Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/19/2017
-
Democrats Fail To Land Fatal Blow In Pruitt Hearing
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt doesn't think climate change is a hoax and says he believes U.S. EPA has an obligation to regulate planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions. -
Pruitt Shutters PAC — But First Transfers Money To Allies
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Two pro-Scott Pruitt political action committees have officially closed, but not before giving money to a third committee that has supported a group now promoting the Oklahoma attorney general's confirmation as U.S. EPA administrator. -
Acting Bosses To Take Reins At EPA, DOE, Interior
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Kevin Bogardus,
Career staffers are in line to take the helm of energy and environmental agencies while Donald Trump's incoming Cabinet officials await confirmations. -
(ACC Mentioned) New TSCA Good For Green Chemistry, Says Outgoing EPA Official
Jan 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The reformed TSCA will help companies developing chemicals that are safer and better for the environment compete in the US market, says Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). -
Toxics: EPA Plans Meeting On First 10 TSCA Chemical Risk Reviews
Jan 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to hold a Feb. 14 meeting to hear input on its plans for launching the first 10 risk evaluations of existing chemicals under new review authority in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Nordic Countries Propose Post-2020 Global Chemicals Framework
Jan 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of Nordic countries has published a report, which sets out proposals for a post-2020 global chemicals framework, to replace the UN’s current voluntary programme, the UN Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm). -
Perry Hearing May Flesh Out Trump's Energy Plan
Jan 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry's confirmation hearing on Thursday could offer the best insight yet about the Trump administration plans for the Energy Department’s mission to foster basic science and safeguard the nation’s nuclear weapons complex given the president-elect’s narrow focus on boosting production of oil, natural gas and coal. -
Perry On The Issues
Jan 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
Rick Perry will face a hodgepodge of bureaucratic and national security challenges if he is confirmed to run the Energy Department. -
Perry Skeptical Of Warming But Backed Tech To Fight It
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
Rick Perry hasn't been shy about his views on climate change, calling it in his book "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight." -
Moniz Assesses His Record, Offers Advice To Successor
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz doesn't foresee being a public servant again. His worst day on the job was when an explosion occurred at a nuclear waste site in New Mexico. And he's "gotten over" attention to his hair. -
Pruitt to Senate Dems: Pro-Energy Doesn’t Mean Anti-Environment
Jan 19, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) Scott Pruitt, President-elect Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), shared his vision Wednesday for a more cooperative relationship between state and federal regulators, while facing criticism from Democrats over his ties to the oil and gas industry. -
Pruitt Says He's Pursued Oil Companies; Dems Are Doubtful
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan,
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said yesterday he's pursued wrongdoing by the oil industry, trying to dispel criticism he would be too cozy with industry when running U.S. EPA. -
NextDecade Takes Aim At Texas City For LNG
Jan 19, 2017 | Fuelfix
By Jordan Blum
The Woodlands-based NextDecade is honing in on a Texas City location near Galveston for its latest effort to build a multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas export facility. -
Proposed Ethylene Cracker Plant Sparks Debate In Texas
Jan 19, 2017 | Corpus Christi Caller-Times (In E&E Energywire)
By Fares Sabawi
A proposed ethylene cracker plant has caused a fierce split among residents of San Patricio County, Texas. -
Judge Oks Launch Of Environmental Review
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Government officials' plan to move forward with an in-depth round of environmental review for the Dakota Access pipeline will go unchallenged for now, as a federal court has rejected an attempt to temporarily halt the process. -
Perry Pledges Intense Cybersecuity Focus If Confirmed To Run DOE
Jan 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who seeks to become the next Energy Secretary, promised to work across agencies to protect the federal government from "cyber snooping." -
Perry Vows To Defend Climate Research, Scientists
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) made a bid for the support of Senate Democrats today by promising to defend the Department of Energy's climate-related science and innovation even if his boss, President-elect Donald Trump, wants to gut the department he's been picked to lead. -
In Court, EPA Defends Analysis Of Mercury Regs' Benefits
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is asserting a wide prerogative to gauge the potential impact of proposed air quality regulations in a legal tussle over whether the agency properly considered compliance costs in going ahead with its regulations on power plant mercury emissions. -
Texas Sues EPA Over Haze Rule
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, already in the thick of a fight against U.S. EPA's regional haze plan for his state, is now suing to overturn the agency's recent revisions to the broader program, created to improve visibility in national parks.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Democrats Fail To Land Fatal Blow In Pruitt Hearing
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden and Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt doesn't think climate change is a hoax and says he believes U.S. EPA has an obligation to regulate planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.
But Democrats and environmental advocates aren't breathing any sighs of relief.
Although the Oklahoma attorney general has sued the federal government over its clean air and climate regulations more than a dozen times, he assured senators considering his confirmation as EPA administrator yesterday that he would adhere to court decisions finding that CO2 is dangerous to human health (E&E News PM, Jan. 18).
He also said he would abide by the limits of congressional statute, which he interprets as particularly narrow. As a leader in legal fights against Obama administration regulations, Pruitt is intimately familiar with the best shots at unwinding those rules and passing court muster or at least delaying action for as long as possible.
Pruitt acknowledged before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that "science tells us that climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change."
He added that "the ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be."
Later in the hearing, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) scoffed when Pruitt said his personal opinion on climate change is "immaterial" and that the EPA administrator is "constrained by statute."
In distancing himself from the radical declarations made by Trump calling climate change a "hoax" yet raising questions about the established science connecting man-made emissions to warming, Pruitt's statements hew closely to those of other Cabinet nominees. Last week, Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO picked to head the State Department, said climate change is real, but the ability to predict the effect of greenhouse gases is "very limited."
Former GOP White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, who has spoken on behalf of Trump's transition team, said he thinks the nominees' stances show Trump has backed away from his position that climate change is a hoax.
Delware Sen. Tom Carper, the ranking Democrat on the committee, however, told reporters he wasn't convinced Pruitt "relies on science all that much," particularly in disagreeing with the majority of scientists who are certain climate change requires quick action.
Pruitt's nomination has enraged environmental advocates, many of whom showed up at the hearing donning pink hats with cat ears, which protesters will wear at a women's march against Trump on Saturday. Coal miners wearing hard hats and delighted by the choice of Pruitt also made an appearance to voice their support.
Democrats have little chance of stopping Pruitt from getting the votes he needs to be confirmed. Carper, though, vowed to put up a fight, quoting hockey player Wayne Gretzky's famous quote, "You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take."
"We're going to take every shot," Carper said.Inhofe and Steyer trade jabs
Aside from dinging Pruitt on climate science, Democrats spent much of the day trying to pin the nominee down on whether he solicited "dark money" from the energy industry in exchange for challenging environmental standards (see related story).
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) asked whether Pruitt in his leadership roles with the Republican Attorneys General Association asked companies to contribute to the group's Rule of Law Defense Fund, a nonprofit that is not required to disclose donors.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) questioned Pruitt about a letter he sent objecting to federal efforts to limit methane leaks from oil and gas companies. Reports in publications including The New York Times show that the letter was largely written by Oklahoma's Devon Energy Corp. and signed by Pruitt.
Pruitt defended himself, saying that "the efforts I took as attorney general were representing the interest of the people of the state of Oklahoma." He said he consulted state environmental officials about the issue.
Pruitt added that the letter represented an entire industry vital to Oklahoma, not a particular company.
Later on, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) noted that "the oil industry is a huge industry in my state of Oklahoma" and said middle-income people donate to campaign funds to support candidates who help the industry. He then questioned whether Tom Steyer, an environmentalist who contributes to Democratic candidates, has an outsized influence in campaigns.
Steyer shot back in Twitter and in an emailed statement that his contributions are transparent and in the public interest.'I need you to care about human health'
Following the hearing, Oklahoma Democratic Party Chairman Mark Hammons said Pruitt failed to "show basic transparency" in reporting the amount of money his office spent on outside counsel, and the justification for why outside counsel was necessary.
Senate Democrats also pushed Pruitt on whether he would acknowledge the health impacts of air pollution, in addition to regulatory costs to businesses. Responding to a question from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Pruitt admitted he didn't know how many children in Oklahoma have asthma.
In an impassioned plea, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) pushed Pruitt to explain what he would do to reduce the dangers from mercury emissions from coal plants if he believes previous regulations have been too costly.
"I need you to care about human health and really believe that the cost when human health is at risk, when people are dying, is far higher than is the cost to that polluter to clean up the air," Gillibrand said. "I need you to feel it as if your children sitting behind you are the ones in the emergency room. I need you to know it."
Pruitt and the Republican senators who support him maintained that he would protect clean air and water while following the congressional intent of federal law. He said he will collaborate with states and let them make the big decisions (Climatewire, Jan. 18). Inhofe said Pruitt has earned a reputation as a leader in defending the "rule of law," a phrase used often yesterday.
Some lawmakers pressured Pruitt to commit to lifting or intensifying certain regulations or recusing himself from handling lawsuits he has brought against EPA. But over many hours, he made few promises. He calmly navigated political landmines, sitting alone at a long wooden table and sipping from a large cup of coffee as big-name surrogates sent by the Trump transition team sat behind him. After the hearing, Pruitt shook hands and slapped backs with GOP senators but also bade a warm farewell to Booker, even after the two tussled on several points.Miners counting on Pruitt to stop industry 'decimation'
Pruitt's nomination has been a lightning rod within the environmental movement, spurring fundraising and prompting hundreds of groups to rally against him.
Yesterday, many of those opposed to Pruitt wore white face masks and stickers emblazoned with the words "Stop Pruitt." A few who rushed into the room and disrupted the hearing were led away by police with hands secured behind their back with white zip ties.
"We want to let our presence be known that we think Scott Pruitt is a terrible pick for EPA, considering he is also in a lawsuit with EPA right now. And we think he won't represent our best interest in the environment, our food or our water," said Rebecca Wolf, a protester standing near the entrance to the hearing.
Volunteer organizer, Rachel Goldstein, estimated that about 200 people from environmental groups such as 350.org and the Sierra Club had shown up at the Dirksen Senate Office Building to protest the nominee.
"I think Pruitt as a pick for EPA, and pretty much every Trump nominee, has outraged many of my friends and family who haven't gotten involved in politics and climate activism: the outrage and embarrassment, and it's activated a lot of people to fight back," said Sara Shor, manager of the keep-it-in-the-ground campaign against fossil fuels for the group 350.org.
Twenty coal miners, clustered in groups of four or five, also waited outside, hoping for a seat at the hearing.
Coal-state conservatives see Trump's election and Pruitt's nomination to lead EPA as a Hail Mary pass for the crippled coal industry. In an interview earlier this week, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said he hopes a policy reversal could bring some mining jobs back to his state. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, however, predict that without climate standards for coal plants, coal mining will recover only modestly and only in the West, not in Appalachia.
Still, some miners traveled for hours to cheer on Pruitt.
"This is really out of my wheelhouse," said John Yankovich, a miner who works for Ohio County Coal Co., which is owned by Murray Energy Corp. Attending the hearing was his first time visiting Washington.
"We came up to support the Pruitt hearing, basically because he is going to be a voice for us," Yankovich said. "He's going to make decisions that will stop the decimation of West Virginia, that has been creeping up in Pennsylvania and Ohio."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048624
-
Pruitt Shutters PAC — But First Transfers Money To Allies
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Two pro-Scott Pruitt political action committees have officially closed, but not before giving money to a third committee that has supported a group now promoting the Oklahoma attorney general's confirmation as U.S. EPA administrator.
Federal election filings show that Liberty 2.0, a pro-Pruitt super PAC, transferred $102,554 of its remaining $146,697 to Future45, a conservative super PAC founded to support GOP presidential candidates.
Future45 contributed $50,000 to America Rising in November, Federal Election Commission filings show. An offshoot of America Rising is now coordinating a campaign aimed at bolstering Pruitt's nomination prospects.
The dizzying array of campaign organizations highlights the hurdles facing Donald Trump's pick to lead EPA.
Pruitt has raised large sums from energy companies and executives through a series of political action committees. He also helped direct energy dollars to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which has coordinated several challenges to EPA rules.
The issue emerged as a flashpoint in his confirmation hearing yesterday.
Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee pressed Pruitt on his fundraising, arguing that it is a conflict of interest for America's top environmental regulator to take money from energy interests.
"Based on your record of fundraising, it appears a great deal of your fundraising comes from these organizations in the energy sector and devoted to fighting climate change," observed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat.
He later asked: "Is that a conflict of interest?"
Pruitt, in response, noted that he had been cleared by the Office of Government Ethics and promised to consult EPA ethics officials if a potential conflict arose in future cases.Whitman: Pruitt fundraising an issue
Republicans sought to disarm the argument. Many Democrats critical of Pruitt have taken money from environmental groups, they said, adding that contributions from energy companies did not disqualify Pruitt for the job.
Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, cited a Wall Street Journal story from October 2016, which reported that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had raised more money from oil companies than Donald Trump.
"Presumably based on that argument, Hillary Clinton would be suspect if she were nominated for the position of heading the EPA," Wicker said.
But even some Republicans have expressed discomfort over Pruitt's fundraising operations.
The advent of super PACs means a Cabinet member can continue to raise money even after assuming office. Such committees technically do not coordinate with the candidates they support. In reality, super PACs get around those requirements by employing aides familiar with the candidates's thinking (Energywire, Jan. 6)
As first reported by E&E News, Pruitt would have been one of the first Cabinet-level officials to enter office with a super PAC had he not shut down Liberty 2.0.
"Congress is going to have to do something about this," Christine Todd Whitman, President George W. Bush's first EPA chief, told E&E News. "It's something the public doesn't like."
Whitman has been critical of Pruitt, saying she was concerned by his denigration of the agency's mission (Climatewire, Jan. 18).
But she also raised fundraising as a worry.
"When you run for office, you solicit contributions," Whitman said. "It doesn't mean the person who gives the contribution automatically gets what they want. It does mean that they'd get their phone call returned. And they might go to the head of the line, there's no denying that."No shifting, GOP allies say
Pruitt's allies had sought to inoculate the Oklahoma attorney general against attacks over his fundraising.
An attorney for the pro-Pruitt PACs announced this month that they would close the committees to prevent them from becoming a "distraction" (Energywire, Jan. 10).
Liberty 2.0 and Oklahoma Strong Leadership, a pro-Pruitt PAC, filed termination letters with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, the eve of Pruitt's confirmation hearing.
Before closing, the committees doled out money to allies. Of its remaining $57,267, Oklahoma Strong gave $5,000 to the Oklahoma GOP; $1,000 to Justin Humphrey, an Oklahoma state representative; and $5,000 to Randy Kendrick, an influential conservative donor and the wife of Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick.
The committee also gave $2,279 to Future45.
Future45 was the sole PAC to receive a donation from Liberty 2.0. The rest of the pro-Pruitt PAC's money was spent on administrative expenses, like legal and consulting fees.
Future45 raised $24 million for the presidential race, spending all but $94,645. Its donors include prominent conservative fundraisers Sheldon Adelson, Joe Ricketts and Paul Singer, as well as several energy executives. Jay Bergman, PETCO Petroleum Corp.'s CEO, contributed $500,000. Alliance Resource Partners CEO Joseph Craft gave $750,000.
The group has backed America Rising, another conservative PAC that has emerged as a key mouthpiece for Pruitt allies amid confirmation proceedings.
American Rising Squared, the public policy arm of America Rising, established the website confirmpruitt.com and regularly blasts out emails to reporters regarding the Oklahoma politician, outlining Pruitt's credentials and criticizing his opponents.
Pruitt allies dismissed the notion that the Oklahoma attorney general was shifting money around between supportive PACs.
"No, we are not," said Jeremy Adler, a spokesman for American Rising Squared, when asked if his organization was coordinating with Future 45 on Pruitt's nomination.
Pruitt already faced questions over whether he was shuttering his campaign operation (Climatewire, Jan. 13). A fundraiser who had worked for Liberty 2.0 was listed in a flier as the contact person for a new group raising money to promote Pruitt, Protecting America Now. A 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, the group does not have to disclose its donors.
Liberty 2.0, a pro-Pruitt super PAC, collected roughly $194,000 from energy interests, Federal Election Commission filings show. A leadership PAC called Oklahoma Strong Leadership and Pruitt's state campaign committees have received donations from Craft, Alliance Resource Partners' CEO; Devon Energy Corp. co-founder Larry Nichols; and Lew Ward, the late founder of Ward Petroleum Corp.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048623
-
Acting Bosses To Take Reins At EPA, DOE, Interior
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Kevin Bogardus,
Career staffers are in line to take the helm of energy and environmental agencies while Donald Trump's incoming Cabinet officials await confirmations.
At U.S. EPA, Catherine McCabe, the deputy administrator of the New York-based Region 2 office, has been selected to serve as acting administrator until President-elect Trump's nominee is confirmed, according to an internal EPA letter obtained by E&E News.
Mike Flynn, EPA's associate deputy administrator, will serve in the agency's No. 2 spot until a new deputy administrator is confirmed.
Other acting EPA officials will include: John Reeder, chief of staff; Robin Richardson, associate administrator of the congressional relations office; Shannon Kenny, associate administrator of the policy office; George Hull, associate administrator of the public affairs office; and Tom Brennan, associate administrator of the public engagement office.
It's unclear how long acting officials will be running the agency.
Trump has picked Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to be the next EPA administrator. Pruitt testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday in a contentious hearing. Democrats have identified him as one of the nominees they'll strongly oppose, but he's expected to ultimately secure the votes he needs to win Senate approval.
McCabe has had a long career in government, including a 22-year stint as a Justice Department environmental attorney. Before becoming deputy administrator in the Region 2 shop, she was a judge on EPA's Environmental Appeals Board and was deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. She joined EPA after 22 years in DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Flynn has spent more than 36 years at EPA and currently serves as an adviser to the deputy administrator on management and policy issues. He previously directed the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air and worked in the Office of Environmental Information and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.Leadership for Interior, DOE
At the Interior Department, Jack Haugrud will take over as acting secretary, according to outgoing agency spokesman Blake Androff.
Haugrud is currently acting principal deputy solicitor at Interior. He previously had a long career at DOJ, where he served as chief of the natural resources section and the general litigation section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Haugrud has worked on topics at Interior including American Indian issues as well as regulations for surface mining, oil and gas royalties, offshore drilling, and Arctic exploration. One former Interior aide called him "the point of the spear on natural resource law" in a 2014 interview (Greenwire, Jan. 14, 2014).
Trump's nominee to lead Interior, Ryan Zinke, also testified before the Senate this week and is expected to be confirmed and on the job relatively quickly. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) agreed to expedited consideration of his nomination (E&E Daily, Jan. 18).
Grace Bochenek of the Energy Department will take over as that agency's acting secretary, according to a DOE employee.
Bochenek is currently director of DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, where she manages a $9 billion budget for energy research.
Before she was named to lead the NETL in 2014, she spent more than 25 years working at the Defense Department, including working as the first chief technology officer of the U.S. Army Materiel Command.
Trump's selection to lead DOE, former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry, is testifying today before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048644
-
(ACC Mentioned) New TSCA Good For Green Chemistry, Says Outgoing EPA Official
Jan 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The reformed TSCA will help companies developing chemicals that are safer and better for the environment compete in the US market, says Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).
In an interview with Chemical Watch, Mr Jones – who will be leaving his position today as the new administration takes office – said that, before the reform of TSCA, there wasn’t a robust regulatory programme for existing chemicals that present risks. “This meant there wasn’t a level playing field and it reduced the capacity for innovative companies to break through with better, safer chemicals.”
Up until now, he said, companies developing safer alternatives have always been outcompeted by chemicals that were “very cheap to buy but didn’t meet safety standards”.
“We now have a comprehensive approach where the innovators in the green chemistry space are going to have a level playing field.”
Under a reformed TSCA, Mr Jones said he is “very optimistic about chemical safety, the chemicals industry in the US and that we will be a more meaningful player on the global stage as well.”Speed of transition
Mr Jones noted the change won’t be immediate. “The programme will take some time to get up and running but the chemicals on the market are going to need to meet safety standards, which has never been the case.”
But he said history has consistently shown that regulatory pressure on existing chemicals leads to innovation. “I’m confident that, as the EPA takes action on existing chemicals that don’t meet the safety standard, it will create markets for safer alternatives.”
David Constable, director of the American Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Institute, agreed with Mr Jones that it will take time to level the playing field.
But he said that there are many chemicals on the TSCA inventory, and only ten-20 will be prioritised for risk evaluation each year. "Of these, the EPA will have to prove there is unreasonable risk, and that is going to be challenging and invariably the risk assessment will be challenged in court.”
Mr Constable also said the new administration may have an effect on the implementation of chemicals regulation in the US.
“There are serious questions about how many roadblocks will be raised to slow, turn back, or impede implementation of regulations. I hear there is broad bipartisan and industry support for the TSCA revision, but the EPA enforces the regulations, and the new [nominee for] head of the agency is arguably one of the most anti-regulation people in the Trump administration.”
While new TSCA sets certain timelines for the agency to deliver on, there is much that can be done to slow things down, he says.New chemicals programme
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said that the development of “innovative chemicals” will take place through the new chemicals programme.
“The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) [which updated the old law in June last year] recognises the importance of an efficient and high-functioning new chemicals programme to encourage development of innovative new chemistries and facilitate their entry into the marketplace,” it said.
Dan Newton, senior manager of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma), told Chemical Watch that the old law arguably created a bias for continued use of existing chemicals. He said that the EPA is now on its way to developing a much more robust programme to review existing chemicals in commerce, with the recent introduction of major framework rules on prioritisation and risk evaluation.
“As EPA continues to do more with existing chemicals, it could potentially help to level the playing field. But, it is still too early to tell how new TSCA will impact innovation.”Innovation needed
John Warner, co-founder of the 12 principles of green chemistry and president of the Warner Babcock Institute, said that while updating the old TSCA law should be celebrated, training chemists to develop chemicals that are safer and better for the environment will have a bigger effect.
“Ultimately, the chemical enterprises must invent technologies that do not sacrifice performance and cost, while protecting human health and the environment. Unfortunately, the field of chemistry is not yet fully prepared to meet this challenge.”
Mr Constable agreed: "The question is where are the innovators in the chemical industry, not where are the regulations.
"The chemical industry R&D has been decimated by all the mergers/demergers/acquisitions that have taken place, and the focus is on incremental improvements, not step changes." Finding chemical alternatives with necessary performance attributes at a similar price-point to existing alternatives is "the harder problem", he added.
Mr Warner said very few universities are training chemists with the basic skills necessary. “Most professionals, doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, architects must obtain and maintain a licence to practice, and so their educational curricula prepare them to succeed within these frameworks. No such system exists for chemists.”
He says the benefits offered by TSCA reform will hopefully "trickle down into academia, but it would be much better if academia lead in this respect”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52288/new-tsca-good-for-green-chemistry-says-outgoing-epa-official
-
Toxics: EPA Plans Meeting On First 10 TSCA Chemical Risk Reviews
Jan 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to hold a Feb. 14 meeting to hear input on its plans for launching the first 10 risk evaluations of existing chemicals under new review authority in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
“In particular, EPA is providing the public an opportunity to identify information specifically related to the conditions of use for the ten chemical substances (i.e., the circumstances under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of),” EPA says in a Jan. 19 Federal Register notice.
The agency expects to hold next month's meeting in Washington, D.C. Information the agency receives at the meeting will then be used to develop the 10 scoping documents for the TSCA risk evaluations of the first 10 chemicals, in which EPA will describe the information it expects to consider in the risk evaluation, including conditions of use, hazards, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, and exposures.
EPA is also seeking comment by March 1 on any identifying information specifically related to the conditions of use “(i.e., intended, known or reasonably foreseen uses) that would assist the Agency in identifying potential exposure scenarios (pathways, routes and populations).”
The agency Dec. 19 formally announced that the first 10 chemicals it will review are: 1,4 dioxane; 1-bromopropane; asbestos; carbon tetrachloride; cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster; methylene chloride; n-methylpyrrolidone; pigment violet 29; trichloroethylene; and tetrachloroethylene.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/toxics-epa-plans-meeting-first-10-tsca-chemical-risk-reviews
-
Nordic Countries Propose Post-2020 Global Chemicals Framework
Jan 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of Nordic countries has published a report, which sets out proposals for a post-2020 global chemicals framework, to replace the UN’s current voluntary programme, the UN Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm).
Saicm, adopted in 2006, aims to achieve sound chemicals management globally by 2020. The programme will then need to be extended or replaced.
Laying out a series of options, the report says that, with a “higher level of ambition”, 2020 could signal the beginning of a comprehensive new international treaty on the lifecycle of all chemicals in present and future circulation.
A binding agreement, it says, could be complemented by international standards, voluntary guidelines or protocols for different substances or groups of chemicals. Basic elements could include a definition of a hazardous substance and principles for managing potentially hazardous materials throughout their lifecycles.
By signing on, governments would commit to strengthening their national chemicals and waste legislation according to the relevant standards, guidelines or protocols.
However, it notes that the adoption of a new global agreement on chemicals could take decades and uses the UN Minamata Convention on mercury as an example, which took 15 years. Consequently, it says, this might happen by 2030−2040.
But, it adds, because an agreement would focus on future commitments tailored to national contexts, “it would be far less detailed and prescriptive than the Minamata Convention.” It also notes that negotiations towards the Paris climate agreement were launched just four years before its conclusion last year.
“A global framework convention for chemicals that resembles the Paris agreement in its structure could similarly be negotiated in a swift timeframe of under five years, given that states feel similar pressure to take action.”Voluntary approaches
At the very basic level, the report says, a post-2020 voluntary framework will need to be fully aligned with the objectives of the UN's 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Under this “improved voluntary approach”, the framework would play a supportive role to governments in their implementation of the agenda and international treaties on chemicals and waste.
It would also need to involve the development of more meaningful indicators, assisting governments in their mainstreaming in national sustainable development agendas and raising awareness in society of their hazardous impacts.
Alternatively, governments could commit to take “enhanced actions” at a national level. These would tackle a range of negotiated issues. “Government stakeholders would essentially agree to implement progressive measures and to report them periodically to a body such as the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM).”
An evaluation by an independent expert body would examine national action plans and make recommendations, to take stock of progress, it says.Fragmented
The report is written by researchers from the University of Eastern Finland and funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers, which is made up of officials from Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland.
It says that because of the “multitude” of international regulatory frameworks – such as the Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm and Minamata Conventions – only a fraction of the tens of thousands of chemicals on the market are subject to international measures.
“International treaties on chemicals and waste have been framed as narrowly as possible, to cover only a very limited range of substances. The existing instruments address a group of chemicals in particular phases, or the entire lifecycle of just one substance, such as the Minamata Convention on mercury.”
It adds that, while this “fragmented approach” has been the only realistic way to create consensus on regulatory measures internationally, it has evident weaknesses.
“From a sustainable development perspective, it is ineffective and unrealistic to address all chemicals in global circulation, one at a time, in separate legal instruments. The negotiation and continuous development of several loosely related treaties inevitably leads to significant costs and use of resources, often with duplicative effects.”
A process for developing a post-2020 framework was initiated at ICCM4 in Geneva in 2015, and discussions will begin at a meeting in Brazil next month.
Further meetings will be organised in the run up to ICCM5 in 2020, where a decision will be made on what direction to take. The Nordic countries report aims to provide early input into these discussions.
It was presented at a seminar, this week, on effective global governance of chemicals and wastes beyond 2020, funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers in Helsinki.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52280/nordic-countries-propose-post-2020-global-chemicals-framework
-
Perry Hearing May Flesh Out Trump's Energy Plan
Jan 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry's confirmation hearing on Thursday could offer the best insight yet about the Trump administration plans for the Energy Department’s mission to foster basic science and safeguard the nation’s nuclear weapons complex given the president-elect’s narrow focus on boosting production of oil, natural gas and coal.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whose Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will review Perry’s nomination to lead DOE under Trump, has said she plans to ask about nuclear energy, liquefied natural gas exports, and the aging Strategic Petroleum Reserve. All of those are issues a long-running Texas governor should be familiar with.
Meanwhile, the panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, intends to pepper Perry with questions about cybersecurity, especially after DOE released its second Quadrennial Energy Review, which focused heavily on cyber threats to the electric grid, earlier this month.
After two Energy secretaries who were unequivocal about the political and economic threats of climate change, Democrats will want to know how vocal a climate skeptic Perry still is.
And committee members on both sides of the aisle — especially the eight with national labs back home — will ask whether Perry stands by his 2011 statements that the Energy Department should be dismantled.
Republicans only have a one-vote advantage over Democrats on the Senate energy committee, but no GOP members are likely to step out of line. And West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, who is facing a tough reelection in 2018, will be one of two senators who introduce Perry at the hearing, giving him a decent cushion for victory.
The Energy Department’s historically low political profile and small regulatory footprint compared to agencies like EPA, has set up a confirmation hearing that is Perry’s to lose.
Friends and foes alike say that Perry knows how and when to roll out the charm. They also say that he’s a quick study when he needs to be. So, does Rick Perry show up as a folksy Westerner and simply try to clear the low bar many Democrats have set for him? Or, knowing that his three immediate predecessors came to DOE with doctorates in science or engineering, does he work to counteract the unflattering narratives about his intellect and present himself as a well-read policy wonk?
Perry isn’t likely to name-drop lab directors or speak to specific bureaucratic problems at DOE the way outgoing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was able to do in his own 2013 nomination hearing. Expect some self-deprecating humor along with some pointed efforts to play up the managerial skills he acquired during his 14-year run as governor of the nation’s second-most populous state.
David Garman, an energy undersecretary in the George W. Bush DOE who called Trump “mercurial and illogical,” nevertheless argued that the agency “almost above all is a management challenge,” that may work to Perry's strength. "I would take a good manager over a trained scientist if I couldn’t find someone who offered both. Let’s hope Gov. Perry has the capacity to bring focused and consistent management to a complex, sprawling organization."
On climate change, Perry represents a dramatic course change from Moniz and Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who ran DOE in Obama's first term.
Environmentalists will be looking to climate hawks on the energy committee like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) to put Perry on the defensive.
In the past six years, Perry has alleged that climate researchers were up to no good, asserting that “a substantial number of scientists ... have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” While he has acknowledged that the climate has been changing "ever since the earth was formed," he has questioned how much of a role humans play — matching a view popular with other Trump picks.
Attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions gave a similar answer during his own confirmation hearing last week in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I don't deny that we have global warming," Sessions said in response to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "It is the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it." Trump's picks to lead EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services, Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt and Rep. Tom Price, gave similar lines of argument during their confirmation hearings Wednesday.
Senate Democrats already have their hands full trying to make life difficult for other prospective Trump Cabinet members like Pruitt at EPA and Rex Tillerson at the State Department, so Perry hasn’t drawn organized resistance. But that doesn’t mean energy committee Democrats want to make it a cakewalk for him either. They may quiz him on weedy DOE science programs or nuclear issues like the decades-long Hanford cleanup to expose some gap in Perry’s knowledge. And his infamous "oops" moment from 2011 is likely to make an appearance.
“I took real umbrage over his statement during the campaign that we should abolish the Department of Energy,” said energy panel member Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who has two DOE weapons labs in his state, “and it was not evident to me that he really understood the department and what a critical role it plays in our national security. So, for me, the bar for him to show that he is the right guy to run the agency that stewards our nuclear deterrent is a high bar.”
Spencer Abraham survived a similarly fraught situation 16 years ago when he was nominated by President George W. Bush to lead DOE, despite having co-sponsored legislation to disband the agency, but Perry’s answer will still catch everyone’s attention.
The confirmation hearing will also give freshman Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Harry Reid’s handpicked successor, a chance to press Perry on one of the biggest issues in her home state: The future of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
Trump hasn’t taken a clear stance on Yucca Mountain — when he campaigned in Nevada last fall, he seemed unaware of the project — but this is expected to be a big year for the long-stalled nuclear waste project after years of opposition from the Obama administration.
Democrats that may potentially support Yucca aren’t likely to talk about it during Perry’s hearing, but Republicans will want to hear a verbal commitment to reinstating the nuclear waste office at DOE and finishing the project’s licensing process. That leaves Cortez Masto as one of the few counterweights on the issue. Her arrival in the Senate has positioned her to be politically run over by Yucca boosters much the same way Reid was overwhelmed 30 years ago when he first arrived in the Senate.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/01/perry-hearing-may-flesh-out-trumps-energy-plan-144399
-
Jan 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Dixon
Rick Perry will face a hodgepodge of bureaucratic and national security challenges if he is confirmed to run the Energy Department.
The 66-year-old former Texas governor will be in charge of an aging nuclear weapons arsenal, basic science and decades-old Cold War era cleanup programs that will test his management skills. And it remains to be seen how he will carry out President-elect Donald Trump's undefined approach to nonproliferation — having previously tweeted about how the U.S. should “expand its nuclear capability” — his desire to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal and general resistance to the Obama administration’s climate change programs.
Those policy swings could translate into big funding and staffing changes for many of DOE’s national labs, people who work in the agency’s international affairs office and technocrats who study renewable energy. And Perry will almost certainly be asked whether he stands by his 2011 call to scrap the agency altogether.
As governor, Perry helped turn Texas’ electricity system into a competitive market. And although Texas is the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, it became the country’s top wind power generator under Perry.
Texas is a pretty good microcosm of “a fossil fuel state making a transition to wind and solar and the integration of that distributed generation,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said earlier this month, while noting that President George W. Bush was also supportive of renewables because of the Texas experience.
Here’s a look at Perry’s policy stances as he seeks to win confirmation as secretary of Energy:
Climate change
Perry has been a longtime skeptic of climate science. In 2011, he alleged a profit motive was behind the research, asserting that “a substantial number of scientists ... have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”
He also accepted climate in a way that has become routine among global warming skeptics, saying that the climate is changing but that it’s done so "ever since the earth was formed."
In 2014, during a lunch with reporters organized by the Christian Science Monitor, Perry said — while using the popular Republican refrain of the time, “I’m not a scientist” — that "calling CO2 a pollutant is doing a disservice the country, and I believe a disservice to the world." During that roundtable he also said he was offended by the term climate “denier” used to label those unconvinced of the science.
Renewables
While Democrats in Congress typically line up in support of green power like solar and wind and Republicans tend to back coal and other fossil fuel production, that partisan lens can be disrupted based on what's available back home.
One reason Texas became the country's No. 1 wind producer under Perry was a law the then-governor signed in 2005 that expanded the state’s mandate for energy producers to increase their reliance on renewable sources, to a total capacity of 5,880 megawatts. Between 2005 and 2015, wind's share of Lone Star power generation went from 1.4 percent to 11.7 percent, according to data from ERCOT, which operates most of the state's electric grid.
The Perry-backed bill also directed state regulators to begin developing “Competitive Renewable Energy Zones” that would later help bring renewable energy from isolated, wind-heavy sections of the state to population centers with long-haul electric transmission lines. Those same wires are expected to bring in electricity coming online from the state’s growing solar power sector as well.
Oil, coal and natural gas
Perry follows the traditional conservative positions when it comes to fossil fuel development.
Hailing from the nation’s No. 1 oil- and gas-producing state, he supported TransCanada’s Keystone XL oil pipeline, opposes federal regulations on natural gas development, and lamented the “outdated bureaucratic hurdles” that limit the export of U.S. liquefied natural gas. He also opposes power plant emissions regulations finalized by Obama’s EPA in 2015, which significantly impact coal-fired power and are being tested in federal court.
Barry Smitherman — whom Perry appointed to serve on the Public Utility Commission and the Railroad Commission of Texas, which oversees the oil and gas industry — said the governor’s tenure was marked by a disdain for government bureaucracy. He also said Perry was eager to streamline the process for approving permits for energy projects.
Energy Department
Typically, someone who’s asked to run a government agency embraces its purpose or is looking for a job. But during his 2012 presidential campaign, Perry vowed that he would scrap the office he’s now been tasked to lead.
That idea dovetails nicely with recent suggestions from the Heritage Foundation that large portions of the agency be eliminated, and Perry may be delighted in working his way out of a job if it dislodges a department he sees as government bloat.
Perry himself has offered few specifics about what he might do with DOE other than get rid of it — and a Trump spokesman recently dodged a question about whether the new administration would consider following through on the idea — but if he is confirmed, a wing of conservatives are hoping to use his tenure to consolidate the national labs, halt efficiency regulations and make deep cuts in the agency’s energy research programs.
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project
The retirement of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid coupled with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss triggered a euphoria among the supporters of the Yucca Mountain project, an effort the Obama administration has spent more than half a decade trying to bury. But neither Trump nor Perry have given definitive answers about their positions on Yucca.
The Yucca Mountain chroniclers at the Las Vegas Review-Journal late last year combed through Perry’s public statements and documents he signed as Texas governor and “found nothing explicitly endorsing Yucca Mountain as the repository.” When the paper reached out to Perry’s spokesman to clarify his position, the spokesman chose to “defer on responding at this time.”
When POLITICO reached out this week, the spokesman, Marc Palazzo, said "I would assume that this issue will be addressed during Governor Perry's confirmation hearing."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/01/perry-on-the-issues-144407
-
Perry Skeptical Of Warming But Backed Tech To Fight It
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
Rick Perry hasn't been shy about his views on climate change, calling it in his book "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight."
But during his time as governor of Texas, Perry (R) was open to all kinds of energy development, including carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). Analysts say it's a technology that makes sense if one believes carbon dioxide is a problem.
Questions on Perry's conflicting attitudes toward greenhouse gases are expected to arise this morning in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to become the next secretary of Energy.
Among its responsibilities, the Department of Energy invests in clean energy technologies, ranging from renewables to CCUS to nuclear power. Where to place the agency's bets, however, has been a contentious debate among lawmakers, activists and the energy industry.
For President-elect Donald Trump and his nominee to lead the Energy Department, their biggest impact will be in research and development.
"Each president will put their fingerprints [on DOE] in R&D," said Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, Austin.
"I think climate change and emissions were the philosophic underpinning of the Obama Department of Energy," he added. "It's hard to know what [Perry] will push."'We don't manage it just to manage it'
Shortly after taking office as governor in 2000, Perry launched the Clean Coal Technology Foundation of Texas, a group tasked with advancing technologies for cleaner uses of coal. Texas burns more coal than any other state, so dealing with its consequences while balancing the economics was critical.
"The idea is that carbon projects can be beneficial to the environment and business with the transformation of technologies around CCUS," said Charles McConnell, executive director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University, who chaired the foundation. "Through the clean carbon foundation, we were able to bring forward significant regulations in Texas to incentivize development of these projects."
These efforts bore fruit earlier this month as the world's largest carbon capture retrofit system, Petra Nova, went online southwest of Houston (Energywire, Jan. 10).
During his time in Austin, Texas' longest-serving governor framed his energy strategy as "all of the above," presiding over a massive expansion of unconventional oil and gas drilling, as well as the country's largest deployment of wind energy (Climatewire, Dec. 14, 2016).
"It wasn't just about fossil fuels; it was about anything related to improving business conditions," said McConnell, who added that he "proudly served" as assistant secretary for fossil energy under President Obama.
Even so, CCUS stands out among the energy options Perry supported, since the technology is predicated on carbon dioxide being something worth controlling, which implicitly acknowledges humanity's influence on the global climate.
"I certainly think a key element [for CCUS] is concerns over climate change," said John Harju, vice president for strategic partnerships at the Energy & Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota. "The whole genesis of carbon management is really rooted in the climate change arena. We don't manage it just to manage it."
"It's the height of hypocrisy to spend on CCS and say climate change is not real," echoed Jim Marston, vice president of clean energy at the Environmental Defense Fund.Supporting CCS while opposing 'draconian' regs
The Global CCS Institute, an international carbon capture advocacy group, declined to comment.
However, there are ways to invest in CCUS, a technology that benefits coal, oil and natural gas, while tiptoeing around the climate change justification for it.
In Texas, many CCUS projects aim to use captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery, squeezing more oil out of aging wells. The revenue from the oil then offsets part of the cost of the carbon capture system.
Controlling the output from coal plants also helps control other pollutants, like particulates and nitrogen oxides, which impair air quality and can harm breathing.
"Regardless of one's position on climate change and its causes, you can support new energy technology, cleaner energy production, and still be opposed to draconian or heavy-handed federal legislation aiming to deal with climate change," said Ray Sullivan, a political consultant in Austin who served as Perry's chief of staff.
And while the Trump administration may be skeptical about climate change, much of the rest of the world is not, and that presents an opportunity to develop and export U.S. CCUS technology, since many countries will still be using fossil fuels for decades.
"If we really want to move the environmental needle, we need to make sure we don't have the environmental footprint around fossil fuels," McConnell said. "Our gift to the world will be that much bigger."
Under Perry, DOE will likely end up focusing on technology development in the fossil arena and help mitigate environmental impacts rather than pouring more research, development and deployment dollars in wind and solar power, according to McConnell.
"I would sum up the former governor by saying he is in no way environmentally irresponsible. He is also committed to creating business and technology for the economy," he said. "Perry will have governor's street cred, and it will be spoken by someone who's been there, done that and knows what works."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048626
-
Moniz Assesses His Record, Offers Advice To Successor
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz doesn't foresee being a public servant again. His worst day on the job was when an explosion occurred at a nuclear waste site in New Mexico. And he's "gotten over" attention to his hair.
Those tidbits came during an exit interview this week on "Direct Current," DOE's podcast. Under questioning from DOE officials, Moniz, whose final day on the job is today, offered advice to the next secretary and said "there's no going back" from a low-carbon economy, considering greenhouse gas cuts planned in most countries and business plans that look 10 to 20 years out.
Yesterday, Moniz also unveiled his official portrait and renamed a program for energy leader development the Oppenheimer Science and Energy Leadership Program, in honor of the late scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Without mentioning former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) by name, he said his successor doesn't need to be a scientist, as long as there is a team with diverse skill sets in place.
"Obviously, each person will have a different style, a different way of approaching the management of the department, but I think the common elements are to recognize that again, this department — its strength, its distinctiveness among the Cabinet agencies is its core of science and technology just permeating all the missions. So I think that has to be appreciated," Moniz said.
The lab directors should be used in a strategic role, since the national labs are at the core of how DOE "should go about solving problems," he said. "The next secretary needs to really internalize in many ways our essential assets for applying science and technology to our problems."
In one example, he said the 2015 Iran deal, which offered to lift some sanctions in return for dismantling parts of the country's nuclear program, hinged partly on analytical work from seven of the national labs.
Moniz hasn't said what he's doing next, other than to return to Boston and spend time with his family (E&E News PM, Jan. 11). Moniz first left DOE in 2001 after serving as undersecretary before becoming Energy secretary in 2013.
During both departures, he said, "it was my assumption that that was the end of my public service. ... I do believe it will be correct this time," he said. At the National Press Club this month, he said he would continue to focus on energy and climate change regardless.
Moniz's worst day on the job, an underground accident at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, led to a three-year shutdown of the nuclear waste site before its reopening this year. DOE later released a report attributing the explosion to organic kitty litter used to absorb liquid waste.
As for his best day on the job?
Moniz cited the Iran nuclear deal and the Mission Innovation announcement at the Paris climate talks in 2015, where the United States joined 19 countries in pledging to double clean energy research spending over five years.
Moniz faced some critics during his tenure who said he didn't do enough for nuclear power and fossil fuel development. Others said the agreement with Iran made concessions to a state sponsor of terrorism. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), for example, said in a statement that the Iran deal "makes conflict with Iran more likely, contributes to the further destabilization of the Middle East, and allows Iran to strengthen its nuclear capability."
Moniz countered publicly that the deal increased transparency and gave the International Atomic Energy Agency "unprecedented" monitoring tools.
When asked where the department made the most progress, he mentioned research that helped lower costs of clean technologies like LED lighting dramatically.
Also, putting innovation at the center of the climate challenge "was I think again very, very important progress that will be sustained in the years forward," he said.
"I really was fortunate to be here at a time when the president exercised very successfully personal leadership on two of his priorities internationally. One was on climate change and the energy innovation solutions for climate change, and secondly was nuclear security," he said.
Mission Innovation stalled during the appropriations process last year, although Moniz released a report this week outlining how DOE could spend the money under a doubling scenario (Greenwire, Jan. 17).
Moniz reiterated that the U.S. currently is on track to meet its climate goals through 202, but otherwise needs innovation through new technology for deep carbonization of the economy. And businesses know that, he said.
"I think a chief risk officer of a corporation would not be doing a very good job to suggest laying out billions of dollars right now betting on a high-carbon world," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048658
-
Pruitt to Senate Dems: Pro-Energy Doesn’t Mean Anti-Environment
Jan 19, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) Scott Pruitt, President-elect Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), shared his vision Wednesday for a more cooperative relationship between state and federal regulators, while facing criticism from Democrats over his ties to the oil and gas industry.
Pruitt, a Republican endured several hours of questioning during a nomination hearing held by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He helped bring a number of lawsuits against EPA while serving as Oklahoma's AG, took the opportunity to explain why he opposed so many recent regulations proposed by the agency he now hopes to lead.
Pruitt was asked about his role in litigation challenging rules such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), the Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, and others.
"Whether it's the MATS case or the Clean Power Plan case or the WOTUS case or a multitude of cases, the courts have agreed that the EPA has exceeded its authority, that the EPA has not acted within the framework that Congress has established in performing the role that it's supposed to perform," Pruitt told the lawmakers.
"...Process matters, rule of law matters, federalism matters. Those issues matter because Congress has said so. It is Congress that gives authority to the EPA. The EPA is an administrative agency; it is not a legislative body."
The nominee went on to further delineate his vision for state and federal cooperation on environmental regulation, taking not-so-subtle swipes at the more top-heavy approach EPA has allegedly taken under the Obama administration.
"The states are not mere vessels of federal will," he said. "They don't exist simply to carry out federal dictates from Washington, DC. There are substantive requirements, obligations, authority, jurisdiction granted to the states under our environmental statutes.
"That needs to be respected. When it's not respected, that is what spawned most of this litigation that has been referenced here...And why did it spawn it? Because it matters. It matters that the states participate in the way that Congress has directed, and they've been unable to do so for a number of years."
Pruitt said ensuring EPA follows the rule of law would provide consistency for those expected to adhere to its regulations.
"Regulators are supposed to make things ‘regular,’...to fairly and equitably enforce the rules and not pick winners and losers,” he said. “A regulator should not be for or against any sector of our economy. Instead, a regulator ought to follow the law in setting up the rules so those who are regulated can plan and allocate resources to meet the standards versus operating in a state of uncertainty and duress."
Splitting From Trump
Pruitt also looked to distance himself from some of the more controversial positions espoused at one point or another by the president-elect. In his opening statement, he made it clear he does not believe that climate change is a hoax, as Trump has stated. He told the committee "the science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change." However, he left some wiggle room regarding debates to be had about "the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it."
Regarding past Trump comments that have appeared to dismiss or trivialize the role of EPA, Pruitt said, "I believe there is a very important role for the Environmental Protection Agency...I believe there are air quality issues and water quality issues that cross state lines that the jurisdiction of the EPA, its involvement...is extremely important."
Oil, Gas Ties Scrutinized
The nominee also tried to get out in front of criticism from Democrats over his ties to the oil and gas industry.
"We must reject as a nation the false paradigm that if you're pro-energy, you're anti-environment, and if you're pro-environment, you're anti-energy," he said. "I utterly reject that narrative."
But that didn't stop Democrats from hammering Pruitt over his work on behalf of oil and gas interests in Oklahoma. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) referenced a New York Times investigation published in 2014 that showed Pruitt's office had copied onto its own letterhead a letter written by Devon Energy Corp. questioning EPA over its estimations of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
"You said earlier you listen to everyone," Merkley said. "In drafting this letter, you took an oil company's position, and then without consulting people who have diverse views of the impact you sent it off. How can you present that as representing the people of Oklahoma when you simply only consulted an oil company to push its own point of view for its private profit?"
Pruitt countered that Devon's concerns over EPA's methods reflected the broader concerns of an industry crucial to Oklahoma. Devon is headquartered in Oklahoma City and is one of the state’s largest producers.
"There was a concern about the overestimated percentages that the EPA put in the record," Pruitt said. "It was a record-based challenge. That was the expression of the letter to the EPA, and it was representing the interests of an industry in the state of Oklahoma. Not a company, an industry."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) grilled Pruitt over his involvement with the Republican Attorneys General Association and the 501(c)4 Rule of Law Defense Fund, calling the latter a "dark money operation." Whitehouse suggested that these groups have benefited from political donations from fossil fuel companies and that this presents a conflict of interest for Pruitt as EPA administrator.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) called on Pruitt to recuse himself from cases he was involved with as Oklahoma's attorney general, often cases where fossil fuel companies joined in the litigation against EPA.
"I have every willingness and desire to recuse as directed" by EPA's ethics officials, Pruitt said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought up the recent increase in seismic activity in Oklahoma linked to oil and gas wastewater injection wells. While Pruitt pointed to actions taken by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to curb injection volumes in response to the earthquakes, Sanders seemed unimpressed.
"You're in a state which is seeing a record-breaking number of earthquakes," Sanders said. "You're the attorney general. Obviously, you have stood up and said you will do everything you can to stop future earthquakes as a result of fracking."
"Senator, I have acknowledged that I'm concerned," Pruitt said.
"You've acknowledged that you're concerned," Sanders said. "...Your state's having a record-breaking number of earthquakes and you acknowledge that you're concerned. If that's the kind of EPA administrator you will be, you're not going to get my vote."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109101-pruitt-to-senate-dems-pro-energy-doesnt-mean-anti-environment
-
Pruitt Says He's Pursued Oil Companies; Dems Are Doubtful
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan,
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said yesterday he's pursued wrongdoing by the oil industry, trying to dispel criticism he would be too cozy with industry when running U.S. EPA.
"When enforcement is necessary, vigorous enforcement, I have done that as attorney general," Pruitt (R) said at his confirmation hearing. "I have taken very decisive steps against those who have violated the law."
But Democratic senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee were dismissive of the cases he cited as examples. Some, they said, had been brought by his Democratic predecessor. Others, were routine or shouldn't count as environmental enforcement.
After discounting those, said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), "There is virtually nothing left."
And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked why he hadn't done more about the earthquakes rattling Oklahoma linked to drilling activity.
Pruitt stressed several cases he has brought against oil majors for "double-dipping" into state gas-station cleanup funds. In Oklahoma and a host of other states, oil majors have been accused of taking payouts from insurance companies to clean up leaking underground tanks, then turning around and billing taxpayers.
"We are involved in a situation in Oklahoma where multiple oil and gas companies, ConocoPhillips and others, had defrauded the state in cleanup with respect to spills occurred," Pruitt said.
Pruitt quietly settled the ConocoPhillips case in September for $3.8 million. He filed a similar case against BP PLC in 2012. He indicated yesterday he's filed another case against oil refiner Valero Energy Corp. and said he is negotiating with Exxon Mobil Corp.
But Whitehouse dismissed the double-dipping cases as accounting fraud matters.
"That has nothing to do with the environment," he said.
There are other problems with the cases. The BP case has been dormant since Pruitt filed it in 2012. Pruitt filed the case against ConocoPhillips after fighting private citizens who'd been battling the company for nine years (Energywire, Jan. 16).
In a sharp retort to Whitehouse yesterday, Pruitt initially said he'd sued Exxon. But he later had to correct himself.
"Exxon and a number of other cases are still in settlement discussions," Pruitt said, "so those cases have not materialized in actual litigation just yet."
An Exxon Mobil spokesman said he could offer no details on the settlement negotiations cited by Pruitt.
E&E News couldn't find a record in legal databases of such a case against Valero. Efforts to clarify with the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General, the Trump Transition Office and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee were not successful. A Valero spokesperson did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Many of the cases had not been widely cited by Pruitt before yesterday's hearing. He has not issued press releases about any of the "double-dipping" cases.
Environmental enforcement has not been a focus of Pruitt's public profile as attorney general (Energywire, Jan. 18). He has sought and received much more attention for his suits against Obama administration regulatory agencies.
Democratic senators pressed that point, saying he'd done more to help his corporate benefactors than constituents victimized by pollution.
"I worry about whose side you're going to be on," said Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). "There seems to be a pattern of you being on the side of polluters."
Pruitt responded that oil and gas isn't just another industry in his home state, it's a pillar of the economy that supports many jobs. By some accounts, 1 in 5 jobs in the state is connected in some way to the oil and gas industry.
"The state of Oklahoma has an oil and gas industry that is vital to its economy," Pruitt said.
He also stressed that his crusades against federal agencies and regulations were not about opposing the environment but making sure the proper process is followed.
"The rule of law is not something that's academic in my view," Pruitt said.
There were few, if any, signs at the hearing that Pruitt's confirmation is in doubt. While Democrats threw punches, Republicans praised him and welcomed the idea that he'd rein in EPA.
"My constituents tell me the EPA is out to get them, not work with them," said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).
But Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats and sought the Democratic nomination for president last year, indicated Pruitt probably won't get his vote. And he said it was because of what he perceived as Pruitt's indifference to the earthquakes shaking Oklahoma.
The quakes have been linked to the disposal practices of the state's oil and gas industry. Environmental groups have tried to link Pruitt to the quakes, but he hasn't had much involvement (Energywire, Jan. 13). Still, at EPA, he'd be running the agency with the most authority to deal with the drilling-linked seismicity.
Sanders pressed Pruitt on what he's done about the quakes as attorney general and grew irritated when Pruitt said, "I've acknowledged I'm concerned."
"If that's the kind of administrator you're going to be for the EPA — you've had a record-breaking number of earthquakes and you acknowledge you're concerned — you're not going to get my vote," Sanders said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048622
-
NextDecade Takes Aim At Texas City For LNG
Jan 19, 2017 | Fuelfix
By Jordan Blum
The Woodlands-based NextDecade is honing in on a Texas City location near Galveston for its latest effort to build a multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas export facility.
NextDecade, which has focused on an LNG export project in Brownsville, said it signed lease agreements for a nearly 1,000-acre site at Texas City’s Shoal Point.
The move comes after the Point Isabel school board in Brownsville rejected tax abatement incentives for NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG project there, as well as for the competing Annova LNG project in Brownsville that’s owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. Residents and environmental activists teamed up to oppose the projects. Both NextDecade and Annova have vowed to proceed in Brownsville without the tax breaks.
Still, NextDecade also now has plans for Texas City to export the cheap and abundant natural gas supplies produced from Texas shale. The company is working to attract additional financing for both projects.
“Now more than ever, the U.S. has the potential to benefit from the incredible natural gas resources we have right here in Texas,” said NextDecade CEO Kathleen Eisbrenner in the announcement. “The U.S. is the most competitive source of LNG in the world and NextDecade is looking forward to bringing new supply to the global marketplace from the heart of the global energy industry.”
The Shoal Point acreage offers port access and the potential to expand. The site also benefits from its proximity to nearby natural gas pipelines, the company said.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/01/19/nextdecade-takes-aim-at-texas-city-for-lng/
-
Proposed Ethylene Cracker Plant Sparks Debate In Texas
Jan 19, 2017 | Corpus Christi Caller-Times (In E&E Energywire)
By Fares Sabawi
A proposed ethylene cracker plant has caused a fierce split among residents of San Patricio County, Texas.
Proponents say the project, which is a joint effort between Exxon Mobil Corp. and Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corp., would bring 11,000 construction jobs and 600 permanent jobs to the area. The permanent jobs would have an average annual salary of $90,000.
But critics say the project would pose a hazard to the community. In particular, they say the plant would be too close to several schools in town, including Gregory-Portland High School.
The tension came to a head at a meeting Tuesday about a potential tax abatement for the project. Even before the meeting began, supporters and opponents erupted in a shouting match outside the building.
Once inside, the board of trustees discussed the tax abatement at length but did not reach a decision. Trustees said they wanted to wait for more information before taking action.
Robert Tully, Exxon's Gulf Coast Growth venture project executive, said he rejects the idea that the plant would be a hazard to the community. "We operate these plants day in and day out across the Gulf Coast safely," Tully said.
Looking ahead, Exxon is expected to make a decision on the plant by the end of the first quarter of this year (Fares Sabawi, Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Jan. 17). — MJ
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048583
-
Judge Oks Launch Of Environmental Review
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Government officials' plan to move forward with an in-depth round of environmental review for the Dakota Access pipeline will go unchallenged for now, as a federal court has rejected an attempt to temporarily halt the process.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia yesterday denied Dakota Access LLC's request for an emergency order that would have temporarily barred the Department of the Army from kicking off an environmental impact statement the agency committed to in December.
Dakota Access originally sought to block the agency from publishing its notice of intent to prepare the EIS in the Federal Register, but the item appeared yesterday morning, ahead of a court hearing on the issue. Company lawyers reframed their request in court yesterday, noting that Judge James Boasberg could order the government to retract the notice.
According to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorney David Debold, representing Dakota Access, the company sought the order to keep EIS issues from bogging down the litigation while Boasberg considers a high-stakes claim the company has pending before the court: that the final federal easement needed to complete construction of the stalled oil pipeline was effectively issued last summer. Company lawyers asked the court to pause EIS action until that claim is resolved (Greenwire, Jan. 17).
But Boasberg ruled that Dakota Access had not met the high legal standard for an emergency order.
"I just believe that irreparable harm has not been demonstrated," he said, adding, "It's very possible there's no harm or injury to them from this notice of intent that has been filed."
He noted that if Dakota Access' cross-claim seeking easement approval is ultimately denied, the company could actually benefit from the EIS already being in motion.
According to ClearView Energy Partners analyst Christi Tezak, the Federal Register notice is significant because the Obama administration's December announcement of plans to perform an EIS, absent a formal notice, may have been easier to rescind. Still, she said, the impact is "incremental."
"Announcing an intent to undertake an EIS likely constitutes an official action, but one that would appear to be reversible if the incoming administration disagreed with it," she wrote in a memo yesterday. "Like any other official action, a process may need to be followed (and even litigated in court)."Appeal dismissed
Meanwhile, in appellate court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit yesterday dismissed the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's months-old appeal of the district court's September decision to deny a preliminary injunction that would have blocked construction near and across Lake Oahe, where the pipeline would cross a half-mile north of the tribe's reservation (Energywire, Oct. 6, 2016).
The appeal is now moot because the federal government has withheld permission for the pipeline to cross the lake. But the tribe had asked the D.C. Circuit to vacate the injunction denial anyway, for fear that it would set unfavorable precedent.
The D.C. Circuit declined to vacate the decision but remanded to Boasberg to consider whether to grant the tribe's request to scrap it.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048604
-
Perry Pledges Intense Cybersecuity Focus If Confirmed To Run DOE
Jan 19, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who seeks to become the next Energy Secretary, promised to work across agencies to protect the federal government from "cyber snooping."
Sen. Maria Cantwell, ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, asked Perry during his confirmation hearing how he would work to stop cyberattacks, a reference to the Russian hacking that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
"You asked about cyber and DOE has a massive role to play in that," Perry said. "I’ll be honest with you senator, no matter what players, whether it’s a formal state or a group loosely associated, if they’re trying to penetrate into Americans lives, whether it’s private citizens or highest level of government, you will see me engaged at highest levels, working across agencies, with DARPA, ARPA-E, ARPA-I [Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity].
"I feel very certain if confirmed that we have in our scientific laboratories and private sectors the fertile minds, the technology and the ability to stop the cyber snooping, or for that matter the intentions to do harm to our people," he continued.
Perry was trying to reassure Cantwell after she referenced comments from President-elect Donald Trump during the campaign downplaying concerns about U.S. intelligence agency warnings that the Russian government had hacked emails from Clinton associates, and that he hoped more hacks would come.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Perry Vows To Defend Climate Research, Scientists
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) made a bid for the support of Senate Democrats today by promising to defend the Department of Energy's climate-related science and innovation even if his boss, President-elect Donald Trump, wants to gut the department he's been picked to lead.
Perry often veered from testy exchanges over policy disagreements to jokes and folksy expressions.
In response to questions, he told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee he couldn't confirm recent reports of Trump's transition team wanting to slash DOE research funding and eliminate offices tied to renewable and fossil energy research.
And he repeatedly vowed to defend DOE scientists and research, including their climate change work, calling the national labs a "crown jewel."
But when senators pushed him on potential Trump budget cuts, Perry quickly pivoted to his famous 2011 blunder in a nationally televised Republican presidential primary debate when he forgot the name of the federal agency he wanted to dismantle, DOE.
"Well, senator," Perry told Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, "maybe [the Trump administration will] have the same experience I had and forget they said that."
In prepared comments, Perry expressed regret for calling for DOE's extermination and stated his belief in climate change, saying humans are at least partially to blame.
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the committee's top Democrat, told Perry there is "widespread anxiety" about whether Trump intends to dismantle DOE's scientific capabilities or simply starve departmental resources, saying the incoming administration can either "cling to the fossil fuel industry of the past or continue to lead on innovation."
Cantwell pushed Perry on whether he would protect DOE scientists and the science budget related to climate, to which Perry replied, "I am going to protect the men and women of the scientific community from anyone that would attack them, no matter what their reason may be, at the Department of Energy."
When asked about a contentious questionnaire Trump advisers circulated, asking for top-paid lab workers and names of staffers who attended climate-related meetings, Perry said that wasn't his call.
"I didn't approve it, I don't approve of it, I don't need [or want] that information," Perry said.
It wasn't long before Perry, a former "Dancing with the Stars" contestant and repeated presidential hopeful, again turned to levity.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, Perry said he enjoyed meeting Franken in his Senate office.
Perry: "I hope you're as much fun on that dais as you were on your couch."
Franken: "Oh, my Lord."
Perry: "I think we've found our 'Saturday Night Live' skit."DOE budget cuts: 'This is absolutely nuts'
A source close to the transition team said DOE budget cuts and the elimination of some offices have been "bubbling about" for some time, namely proposals from advisers on Trump's landing team with ties to the Heritage Foundation.
Even so, Republican Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota said during an interview today that he and Perry discussed the importance of fossil energy research at length when they met privately earlier this month. Perry is "very committed" to the department's fossil research work, Hoeven said.
But the senator said Perry didn't offer promises that DOE's funding wouldn't be cut, a nod to the budgetary process between the White House and Congress.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said the cuts being reported would be "devastating," noting Perry's stated support for the agency's oversight of research on gas production, renewables, offshore energy and supercomputing.
"I hope the people proposing these cuts are watching this hearing," King said. "This is absolutely nuts in terms of the future of energy in this country."
Perry, King said, is going to have to do some "hard pushing back" should the Trump administration take the scalpel to DOE.
Perry's own past comments calling for downsizing and eliminating the department repeatedly came up.
"Square this for me. ... You're coming into a new position where we're talking about massive cuts," Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said. "You've advised and supported cuts ... that are critical to lowering emissions [and bolstering efficiency]."
Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said one of the largest challenges facing the new DOE chief is management of thousands of employees and contractors.
"I do not subscribe to the view that only a scientist can manage other scientists," Murkowski said. "I think what we need is a good manager, we need a manager to manage all the scientists."
Traits of that manager, Murkowski said, should include organizing, setting direction, imposing accountability and using cash wisely.
The senator was also quick to note her eagerness for the next DOE leader to expedite natural gas exports and lower energy prices in rural Alaska.
Throughout the hearing, Perry touted his experience in Texas with both energy and budgets.
"I have the executive experience necessary," he said, "for leading an organization as large as the Department of Energy."
He added, "This is not my first rodeo when it comes to budget shortfalls."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048662
-
In Court, EPA Defends Analysis Of Mercury Regs' Benefits
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is asserting a wide prerogative to gauge the potential impact of proposed air quality regulations in a legal tussle over whether the agency properly considered compliance costs in going ahead with its regulations on power plant mercury emissions.
Under its preferred approach, the agency interpreted the Clean Air Act "as not requiring a formal cost-benefit analysis, but rather as allowing the administrator broad discretion to exercise her expert judgment in determining how to consider and weigh all relevant factors" in finding that regulations were needed, EPA lawyers said in a brief filed late yesterday.
"No formal benefit-cost analysis is explicitly required, nor does the framework of the statute support such a reading," they added.
EPA is battling lawsuits from utilities, Murray Energy Corp. and more than a dozen states that challenge the "supplemental finding" released last spring in response to the Supreme Court's 2014 decision on its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (Greenwire, Aug. 5, 2016).
With a projected $9.6 billion yearly price tag, those regulations rank among the most expensive ever issued by EPA. In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that EPA had failed to give due consideration to that expense in making the initial decision to regulate mercury releases. In their supplemental finding, EPA officials stood by that decision, highlighting that the expected $37 billion in annual health benefits easily outweighed the expense of compliance.
Entwined with the litigation, which is unfolding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is the question of whether EPA also improperly relied on "co-benefits" — such as reductions in emissions in fine particulates that would have occurred in any case under a separate rulemaking — to justify the case for the mercury regulations.
In yesterday's filing, however, EPA lawyers said the agency's use of co-benefits was reasonable "because it is consistent with the statute, legislative history, widely-accepted economic principles contained in executive branch guidance, and long-standing agency practice."
Because the power industry has largely, if not completely, implemented the standards, the direct impact of the litigation's outcome is likely to be limited. Any ruling by the appeals court on EPA's use of co-benefits, however, could have repercussions for future rulemakings.
In a wish list for the next administration, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, last fall urged a ban on the use of co-benefits to justify new regulations, arguing that the practice exaggerates their anticipated advantages (Greenwire, Nov. 1, 2016).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048661
-
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, already in the thick of a fight against U.S. EPA's regional haze plan for his state, is now suing to overturn the agency's recent revisions to the broader program, created to improve visibility in national parks.
"This rule is both out of compliance with the law and clear abuse of discretion by the Obama administration," Paxton (R) said in a statement late yesterday, announcing the suit filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"This is yet another midnight attempt by the Obama administration to grab power that Congress has not given to it," said Paxton.
Paxton brought the lawsuit on behalf of Texas and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. As of this morning, the filing had not shown up in the federal courts' online record system.
EPA published the final rule, which revises state planning requirements for the haze program, in the Federal Register on Jan. 10 (Greenwire, Jan. 9).
While the suit does not spell out the precise grounds for the state's appeal, Texas officials had previously voiced numerous concerns with a proposed version of the rule.
Backing a three-year delay for submission of the next round of state plans, for example, they said that a separate change requiring consultation with federal lands managers earlier in the planning process "appears to be burdensome to states and unnecessary to achieve the goals of the regional haze program," according to comments last year. EPA incorporated both changes into the final rule.
Under a standard 60-day window allowed by the Clean Air Act, Paxton had until early March to bring a legal challenge. Waiting until that point, however, would have meant filing suit against the administration of incoming President-elect Donald Trump, a fellow Republican who takes office tomorrow. Trump appointees at EPA and the Justice Department will presumably have the final say on defense of the new rule.
The haze program, which dates back to 1999 in its current form, is intended to provide clearer air in 156 national parks and wilderness areas around the country.
Paxton is already fighting an EPA-imposed haze plan that would require new or upgraded sulfur dioxide scrubbers on seven coal-fired power plants in Texas with the goal of improving visibility in Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains national parks in West Texas, and the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in southwest Oklahoma.
EPA is now seeking to take back the plan after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked implementation last year. Texas and power producers want the court to instead throw it out (Greenwire, Dec. 20, 2016).
In the meantime, EPA has proposed a new plan that would impose controls on many of the same plants under a separate set of requirements in the haze program (Greenwire, Dec. 12, 2016).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/19/stories/1060048630
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested