Citizen will host a Roosevelt look-alike at the hearing to hold the Montana Republican to his word.
Reporter George Cahlink contributed.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, Jan. 17, at 2:15 p.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/17/stories/1060048471
-
"Roosevelt Republican" Zinke to Face Smooth Path to Interior Post
Jan 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
Rep. Ryan Zinke, the former Navy SEAL who has cast himself as a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican," is likely to get a smooth ride through his confirmation hearing to become secretary of Interior on Tuesday when he goes before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee.
The Montana Republican, who will be the first of the three key energy Cabinet nominees to face Senate committees this week, has defended federal ownership of lands in the West, a contentious issue inside the GOP caucus that has often split sportmen's groups and oil- and gas-backers — but is likely to keep Democrats' from launching a major effort to block him from leading the agency that oversees over 500 million acres of federal property.
"I've talked to many of the colleagues on the committee and they've had an opportunity to visit with Mr. Zinke," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the committee chairwoman who will preside over the hearing. "Nobody has flagged to me that there's going to be some high-profile issue that's going to blow. I'm just not sensing that."
Republicans on the committee are encouraged by President-elect Donald Trump's pick's pro-energy and mining stances, a sharp break from the Obama administration, which instituted a moratorium on federal coal mining leases, sought to impose regulations on fracking on public lands and put up restrictions on offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic waters.
But Republicans also chafed under the conservationist moves of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and President Barack Obama, who set a record by granting 553 million acres of land and water national monument status under the Antiquities Act, drawing complaints from many western lawmakers that the administration launched a land-grab and ignored input from the states.
Zinke broke with his party in July, resigning as a delegate to the Republican convention after calling the GOP platform "divisive" since it advocated requiring the sale of federal lands. That stance earned him plaudits from hunting and fishing groups, and some Senate Democrats hope it indicates some measure of Obama's zeal for conservation will survive into Trump's administration.
The action also earned him some national attention and raised his profile with sportsmen's groups that aim to conserve lands for hunting and fishing. That helped propel Zinke to the nomination, not least because he won the support of Donald Trump Jr., an avid trophy hunter and member of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.
He has also been a strong supporter of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a federal account used to buy private land to close gaps in national parks and other protected spaces. The LWCF has been blasted by some Republican lawmakers, most notably House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), who pushed an early January measure to make it easier for Washington to transfer federal land to the states, but also Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who sits on the committee Zinke will face. Lee's office did not respond to a request for comment.
"Obviously the tension is between federal and state management rights," said Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican on the committee. "He's from a western state where they live this tension."
Sportsmen's groups say they expect that if confirmed, Zinke will strike a balance between being a steward for hunting, fishing and recreation and enabling economic development.
"Zinke supports a strong multiple-use ideology versus a lock-it-up-and-look-at-it preservationist ideology," said David Allen, president and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
"There is a balanced way that we can extract some energy resources and whatnot and still be good stewards of the Earth." Allen added, "It's been a long time since we've had that much of a direct correlation from our world to Cabinet positions. ... When we speak, I think we'll be listened to more anyway."
Some green groups are concerned that Zinke's support of public lands is only skin-deep. Randi Spivak, public lands program director for the Center of Biological Diversity, said Zinke should have opposed a House rule proposed by Bishop earlier this month that would ease budget restrictions on the sale of federal land, as well as the Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act in 2015, which would allow a panel selected by state governors to take control of federal land without taking ownership of it.
"He does not appear as brazenly off the rails, so very hard right as the other candidates. He should be applauded for walking away from the GOP platform," she said. But, she said Zinke shouldn't only be compared to Trump's most conservative picks. "The job goes beyond just protecting the crown jewels."
Fossil fuel groups have backed Zinke in a big way. Energy companies and resource developers have been his biggest business donors behind finance and real estate interests, according to OpenSecrets.org. In the 2016 election cycle, he raised $484,000 from the oil and gas sector — 22nd among all House members — with employees of Oasis Petroleum making up his largest group of contributors. Oasis is active in the Bakken oil fields in western North Dakota and eastern Montana.
"He gets energy development," said Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) who also sits on the committee. "So I think he'll be good on that issue. Obviously the Trump administration is going to want to develop all of our energy resources, traditional and renewable, but you know Zinke is the right guy in that respect."
For Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va), Zinke's openness to coal mining is a plus, and Manchin hopes Zinke will reverse some of Interior's recent regulations, especially the stream buffer rule, which he said could have a big impact on West Virginia's coal mining industry. And he liked Zinke's positions on federal land.
"He described himself as a Roosevelt-type of person, protecting the lands and all that," Manchin said. "I think that's contrary to what I would have thought [until] I talked to him."
Zinke also may take some tough questions on whether he used military travel vouchers for personal travel while still in the Navy, as reported by The Intercept. And his pro-development positions raises some concerns for at least a few Democrats.
"Any energy resources produced on federal lands must deliver a fair return to American taxpayers, and clearly just turning public lands over to fossil fuel industries is a nonstarter," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement after Zinke's nomination was announced.
Both Wyden and Sen. Maria Cantwell, the committee's top Democrat, have a laundry list of issues to discuss like wildfire control and coal mine cleanups.
Esther Whieldon contributed to this report.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/01/federal-lands-defense-gives-zinke-cover-as-moderate-144225
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rule Proposes Process to Evaluate Chemical Risks in Commerce
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule Jan. 13 that describes the process it will use to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce in accordance with the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul.
The proposed rule describes how the agency will conduct the four stages of a risk evaluation—scoping the issues to be studied, assessing chemical hazards, determining exposures and characterizing risks—to reach a final conclusion about the risks the chemical may or may not pose.
The proposed rule also describes the process that chemical manufacturers must use if they ask the EPA to evaluate the risks of a chemical.
Company-Requested Evaluations
The TSCA amendments allow chemical manufacturers to request EPA risk evaluations. Companies, for example, may want the agency to evaluate a chemical regulated in diverse ways by various states.
The law requires companies that ask for agency risk evaluations to pay for those evaluations. To ensure that the EPA's capacity to conduct risk evaluations is not overwhelmed by manufacturers’ requests, the TSCA amendments limit the number of evaluations that could be triggered by company requests. Between 25 percent and 50 percent of the EPA's assessments could be triggered by companies requests.
The EPA's proposed rule describes the criteria it would use to determine whether a company's request that the agency evaluate a chemical's risks should be granted. For example, the company or companies requesting the risk evaluation must:
• show that there is sufficient, reasonably available information for the agency to conduct a risk evaluation;
• list available information on the chemical's hazards, exposures and conditions of use; and
• be in possession of data the agency would have to conduct the evaluation.
“EPA will prioritize requests where there is evidence that restrictions imposed by one or more states have the potential to have a significant impact on interstate commerce or health or the environment,” the proposed rule said.
Neither the risk evaluation rule nor a related chemical prioritization rule the agency also proposed Jan. 13 define some of the scientific terms used in the TSCA amendments. The amendments, for example, require the EPA to use “best available science” and a “weight-of-the-evidence” approach to evaluating that science.
Such terms, both of EPA's proposed rules said, “are not novel concepts.” Rather their meanings are discussed extensively in existing agency guidance, the proposed rules said.
“EPA believes further defining these and other terms in the proposed rule is unnecessary and ultimately problematic. These terms have and will continue to evolve with changing scientific methods and innovation,” the agency said in both proposed rules.
Weight-of-Evidence Approaches
The EPA, however, did describe its understanding of a weight-of-evidence” approach it would propose to use to analyze scientific information.
That approach is “a collective evaluation of all pertinent information so that the full impact of biological plausibility and coherence is adequately considered,” the proposed rule said. It quoted from the agency's 1999 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.
The agency further described a weight-of-evidence approach as “a process by which trained professional judge the strengths and weaknesses of a collection of information to render an overall conclusion that may not be evident from the consideration of the individual data.” That definition was recommended by an EPA advisory committee, the agency said.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said the EPA was right to leave definitions of scientific terms to guidance.
The understanding of what constitutes best science, weight of evidence and other terms evolves over time and guidance can be more easily updated than regulations, he said.
It wasn't clear Jan. 13 whether the agency's described approach would satisfy chemical manufacturers.
American Chemistry Council's Goals
The American Chemistry Council issued a statement Jan. 13 that said: “It is critical that the rule clarify how the agency will base its risk evaluations on the highest quality, most relevant scientific data, and the weight of the scientific evidence as required by the law. In addition, in order to ensure transparency and credibility, it is critical that EPA engage stakeholders early and often throughout the risk evaluation process and peer review.”
The council's statement described what it would like to find in the proposed risk evaluation rule without saying whether the rule achieved those goals.
“The risk evaluation rule must lay out a reasonable, efficient process to determine whether a substance presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The rule should consist of a tiered approach that includes an initial screening-level evaluation; if necessary, a more detailed evaluation to quantify potential risks would then be conducted. It must require consideration of a chemical's conditions of use, and its hazard and exposure potential,” the council said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103350014&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103350014&jd=103350014
-
(ACC Mentioned) Process to Select Chemicals for Risk Review Proposed: EPA
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule Jan. 13 describing a risk-based process it would use to identify chemicals in commerce that are high priorities for risk evaluation and low priority chemicals that don't warrant scrutiny.
The proposed rule, required by the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016, is designed to create what the EPA called a “gateway to risk evaluation.”The EPA would use the process and criteria in the proposed rule to make a judgment as to whether a particular chemical or group of chemicals warrants risk evaluation. The agency described the risk evaluation it would use in a second rule also proposed Jan. 13.
Science Definitions Left to Guidance
Neither the prioritization nor the risk evaluation rule propose definitions for some of the scientific terms used in the TSCA amendments. The amendments, for example, require the EPA to use “best available science” and a “weight-of-the-evidence” approach to evaluating that science.
Such terms, both of EPA's proposed rules said, “are not novel concepts.” Rather their meanings are discussed extensively in existing agency guidance, the proposed rules said.
“EPA believes further defining these and other terms in the proposed rule is unnecessary and ultimately problematic. These terms have and will continue to evolve with changing scientific methods and innovation,” the agency said in both proposed rules.
Codifying specific definitions for these phrases in either rule could inhibit the flexibility and responsiveness the agency needs to quickly adapt to and implement changing science, both rules said.
Herb Estreicher, an attorney with the Washington D.C. office of Keller and Heckman LLP, called EPA's decision to not define these scientific terms disappointing.
“This raises the question as to EPA's commitment to proceed on the basis of ‘best available science’ and the ‘weight-of-the-evidence,’” he said in a e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, disagreed. In an interview with Bloomberg BNA, Denison said EPA's proposed rule correctly said the science-based standards in the statute apply to the decisions the agency will make.
The EPA rightly stayed away from highly prescriptive definitions of scientific terms, he said.
Defining science terms in regulations doesn't make for sound policy. The EPA should continue to define such terms through guidance that can evolve over time, Denison said.
Prioritize When Data Insufficient
The agency's proposed prioritization process would set a low bar for designating high-priority chemicals. The process “defaults” to designating chemicals as high priority whenever information about its hazards, exposures and uses is insufficient and the agency cannot confidently set the chemical aside, the proposed prioritization rule said.
Conversely the proposed rule would set a high bar for determining a chemical is a low priority. That means the agency must have sufficient hazard, exposure and use information to determine a risk evaluation was not warranted.
The rationale, EPA said, is that the high priority designation is not a final agency action. It means the chemical or group of chemicals will be reviewed in greater detail.
By contrast, low priority designation is a final action that can be challenged in court.
More Chemical Data Needed
Denison said the agency was right to designate chemicals as high priorities if they have insufficient data.
Prioritization determines which chemicals need a further investment in time to determine whether they pose a risk, he said.
“Most chemicals need a further investment. Very few have sufficient information to say they are low priority,” Denison said.
“I'm not saying most chemicals pose a high risk,” he said. Instead, most chemicals need more data and analysis before their risks can be determined, he said.
High Priority Not a Wide Net
Estreicher told Bloomberg BNA he disagreed with EPA's interpretation of the TSCA amendments.
The bar for high priority designation was set too low, he said. The “high priority” designation was meant under the amendments to mean the chemical “may present an unreasonable risk,” he said by e-mail.
Congress never intended for the “may present an unreasonable risk” determination to cast a wide net, Estreicher said. “Congress contemplated that only some of the many chemicals in commerce may present an unreasonable risk.”
Pre-prioritization Process
EPA's proposed prioritization process places a premium on obtaining information before it starts to figure out whether a chemical is a high or low priority by establishing what it calls a “pre-prioritization” process.
Before it formally begins to review a chemical for prioritization the agency will try to get needed information, the proposed rule said. The TSCA amendments boosted the EPA's authority to obtain hazard, exposure and use data for chemicals. The proposed rule said the agency intends to use those authorities.
The TSCA amendments gave the agency a deadline to ensure it has an incentive to have information before it starts the formal prioritization process.
Time Limited Prioritization Process
The prioritization process officially starts with a Federal Register notice that identifies the chemical or chemical group being considered for prioritization.
Once that notice is published the agency has to decide whether the chemical or chemical group is a high or low priority in no less than nine months and no more than one year, according to the law.
The Federal Register notice also marks the first of two 90-day public comment periods required by the law. The first comment period occurs after the EPA initiates prioritization, and the second after the EPA has proposed a designation for prioritization.
Prioritization Criteria
The EPA's proposed decision that a chemical is a high or low priority for risk evaluation is based on nine criteria described in the proposed rule. The criteria include whether the chemical is:
• persistent, bioaccumulates and toxic;
• a probable or known carcinogen;
• neurotoxic;
• used in children's products;
• used in consumer products; and
• detected in human or ecological monitoring programs.
That criteria is not clear enough, the American Chemistry Council said in a statement issued Jan. 13.“It is imperative that clear criteria for identifying low and high priority chemicals for risk evaluation are included in the rule as well as the process by which the agency will explain exactly how and why a chemical substance or category of substances received a certain prioritization score,” the council said.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner with the Washington D.C.-based law firm Bergeson & Campbell, PC, said she too would have liked EPA's proposed rule to be clearer as to how exactly the criteria would translate into a decision as to whether high priority status is warranted for a chemical.
“EPA is correct that the statute sets a low bar (“potential hazard” and “potential route of exposure”), but that makes it all the more important to be clear about what the legal standard is and how the criteria and considerations will be weighed, evaluated, and consistently applied,” Bergeson said by e-mail.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103350015&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103350015&jd=103350015
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Strategy to Identify, Review Commercial Chemicals
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released three proposed rules that would establish its first-ever, comprehensive regulatory strategy to evaluate—and regulate, if needed—chemicals in commerce.
The Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 required the EPA to develop all three rules to build a foundation that would allow the agency to meet the law's other requirements to manage chemicals in commerce. The rules must be issued as final by June 22, 2017, according to the statute.
“After 40 years, we can finally address chemicals currently in the marketplace,” said Jim Jones, the EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention in a statement announcing the release of all three rules (see related stories on selection of chemicals for risk review and the chemical evaluation process.
“Today's action will set into motion a process to quickly evaluate chemicals and meet deadlines required under, and essential to, implementing the new law,” Jones said.
The three proposed rules, published Jan. 12 and 13, would allow the EPA to:
• identify chemicals made in, imported into or processed within the U.S. during the last 10 years;
• decide which of those have potential risks that need to be evaluated and which have sufficient data to conclude they do not warrant evaluation; and
• assess those risks and pursue regulatory controls if needed.
Foundation for Amended Law
Congress amended TSCA to solve a problem the agency discusses in its regulatory package. When the original TSCA became law in 1976 tens of thousands of chemicals were grandfathered in, presumed safe, with no requirement for the EPA to evaluate their risk to human health or the environment.
“The absence of a review requirement or deadlines for action, coupled with a burdensome statutory standard for taking risk management on existing chemical substances, resulted in very few chemical substances every being assessed for safety by EPA, and even fewer subject to restrictions to address identified risks,” the agency said in its proposed rule to determine which chemicals are a priority for risk evaluation.
“One of the key features of the new law is the requirement that EPA now systematically prioritize and assess existing chemical substances and manage identified risks,” EPA's prioritization rule continued.
EPA Effort Praised
The American Chemistry Council praised the EPA for keeping on schedule and proposing the core regulatory requirements mandated by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended TSCA.
“Importantly, the release keeps EPA on schedule for finalization of these rules by its June 2017 statutory mandate,” the council said in a Jan. 13 statement.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg BNA, “EPA has done the near impossible in proposing three epic rules. Now the burden is on other stakeholders to define, clarify, and help the process along.”
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, which worked to overhaul TSCA, praised the staff and management of the EPA for the amount of work carried out since the TSCA amendments became law less than seven months ago.
In that time, the agency has proposed not only the three foundational rules, but also three chemical-specific risk management rules, he told Bloomberg BNA and later blogged.
The chemical-specific rules address the paint and coating removal uses of two solvents, methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone; the dry cleaning and aerosol degreasing uses of another solvent called trichloroethylene; and the vapor degreasing uses of trichloroethylene.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349998&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349998&jd=103349998
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Issues Nanomaterials Reporting Rule
Jan 17, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety
EPA issued a final regulation Jan. 11 requiring one-time reporting and recordkeeping of exposure and health and safety information on chemical substances at the nanoscale level. The information is to include the specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and existing information concerning environmental and health effects, "insofar as known to or reasonably ascertainable by the person making the report," it states.
These are chemical substances that have structures with dimensions at the nanoscale -- approximately 1-100 nanometers (nm); a human hair is approximately 80,000 to 100,000 nanometers wide.
The agency took the action pursuant to its authority under section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, known as TSCA, as part of its efforts to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of nanoscale materials in commerce.
EPA said the information collection "is not intended to conclude that nanoscale materials will to cause harm to human health or the environment. Rather, EPA will use the information gathered to determine if any further action under TSCA, including additional information collection, is needed."
EPA proposed and then took comments on the rule. Entities that manufacture or process a reportable chemical substance during the three years prior to the final effective date of the rule must report to EPA within a year of the rule's publication.
Jay West, senior director of chemical products and technology at the American Chemistry Council, said EPA made "positive" changes to its final nanomaterials reporting rule but not all concerns were addressed sufficiently. The council is compiling a list of topics that it believes require additional explanation and will send that the agency, he said.
Likewise, Richard Denison, Ph.D., a lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, wrote that the rule does not include some reporting requirements that EDF recommended, including that chemical substances "formed at the nanoscale as part of a film on a surface" are exempted from reporting.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2017/01/16/epa-issues-nanomaterials-reporting-rule.aspx?admgarea=news
-
EU Commission Notifies WTO of Proposed Cosmetics Regulation Changes
Jan 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has notified the WTO of a draft Regulation amending Annex II of the cosmetics products Regulation to ban three fragrance allergens.
The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) found the following unsafe for use in cosmetic products:
· atranol;
· chloroatranol; and
· 3 and 4-(4-hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde (HICC).
Starting two years after its entry into force, the Regulation bans the placing on the EU market of cosmetic products containing one or more of these substances. Two years after that such products must be completely withdrawn.
The formal vote on the draft Regulation is now expected to happen in the Cosmetics Committee in mid-March. Adoption by the European Parliament and Council is expected shortly after.
Progress on the proposal has been delayed since 2014 "due to the reshuffling of the internal cosmetics policy".
A consultation to extend the labelling requirements for 56 additional substances ended in early 2014. Cosmetics Europe told Chemical Watch that according to its knowledge, the Commission is still discussing the responses from the public consultation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52188/eu-commission-notifies-wto-of-proposed-cosmetics-regulation-changes
-
Reconsideration of Power Plant Carbon Rule Denied by EPA
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency will not entertain revisions to its carbon dioxide limits for power plants, which are already under review by a federal appellate court.
The EPA denied the majority petitions from states and industry groups to reconsider aspects of the Clean Power Plan, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register Jan. 17. While it denied most of the petitions to reconsider the rule, the EPA has not yet taken action on petitions to reconsider how utilities burning biomass are treated under the carbon dioxide standards.
The Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the fleet of existing power plants in each state, which state regulators would be charged with implementing. The U.S. Supreme Court has halted implementation of the rule during legal challenges to the standards. A 10-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has already heard argument in the case a decision is expected shortly (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir. en banc, No. 15-1363, 9/27/16).
President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to roll back the rule and his pick to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is among those challenging the standards.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349985&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349985&jd=103349985
-
Pipeline Agency Expands Inspection, Reporting Requirements
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration released newly expanded reporting, inspection and assessment requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines in the final version of a wide-ranging rule Jan. 13.
In the rule (RIN:2137-AE66), which has not yet been published in the Federal Register, the agency makes several amendments to its current pipeline safety regulations:
• extending reporting requirements to some hazardous liquid gravity and rural gathering lines that PHMSA doesn't currently regulate;
• requiring inspections of all offshore, onshore, high-consequence and non-high-consequence pipelines after extreme weather and natural disasters;
• requiring integrity assessments using inline inspection tools, or other technology, once per decade for some transmission hazardous liquid pipeline segments;
• providing more flexibility in pipeline repair criteria;
• extending the required use of leak detection systems;
• requiring pipelines in or near high-consequence areas to accommodate in-line inspection tools.
The rule's main benefits will come from avoiding hazardous pipeline accidents that can be prevented through early detection, the agency said.Parts of the rule are based on recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board's report on a 2010 pipeline rupture in Marshall, Mich. and a 2012 Government Accountability Office report on federally unregulated gathering pipelines.
Paying for Pipeline Incidents
Between 2010 and 2015, operators reported to PHMSA that they spent $88.6 million in damages for hazardous liquid incidents outside high-consequence areas. That amounts to about $770 per mile of pipeline.
For incidents inside those areas, operators reported paying $300.8 million, or $3,572 per mile of pipeline, in damages.
“These damages are only a fraction of the total social costs of hazardous liquid releases but indicate the potential magnitude of benefits derived from preventing pipeline failures,” PHMSA said in the final rule.
Fine-Tuning Pipeline Safety
“A lot of [the rule] is technical, engineering material, and actually that's a good thing,” said John Stoody, vice president of government and public relations at the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
Operators have been concerned that previous pipeline repair criteria required them to spend more time on less-urgent issues, creating blind spots in potentially high-priority areas.
“PHMSA has adjusted the language now; they're allowing for engineering assessments of the pipe and giving multiple approaches,” Stoody said.
Stoody said the rule allows operators to be proactive with their safety inspections.
“We're gratified that PHMSA heeded the comments of stakeholders and made adjustments to the rule that allows operators to tailor their safety programs to best fit the specific pipelines,” he said.
Peter Chace, national chairman of the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, said there will be more for operators to do, but that the rule will improve safety.
“Some of the benefits, I think, include more comprehensive reporting of what lines are out there, and better assessment of the pipe to prevent ruptures and failures,” he said.
The executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, Carl Weimer, said he is disappointed the rule allows more time for aging pipelines to accommodate diagnostic robots, or “pigs,” that scan pipes for corrosion and cracks.
“While we support these new rules, with this country's aging pipeline infrastructure we are concerned that this level of slow incremental improvement will not be enough to keep our communities and environment safe,” he said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349993&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349993&jd=103349993
-
For Shale Drillers, Rising Oil Prices Also Come With Rising Costs
Jan 16, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Lynn Cook, Erin Ailworth and, Christopher M. Matthews
U.S. shale drillers that proved resilient during the oil downturn face a new test in 2017: Can they make money producing more now that prices have stabilized?
The price of crude is hovering just below $55 a barrel—the level many energy companies said they needed to make a profit—and that is setting off a race to drill again. Producers boosted U.S. oil output to nearly 9 million barrels a day, pumping an extra 500,000 barrels a day in the past three months. The additional American production is more than the volume that Saudi Arabia committed to stop producing to help shore up global crude prices.
But the cost middlemen charge companies to help them tap new wells is rising along with the new activity. That is threatening to wipe out some of the savings the industry gained by belt-tightening during the bust.Shale companies have put more than 90 additional rigs back into the field in recent weeks, after a November agreement by Russia and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to curb global output boosted oil prices.
However, the cost to hire an experienced drilling crew and source critical oil-field supplies, including the sand used in hydraulic fracturing, has surged between 10% and 20% this winter, experts say. Shale companies could face even higher prices if crude keeps climbing to $60 a barrel, they add.
Much of the cost savings that U.S. producers realized during the downturn came at the expense of oil-field-services companies, which have made it clear they intend to raise prices when demand for their help rises.
Halliburton Co. has likened negotiations with its customers to a “barroom brawl.” Hundreds of small to midsize rivals that run rigs, truck water and pipe in and out of the field and provide the labor to frack wells are also trying to charge more in the new year.
“What we’re seeing at the moment is a massive industry renegotiation,” said Colin Davies, a senior analyst at AB Bernstein and former vice president of corporate strategy with Hess Corp.
Though a recovery remains tenuous, the U.S. shale sector hit an important inflection point in the fall, after two years in which companies hemorrhaged cash as oil prices plunged from over $100 a barrel in the summer of 2014 to less than $30 a year ago.
Sixteen shale producers, including Apache Corp., Continental Resources Co. and Marathon Oil Corp., managed to slash costs enough to generate free cash flow during the third quarter of 2016, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data compiled by S&P Global Market Intelligence on the 40 largest U.S. oil and gas producers by market capitalization.
That means more shale producers are living within their means than at any point in the last five years. But whether more can prosper this year, when oil is expected to stay between $50 and $60 a barrel, remains to be seen.
Shale companies like Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc., a driller active in Texas, Colorado and Pennsylvania, have tried to entice service providers to maintain current pricing under long-term contracts. They have met some resistance, said Chip Johnson, Carrizo’s chief executive.
“Service companies don’t really want to lock in today’s prices for any longer than they have to,” he told an industry conference audience in Houston in November.
Kenneth Shore, vice president of Tec Well Service, Inc. in Longview, Texas, said that at the peak of the oil boom, Tec Well charged $325 an hour to drill wells, but dropped that to around $200 as crude prices slumped.
Mr. Shore recently quoted an oil producer customer a rate of $220 per hour to operate a rig in the Permian Basin because there was no experienced crew on hand and he knew he would be unable to lure workers back without boosting their salaries.
The client agreed, and Tec Well announced an 11% wage increase.
Producers have had “service companies working for them below their cash cost,” said Mr. Shore, adding that “all of our competitors went bankrupt, every single one of them”.
Sand mines are pushing up prices, hoping to get 20% or more for the fracking ingredient used to help prop open underground fissures and allow oil to flow to the surface.
Until recently sand mined in Wisconsin hovered around $20 a ton, but a company recently reported a purchase at $30 a ton, according to Simmons & Co. International. The Houston energy investment bank is forecasting demand for frack sand could jump 60% to 60 million tons in 2017 as shale producers try to coax more from every well by using more sand and fracking wells more often.
Those kinds of advances in production techniques are what helped many U.S. shale companies make drilling wells economic at around $55 a barrel, down from $90 just two years ago. So rising prices for sand and other services could increase the price they need to break even, analysts say.
In Oklahoma’s Scoop formation, one of the hottest current drilling areas in the country, a typical well can now make money at $51 oil, according to Simmons. But factoring in a 15% to 30% escalation in service costs, those same wells would need between $57 and $63 a barrel to break even, the bank estimates.
New wells are only one of the ways U.S. drillers stand poised to pump up production. More than 5,200 drilled-but-uncompleted wells, known as DUCs, are waiting to be pumped. With initial drilling costs already spent, most can now be completed and pumped profitably at $40 barrel, said Ryan Duman, a senior analyst with consultancy Wood Mackenzie.
“The DUCs are well into the money these days,” Mr. Duman said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-shale-drillers-rising-oil-prices-also-come-with-rising-costs-1484575201
-
If Big Oil Drowns Trump, Green Energy Could Cast Him a Lifeline
Jan 16, 2017 | Forbes
By Ken Silverstein
As President-elect Donald Trump plans to take the oath of office on Friday January 20, he will be coming to Washington with a cloud over his head. Some are questioning his legitimacy — not just to his victory in the Electoral College but also with respect to the energy policies that he has been espousing.
The natural extension of a vitriolic campaign has undoubtedly led to the acrimony now present in the political atmosphere — a raw sentiment targeted right at Trump. That feeling will assuredly impede whatever agenda the president-elect has in mind, including his aggressive ideas aimed at lessening the nation’s use of renewables and limiting the U.S. role in mitigating climate change.
President Obama has implored the President-elect to think more broadly and to not succumb to the loudest voices representing the traditional energy sources: Businesses such as General Motors, Hewlett Packard and Johnson &Johnson are prospering both financially and environmentally from green investments.
At the same time, energy gurus like T. Boone Pickens are weighing in, advising Trump not to turn his back on new energies. While Pickens knows that oil and gas will remain lynchpins of the American economy, he has essentially told the president-elect to steer the middle ground. In a previous talk with this writer, he said that natural gas is a critical pathway to carbon reductions and that the country ought to export hydraulic fracturing technologies while also working to grow its domestic green industry— positions similar to those of Obama.
“The United States is showing that [greenhouse gas] mitigation need not conflict with economic growth,” the president wrote in the journal Science. “Rather, it can boost efficiency, productivity, and innovation. Businesses are coming to the conclusion that reducing emissions is not just good for the environment — it can also boost bottom lines, cut costs for consumers, and deliver returns for shareholders.”
Indeed, the International Energy Agency in Paris found that the world’s emissions remained flat in 2014 and 2015 even as gross domestic continued to grow by more than 3% in each year. In this country, more than 24,000 megawatts were added to the grid in 2016, notes the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Half that — for three years running — has been wind and solar energies.
Money to Spend
On a practical level, the Department of Energy has about $40 billion left in its loan kitty. While renewable generation has been the primary beneficiary of those loans, the money could go to other things such as advanced coal technologies. So far, the program has loaned about $22 billion while collecting $3.5 billion in repayments and $810 million in interest. Defaults have amounted to about $750 million, which has been mostly attributed to Solyndra that lost $535 million.
“We invested in a solar company, our country,” Trump said during a debate with Hillary Clinton. “That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one. … Now, look, I’m a great believer in all forms of energy, but we’re putting a lot of people out of work. Our energy policies are a disaster.”
If Trump genuinely believes the current energy policies are a failure, he will follow through on his pledge to kill this country’s efforts to cut carbon emissions by trying to invalidate the Clean Power Plan and by withdrawing from the global climate accords. To that end, the president-elect has culled from the ranks of climate skeptics and tapped into the Institute for Energy Research, whose executive director Thomas Pyle has been helping to form the new Energy Department.
A story in the Los Angeles Times says that Pyle tried to stop federal involvement in such energy projects as the Ivanpah, which is a 392-megawatt concentrated solar energy project that is delivering power to PG&E Corp. and Edison International. It is a joint venture among NRG Energy, Google and Brightsource Energy. The deal relied heavily on Energy Department funding — monies that Pyle’s group thinks of as wasted on a boondoggle project.
Meanwhile, the same LA Times story says that the institute has repeatedly referenced a study that has been proven faulty and one that looks at Spain’s experience with renewables: For every one green energy job gained, the institute says that two other jobs are lost. The Spanish government continues to protest that characterization while it points out the fallacies of its evaluation.
Meantime, Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency is already one of the agency’s leading antagonists and he also questions the validity of the prevailing climate science. He is suing to stop any advancement of the Clean Power Plan while also doing the same regarding the Obama administration’s plans to curb methane releases from oil and gas drilling. If approved by the Senate, Scott Pruitt’s EPA could weaken the regulatory environment by acts of omission, or simply refusing to defend regulations in court.
“The Obama Climate Action Plan is about restricting access to America’s vast resources of coal and natural gas, which together supply approximately two-thirds of our nation’s affordable electricity,” Pyle has previously said. Economic progress is paramount here, he emphasizes.
Defining the Threat
But even the oil companies that Pyle’s group represents are diversifying their holdings and expanding into renewables and green technologies. Part of that is because oil prices are low and part is because of the pressures they are getting from environmentalists. But those companies would not buck the interest of their shareholders if they didn’t think the investments would pay off.
Consider that Total of France has already spent $1.4 billion buying SunPower while it said in 2016 it would buy battery maker Saft for $1 billion. Royal Dutch Shell, meantime, has formed Shell New Energies that will invest $200 million a year on green technologies. And ExxonMobil Corp. also said last year that it would explore carbon capture and sequestration with a fuel cell company.
To that end, President-elect Trump’s pick to head the US Department of State said that the United States should stay involved in the Paris climate accord. As the former chief executive of Exxon, Rex Tillerson has come around and said that fossil fuels contribute to man-made climate change, although he did tell Congress last week that trying to tackle the issue unilaterally would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.
“No one country is going to solve this alone,” Tillerson testified. “I think we’re better served by being at the table than leaving the table,” referring to the global climate accord signed in December 2015 in Paris.
On the surface, it would appear that Trump has boxed himself in and taken hardline positions counter to those that have gained traction under President Obama. But behind the scenes, some of those advising him are telling him not to block such progress — including members of his own party, whose states have benefited from the New Energy Economy.
His positions change daily. But the political framework is now established, which is that Trump lost the popular election by 3 million votes and that many Americans view him as a threat to democracy. Maintaining rigid positions will only further alienate him, meaning that he must curb the inflammatory rhetoric or else see further aspersions cast on his legitimacy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/01/16/if-big-oil-drowns-trump-green-energy-could-cast-him-a-lifeline/#efc93973e8a8
-
Energy Efficiency: How Mayors Can Fight Climate Change and Save Money
Jan 17, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Laila Partridge
Right now, leaders across America are gathering in Washington, D.C., for the 85th annual winter meeting of the Conference of Mayors to discuss the most urgent issues facing cities—including energy. From the impact of climate change to the rising costs of utilities, energy use affects how families live and work in our cities. At a time when the federal government may be unwilling or unable to implement policies that would seriously improve energy efficiency and cost savings for families and building managers, all smart city officials must, as the saying goes, think globally and act locally.
One way for America’s mayors to immediately and easily make positive changes is to join the many federal, state, and city agencies, leading nonprofit organizations, and socially responsible investors who are paving the way for cities to thrive environmentally, socially, and economically. Nationally, about 40 percent of energy consumption comes from residential and commercial buildings. Not only does that impact the environment, but it’s also expensive. If we are going to change the way Americans use energy—and we need to, because our cities’ wellbeing is at stake—buildings are definitely a good place to start.
Around the country, laws mandating the measurement of buildings’ energy use—through a process called benchmarking—are becoming commonplace. Major nonprofits like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Institute for Market Transformation are helping governments make their buildings’ leases contingent on sustainability improvements. And socially responsible investors are requiring sustainability plans before they provide their investees with any capital. This trend is fueling broader, mainstream interest from tech-savvy leaders and investors who see the opportunity to positively impact business and the environment while producing a substantial return on their investment.
In December, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and 18 other prominent investors formed Breakthrough Energy to invest at least $1 billion into clean-energy companies over the next 20 years, including companies focusing on buildings. CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) is one of the biggest asset holders in the country: they too are embracing sustainability and efficiency, by reporting their assets’ benchmarking data to the world’s leading sustainability assessment organization, GRESB. They’re doing so because they want to make sure that all of their real estate assets meet the environmental, social, and governance standards that have become so important for investors around the country.
Combined, these developments will help cities use hard data to cut their energy costs, improve their residents’ health, and make their buildings more attractive to developers and homeowners. In New York City, for example, buildings create over 70 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions and make up two-thirds of the city’s energy use. As a result, New York is aiming to become one of the most environmentally and financially sustainable cities in the country, using data to make smart decisions about energy efficiency.
As part of New York City’s Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, the city has passed a law requiring owners of large buildings to annually measure their energy and water consumption—that is, to use energy benchmarking—and to submit their data to the city. That helps the city track energy use, providing officials with vital data that helps inform smart policymaking. In addition, city laws require that: buildings meet the most current energy code for any renovations or alterations; buildings over 50,000-square feet undergo periodic energy audits to ensure that their equipment is performing properly; and that large non-residential buildings upgrade their lighting to meet current standards and provide monthly energy statements for each non-residential tenant.
The city’s long-term goal is to reduce buildings-based emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and citywide greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. That’s a huge ambition, and it wouldn’t be conceivable without such an aggressive, targeted plan to improve building energy efficiency—one that is helping the city save not only the environment but money as well, by reducing energy bills for its government and residents.
As New York has found, energy benchmarking and data-driven sustainability initiatives are good for the environment, business, and its citizens. Better utility management helps city governments, investors, and building owners understand which buildings are performing well and where improvements can be made. As utility costs go down and buildings improve their environmental performance, outside investors are further incented to provide capital, ensuring everybody wins.
This energy revolution is underway all across the country, and it’s a multi-pronged effort: state benchmarking laws, utility energy savings initiatives, federal green building loan programs, and private investing are having a huge impact on our nation’s cities. From L.A. and San Francisco to Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City, many of the country’s biggest metropolises are making great strides towards understanding their power and water usage. In doing so, they are turning their buildings, streets, and communities into better places to live.
More cities’ mayors must take steps to continue this important momentum. Using data to adjust energy and water use conserves precious natural resources, reduces utility bill costs, and frees up that money to be spent elsewhere on city programs or household expenses. Every city can reap those benefits.
It may be the age of climate change and rising costs, but it’s also the age of data and innovation. It’s time we used the information at our disposal to make all buildings energy efficient and reach our sustainability goals. The planet—and our wallets—depend on it.
Laila Partridge is CEO of WegoWise, which helps building owners and managers track and analyze their utility and energy use and waste.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/313052-energy-efficiency-how-mayors-can-fight-climate-change
-
Obama EPA Locks Trump Team Into Air Standards Decisions
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump administration will need to make a decision by this summer on whether to retain or revise an air quality standard for nitrogen oxides after the Obama Environmental Protection Agency agreed to a court deadline for reviewing its regulations.
The proposed consent decree, reached with the Center for Biological Diversity, sets a schedule for the EPA to review the health-based national ambient air quality standards for both nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register Jan. 17. As part of the schedule, which must still be approved by a federal judge, the EPA must propose by July 14 whether to retain or revise the nitrogen oxides standard. That standard was set in 2010.
The primary air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide, used as a surrogate for various nitrogen oxides, is 100 parts per billion. A final decision would be due by April 6, 2018.
The EPA would also be required to take action on the health-based standards for sulfur dioxide by May 25, 2018. The current primary standards for sulfur dioxide is 75 ppb, set in 2010. The final rule would be due by Jan. 28, 2019.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review its air quality standards every five years to determine whether they should be retained or revised. The Center for Biological Diversity had sued the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2016 for missing those statutory deadlines (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-03796, consent decree proposed 1/6/17).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349988&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349988&jd=103349988
-
Not Even Trump Can Easily Reverse Our Progress on Climate Change
Jan 16, 2017 | Washington Post
By David Ignatius
If you’re worried about climate change, it’s scary to think that the incoming Trump administration could reverse gains made in recent years. But a recent conversation with departing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz convinced me that the progress is probably irreversible.
“There’s no question that we are moving to a lower-carbon economy,” Moniz said in an interview in his Washington office. “What’s happening is largely a market-driven phenomenon. . . . There is no status quo ante.”
Moniz cited a range of economic and technological factors that will sustain the long-term move toward reduced carbon emissions, regardless of the policies adopted by Donald Trump, who has expressed skepticism about climate science and government efforts to cut emissions.
Clean-energy technologies have become much cheaper and more efficient, Moniz noted, and the global market for them will lure U.S. companies. Utility and manufacturing industry executives, who have to plan investments on 30-year time horizons, aren’t likely to make long-term bets on high-carbon projects.
Moniz is an example of the brainpower and expertise that will walk out the door when the Obama administration leaves office Friday. He’s a nuclear physicist for MIT who has been involved in government energy projects for two decades. His designated successor, former Texas governor Rick Perry, has no comparable educational or business background that would equip him for the job.
As Moniz prepared to leave his post, the Energy Department released several studies that underline his argument that climate-change progress is being driven by the market rather than government. Smart government policies have encouraged and reinforced this evolution, but it now has a life of its own, the studies suggest. Some Energy Department statistics drive home this point.
The coal industry, which Trump has promised to revive, is experiencing a long-term cyclical decline as other energy sources become cheaper. The industry shrank about 60 percent between 1985 and 2016, with a loss of more than 141,000 jobs. Oil and natural gas experienced a boom over that same period, adding more than 80,000 jobs from 2004 to 2014. Domestic oil production nearly doubled from 5 million barrels per day in 2008 to 9.4 million barrels in 2015, thanks largely to shale-oil production.
As natural-gas production rose and prices fell, utilities turned increasingly to this lower-carbon source of energy — sharply reducing carbon emissions. Energy Department data show that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the first six months of 2016 were at their lowest level since 1991. The department estimates that 61 percent of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector from 2006 to 2014 came from switching from coal-fired plants to gas-fired ones.
A prime example of the changing pattern of energy production and employment is West Virginia. Coal production and jobs have fallen sharply in the southern part of the state. But Moniz noted that production and job growth in natural gas have risen significantly in northern West Virginia in recent years.
Coal has a future, Moniz said, but it will be shaped by the ability to capture carbon emissions. Utilities at home and abroad will want “clean coal,” so the advance of carbon-capture technologies will be crucial for the industry’s economic survival, regardless of federal policy.
Moniz argued that continuing declines in the costs of alternative energy sources are making them increasingly competitive. Since 2008, costs have fallen 41 percent for land-based wind power and 64 percent for utility-scale solar power. The cost of efficient LED light bulbs has fallen 94 percent since 2008. The cost of battery storage has declined 70 percent over that period, making electric vehicles more affordable. As of last August, there were 490,000 electric vehicles on the road.
Moniz contends that Trump and his supporters have wrongly argued that energy efficiency is a job killer, when the opposite is true. According to an Energy Department study released this month, the energy sector as a whole employs about 6.4 million Americans, with 2.2 million of that total employed in design, installation or manufacture of “energy efficiency products and services,” a sector that added 133,000 jobs in 2016.
The study predicts that energy-related jobs will grow 5 percent in 2017, with the fastest rate of 9 percent coming in the energy-efficiency sector.
What the Trump administration will do in energy and climate policy is a mystery, as with so many other areas. But my takeaway from Moniz is that in terms of the underlying trends, even a Trump administration wrecking ball at the Energy Department wouldn’t significantly alter the long-term move toward a cleaner and safer planet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/not-even-trump-can-easily-reverse-our-progress-on-climate-change/2017/01/16/3d719356-dc25-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.746f4b62f6cd
-
British Scientists to Theresa May: Urge Trump to Support Climate Research
Jan 16, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
In the final week leading up to the presidential inauguration, British scientists are urging their prime minister to stand up for climate science in the U.S. An open letter signed by 100 leading climate researchers in the United Kingdom warns of the incoming Trump administration’s skeptical stance on climate change and points to “worrying media reports that the incoming administration may severely weaken climate change research and data-gathering undertaken by federal organizations in the United States.”
In light of these concerns, the letter urges Prime Minister Theresa May to “press President-Elect Trump and his administration to acknowledge the scientific evidence about the risks of climate change, to continue to support international action to counter climate change, including the Paris Agreement, and to maintain support for world class research and data-gathering on climate change in the United States.”
Trump’s own doubts about human caused climate change are well-documented — he once famously claimed that climate change is a “hoax invented by the Chinese.” He’s softened his rhetoric a bit in more recent months, suggesting in December that “nobody really knows” whether climate change is real, but it’s clear that his current position on the subject is doubtful at best.
Furthermore, the president-elect has selected multiple noted climate doubters to serve in his cabinet and lead his transition team. And he’s also publicly vowed to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and roll back multiple Obama-era emissions regulations aimed at helping the nation meet its climate commitments. These choices have raised major concerns among scientists all over the world as to the future of both climate action and climate research in the U.S.
“Basically, I was becoming concerned after the election about some of the stories that were beginning to emerge,” said Bob Ward, a co-organizer of the letter to May and the policy and communications director for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
He pointed to some previous comments by Trump campaign adviser Bob Walker as an example. In November, Walker stunned the climate science community by suggesting that NASA should no longer conduct climate science, citing what he referred to as the “politicizing” of the science.
Ward also pointed to a more recent incident in which the Trump transition team submitted a questionnaire to the Department of Energy requesting the names of employees who’d been involved in issues including international climate talks and the development of the social cost of carbon. The transition team later claimed that the questionnaire was “not part of our standard protocol” and was submitted by an individual who had not been authorized to do so — but the incident sparked doubts among scientists as to the future of climate-related research programs at federal agencies. In fact, these concerns have led some climate scientists to begin copying public government climate data onto independent servers, fearing that it might otherwise be lost under the new administration.
“It was beginning to look like it could be not just a question of policy inaction, but that there might very well be efforts to shut down areas of climate research or at least start to interfere politically,” Ward said. He noted that there’s been precedent for such action under previous administrations. President George W. Bush, for instance, was widely criticized by scientists who accused his administration of trying to suppress or distort the science of anthropogenic climate change.
“I therefore felt that the British climate research community ought to raise this with the prime minister and point out that this is a matter of our national interest as much as anybody else’s,” Ward said.
He pointed out that disruptions to climate science in the U.S. could have serious international implications, given that climate data is shared and utilized by researchers all over the world. Research carried out by NASA satellites, for instance, has maintained some of the longest standing continuous climate records in the world. Should these programs be halted, even if other nations were to take over afterward, these records would be interrupted and the integrity of the data diminished as a result.
“[Government] labs not only do world leading science — the established U.S. policy of making data freely and easily accessible to all benefits researchers the world over,” said Piers Forster, one of the letter’s signatories and director of the University of Leeds’s Priestley International Center for Climate, in an email to The Washington Post. “For example, anyone can easily download U.S. satellite data or climate analyses, data that cost million of dollars to collect. Without the U.S. data we would be flying blind.”
The new letter calls on May to use the U.K.’s “special relationship with the United States,” as well as its standing at international summits, to urge the Trump administration to accept the science of climate change and support continued research efforts in the U.S.
“For many years, climate change researchers in the United States and United Kingdom have worked extensively with each other and with researchers from across the world,” the letter states. “We stand ready to support and assist our counterparts in the United States, as collaborators, co-authors and colleagues, in resisting any political attempts to prevent, hamper or interfere with vital research on climate change.”
Ward said the scientific community’s support of the letter was an encouraging sign.
“I think a lot of researchers here are currently aware of the risks and dangers that they see from the incoming [administration], and I think that the fact that people would sign a letter that they knew was going to be made public is a sign of people’s willingness to stand up and be counted in this issue,” he said. “It’s not going to be a kind of timid silence if they start seeing things going wrong.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/16/british-scientists-to-theresa-may-urge-trump-to-support-climate-research/?utm_term=.b557b236f66e
-
Obama EPA Racing Through Finish Line With Civil Rights Plan
Jan 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
States and other federal-funding recipients will receive additional tools and reviews by the Environmental Protection Agency as part of its efforts to beef up anti-environmental racism protections, according to a recently released final agency plan.
Civil rights advocates told Bloomberg BNA this plan and a manual detailing how to process complaints that was released the same day signify progress—with a major caveat.
“So much of this is overshadowed by the question of whether [the next administration] will enforce civil rights at all,” Marianne Engelman-Lado, visiting clinical professor at Yale Law School and civil rights advocate, told Bloomberg BNA. “To have these procedures … are a statement of how things should work.”
These actions are the latest in a line of actions the Obama administration EPA has taken on civil rights in its final days. That includes the recent move to the EPA's Office of General Counsel of the external compliance program enforcing the Civil Rights Act's Title VI and certain other anti-discrimination laws. These actions together are helping to solidify the administration's legacy on civil rights, Vernice Miller-Travis, civil rights advocate, told Bloomberg BNA.
“Even without looking at it, it's got to be progress,” said Miller-Travis, senior associate at Skeo Solutions Inc. “It leaves a path for success of administrations to follow.”
Strategic Plan
The EPA's actions on Title VI, a law that aims to prevent and address discrimination based on race, color or national origin by federal funding recipients, have come under fire from advocates and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. They have accused EPA of not aggressively enforcing the civil rights laws.
The strategic plan lays out goals for the agency's External Civil Rights Compliance Office through 2020, mapping out plans to boost its effectiveness and efficiency. It charts those under three areas, aiming to:
• enhance strategic docket management;
• develop a proactive compliance program;
• strengthen the office's workforce.
One significant promise in the plan is to release a toolkit for federal funding recipients to help them comply with Title VI, a product that has been in the works “for a while,” Engelman-Lado said. This guidance for recipients is important because without it, recipients face difficulty in figuring out how to comply with Title VI, and the lack of guidance makes it difficult for the EPA to enforce, she said.
Some changes in the strategic plan, such as leaving deadlines intact for the EPA to process complaints, were met with support. But other parts left Engelman-Lado concerned.
For example, she lauded that the agency had a transparency section, but said its commitments, such as producing an annual report, left much to be desired. Its commitment to coordinate with the Office of Environmental Justice where appropriate is also too vague, she said.
Challenges
Another key area of concern for Engelman-Lado was the office's focus on ticking the boxes of a Title VI compliance program for federal funding recipients rather than focusing on more substantive requirements.
For example, the agency's plan doesn't address the “critical” issue of defining disparate impact. What does it look like for a majority-minority community to be disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution, for example, even if all of those pollution sources are permitted?
“That is a near-fatal defect in the EPA program,” Engelman-Lado told Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103350009&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103350009&jd=103350009
-
What Readers Would Ask Scott Pruitt, Trump’s E.P.A. Nominee
Jan 17, 2017 | New York Times
By Tatiana Schlossberg
On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will consider President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice of Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general since 2011, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Pruitt spent much of his time in office fighting the Obama administration over the E.P.A.’s actions to regulate air and water pollution and to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The committee is led by Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, an outspoken contrarian on climate change, and includes several Republicans openly hostile to federal action to address it. The Democratic members of the committee include some of the Senate’s strongest supporters of the E.P.A. and most forceful voices for decisive action on climate change.
We asked readers what questions they would ask if they could question Mr. Pruitt. More than 2,000 replied, and their answers largely fell into a few categories. Here is what some of them would like to know.
Climate change and climate science
Many readers seemed familiar with Mr. Pruitt’s statement that the science of climate change is “far from settled.” Most pointed out that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, specifically by the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and asked for Mr. Pruitt’s sources for his position.
Seth Rudman, 28, a scientific researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, asked, “Can you describe the shortcomings of the scientific evidence for climate change and the type of data that would be needed to convince you that climate change is happening?”
While being a scientist is not a requirement for the job, readers worried about what having a climate denier at the top might mean for the agency.
“During the Bush administration, climate scientists, including Dr. James Hansen, claimed that their voices were suppressed and their reports changed to minimize the role of humans in accelerating climate change and its impact,” wrote Donald Chartier, 60, the founder and chief executive of an internet company in Chicago. “Can you assure us that E.P.A. scientists will be allowed to present scientific evidence and data freely to the American people, without retaliation?”
Others focused on the risk Mr. Pruitt was taking by denying the risks of climate change.
“If the scientific consensus on climate change proves correct and the changes in the Earth’s weather cause widespread devastation, loss of life and property and great economic damage, who should be held responsible for staying the actions that might have prevented or ameliorated these outcomes?” asked Joseph Griffin, 72, a retiree from Bellefonte, Pa.
Industry influence
During his time as attorney general of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has been seen by some to be cozy with the fossil fuel industry. He filed 14 suits against the E.P.A., challenging the agency’s environmental regulations, looking to soften the blow of federal policies against oil, gas, agriculture and other interests. In 13 of those cases, companies that had contributed money to Mr. Pruitt or to Pruitt-affiliated political campaign committees also signed on.
Readers were concerned that Mr. Pruitt might continue to advance the interests of industry, possibly to the detriment of public health and safety.
“How do you intend to serve the public need to protect the environment when you have demonstrated a preference for the rights of corporate shareholders?” asked Alison ten Cate, 50, an energy efficiency consultant from Belmont, Calif.
Others wrote that Mr. Pruitt should be asked if he would be willing to disclose the companies and lobbyists that have given money to his campaigns, and agree to recuse himself from decisions involving them.
Regulations and states’ rights
Mr. Pruitt has argued that states are in a better position to regulate their environment and industries than the federal government, which he has accused of overreach.
Many readers argued that air and water do not respect state borders, so it is the federal government’s responsibility to regulate these interstate issues.
“You have worked against the E.P.A. in favor of managing interstate and global issues at the state level. Why?” asked Charles Haddox, 59, a marketing manager in Denver. “What success stories can you relate in detail showing states are more successful at protecting resources in the absence of federal regulation?”
They also wondered where the limits of Mr. Pruitt’s federalism might lie.
“Does your belief in federalism mean you will not interfere with the efforts of California and other states to address climate change?” wrote Michael McCabe, 19, a student at Sarah Lawrence College. “Or will you serve the interests of the fossil fuel industry and interfere with states’ efforts?”
Some asked practical questions, like Mavis Negroni-Foosaner, 65, a part-time teacher and naturalist in Memphis, who wanted to know how Mr. Pruitt could continue to push for state and local jurisdiction of clean air and water “in light of the Flint, Mich., water scandal.” High levels of lead were found in the city’s water supply, largely a result of state and local regulatory failures, and the federal government had to intervene (some argue too late).
Record and results
Several readers seemed puzzled at why Mr. Pruitt would want to run a federal regulatory agency if he saw federal regulations as a problem, and wondered if he had other ideas for how to regulate pollutants. Some also would like to hear examples of success on environmental issues from his time in office in Oklahoma.
Mark Baker, 48, an American who works for Diageo, an international beverage company, in Brussels, asked, “Can you provide an example of a policy that originated at the state or local level under your watch in Oklahoma and that resulted in cleaner water or air for Oklahoma’s citizens?”
“Do you believe in protecting water, air and land from pollution?” wrote Sabina Gasper, 55, who works for the pharmaceutical industry in Bismarck, N.D. “Do you believe that regulations are the way to do this? If not, how should these resources be protected?”
Some struck a more hopeful tone, like Lilian Howard, “nearing 80 years of age,” a retired travel consultant and writer from Virginia Beach, who wrote, “Would you briefly discuss a few actions by the E.P.A. which you believe were successful in protecting the American people and their natural surroundings from harm and how you might hope we can improve upon these during the new administration?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/science/readers-questions-scott-pruitt-trump-epa.html?_r=0
-
Trump’s Nominee to Head EPA Has Opposed the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup
Jan 17, 2017 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Oklahoma is 1,400 miles from the entrance of the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, Md., halfway across the country. But the distance didn’t matter to Oklahoma’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt, after the Environmental Protection Agency drew up a plan to clean the polluted bay. He tried to stop it.
Pruitt was one of 21 state attorneys general who signed an amicus brief opposing the largest cleanup of a water body in U.S. history. The brief supported a federal lawsuit filed by the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau that claimed the EPA usurped the power of states in the watershed to regulate pollution that flows into the bay from cities and farms.
Pruitt is now President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to run the EPA, the agency that Pruitt has railed against, suing it more than a half-dozen times over regulations on clean water and clean air that he disagreed with.
As he prepares to face a Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, environmental groups that fought to clean the bay decades ago, when its rockfish disappeared and crab stocks plummeted, are worried. And advocates for clean water in Oklahoma say they should be, given Pruitt’s record while he was responsible for waterways there.
“Scott Pruitt could sink the Chesapeake Bay cleanup,” said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project. “At a crucial point, just as the bay is starting to show progress under EPA’s new bay cleanup plan, Trump picks someone to lead EPA who — as Oklahoma attorney general — went out of his way to file a legal action to try to block that cleanup.”
A federal judge ruled in 2013 that the EPA has the authority to limit pollution that runs into the Chesapeake under the Clean Water Act. Yet the federation that lost that lawsuit is now hailing Trump’s choice, and some farmers who struggled to pay for infrastructure to lower chemical and manure runoff from their land say they believe that the scales have tipped in their favor.
“I will say that I think . . . Mr. Pruitt’s strong suit is he comes from a state agency. He wants to work collaboratively with the states and be a little less top-down than” the Obama administration, said Don Parrish, senior director of congressional and regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
“We all can agree that we want a healthy, functioning, clean Chesapeake Bay,” Parrish said. “Our farmers recreate on the bay; they enjoy the bay. There was nothing about the cleanup farmers disagreed with. Where we differed from the EPA was the reading of the statute, what should be EPA’s . . . authority and where that authority should go.”
A spokesman for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, Mark O’Neill, said it “strongly supports the nomination” because it thinks Pruitt “will provide some common-sense leadership to the agency to work to improve the environment without creating unnecessary and unlawful regulations that threaten the livelihood of farm families across the United States.”
Like Pruitt, the farm lobbies say the bay cleanup should have been driven by the six states in its watershed — Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York — along with Washington.
Those states and the District had tried to collaborate on several cleanups since the 1980s and failed to make much of a dent in the nutrient pollution that plagued the Chesapeake. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other groups sued the EPA in 2009 for failing to restore the bay’s health under the Clean Water Act, forcing a settlement that led to the current cleanup plan that started the following year and is set to end in 2025.
Nutrient pollution, primarily phosphorous from human and animal waste and nitrogen from farm chemicals, is a deadly cocktail that causes algae to grow out of control and suck oxygen from water, killing animals trapped in the resulting dead zone.
Under the EPA cleanup, the bay has improved, according to the foundation’s most recent biennial “State of the Bay” report. “We believe the Bay is reaching a tipping point,” the report said.
“Each of the three indicator categories — pollution, habitat, and fisheries — has improved,” the report stated. Although grades as low as D-plus in each factored into an overall grade of C-minus, this was the best mark since the study series began.
“We are seeing the clearest water in decades, regrowth of acres of lush underwater grass beds, and the comeback of the Chesapeake’s native oysters, which were nearly eradicated by disease, pollution, and overfishing,” according to the report.
Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Annapolis, said he won’t judge Pruitt before he takes office. “What we’re going to try to do is to assume until proven wrong that Scott Pruitt will see the success of the program . . . and will want to take credit for the next phase of success.
“The cleanup is dramatic,” Baker said, noting that it is allowing the bay’s health to recover. “This is moving forward with great success. I can only hope the new administration won’t try to undercut it.”
Massive algae blooms and dead zones occur in waters throughout the United States. Conservation groups in Oklahoma are familiar with them. The state attorney general before Pruitt, Drew Edmondson, sued neighboring Arkansas for failing to adequately regulate manure runoff from hundreds of chicken farms that fouled the Illinois River downstream in Oklahoma.
Edmonson battled Arkansas and its poultry farms until he left office in 2011. But Pruitt took a different tack, opting to negotiate with the Arkansas state attorney. The talks led to a study that found that Oklahoma’s pollution limits were being violated as a result of upstream waste. Pruitt agreed to allow Arkansas to voluntarily undertake a cleanup, rather than enforce action through litigation.
Ed Brocksmith, director of Save the Illinois River, said Pruitt’s relaxed approach to enforcement did not do nearly enough to lower pollution in Oklahoma’s waters. But he looked at Pruitt’s appointment with some optimism. “Having an Oklahoman in such a high administrative position could be an advantage to us in protecting our clean water,” he said.
But Brocksmith said his group has concerns “because of his close association to the farm bureau and his opposition to EPA rules and regulations. What’s the saying, hope springs eternal?”
Johnson Bridgwater, director of the Sierra Club’s Oklahoma chapter, was not as hopeful. He said environmentalists who want to see the goals of the bay cleanup fulfilled should be worried.
“If you look at how Pruitt handled a similar water pollution case in Oklahoma, and knowing he openly opposes EPA making these types of improvements in the state, they should not expect too much drive in the EPA continuing work in the Chesapeake Bay under his leadership.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trumps-nominee-to-head-epa-has-opposed-the-chesapeake-bay-cleanup/2017/01/16/a881d408-d90a-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.bd7e7513bdc8
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested