Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/18/17
-
U.S. Senate Panel to Question Trump's EPA Pick Over Energy Ties
Jan 18, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York TImes)
By Valerie Volcovici
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, will face tough questions from lawmakers on Wednesday about his ties to the energy industry, in what is expected to be another highly contentious confirmation hearing for Trump's Cabinet-in-waiting. -
Pruitt To Preach 'Cooperation' For Agency
Jan 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for U.S. EPA administrator, will outline his plans for a friendlier agency at his confirmation hearing today. -
Pruitt On The Issues
Jan 18, 2017 | Politico
By Alex Guillén and Annie Snider and Eric Wolff
President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has a long history of fighting federal pollution rules. -
Green Groups Rally Last-Minute Pruitt Opposition
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Green groups nationwide are ramping up their opposition campaign against Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general tapped for Environmental Protection Agency administrator, just hours ahead of his high-profile and likely contentious hearing on Jan. 18. -
Scott Pruitt Could Tip Regulatory Power From EPA to States
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
State regulators could see more autonomy and a new seat at the table as the Environmental Protection Agency drafts federal regulations under Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run the agency. -
Chemical Regulation: EPA Cranks Out Toxics Rules During Obama’s Last Days In Office
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The Environmental Protection Agency’s office that oversees the safety of chemicals in industrial and household products has been exceptionally busy in the final days of the Obama Administration. The office has been feverishly working to ensure that it meets several upcoming deadlines under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act. It has also been pushing out several proposed rules under TSCA that would ban or restrict certain uses of some high-risk solvents. -
Market for Biobased Chemicals Hangs on Function, Final Product
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies working to meet sustainability goals by making or using biobased chemicals should focus on the chemicals’ performance, the final product containing the compounds and supply chain partnerships, a market analyst said Jan. 17. -
Norwegian Study Finds Low Levels Of BPA In Toys
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A survey of bisphenol compounds in toys, and other articles intended for children on the Norwegian market, found that the majority of items did not contain the substances. -
Danish Study Finds BPA In Drink Cans
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A Danish study has found that eight out of 14 soft drink cans tested had endocrine disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol F (BPF) in the linings. The other six cans contained bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (BADGE). -
EU Chemicals Agency Wants Information on Repellents
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is calling for information to be submitted through Feb. 15 on long-chain perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and their precursors, a group of substances used in the production of fluoropolymer and as water and grease repellents. -
EFSA Approves Tungsten Oxide In FCM Plastics
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A European Food Safety Agency (Efsa) science panel has concluded that the use of tungsten oxide as a reheat agent in PET plastic food contact material (FCM) is safe for consumers. -
EU Publishes Draft Restriction on Zinc Oxide In Cosmetics
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Comments can be submitted through March 13 on a draft European Commission regulation circulated to World Trade Organization members that would place a restriction on zinc oxide in cosmetics sold in the European Union. -
FECC Advises On Effective Supply-Chain Communication
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Association of Chemical Distributors, Fecc, has issued advice on effective supply-chain communication to reduce risk of chemical exposure under REACH. -
North Dakota Launches New Legal Front on Power Plant Carbon Rule
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
North Dakota launched a new legal assault on the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide limits for power plants even though a federal appellate court decision on the legality of the regulation is expected shortly. -
ESPS Opponents Suggest New Briefing Over EPA Petition Denials
Jan 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
Opponents of EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rule say that the agency's recent denials of petitions to reconsider a host of issues in the rule may require additional briefing in a pending high-profile case in which an appellate court heard arguments more than four months ago and could soon issue a ruling. -
Nixing Pipelines Pinches Power Generation, Economy, Lobby Group Says
Jan 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), which is backed by a number of energy industry companies, released a report that says rejection of new pipeline infrastructure imperils U.S. power generating capacity, "...dangerously raising electric rates nationwide..." -
BNSF Right of Way Across Tribal Land Can Be Challenged
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
A tribe seeking to stop BNSF Railway Co. from hauling Bakken crude oil across its reservation is not entitled to an injunction, but may ask the Department of Interior to cancel the railroad's right of way, a federal judge found Jan. 13 Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. BNSF Railway Co., W.D. Wash., No. 15-543, 1/13/17. -
Final EPA Air Toxics Rule Requires Contested Digital Monitoring Technique
Jan 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is finalizing an air toxics rule for the ferroalloy manufacturing sector that includes novel requirements for plants to use digital camera monitoring technology, a method that industry groups oppose as setting an unjustified precedent that other sectors must now follow and could be replicated in a slew of other air rules. -
Trump Transition Preparing To Scrub Some Climate Data From EPA Website
Jan 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The incoming Trump administration's EPA transition team intends to remove non-regulatory climate data from the agency's website, including references to President Barack Obama's June 2013 Climate Action Plan, the strategies for 2014 and 2015 to cut methane and other data, according to a source familiar with the transition team. -
Exiting EPA Air Chief Defends Clean Air Act, Touts Efforts To Curb GHGs
Jan 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
Janet McCabe, EPA's departing top air official, is defending the Clean Air Act as allowing effective and affordable ways to reduce conventional air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs), just days before the incoming Trump administration begins with an expected push to try and undo some of the Obama EPA's major air and climate rules. -
Ignoring Trump Skepticism, Davos Set Bets on Climate Change
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas and Jessica Shankleman
Donald Trump has often ridiculed global warming and promised to withdraw the U.S. from the accord signed in Paris in 2015. Yet despite the shift in political weather in Washington, the captains of business and finance gathered in Davos this week will spend a lot of time talking about climate change—and how to make money from it. -
Xi Urges Trump to Stay in ‘Hard Won’ Paris Climate Deal
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
Chinese Premier Xi Jinping urged climate change skeptic Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the “hard won” Paris agreement during a Davos speech that touted the world's largest polluter as a leader in the fight against global warming. -
Obama Sends Another $500M To U.N. Fund
Jan 18, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Democrats celebrated an announcement today that the State Department will make its second contribution of $500 million to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, in a parting move to cement the outgoing Obama administration's environmental legacy. -
Waste-to-Energy Facilities Under Fire
Jan 17, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Proponents say incineration is the safest and best way to manage difficult-to-dispose of waste streams that can’t be reused or recycled. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that waste-to-energy plants pollute the air, which is part of the reason these facilities have been slow to take off in the US, compared to Europe, for example.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
U.S. Senate Panel to Question Trump's EPA Pick Over Energy Ties
Jan 18, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York TImes)
By Valerie Volcovici
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, will face tough questions from lawmakers on Wednesday about his ties to the energy industry, in what is expected to be another highly contentious confirmation hearing for Trump's Cabinet-in-waiting.
Pruitt, 48, is a climate change skeptic who sued the agency he intends to run more than a dozen times as Oklahoma's top prosecutor, a strong signal he will aggressively carry out Trump's vows to slash EPA regulation to the core to encourage more U.S. oil and gas drilling and coal mining.
His nomination to head the agency has set off a public relations and lobbying battle. His opponents include Senate Democrats and green groups worried about climate change, wildlife and pollution. But he has strong support from conservatives and industry groups that view the EPA as over-funded and bad for American jobs.
In prepared remarks seen by Reuters before the hearing, Pruitt said he would seek to ensure environmental rules do not come at the expense of development. "Environmental regulations should not occur in an economic vacuum. We can simultaneously pursue the mutual goals of environmental protection and economic growth," he said in the remarks.
Trump has promised to refocus the EPA on its core values of protecting air and water quality, while scrapping many of President Barack Obama's initiatives to combat global climate change by targeting carbon dioxide emissions.
INDUSTRY TIES
For weeks, environmental groups have been campaigning to urge lawmakers to block Pruitt's nomination, arguing that he is doing the bidding of energy companies and industry groups that have contributed to his past election campaigns.
The Environmental Defense Fund's Action Fund, which says it has never opposed a nominated EPA chief, set up a website with links to research it says shows a correlation between his campaign contributions and his litigation.
Green activist billionaire Tom Steyer's NextGen Climate advocacy group has also launched anti-Pruitt television ads in a dozen states, and the Natural Resources Defense Council said on Tuesday that Pruitt "is the worst nominee ever tapped to lead the U.S Environmental Protection Agency."
Earlier this month, six Democratic senators on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that will conduct Wednesday's hearing had asked Pruitt to disclose his industry ties and detail his involvement with the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a group they said supports the agenda of the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers. Pruitt was chairman of the group but resigned in November.
Pruitt has not responded to the request, and Republicans on the committee who support him have criticized the Democrats' move saying it "extends beyond the usual questioning of an EPA nominee’s record."
Several conservative groups and political action committees have countered. Small government-focused PAC Freedom Works launched a push this month to urge lawmakers to support Pruitt's nomination because he will work to undo the agency's rules targeting carbon and methane pollution from power plants, autos and oil and gas infrastructure.
America Rising Squared, a registered nonprofit backing conservative issues, also launched an online petition campaign to support Pruitt. And the National Association of Manufacturers launched three television ads calling on viewers to contact their senators in support of his confirmation.
Pruitt has said the debate over what is causing climate change is not yet settled, and is likely to face questions from lawmakers about the science behind global warming. Two government agencies are expected to announce that 2016 was the hottest year on record.
Pruitt's hearing is one of a series of sessions to vet Trump's senior appointees since last week. Trump's pick for Secretary of State, former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, was questioned by lawmakers last week. His choice for Energy Secretary, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, is scheduled to testify on Thursday.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/01/18/us/politics/18reuters-usa-congress-pruitt.html
-
Pruitt To Preach 'Cooperation' For Agency
Jan 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for U.S. EPA administrator, will outline his plans for a friendlier agency at his confirmation hearing today.
According to his prepared opening statement for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing this morning, the Oklahoma attorney general will tout his record for cooperation and what he sees as his role in environmental law.
"Environmental law, policy, and progress are all based on cooperation: cooperation between the States, cooperation between the States and EPA, and cooperation between the regulators and the public," Pruitt's statement declares.
"Such cooperation is essential because clean air and water and a healthy environment are essential to the American way of life and key to our economic success and competitiveness," he continues.
In his statement, Pruitt also touts his work as Oklahoma attorney general regarding a water pollution case involving poultry producers and the Illinois River. He says he came to an agreement with neighboring Arkansas to clean up the river, though environmentalists have said the deal shows his penchant for lax enforcement (Climatewire, Jan. 3).
Pruitt indicates that collaboration is now lacking at EPA, leading the agency to act outside the authority given to it by Congress.
"As Attorney General of Oklahoma, I saw examples where the Agency became dissatisfied with the tools Congress has given it to address certain issues, and bootstrapped its own powers and tools through rulemaking," Pruitt says, adding it resulted in "protracted litigation" with courts blocking rules after years of delays.
"This is not the right approach," Pruitt says.
As Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt was a party to or behind much of that litigation against EPA, stalling some of the agency's major rules, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. In contrast, as EPA administrator, he pledged to have "a cooperative and collaborative relationship" with lawmakers so the agency would stick to the policies that Congress crafts.
Pruitt also touts "cooperative federalism" whereby states must be "partners" of the federal government to achieve clean air and water. He said he would use his relations with state officials to return EPA to its "proper role," rather than being "a heavy hand."
He also said under his charge, EPA would make its decisions in the open and consider "the full range of views," including any regulation's "economic consequences."
"Environmental regulations should not occur in an economic vacuum. We can simultaneously pursue the mutual goals of environmental protection and economic growth," Pruitt says.
Pruitt says as Oklahoma attorney general, he met people across the state that feared EPA, even though they too wanted to protect the environment. He says that shouldn't be the case and that as EPA chief, he would make sure the agency acts "lawfully, sensibly, and with those hardworking Americans ever in mind."Dems aim to put Pruitt through the wringer
Pruitt is facing one of the tougher confirmation battles among Trump's nominees. Considering Pruitt's criticism of EPA as well as his questioning of climate change science, environmental groups have gone all out in opposition to the nominee.
Democrats took turns on the Senate floor last night blasting Pruitt as Trump's EPA pick, saying his confirmation would be bad for the environment. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the EPW Committee's ranking member, also said yesterday he was moving ahead with plans for Democrats to hold a hearing with outside witnesses to testify on Pruitt's record.
Carper said the GOP has declined to have outside witnesses at Pruitt's hearing, arguing the panel does not typically have such witnesses at confirmation hearings. Carper's hearing — which he has dubbed a "sunshine hearing" — would not be an official committee event.
Carper also called it "disappointing" that Pruitt had not yet responded to more than 50 policy questions raised by Democrats last month.
"We are told we'll get the answers tomorrow [during the hearing] — to me that seems pretty slow," Carper said. He said he has received Pruitt's FBI background check — a "very skinny report."
Carper said Democrats would not seek a delay over a lack of answers, saying, "I think we should let the hearing go forward and see what we can learn, but frankly to date we have not learned as much as we could."
Democrats also continued to push that Pruitt's ties to industry and various political groups would be conflicts of interest for him if he was EPA chief. They released letters last night from officials at the Office of Government Ethics and EPA that ethics reporting requirements were lacking in disclosing those conflicts.
Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he expects the hearing to address many of the questions and downplayed Democratic concerns about a lack of a response.
"We are going to have a lengthy hearing [today] where people will have plenty of time to ask questions and, as with all committees, members will have a chance to submit questions afterwards and they'll all be answered," Barrasso said.
The chairman said his focus would be making sure no topics are missed at the hearing. "I'll make sure things come out," he said.
Pruitt may have to face a few surprises at tomorrow's hearing. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a committee member who frequently takes to the Senate floor to call for action on climate change, was coy when asked about what questions he might have for Pruitt.
"We're working on it. I am not going to reveal my secrets," he said.
Reporters George Cahlink and Hannah Hess contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/18/stories/1060048535
-
Jan 18, 2017 | Politico
By Alex Guillén and Annie Snider and Eric Wolff
President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has a long history of fighting federal pollution rules.
If confirmed, he's expected to sharply alter the agency that President Barack Obama used to implement some of his most aggressive executive actions — moves that enraged conservatives who have accused the administration of dramatic overreach that trampled upon states' rights.
Here is where Pruitt stands on the major issues that will be on his plate for the next four years.
Air, water pollution
Pruitt has said that one of the few places he sees a role for EPA is in managing pollution that crosses state borders. "There are issues with respect to clean water and air that cross state lines," he said in a 2013 speech in Oklahoma, according to CNN. "There is a role, and I think it's important for conservatives, for us to recognize, that though I don't like the EPA ... I think it's not good for us to say that the EPA doesn't have any role."
But as Oklahoma Attorney General, he rarely turned to federal regulators for such help, opting in a long-running water pollution battle with Arkansas to instead sit down at the negotiating table in a move that environmentalists say stalled a solution.
Moreover, Pruitt challenged a number of Obama administration regulations aimed at refereeing interstate pollution, from the Cross State Air Pollution rule governing power plant emissions that cause health problems in downwind states, to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan, a federal-state effort to stanch pollution into the huge body of water from its six-state, 64,000-square-mile watershed. And he staunchly opposed the Obama administration’s Waters of the U.S. rule that was aimed at clarifying protections for small streams and wetlands, as well as EPA’s 2015 reduction of the national ozone standard.
For now, environmental advocates are hoping that Pruitt could change his tune on interstate issues. After a recent meeting with Pruitt, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a strong supporter of the Bay cleanup, said the nominee “did not discount a federal role in enforcing a regional type compact like we have,” although he added the caveat that he also didn’t indicate that he “would be an active partner.”
Climate change
Pruitt has questioned mainstream climate science, and said in an op-ed last May that the "debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind."
He's expected to take steps to undercut the Clean Power Plan, Obama's landmark climate change regulation that set out curbs for carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's power sector. That rule is currently awaiting a decision from an appellate court, and regardless of whether it is ruled legal, it's almost certain to end up at the Supreme Court this year.
Trump has suggested that his administration would also review EPA's 2009 endangerment finding, the scientific conclusion that climate change poses a threat to human health and welfare, a finding that has been the basis for much of the agency's work on greenhouse gases. Pruitt will have to decide whether to try to force a course change on the issue, a move that would surely be fought tooth and nail by greens.
Even past GOP EPA administrators such as Christine Todd Whitman and William K. Reilly say revoking the finding would be a major mistake and could drive unrest or resignations from EPA’s rank-and-file who would see it as political tampering on a well-established scientific issue. Such a move would be challenged in court, and given the judiciary’s past broad acceptance of the underlying science, greens are confident they would prevail.
Renewable Fuel Standard
The RFS is the kind of thorny problem that may need Congress to act — Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy signalled as much last week — but has largely fallen in the lap of the EPA. In some ways the Obama administration bailed Pruitt out. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set the conventional ethanol requirement — almost entirely filled by corn ethanol — at 15 billion gallons for this year, the most required by law. That's all ethanol producers can reasonably expect under the program.
But there's a hitch: The agency left the door open to changing which companies would be required to comply with the program. Presently refiners have the responsibility, much to the consternation of refining giant Valero and Trump adviser Carl Icahn, who has a majority stake in refiner CVR. Icahn and Valero have pushed to shift the obligation downstream to wholesale blenders, a move that ethanol backers say would throw the program into chaos for years. Both Trump and Pruitt have offered corn state legislators assurances that the overall program would "follow the law," but when it comes to the obligation, even Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley had to admit, "There could be some problems."
Fracking
EPA continues to be at the center of the fight over fracking and whether the oil and gas production practice is safe for water supplies, and Pruitt, who hails from one of the biggest oil-and-gas states in the nation, is likely to keep the controversial issue alive. In a 2014 letter to EPA, Pruitt called fracking safe and said “the states, and not the EPA, are better equipped to regulate hydraulic fracturing.”
In December, just days after Pruitt was named as Trump’s EPA pick, the agency released a congressionally ordered scientific review of fracking that did not connect the practice to congenital contamination, but did remove language from the draft version that said there were no “widespread, systemic” dangers.
It’s not clear that Pruitt can or will revisit that finding. Critics warn that it could be seen as political tampering with a scientific review while some in the industry say it is best to leave well enough alone and focus instead of expanding drilling on public lands, a process conducted at the Interior Department.
Chemical safety
Pruitt will be in charge of implementing much of the bipartisan overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act passed last summer, and he has not weighed in recently on chemical safety issues.
However, Pruitt did voice support for an early version of the reform legislation that ultimately was signed into law. In an April 2015 letter to the senators leading the Environment and Public Works Committee, Pruitt wrote that the reformed chemical review process "will help EPA establish a consistent, national chemical regulatory program, while still preserving Oklahoma's ability to address local and pressing concerns.”
Despite Pruitt’s support for the TSCA overhaul, environmentalists now are concerned that EPA may choose weak restrictions on potentially dangerous chemicals in part because of Trump’s personal history championing asbestos as a boon to the building industry and downplaying its carcinogenic health risks. Industries that use chemicals in commerce, especially petrochemical manufacturers, are optimistic that they can work with Pruitt.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/pruitt-epa-hearings-senate-233743
-
Green Groups Rally Last-Minute Pruitt Opposition
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Green groups nationwide are ramping up their opposition campaign against Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general tapped for Environmental Protection Agency administrator, just hours ahead of his high-profile and likely contentious hearing on Jan. 18.
Those groups, which include large organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council as well as grassroots organizations nationwide, urged senators in separate, last-minute pleas to block the nomination of Pruitt, whom the groups often describe as a “pay-to-play” shill for the fossil fuel industry.
Republican lawmakers, however, are showing no signs of abandoning the nominee, and the environmental outcry likely won't be enough to derail the nomination. Still, Pruitt's path forward remains unclear.
Confirmation Path Unclear
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Senate panel hosting Pruitt's hearing and an ally of the nominee, refused to specify a plan for a committee vote to advance the nomination in Jan. 17 comments to reporters. Republicans outnumber Democrats 11-10 on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Barring recusal from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), President-elect Donald Trump's pick to head the Justice Department, the Pruitt nomination will pass committee. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) recently urged Sessions to recuse himself from voting on other cabinet nominees due to a conflict of interest.
The boost in opposition efforts also comes as no surprise. Pruitt's extensive track record of challenging EPA rules and his public skepticism of the human connection to climate change have drawn the ire of environmental groups for years.
Pruitt is still involved in active lawsuits against the EPA over the Clean Water Rule, Clean Power Plan and methane limits for the oil and natural gas industry. The fossil fuel industry has funded Pruitt election campaigns to the tune of $315,000 since 2002, environmental groups frequently say.
Advertisement Campaigns
The League of Conservation Voters, a lobbying group that issues environmental scorecards, will run a $50,000 ad campaign denouncing Pruitt's nomination, the group said Jan. 17.
“He protested EPA looking into the dangers of fracking while taking thousands from dirty energy interests,” the ad voice-over says. “So can we really trust him to protect our health? Reject Pruitt for EPA administrator.” Pruitt pushed back against EPA plans in 2014 to study the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire founder of NextGen Climate, announced Jan. 17 he will also run an ad campaign denouncing Pruitt's nomination in seven states and Washington during the confirmation hearings.
Greens Don't Hold Back
Steyer spoke on a conference call alongside Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh and other environmental leaders.
Those speakers unleashed a torrent of criticism against Pruitt. “He is literally the worst nominee ever tapped to run the EPA in the agency's 46-year history,” Suh said. “He doesn't have a single environmental achievement to his name. He doesn't believe in the agency's mission. And he's made a career out of suing the EPA.”
The advocate Food and Water Watch, which did not participate in the call, has garnered more than 36,000 signatures on memos urging Senators to oppose the nomination, Seth Gladstone, the group's spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA.
That group spearheaded a letter to senators Jan. 17 that includes hundreds of grassroots organizations. “The environment should not be a partisan issue, and someone with Scott Pruitt's record should not be allowed anywhere near the EPA, let alone put in a position to lead it,” the letter said.
A range of influential conservative groups backed Pruitt's nomination on Jan. 13.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633444&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633444&jd=103633444
-
Scott Pruitt Could Tip Regulatory Power From EPA to States
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
State regulators could see more autonomy and a new seat at the table as the Environmental Protection Agency drafts federal regulations under Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run the agency.
Pruitt has conceded the federal government does play a role in protection of the environment, particularly when pollution crosses state lines, even though he has joined challenges to just such regulations offered by the Obama administration.
“I believe the EPA has an important role to play in our republican form of government. There are clearly air and water quality issues that cross state lines and sometimes that can require federal intervention,” Pruitt said during a House Science Committee hearing in May 2016. “At the same time the EPA was never intended to be our nation's foremost environmental regulator. The states were to have regulatory primacy.”
Pruitt, who will appear before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for his confirmation hearing Jan. 18, could tip the balance of power on environmental protection toward states. As attorney general, Pruitt has fought back against federal regulations he argues encroach on state authorities—even setting up a federalism division in his office—and has questioned the EPA's primacy when protecting the environment.
“What does turning more authority back to the states look like to states? What it looks like is flexibility and respect for state decision making and state choices. Right now, I would say there's room for improvement,” Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, executive director and general counsel of the Environmental Council of the States, told Bloomberg BNA.
EPA Scaled Back as States Take Lead
Nick Loris, an energy and environment-focused economist for the Heritage Foundation, told Bloomberg BNA he supports Pruitt's apparent approach to have states lead environmental protection efforts.
The EPA should ensure states comply with existing rules and shouldn't add regulations such as those addressing carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, Loris said. If they must, such as if it is court ordered, they should work with states to be reasonable, and in certain cases, such as statute-required regulations, Congress could step in and alter the law, he said.
“There is certainly a need for legislative reform to our environmental statutes to empower states,” Loris said.
Additionally the EPA should steer clear of addressing local or regional challenges, Loris said. That means programs such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative should be cut, he said. In this newly limited role, the EPA's funding could be significantly reduced, he said.
States won't need more funding necessarily to shift into the front seat—just to be more strategic in their enforcement efforts and in reducing regulatory burdens, Loris said.
States, however, will be looking for increased funding if they are to take a lead on environmental regulation. If Pruitt is serious about delegating more authority to the states, he should also request proportional funding increases for his agency's State and Tribal Assistance Grants program, Dunn said. If doing this doesn't appeal to Pruitt—typically Republicans are loath to increase the EPA's budget for any reason—Dunn said an alternative could be to remove restrictions on how states can spend their existing federal grant money.
“The alternative to not enough resources has to be allowing states to be in more significant control of their workload and their priorities,” she told Bloomberg BNA.
Federal Rules a Backstop
Though Pruitt has said the role of the EPA should be to address pollution crossing state lines, former state environmental regulators said he has previously challenged such federal regulations. The regulators, in a Jan. 16 letter to the Senate environment committee, pointed to Pruitt's fights against the cross-state air pollution rule and the interstate air pollution rule as an example of this.
With federal regulation and enforcement, it is more difficult for industry to shop around states for the least stringent environmental rules, Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project and past director of the EPA's civil enforcement office, told Bloomberg BNA.
Pruitt, however, has touted the expertise of state officials.
“I reject, in fact, I find it offensive, that regulators in Washington believe that regulators in the states somehow aren't interested in the air that we breathe and the water that we drink in our respective places that we call home,” Pruitt said during May 2014 remarks at a Federalist Society event in Washington, D.C. “I reject that utterly. In fact, I would say to you that Washington, EPA, other agencies that are involved in these areas could learn a lot with respect to the expertise of the states.”
Speedier Plan Approvals
A Pruitt EPA may be less inclined toward “pushing the states around,” William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Bloomberg BNA. The could mean speedier approvals of state plans to implement environmental regulations and more deference to how states go about meeting those goals. That would be in contrast to an Obama EPA that was quick to issue federal plans instead, Yeatman said.
For example, Pruitt in 2011 launched an unsuccessful legal challenge against the EPA's disapproval of Oklahoma's regional haze plan. Pruitt argued that the EPA's disapproval of that plan and decision to implement a federal plan for improving visibility in national parks and protected areas “usurped the right” of Oklahoma to set its own energy policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sided with the EPA in a 2013 opinion (Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 77 ERC 1047, 2013 BL 191593, (10th Cir. 2013)).
How Cooperative is Pruitt's Federalism?
Yeatman predicted Pruitt would also be extremely deferential to states, even those that choose to pursue policies on greenhouse gases, while Dunn said a key area to watch in the coming months is how strongly Pruitt would advocate on behalf of states in a key area of water regulation.
Though the Clean Water Act allows states to ask for regulatory authority over the dredging and filling of their wetlands, Dunn said the Army Corps of Engineers has often denied these requests. Currently, only two states have successfully taken over wetland regulation from the federal government, though Dunn said many others have tried.
She would like to see Pruitt work harder than his predecessors did to try to persuade the Army Corps on this issue.
“This is where, if [he] is truly about getting authority to states that desire this authority, here's a classic example where he can show leadership,” she said.
Some lawmakers and advocacy groups have praised Pruitt precisely for his approach to cooperative federalism, including Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).
Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), the chairman of the Senate committee leading the confirmation hearing of Pruitt, touted in a Jan. 17 editorial on Fox News that Pruitt has a strong record of “standing up for states’ rights.”
—With assistance from Patrick Ambrosio, Rachel Leven and David Schultz.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633449&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633449&jd=103633449
-
Chemical Regulation: EPA Cranks Out Toxics Rules During Obama’s Last Days In Office
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
The Environmental Protection Agency’s office that oversees the safety of chemicals in industrial and household products has been exceptionally busy in the final days of the Obama Administration. The office has been feverishly working to ensure that it meets several upcoming deadlines under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act. It has also been pushing out several proposed rules under TSCA that would ban or restrict certain uses of some high-risk solvents.
The revised TSCA, which was enacted in June 2016, gives EPA until June 2017 to develop processes for prioritizing high-risk chemicals and evaluating their safety. EPA must also develop a process by June for updating the chemical inventory to reflect only chemicals that are in current use. That means manufacturers need to provide EPA with information on chemicals they have made or used within the last 10 years.
EPA is well on its way toward meeting the one-year deadlines mandated under the new TSCA. The agency proposed three new rules on January 13 that provide, for the first time in 40 years, a foundation for prioritizing and evaluating high-risk chemicals in U.S. commerce.
Among the proposals are a rule that requires chemical manufacturers and importers to notify EPA of chemicals being produced, a rule to establish how EPA will choose chemicals for risk evaluation, and a rule that will establish how EPA evaluates the risks of chemicals.
“After 40 years we can finally address chemicals currently in the marketplace,” says James J. Jones, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention. The action “will set into motion a process to swiftly evaluate chemicals and meet deadlines required under, and essential to, implementing the new law.”
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, commends EPA for releasing its proposed processes in time to meet the June deadlines under the new TSCA. But the group is urging the agency to provide clearer criteria for identifying low- and high-priority chemicals.
“The risk-based prioritization rule must do more than address procedural requirements,” ACC says in a statement. “It must explain how statutory decisions will be based on the best available science and the weight of the scientific evidence.” the group notes.
Likewise, environmental groups are applauding EPA for staying on schedule to meet the June deadlines. EPA staff “deserve major kudos for their tireless work over these past seven months to reach this milestone,” says Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist at the environmental group, Environmental Defense Fund.
EPA also last week released two proposals that would ban certain uses of three common solvents under TSCA. One proposal would ban trichloroethylene in vapor degreasers. The other would ban the use of methylene chloride in paint removers, and ban or restrict N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint removers. EPA claims that it has identified unreasonable human health risks associated with such uses. Both rules have long been in the works at EPA, but their fate under the Trump Administration is uncertain.
EDF and other environmental groups are welcoming EPA’s proposed rule to ban methylene chloride in paint strippers, but they are urging the agency to take similar action against use of the toxic chemical in commercial furniture refinishing. EPA says that it will issue a separate proposed rule for commercial furniture refinishing uses after collecting additional information on the impacts of such a ban.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/01/EPA-cranks-toxics-rules-during.html
-
Market for Biobased Chemicals Hangs on Function, Final Product
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies working to meet sustainability goals by making or using biobased chemicals should focus on the chemicals’ performance, the final product containing the compounds and supply chain partnerships, a market analyst said Jan. 17.
Victor Oh, a research associate with the market analysis firm Lux Research Inc., spoke during a webinar Lux offered. He discussed lessons Lux has learned by studying what has worked and what hasn't for companies that hoped biobased chemicals could boost their firm's sales and achieve sustainability goals.
Companies have learned most consumers are not willing to pay a “green premium,” Oh said. The phrase green premium refers to the higher cost of most biobased chemicals compared to their fossil fuel-based alternatives.
Focus on Performance
Consumers are, however, willing to pay extra for a product that performs better, he said.
For example, some biobased oils have a higher viscosity index that makes them work better than their fossil fuel counterparts, Oh said.
The Coca Cola Co. has used a biobased plastic called polyethylene furanoate (PEF) for its “plant bottle,” he said. That biobased plastic is stronger than the previous materials Coca Cola used, which allows the company to use less material while keeping its beverages fresher, he said.
“You need to focus on performance as the main driver,” Oh said.
Enhanced performance alone, however, is not sufficient, he said.
Partnerships Important
Coca Cola partnered with Avantium in 2011 to make the plant bottle, but the value chain was incomplete, Oh said.
Avantium partnered in 2015 and 2016 with two additional companies that provided needed capacity, he said. Avantium first partnered with Tereos, a French company that transforms raw agricultural materials into sugars needed to make the bioplastic. It then partnered with BASF, which could scale up production of polyethylene furanoate, Oh said.
Choosing strategic partners can play a critical role in making a biobased chemical commercially successful, he said.
Customer-Oriented Partnerships
Successful partnerships can involve biobased chemical manufacturers and companies with recognized consumer products, Oh said.
He pointed to a Japanese company, Spiber Technologies, which uses genetic engineering to produce a biobased version of a strong, flexible silk-like material called “spider silk.”
Spiber has partnered with Toyota Motor Corp. to develop a car seat that melds aesthetics, strength and sustainability, Oh said.
Spiber further partnered with Goldwin Inc., which distributes The North Face products in Japan, to combine the aesthetic and performance appeal of spider silk in a “moon gold” parka that will launch later this year, Oh said.
Ask Customers
Procter & Gamble offered additional lessons by developing a biobased product based on surveys of its customers, who told the company what performance characteristics they wanted, Oh said.
He referred to P&G's Tide purclean, which meets the Department of Agriculture's criteria for being a biobased product, because 65 percent of its ingredients are made from renewable sources. P&G also says the detergent its made with renewable wind power electricity.
Take-home messages, Oh said, include focusing on performance while keeping an eye on the ultimate products and partnering with companies that can provide crucial services, capabilities or market.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633451&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633451&jd=103633451
-
Norwegian Study Finds Low Levels Of BPA In Toys
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A survey of bisphenol compounds in toys, and other articles intended for children on the Norwegian market, found that the majority of items did not contain the substances.
The Norwegian Environment Agency's commissioned study found bisphenol A (BPA) in eight of the 26 samples, but in a range from 2.3ppm to 29.5ppm - well below the threshold limit in toys of 3,000ppm.
However, the risk of exposure cannot be estimated because migration analysis was not conducted, the study said. And, it added, the detection of the endocrine disruptor BPA causes concern because children are likely to place these objects in their mouths.
In November last year, member state officials voted through a European Commission proposal to lower the migration limit for BPA in toys for children under three, from 0.1mg/l to 0.04mg/l.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52204/norwegian-study-finds-low-levels-of-bpa-in-toys
-
Danish Study Finds BPA In Drink Cans
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A Danish study has found that eight out of 14 soft drink cans tested had endocrine disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol F (BPF) in the linings. The other six cans contained bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (BADGE).
The test, conducted by the Danish Consumer Council's Think Chemicals programme, showed the content was low compared to the permitted limit, but it said scientists are worried about the so-called cocktail effect of exposure from multiple sources.
The Danish food safety authority advises pregnant women and small children to avoid food packaging that contain the substances.
BPA and BADGE are banned in packaging for foods intended for children under three in the country, Think Chemicals said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52208/danish-study-finds-bpa-in-drink-cans
-
EU Chemicals Agency Wants Information on Repellents
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is calling for information to be submitted through Feb. 15 on long-chain perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and their precursors, a group of substances used in the production of fluoropolymer and as water and grease repellents.
ECHA said that German and Swedish authorities were considering proposing a restriction on the substances under the European Union's REACH regulation (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals). Responses to the call for information should provide details on the volumes of the substances traded in the EU, on the uses of the substances, and on potential alternatives.
Under REACH, restrictions can be placed on the use of chemicals that pose an unacceptable health or environmental risk. ECHA did not say what an eventual restriction on PFCAs proposed by Germany and Sweden might cover.
A number of individual long-chain PFCAs are already listed as substances of very high concern (SVHC) under REACH, a designation that could result in the imposition of usage bans in the EU.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633429&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633429&jd=103633429
-
EFSA Approves Tungsten Oxide In FCM Plastics
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemcial Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A European Food Safety Agency (Efsa) science panel has concluded that the use of tungsten oxide as a reheat agent in PET plastic food contact material (FCM) is safe for consumers.
The question of safety was put to Efsa in 2014 by the Colormatrix Group through the UK competent authority, the Food Standards Authority. The agency asked its Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) Panel to review it. The panel's dossier included studies on the identity of the substance, its migration into food simulants and potential toxicity in line with the EU food contact materials Regulations.
Tungsten oxide is a mixture of oxides used as a reheat agent to increase the infrared heat absorption of plastics from heat lamps during blow-moulding processes. It has the advantage of having a minimal effect on the transparency of the packaging when used at the proposed maximum use level of 75ppm.
The detailed reasoning behind the CEF panel's approval is explained in a Efsa Journal paper. The migration level observed in the applicant’s dossier, using tungsten oxide at double the proposed maximum level, and migration into a worst-case 95% alcohol food simulant, was only 1μg/kg – measured as tungsten.
The panel considered that this low migration rate of an insoluble compound would be typical for any foreseeable use as a reheat additive in PET.
Two in vitro genotoxicity studies – a bacterial gene mutation test and a micronucleus assay – were conducted by the company. Both showed results which in the panel’s opinion cleared tungsten oxide of gene mutation, chromosomal and numerical aberration hazard.
Tungsten oxide has also been evaluated by Echa, the panel noted, and assigned an oral derived no-effect level (Dnel) of 0.6mg/kg body weight per day.
Specifically, the CEF panel concluded that tungsten oxide was not a safety concern for the consumer if the additive is used as a reheat agent in PET. For other technical functions or for use in other polymers, it added that migration should not exceed 50μg/kg expressed as tungsten.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52201/efsa-approves-tungsten-oxide-in-fcm-plastics
-
EU Publishes Draft Restriction on Zinc Oxide In Cosmetics
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Comments can be submitted through March 13 on a draft European Commission regulation circulated to World Trade Organization members that would place a restriction on zinc oxide in cosmetics sold in the European Union.
The regulation would amend the EU Cosmetics Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009), under which zinc oxide is authorized as a colorant, to clarify that use of the substance is not permitted in products from which particles might be inhaled. The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety had judged it was “of concern” that inhaled zinc oxide particles could cause lung inflammation, according to the draft regulation.
The restriction would apply to zinc oxide in non-nano form used in products that are applied to the skin. Non-compliant products would be banned from the EU market nine months after the entry into force of the regulation.
The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, circulated the draft regulation Jan. 12 in line with the WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633428&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633428&jd=103633428
-
FECC Advises On Effective Supply-Chain Communication
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Association of Chemical Distributors, Fecc, has issued advice on effective supply-chain communication to reduce risk of chemical exposure under REACH.
Its suggestions to companies are:
the structure of the safety data sheet should follow the specifications of Annex II of REACH;
the structure of the exposure scenario should follow the specifications of the Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment (Part D - framework for exposure assessment); and
for the contents of safety data sheets and annexed exposure scenarios, standard phrase catalogues EuPhraC and ESCom are used, and SDSComXML/ESComXML are used as the electronic communication standard.
"Only if this happens, will it be possible to successfully communicate the relevant information in a comprehensive and useful way and positively contribute to the improvement of occupational safety and environmental protection," Fecc said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52206/fecc-advises-on-effective-supply-chain-communication
-
North Dakota Launches New Legal Front on Power Plant Carbon Rule
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
North Dakota launched a new legal assault on the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide limits for power plants even though a federal appellate court decision on the legality of the regulation is expected shortly.
North Dakota's latest lawsuit, filed Jan. 17 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenges the EPA's decision to deny petitions from states and utilities asking the agency to reconsider aspects of the carbon dioxide standards, known as the Clean Power Plan (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 17-01014, 1/17/17).
A 10-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit heard more than seven hours of argument on the Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) in September, and a decision is expected from the court early this year (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, while Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has been tapped to head the EPA, was among those challenging the Clean Power Plan.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633438&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633438&jd=103633438
-
ESPS Opponents Suggest New Briefing Over EPA Petition Denials
Jan 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
Opponents of EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rule say that the agency's recent denials of petitions to reconsider a host of issues in the rule may require additional briefing in a pending high-profile case in which an appellate court heard arguments more than four months ago and could soon issue a ruling.
The opponents sent a Jan. 13 letter notifying the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that EPA on Jan. 12 denied nearly all of the 38 petitions for reconsideration that were filed regarding the rule.
“As EPA notes in its letter [notifying the court], the Court specifically inquired as to the status of these reconsideration petitions during oral argument on the lack-of-notice issue,” the new letter says.
The petition denials were published in the Jan. 17 Federal Register, and the letter notes that many of the parties who are currently challenging the rule in the pending suit “will be filing petitions for review of the reconsideration denial on January 17 or shortly thereafter. Because EPA's reconsideration denial addresses issues related to the challenges to the underlying rule, including at a minimum the notice argument, petitioners may seek supplemental briefing on the notice challenge and any other issue affected by the reconsideration denial, and possibly consolidation of this case with the petitions for review of the reconsideration denial.”
The letter suggests that additional litigation over aspects of the existing source performance standards (ESPS) will be brought to court, with opponents potentially seeking to delay any D.C. Circuit ruling to give the Trump administration time to consider its next steps regarding the rule and the litigation.
However, one ESPS opponent says that while the timing of the denials was intended “to absolutely limit the next EPA/administration,” the source had “no idea yet” whether additional litigation would be filed.
But the issue of adding these claims to the current case could be moot if the D.C. Circuit issues a ruling in the case, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
Whether a ruling comes before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated Jan. 20 has been the subject of wide speculation because once Trump is in office he can ask the court to remand the rule or suspend the case for his EPA to review it.
The court did not issue a ruling Jan. 17, meaning there is only one remaining day before Trump takes office when the court could issue a ruling -- Jan. 18. The court will be closed Jan. 19-20 due to the inauguration.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/litigation-esps-opponents-suggest-new-briefing-over-epa-petition-denials
-
Nixing Pipelines Pinches Power Generation, Economy, Lobby Group Says
Jan 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), which is backed by a number of energy industry companies, released a report that says rejection of new pipeline infrastructure imperils U.S. power generating capacity, "...dangerously raising electric rates nationwide..."
The report says 31% of power generating capacity could be "removed" by 2030 "should the rejection of pipeline infrastructure projects continue at its current pace and if baseload generation options go offline unnecessarily.
"This would threaten the delivery of vital oil and natural gas feedstock to power generation facilities and sacrifice the reliability of the electric grid."
The losses from this rejected infrastructure would equal the power generation of a dozen states (or 1,450.25 gigawatts), CEA said.
According to the report: The Northern Plains region stands to experience a 46% electricity shortfall. The Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions would suffer a 44.8% electricity shortfall, missing out on 20 proposed pipeline projects. The Southeast region would see a 29.2% electricity shortfall, even if wind and solar generation expand by 37% by 2030, as the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects. The Southern Plains region, including Texas, would see electricity shortfalls of 23% and 13%, respectively, even with huge, projected increases in wind and solar energy development as estimated by EIA. The New England region already experiences shortfalls on high-demand days and is projected to lose an additional 30% of its electric generation capacity by 2020. New England would experience an additional 9.5% shortfall on top its current energy deficits, according to CEA. This shortfall, per the report, would occur even if local renewable power capacity increased by 300%, as projected by the EIA.
"Denying America the critical energy infrastructure it sorely needs, and prematurely shutting off baseload electricity generation starts an adverse domino effect that hurts America, its families, its small businesses and its agriculture, manufacturing and transportation sectors," said CEA President David Holt. "It would derail the American energy revolution and increase our reliance on imports from foreign nations. Real energy security is not just the presence of abundant natural resources -- it is also the ability to readily access and deliver those resources at an affordable price."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109075-nixing-pipelines-pinches-power-generation-economy-lobby-group-says
-
BNSF Right of Way Across Tribal Land Can Be Challenged
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
A tribe seeking to stop BNSF Railway Co. from hauling Bakken crude oil across its reservation is not entitled to an injunction, but may ask the Department of Interior to cancel the railroad's right of way, a federal judge found Jan. 13 Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. BNSF Railway Co., W.D. Wash., No. 15-543, 1/13/17.
The case was the first to litigate whether a tribe can exclude a railroad for violating an easement agreement. District Judge Robert Lasnik ruled that while he is preempted under federal law from enjoining BNSF from hauling crude across the reservation near Anacortes, Wash., the tribe can ask the Bureau of Indian Affairs to terminate the railroad's right of way.
The tracks of BNSF—a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.—cross the Swinomish reservation on an inlet off Puget Sound on their way to nearby Tesoro and Shell refineries that supply a major share of petroleum products to Washington and Oregon.
“There is no genuine issue of fact regarding the existence of a breach in this case,” Lasnik wrote in his order. “BNSF's predecessor promised to keep the Tribe apprised of the cargo it was carrying and to limit the number of trains (and the number of cars in those trains) ‘unless otherwise agreed in writing.’ BNSF has breached both of those promises” made in the easement agreement.
‘No Evidence’ Treaty Right Abrogated
In Lasnik's order on cross motions for summary judgment, the Seattle judge found that the tribe is not preempted from pursuing its breach of contract claim in his court for damages from BNSF's violations of the agreement. It also can seek to compel production of cargo lists and adjusted rental payments.
“The problem, however, is that the Tribe does not seek only damages for past breaches,” Lasnik wrote. “Rather the Tribe seeks an injunction precluding the transportation of certain types of cargo over the reservation, and it has refused to negotiate regarding the number of trains and the appropriate rental amount because it disapproves of the cargo BNSF is carrying.”
Lasnik concluded that a state law claim that would require BNSF to discriminate against a particular type of cargo like Bakken crude oil and/or a particular region “burdens interstate commerce and is therefore preempted,” in this case by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA).
But Lasnik rejected BNSF's argument that the tribe's right to exclude the railroad under its treaty and the Indian Right of Way Act (IRWA) of 1948 was abrogated by the ICCTA. Lasnik's order included an exhaustive review of both statutes and found “no evidence to support a finding that Congress intended to implicitly repeal the IRWA” when lawmakers later passed the ICCTA.
It is unclear whether the Swinomish will pursue the remedy of right of way cancellation or its chances of success in such a pursuit before the Department of Interior in the Trump administration. Swinomish Tribal Attorney Stephen T. LeCuyer sent a prepared statement Jan. 17 but declined to respond to questions.
Swinomish Chairman Brian Cladoosby—who is also president of the National Congress of American Indians—said in the statement: “The court's ruling today is a victory not just for the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, but for all of Indian Country. Again and again we have seen agreements with tribes ignored or just tossed aside when they are inconvenient. We are grateful that the Court has affirmed that agreements with tribes must be honored.”
An attorney and a spokesman for BNSF did not return requests for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633448&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633448&jd=103633448
-
Final EPA Air Toxics Rule Requires Contested Digital Monitoring Technique
Jan 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is finalizing an air toxics rule for the ferroalloy manufacturing sector that includes novel requirements for plants to use digital camera monitoring technology, a method that industry groups oppose as setting an unjustified precedent that other sectors must now follow and could be replicated in a slew of other air rules.
The rule, slated for publication in the Jan. 18 Federal Register, responds to petitions from two ferroalloy manufacturers, Eramet Marietta, Inc., and Felman Production, LLC, which petitioned EPA in July to reconsider aspects of its June 2015 national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule for the sector.
Among the issues raised was a first-time requirement in the rule for plants to monitor “fugitive” emissions -- pollution not emitted by a single emission point, such as a smokestack -- using digital camera opacity technique (DCOT).
Industry groups in their comments on the proposed version of the reconsideration rule criticized EPA's proposal to retain DCOT, which they said was unsuitable for monitoring opacity -- a proxy for particulate matter and other air emissions -- from fugitive sources.
Further, these groups argued, EPA in its 2015 NESHAP had unlawfully introduced the requirement without a proper opportunity for public comment, and also that the DCOT provision established a precedent that can now be applied to other industry sectors.
For example, the American Petroleum Institute (API) in Aug. 26 comments said, “API believes that EPA has failed to provide a robust scientific and policy argument for requiring DCOT as the sole technique for compliance determinations. In addition, API does not find EPA has properly assessed the impact of this requirement on the affected sources. And lastly, API is concerned about the Agency's stated intention to require this approach in other rules because those other affected sectors would not have known to engage in this rulemaking.”
However, EPA in the final rule retains the DCOT requirement, although it updates the requirement to reference the latest version of the technique as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials. DCOT is required instead of EPA's Method 9, a visual monitoring technique that does not employ digital camera technology.
“In their comments on the reconsideration proposal, several commenters objected to the use of DCOT as the sole method for opacity compliance and stated that the EPA should allow the option of using EPA Method 9. The commenters argue that DCOT is limited to stationary point sources and not fugitive emissions, and they pointed out that the supporting data for DCOT are all from studies performed on stationary point sources and not long, open vent sources such as those at the Eramet facility,” EPA says.
Monitoring Technology
Some industry commenters were also concerned that there is currently only one vendor of the necessary equipment, Virtual Technology LLC, and that this could result in equipment shortages, or high costs, or both.
Notwithstanding these concerns, EPA concludes that, “DCOT is still an appropriate method for determining opacity from the shop buildings for this source category.”
“While we believe, based on validation studies, that EPA Method 9 and DCOT provide comparable opacity results, the DCOT provides better documentation, including a permanent re-analyzable photographic record of the opacity determinations, which we believe will be beneficial to both the industry and the public,” EPA says.
“There is an advantage of having better documentation in this specific case where fugitive emissions are driving the risk from the Ferroalloys Production source category. In addition, we disagree with the commenters' assertion that this methodology will not work with this source category,” EPA says. EPA also notes the support of environmentalists for use of DCOT as an enhanced monitoring technique.
The agency does not appear to require or recommend use of the technique in any other industry sector, however, tying its use to “this specific case.”
EPA in the final rule does retreat from other planned changes to the NESHAP, for example dropping a plan to require facilities to use bag leak detection systems (BLDS) to find leaks from “bag house” emissions controls, used to control particulate emissions. When industry supplied evidence that suggested much higher compliance costs than EPA projected, EPA reconsidered and now offers a cheaper alternative.
We “have revised the rule to allow for an alternative monitoring method to the BLDS requirement for positive pressure baghouses used to control emissions from an electric arc furnace. We are allowing twice daily visual monitoring of the outlet of each furnace baghouse using Method 22 for evidence of any visible emissions indicating abnormal operations as an alternative to BLDS,” EPA says. Method 22 is another visual observation technique.
EPA stands firm, however, by maintaining tougher emission testing requirements as proposed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) emitted by furnaces producing ferromanganese (FeMn), and is denying requests for reconsideration of PAH emission limits for both FeMn and silicomanganese (SiMn) production furnaces. Industry petitioners objected to these requirements, which they said were too onerous.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/final-epa-air-toxics-rule-requires-contested-digital-monitoring-technique
-
Trump Transition Preparing To Scrub Some Climate Data From EPA Website
Jan 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The incoming Trump administration's EPA transition team intends to remove non-regulatory climate data from the agency's website, including references to President Barack Obama's June 2013 Climate Action Plan, the strategies for 2014 and 2015 to cut methane and other data, according to a source familiar with the transition team.
Additionally, Obama's 2013 memo ordering EPA to establish its power sector carbon pollution standards “will not survive the first day,” the source says, a step that rule opponents say is integral to the incoming administration's pledge to roll back the Clean Power Plan and new source power plant rules.
The Climate Action Plan has been the Obama administration's government-wide blueprint for addressing climate change and includes information on cutting domestic greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions, including both regulatory and voluntary approaches; information on preparing for the impacts of climate change; and information on leading international efforts.
The removal of such information from EPA's website -- as well as likely removal of references to such programs that link to the White House and other agency websites -- is being prepped now.
The transition team's preparations fortify concerns from agency staff, environmentalists and many scientists that the Trump administration is going to destroy reams of EPA and other agencies' climate data. Scientists have been preparing for this possibility for months, with many working to preserve key data on private websites.
Environmentalists are also stepping up their efforts to preserve the data. The Sierra Club Jan. 13 filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking reams of climate-related data from EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), including power plant GHG data. Even if the request is denied, the group said it should buy them some time.
“We’re interested in trying to download and preserve the information, but it’s going to take some time,” Andrea Issod, a senior attorney with the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg. “We hope our request will be a counterweight to the coming assault on this critical pollution and climate data.”
While Trump has pledged to take a host of steps to roll back Obama EPA climate and other high-profile actions actions on his first day in office, transition and other officials say the date may slip.
“In truth, it might not [happen] on the first day, it might be a week,” the source close to the transition says of the removal of climate information from EPA's website. The source adds that in addition to EPA, the transition team is also looking at such information on the websites of DOE and the Interior Department.
Additionally, incoming Trump press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Jan. 17 that not much may happen on Inauguration Day itself, but to expect major developments the following Monday, Jan. 23. “I think on [Jan. 23] you're going to see a big flurry of activity” that is expected to include the disappearance of at least some EPA climate references.
Until Trump is inaugurated on Jan. 20, the transition team cannot tell agency staff what to do, and the source familiar with the transition team's work is unaware of any communications requiring language removal or beta testing of websites happening now, though it appears that some of this work is occurring.
“We can only ask for information at this point until we are in charge. On [Jan. 20] at about 2 o'clock, then they can ask [staff] to” take actions, the source adds.
Scope & Breadth
The scope and breadth of the information to be removed is unclear. While it is likely to include executive actions on climate, it does not appear that the reams of climate science information, including models, tools and databases on the EPA Office of Research & Development's (ORD) website will be impacted, at least not immediately.
ORD also has published climate, air and energy strategic research action plans, including one for 2016-2019 that includes research to assess impacts; prevent and reduce emissions; and prepare for and respond to changes in climate and air quality.
But other EPA information maintained on its websites including its climate change page and its “What is EPA doing about climate change” page that references the Climate Action Plan, the 2014 methane strategy and a 2015 oil and gas methane reduction strategy are expected targets.
Another possible target is new information EPA just compiled -- and hosted a Jan. 17 webinar to discuss -- on climate change impacts to vulnerable communities.
One former EPA official who has experience with transitions says it is unlikely that any top Obama EPA official is on board with this. “I would think they would be violently against this. . . I would think that the last thing [EPA Administrator] Gina McCarthy would want to do would to be complicit in Trump's effort to purge the website” of climate-related work, and that if she knew she would “go ballistic.”
But the former official, the source close to the transition team and others note that EPA career staff is fearful and may be undertaking such prep work “as a defensive maneuver to avoid getting targeted,” the official says, adding that any directive would likely be coming from mid-level managers rather than political appointees or senior level officials.
But while the former official was surprised that such work might be happening now, the fact that it is only said to be targeting voluntary efforts “has a certain ring of truth to it. Someone who is knowledgeable would draw that distinction.”
Additionally, one science advocate says, "The people who are running the EPA transition have a long history of sowing misunderstanding about climate change and they tend to believe in a vast conspiracy in the scientific community to lie to the public. If they think the information is truly fraudulent, it would make sense they would try to scrub it. . . . But the role of the agency is to inform the public . . . [and not to satisfy] the musings of a band of conspiracy theorists."
The source was referring to EPA transition team leader Myron Ebell, a long-time climate skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with David Schnare, another opponent of climate action, who is at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute.
And while "a new administration has the right to change information about policy, what they don't have the right to do is change the scientific information about policies they wish to put forward and that includes removing resources on science that serve the public.”
The advocate adds that many state and local governments rely on EPA climate information.
EPA Concern
But there has been plenty of concern that such a move would take place, especially after transition team officials last month sought the names of DOE employees who worked on climate change, raising alarms and cries of a “political witch hunt” along with a Dec. 13 letter from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that prompted the transition team to disavow the memo.
Since then, scientists have been scrambling to preserve government data.
On Jan. 10, High Country News reported that on a Saturday last month, 150 technology specialists, hackers, scholars and activists assembled in Toronto for the “Guerrilla Archiving Event: Saving Environmental Data from Trump” where the group combed the internet for key climate and environmental data from EPA's website.
“A giant computer program would then copy the information onto an independent server, where it will remain publicly accessible -- and safe from potential government interference.”
The organizer of the event, Henry Warwick, said, “Say Trump firewalls the EPA,” pulling reams of information from public access. “No one will have access to the data in these papers” unless the archiving took place.
Additionally, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a Jan. 17 report, “Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal Policy Making,” urging the Trump administration to retain scientific integrity. It wrote in a related blog post, “So how will government science fare under Trump? Scientists are not just going to wait and see. More than 5,500 scientists have now signed onto a letter asking the president-elect to uphold scientific integrity in his administration. . . . We know what's at stake. We've come too far with scientific integrity to see it unraveled by an anti-science president. It's worth fighting for.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-transition-preparing-scrub-some-climate-data-epa-website
-
Exiting EPA Air Chief Defends Clean Air Act, Touts Efforts To Curb GHGs
Jan 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
Janet McCabe, EPA's departing top air official, is defending the Clean Air Act as allowing effective and affordable ways to reduce conventional air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs), just days before the incoming Trump administration begins with an expected push to try and undo some of the Obama EPA's major air and climate rules.
In an exclusive exit interview with Inside EPA, McCabe said that significant achievements during her tenure will continue to supply important benefits in the future, including the Clean Power Plan (CPP) to reduce power plant GHGs, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) program to curb interstate ozone and particulate pollution, and others. The CPP -- which President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to scrap -- will help ensure states continue with existing trends toward fewer GHG emissions regardless of the rule's ultimate fate, McCabe said.
With Trump's EPA expected to defer more to states on air policy, McCabe stressed the continued importance of EPA working closely with the states, as the primary implementers of the air law.
Here is the question and answer with McCabe, edited for clarity:
Q. What were your biggest achievements while head of the air office?
A. The Clean Power Plan (CPP) for sure. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and also I would add, the recent update to that. One of the reasons that I think it is so significant to mention both of those is because of how CSAPR really established this framework for the states to use into the future when they have an interstate transport obligation and the update rule was EPA's second time to use that framework in a very straightforward and predictable manner. So I think that that is really significant and I am very glad that we were able to get those two rules done.
I would also add the regional haze work that we have done over the last eight years which has made a significant difference to visibility in our national parks and wilderness areas across the country. And maybe the last thing I would mention is maybe not a rulemaking specifically but the relationship that we have now with the states on the day-to-day work for their submissions under the Clean Air Act, their state implementation plans, which are their blueprints that they follow in order to bring clean air to communities across the country and our work together to make that system work more efficiently, to make sure that both the states and EPA are focused on the highest priority submittals [and plans] moving through in an expeditious manner and communicating all along the way [to ensure there are no surprises, working to get] good clean air plans in place.
Q. What did you not get done that you wanted to see happen?
A. I think that air quality challenges remain of course, across the country, and I think that I would like to have made more progress on the air quality problems in environmental justice communities, in particular some of the air toxics challenges, which can be pretty localized, and focused on particular situations and often are in those overburdened communities. I think that is an area where we all feel like more progress needs to be made.
Q. How did your background in Indiana play into your relationship with the states, and how do you think that relationship will go forward in the future?
A. I think it was really important and of course the Administrator has a state background as well, as do others here in leadership at EPA, both career and political. Having that experience at the state level is absolutely critical. The states do most of the work to implement the Clean Air Act, that is the way Congress set it up with EPA establishing clear expectations and looking to support the states [and looking to ensure states implement the Clean Air Act in a timely and consistent way.]
Both parts of that partnership are really important. Bringing the perspective of having been in a state was really critical and I think really helpful. I think the relationship between EPA and the states is as good as I have ever seen it.
People are working together, they are finding productive and constructive ways to work together on things like electronic reporting, streamlining data collection, and those sorts of things that matter to everybody. I am very optimistic about that relationship going forward both with individual states and with the state organizations like [the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)].
Q. Is there a danger that things could go too far in the direction of EPA handing things off to the states?
A. Well I wouldn't say EPA is handing things off to the states.
Q. What about the danger of a lack of national leadership at EPA resulting in regional inconsistencies?
A. I think consistency across regions is really important and it is something that we focused on a lot in our time here [to establish clear roles of headquarters and regional offices] to make sure that that happens. [Also regular, ongoing dialogues] and discussions with the states to make sure we are being consistent as well. I take your point and agree that maintaining that sort of oversight and leadership is an important role for EPA to play and that is how Congress set it up under the Act.
Q. Which episodes would you say were the biggest disappointments during your tenure? Legal rulings or other setbacks that you were disappointed by?
A. I don't keep a list of those, either on paper or in my mind [and] the work goes on. A lot has happened over seven years. I will say that getting the first decision on CSAPR was a disappointment to us, and of course that worked out in the end and we kept at it [but] that was, I would say, a low moment.
Q. Following up on the CSAPR legal framework: EPA is just putting out its [notice of data availability (NODA)] on interstate transport for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Do you foresee a CSAPR-type system being updated in the future for that standard?
A. The act is iterative, as you know, and so every time the standard is revised, if there is an interstate transport element to it, that initiates an obligation on the states to address that. That I think is the beauty of the CSAPR approach, EPA develops information that is broadly available to the states and potentially affected sources, we get that out there in a prompt manner, so that the states can start thinking about what their obligations might be. And because clearly there continues to be interstate transport, ozone levels in downwind states are affected by interstate transport, and so the states will have an obligation going forward.
So this NODA that we put out is really the first step, to start the process of folks being able to look at what future air quality would be like and what the implications might be.
We are really looking forward to getting people's feedback on it. That is another great thing about the process that has been set up is that is allows us to put information out [for states and others to weigh in on that] and for us to refine it in a timely way [so states will have the information they need to craft [state implementation plans (SIPs)].
Q. What do you say to those people who say that the CAA has done much of its work and it is time to move on to some radically reimagined system? Just hypothetically?
A. I think that the CAA has been amazingly successful in this country over the last four decades. You have heard us quote, and it is true, the incredible reduction in air pollution while the economy has grown so it seems like that is all working together. I think that what you find is that there are areas where certain air quality challenges have been significantly addressed. An example I would use -- we are not totally there yet, but we are close to there -- is lead.
The Clean Air provides that if there is no new science suggesting that a standard needs to be lowered in order to protect public health then it stays where it is, and that is the decision that was made with respect to the lead standard. Lead emissions across the country are just gargantuanly smaller than they used to be. There are still some very localized situations which states are in a position to deal with. And they do. But that is the act working as it should. So as we address the problems of lead emissions, then less attention needs to be spent on them and the Clean Air Act will continue to work to focus on the areas where there still are public health concerns, as there are in parts of the country where ozone levels and PM levels are still higher than health standards say they should be.
Q. In a recent article, former Bush I White House counsel C. Boyden Gray makes the argument that marginal reductions don't really provide the kinds of [benefits] that make them worthwhile or cost effective. That kind of an argument would seem to apply to ozone and PM, [which] seem to be much bigger problems at least in some local areas. Does the CAA still provide the kind of tools that are effective in dealing with that or is there an overreach?
Well each time the agency looks at a standard or does a rule, we do a very thorough cost-benefit analysis, for the significant rules, and that information has all been available. It has shown that there are significant benefits to improving air quality, that there are millions of people still exposed to levels that are too high and especially people with asthma,. elderly people, people with respiratory challenges, that is real impacts for those people, and improving air quality makes a real difference.
We know that there are still very cost-effective emissions reductions that can be achieved and that the recent CSAPR update rule is an example of that, where significant, I think it is 80,000 tons of [nitrogen oxide (NOx)] reductions, are predicted by that rule at very low cost per ton of reduction. So when you match that up as we do in the rule with the savings in healthcare costs, with the impact that provides to people's lives, these rules are very, very cost beneficial and absolutely still worth implementing as Congress intended.
Q. The NAAQS' [five-year] review cycle: should it be changed, as some in Congress have suggested?
A. I am not going to speak to any specific suggestion that might be out there. I think that those are issues that will be debated and people will weigh in on either side. I will just reiterate that I think the system has worked to deliver adjustments in those NAAQS when there is science pointing in that direction and to keep the standards the same when there is not new science suggesting that they should be changed. Carbon monoxide is another example of where the science didn't suggest that that standard needed to be changed, so the review in that case was a fairly straightforward one.
Q. A number of studies, including one recently from Sierra Club, show that the electricity sector will meet the Clean Power Plan's targets, in some cases even before the out-year compliance period, due largely to market forces . . . Why do we still need the CPP?
A. Well the CPP is an adopted rule. The Clean Air Act directs that EPA develop rules for existing sources when there are standards set for new sources in source categories, which is what we did through the 111(b) rule. I think it has done
what is was supposed to do and will make sure that these reductions happen. But it was always expected that it would be consistent with industry trends. That is what the 111(d) mechanism is really all about is to look at where the industry is going. And so I think that that shows the success of both the Clean Air Act construct, but also the Clean Power Plan itself.
Q. So if it were to go away, it will have achieved its intended goals? Even if it is no longer around?
A. I am not going to speculate about that. I think that I am confident that the rule will be upheld, and that it will be a reasonable and feasible rule for the states to achieve.
Q. How confident are you that the haze rule and the exceptional events rule are going to work well out West?
A. The regional haze program has already brought reductions to the West and will continue to do so over time. These things take time to develop and implement and everybody understands that. But I think that that is all moving forward as makes sense. I am pleased that we were able to resolve revisions to the exceptional events rule. I think that it is important that states not be held accountable for pollution that they can't address and that is what the exceptional events rule is about. I think particularly as we see more wildfire conditions and those sorts of things, being able to identify true exceptional events and get those processed in a timely way is really important so the states can be focusing on the things that they can address.
Q. Does the exceptional events rule and others currently address international transport sufficiently?
A. International transport is an area of pretty intense study. I'm not sure everybody always agrees exactly on the particular situations and how international transport is or should be affecting local and state level air quality planning. The exceptional events rule is not intended to address standard sorts of background situations but truly exceptional events that can't be anticipated. But again, states, are not expected to reduce pollution that is associated with international transport, and the Clean Air act has provisions to make that very clear.
Q. It seems like one of the most difficult issues you have been dealing with is the question of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass. Can you talk about that and give us a sense, if you can, of how it looks in terms of resolving that issue, both from the scientific standpoint and the policy standpoint?
A. This is a challenging issue that folks have been working on for a number of years, and will continue to work on. Of course I can't see into the future and predict how that will come out. I think that there is a range of views about the science of greenhouse gases from biomass. What is clear is that a molecule of CO2 is a molecule of CO2 and it affects the climate no matter where it comes from. And so that is an issue that our science advisory board has been trying to help us work through, to try to figure out where it makes sense for energy produced by biomass to be treated this way or that way under the regulatory program and those issues are still evolving. And so I look forward to following how that evolution of the science and the policy will work out.
Q. Are there any other issues that we should be thinking about that are perhaps not so obvious?
A. One of the issues that gets some attention but is very challenging is the cumulative effects of air pollutants. The Clean Air Act takes a pollutant-by-pollutant approach but especially when we are in urban areas where there is a lot of different air pollution, mixing from different sources, understanding the synergistic effects on public health is quite challenging and the science is evolving there.”
Q. EPA over the years has looked into multipollutant regulation in various forms. Where do those efforts now stand?
A. That is something that we always encourage states to think about in their planning, and we have certainly done what we could along the way to, if not strictly speaking, align, then at least try to provide ways for states to plan jointly to the extent that it is within their ability and authority to do that so. You know that some of the types of reductions or control measures state will put into place will have benefits for ozone and PM and climate and so let's take advantage of those. So one example where we did something specific to try to allow states to plan concurrently is in our recent amendments to the regional haze rule, where we extended for three years, if states choose to, the date for their next regional haze plans from 2018 to 2021. Part of that was . . . we knew that states were working on ozone plans, they were working on [sulfur dioxide] plans, and they were working on clean power responses. Of course [the CPP is] stayed now, but all three of those things happening together. If they would have a little more time for their next regional haze plan, they would have a little more time to build all that in, it would be more efficient and did allow them to look across multiple pollutants. So that is something I know the EPA staff and the regional offices will continue to explore.
Q. If you had one piece of advice for your successor, what would it be?
A. This is just absolutely the most amazing opportunity to make a real difference in the country. That will be a lucky person who gets to occupy my space. I would advise that person to get to know the career staff at EPA and get to know the states, and other stakeholders, and spend a lot of time talking with other outside stakeholders and with the career staff and the regional staff as well, and do a lot of listening and that will put that person in a good position.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/exiting-epa-air-chief-defends-clean-air-act-touts-efforts-curb-ghgs
-
Ignoring Trump Skepticism, Davos Set Bets on Climate Change
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas and Jessica Shankleman
Donald Trump has often ridiculed global warming and promised to withdraw the U.S. from the accord signed in Paris in 2015. Yet despite the shift in political weather in Washington, the captains of business and finance gathered in Davos this week will spend a lot of time talking about climate change—and how to make money from it.
The World Economic Forum is devoting 15 sessions of its 2017 annual meeting to climate change, and nine more to clean energy—the most ever on the issues.
It reflects how much is at stake. For global business leaders, it's not just a question of burnishing their green credentials, but about billions of dollars—maybe even trillions—in potential profits and losses. Insurers are starting to price-in more frequent flooding and droughts; energy giants are shaping their business for a world that's moving away from oil and coal; car makers are putting real money into electric vehicles; banks want to lend money for renewable electricity projects.
“The good thing is that the Paris agreement raised the bar for everyone,” said Ben van Beurden, the head of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe's largest oil group. “Everybody feels the obligation to act.“
Achieving the ambitions set out in Paris may require $13.5 trillion of spending through to 2030, according International Energy Agency data that show the scale of the opportunity for business. Only last year, clean energy investment stood at $287.5 billion, data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance indicate.
“The scale and scope of the investment flows on renewables shows it's mainstream,” said David Turk, head of climate change at the IEA in Paris and a former senior U.S. climate diplomat.
Opportunities Rising
With money-making opportunities rising, traditional climate change advocates—Al Gore and Greenpeace Executive Director Jennifer Morgan—will mingle in panel discussions with executives such as HSBC Holdings PLC Chairman Stuart Gulliver and Patrick Yu, president of Cofco Corp., the largest food company in China. They will discuss the nexus between the fight against global warming and business—both how to stop climate change and how to profit from it.
“Climate change is material and central for many companies and their boards,” said Dominic Waughray, head of public-private partnership at the World Economic Forum. “Climate change is a core part of the growth agenda.“
A survey of 750 participants at this year's meeting shows that extreme weather is considered the biggest global risk, outstripping migrations, natural catastrophe and terrorism:
Beyond the official program, a record 60 chief executive officers are expected to gather in a closed-door session to discuss the challenges of climate change, according to a person familiar with the event, who asked not to be named because the meeting isn't public.
In the Alpine resort's congress center, the World Economic Forum has built an exhibition highlighting climate change, “from rampant emissions to rising sea levels.“
Global Fight
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor at Princeton University who will help to explain the exhibit, said despite the arrival of Trump, the fight against global warming will continue.
“No matter what the U.S. president says, the progress on climate change can have many routes,” he said. “The U.S. can harm progress, but will not stop progress.”
In November's follow-up meeting to Paris, nearly 200 nations, including China and Saudi Arabia, vowed to step up their efforts to fight global warming, facing down concerns the new Trump administration will seek to derail policies aimed at curbing pollution.
“Leadership on climate change is proving to be remarkably resilient,” said Christiana Figueres, the UN's former top climate change diplomat, who will be in Davos speaking on a panel alongside Patrick Pouyanne, boss of French oil giant Total SA, Oleg Deripaska, owner of the world's top aluminum producer United Co. Rusal, and Ignacio Sanchez Galan, head of renewables heavyweight Iberdrola SA.
China Flip
China, which for years sought to derail global efforts to tackle climate change, has flipped its role and is now lecturing the U.S. and Europe on the importance of the issue. Xi Jinping will be the first sitting Chinese president to attend Davos, after making green finance a key topic for China's presidency of the Group of 20 nations last year.
In 2012, Trump claimed climate change was a Chinese hoax designed to damage the U.S. economy. Even though the president-elect has appeared to soften his stance a little, telling the New York Times last year he was open minded about the issue, his policy positions stand in stark contrast to China.
Trump's election platform pledged to reverse environmental regulations, increase coal production and pull the U.S. out of the landmark Paris Agreement.
Yet, more than 600 U.S. companies from DuPont Co. to Monsanto Co. have urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord.
“It's totally clear that companies see the writing on the wall,” said Morgan of Greenpeace. “If President-elect Trump doesn't want to go,there then he is going to be very out of step.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633423&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633423&jd=103633423
-
Xi Urges Trump to Stay in ‘Hard Won’ Paris Climate Deal
Jan 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
Chinese Premier Xi Jinping urged climate change skeptic Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the “hard won” Paris agreement during a Davos speech that touted the world's largest polluter as a leader in the fight against global warming.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, Xi said “all signatories must stick to” the 2015 Paris deal to limit global temperature increases to well below 2 degrees Celsius. “Walking away” from the pact would endanger future generations, he said.
While Trump has threatened to reverse President Obama's policies on tackling climate change and pull the U.S. out of the 2015 Paris accord, China is strengthening its commitment to the issue. Earlier this month, it pledged to invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($360 billion) in renewable energy through 2020 to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Xi said China's green development investments were already “paying off” and urged other countries to support international cooperation to solve the world's most urgent challenges.
“We should join hands and rise to the challenge,” he said. “Let us boost confidence, take actions and work together for a bright future.”
Suspending Coal
China's government has suspended 101 coal-power projects across 11 provinces as it moves toward cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The deferred investments are worth about 430 billion yuan ($63 billion), China's financial daily Caixin reported Jan. 17.
“If the U.S. does step back from leadership in the climate process then China will step forward, not least for pure realpolitik reasons,” said Michael Liebreich, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “If you've got large parts of the world including all of Africa, really hungry for investment and energy solutions, then the U.S. is seen as an unreliable partner, or trying to push dirty solutions, then I think China will step into that breach.”
China already leads in renewable energy investment, spending almost $88 billion in 2016, one-third more than the U.S. according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. China's investment has already created 3.5 million renewable energy jobs and that's expected to grow to 13 million by 2020, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.
It's not just rising global temperatures and sea levels concerning China. The nation's increasingly wealthy middle class is worried about the quality of air it breathes and water it drinks and has become more vocal about complaints. With Beijing again cloaked in smog at the start of the year, Xi faces continued pressure to show he's doing what it takes to clean things up.
Xi's comments on climate change will help reassure clean energy investors at a time when the future of the U.S.’s own renewables market in doubt, said Li Shuo, policy adviser at Greenpeace East Asia.
“The U.S. political situation provides an external driver for China to go forward from being a reluctant leader to climate hero,” he said in a phone interview.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103633417&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103633417&jd=103633417
-
Obama Sends Another $500M To U.N. Fund
Jan 18, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Democrats celebrated an announcement today that the State Department will make its second contribution of $500 million to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, in a parting move to cement the outgoing Obama administration's environmental legacy.
"It will help give us a 'seat at the table' in future climate change negotiations, which even President-elect Trump's nominee to be secretary of State endorsed as part of our nation's global leadership," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over foreign spending.
On the campaign trail this fall, Trump vowed to halt both federal and international efforts to fight climate change — steps he said would save $100 billion over eight years.
"We're going to put America first. That includes canceling billions in climate change spending for the United Nations, a number Hillary [Clinton] wants to increase, and instead use that money to provide for American infrastructure, including clean water, clean air and safety," Trump said in his final days of campaigning against the former secretary of State.
Former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick to lead State, said last week that he expected a "bottom-up" review of commitments toward the effort, which aims to help poorer nations mitigate the effects of climate change.
Environmentalists have predicted it would go down very badly at the United Nations if the Trump administration decided to turn its back on the international climate agenda (E&E Daily, Jan. 17).
In 2014, President Obama pledged to the international community that the United States would contribute $3 billion to the fund over four years. Republican have proposed prohibitions on those contributions.
An amendment offered in 2015 by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and then-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) to restore funding passed the Senate Appropriations Committee with bipartisan support.
That ultimately allowed the State Department to make its first contribution of $500 million in March 2016. Because the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution, the State Department announced today it would use that same authority to make its second contribution of $500 million.
"This contribution shows that even as we face an incoming administration that engages in dangerous climate denial, those of us in the United States who believe in taking action to save our planet, our economy and our future will continue doing everything in our power to move forward," Merkley said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/17/stories/1060048517
-
Waste-to-Energy Facilities Under Fire
Jan 17, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Proponents say incineration is the safest and best way to manage difficult-to-dispose of waste streams that can’t be reused or recycled. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that waste-to-energy plants pollute the air, which is part of the reason these facilities have been slow to take off in the US, compared to Europe, for example.
A December fire at a Covanta-operated incineration facility in Maryland added fuel to the fire. The Dec. 8 fire at the Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility took 11 days to fully extinguish and is now under investigation by state officials.
As the Washington Post reports, firefighters who required medical treatment and their union filed a complaint with Maryland Occupational Safety and Health alleging that the county did not take proper safety precautions or make an adequate evaluation of the hazards at the site. Covanta maintains that facility conditions were not a factor in the fire.
The county’s Department of Environmental Protection is slated to present the results of its investigation at a Feb. 2 hearing.
Additionally, the Maryland Department of the Environment is holding a meeting today to discuss tightening the limits for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by Maryland’s two largest municipal waste incinerators, the Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility where the fire occurred and the Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Co., or BRESCO, owned and operated by Wheelabrator Technologies.
Baltimore has long failed to meet federal standards for ground-level ozone and environmental groups blame the two trash incinerators, BaltimoreBrew reports. Incineration opponents attending today’s meeting will argue that waste-to-energy plants should be phased out in Maryland, and some say as much as 80 percent of the material the BRESCO facility burns is recyclable or compostable.
In an earlier interview, Covanta’s chief sustainability officer Paul Gilman said waste-to-energy plays a key role in sustainable waste management and helping companies including American Airlines and Subaru achieve and maintain zero waste to landfill.
“These companies have found that zero waste to landfill is a theme that really resonates with their client base and so they look to us, especially for hard-to-dispose-of materials like paint sludges that can be used to create energy,” Gilman said in an interview with Environmental Leader.
Covanta late last month acquired Waste Recovery Solutions and Chesapeake Waste Solutions, two environmental services companies located in Pennsylvania, for undisclosed amounts.
Despite controversies, the global waste-to-energy market is growing, and is projected to reach $43.96 billion by 2024, up from $25.3 billion in 2013.
As additional evidence of this in the US: last month Clean Harbors completed its $120 million waste incineration facility expansion in Southern Arkansas — the first commercial hazardous waste incinerator to come online in the US in almost 20 years, the company says.
According to the EPA, waste-to-energy plants actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere compared to landfilling. The agency estimates these facilities save about 1 ton of greenhouse gas emissions per ton of trash burned.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/01/waste-to-energy-facilities-under-fire/
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested