Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/20/2017
-
Scientists Are 'Soul-Searching' With Pruitt Poised To Lead
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The future role of U.S. EPA's independent board of scientific advisers is uncertain under the leadership of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Limits Companies' Ability To Keep Trade Secrets
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA rejiggered its chemical reporting guidelines yesterday, forcing manufacturers to provide justification when they request that information on certain compounds be kept secret. -
EPA Issues TSCA Report To Congress
Jan 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has reported to Congress on its capacity to conduct risk evaluations under the reformed TSCA. -
Chemical Law Is Priority, Says Trump’s EPA Pick
Jan 20, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Pat Rizzuto
Implementing the amended Toxic Substances Control Act is absolutely a priority, Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, testified Jan. 18. -
California Issues DINP Safe Use Determination For Certain Fabrics
Jan 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has issued a safe use determination (SUD) for the use of DINP in Phifertex® fabric used in outdoor furniture products. -
On Inauguration Day, Trump's Energy Agenda Starts To Unfold
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
A cavalcade of limousines and marchers is ready to usher Donald Trump to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. this afternoon as the 45th president, in a highly secured procession where every minute detail has been scoped and scripted. -
Trump Takes Reins, Lays Out Energy Plan
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Trump painted a grim portrait of the United States today during his inaugural speech as he pledged to "start winning again" and insisted, "I will never, ever let you down." -
Perry Recants On Abolishing DOE, Ponders Climate Action
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry expressed regret yesterday that he ever advocated the elimination of the Department of Energy, telling senators that he has a new appreciation for the work of the agency and its 14,000 employees. -
U.S. Exports Fill Asia's LNG Demand Gap As Market Tightens
Jan 20, 2017 | Reuters
By Henning Gloystein
U.S. liquefied natural gas exporters are sending tankers to Asia to fill a gap in the region's demand as markets have tightened more-than-expected on surging consumption in China and Pakistan, and because of Australia's struggles to ramp up production. -
Lawsuit Challenges Mont. Rule On Fracking Chemicals
Jan 20, 2017 | AP (In E&E Energywire)
A rule that allows energy companies to conceal the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing has been challenged in Montana state court. -
New Orleans Residents Speak Out Against Proposed Power Plant
Jan 20, 2017 | New Orleans Times-Picayune (In E&E Energywire)
By Beau Evans
New Orleans East residents are calling on city officials to reject Entergy Corp.'s proposal to build a power plant in their backyard. -
Pipelines, Carbon On Trump’s Day-One Energy List: Report
Jan 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President-elect Donald Trump’s team is preparing a list of early energy-related executive actions dealing with carbon calculations and pipeline permits, according to a Friday report. -
PHMSA Rules To Speed Up Spill-Response Time
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on Wednesday issued a rule to boost pipeline safety by improving notification-response time after a spill. -
DOT Rule Probes Value Of 'Real-Time' Oil Train Data
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Transportation safety officials are seeking input on the pros and cons of sharing oil and ethanol train data with state intelligence centers, according to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking issued yesterday. -
PHMSA Seeking Input on Crude-by-Rail Content Rule
Jan 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on vapor pressure requirements for the transport of crude oil and other hazardous liquids by rail. -
Obama's Climate Legacy: 8 Years Of Troubles And Triumphs
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Jean Chemnick
When an environmentalist asked a recent adviser to President Obama what the future holds for confronting climate change, the answer cast a shadow on today's inauguration. -
Dancing With The Senate, Perry Glides Around Climate Questions
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
Energy Secretary nominee Rick Perry showed he was just as graceful before a Senate committee as he is on the dance floor, performing a rhetorical Texas cha-cha around pointed questions on climate change from lawmakers yesterday. -
U.S. Mayors To Trump On Climate: 'Don't Get In Our Way'
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Erika Bolstad
But they truly believe they will be the ones to lead on climate change in America, especially if one of Donald Trump's first acts as president is to yank the United States out of its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If so, cities like Los Angeles, Seattle and New York are prepared to pick up the slack. -
Pruitt's New Problem: How To Regulate Carbon
Jan 20, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run EPA, acknowledges it will be his responsibility to regulate carbon emissions, which he says are at least partially responsible for heating up the planet — but he also wants to scrap the Obama administration rules aimed at doing just that. -
EPA Offers 2-Pronged Legal Attack On Mact Rule Critics
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA sought yesterday to fend off a two-sided attack on its emission standards for brick and ceramic manufacturers, arguing in a newly filed court brief that the new limits are strong enough to satisfy public health requirements, yet not skewed against industry.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Scientists Are 'Soul-Searching' With Pruitt Poised To Lead
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The future role of U.S. EPA's independent board of scientific advisers is uncertain under the leadership of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.
Created in 1978, the 47-member Science Advisory Board is designed to provide expert guidance on environmental issues to the EPA administrator. Following the board's advice is voluntary, but SAB has played an important role in shaping the scientific foundation of EPA's major regulatory initiatives.
Pruitt says EPA actions must be based on "objective" science. Yet his record of challenging environmental regulations that are based on scientific evidence raises questions about the board's relevance under his leadership, observers say.
The Republican attorney general may seek to change the composition of the board, based on his testimony at his confirmation hearing this week. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) questioned Pruitt on EPA's current process for considering the scientific information underpinning major regulations. Rounds described the system as "flawed" and "unbalanced," citing a 2015 board mainly composed of experts from the East and West coasts.
"I think it's important to have that geographic diversity better represented, and there are some conflicts of interest application with the Science Advisory Board that need to be addressed as well," Pruitt answered. "And also with the Clean Air [Scientific] Advisory Committee, the standing committee of the Science Advisory Board."
Later, he added that having a diverse board would help ensure confidence in its findings.
If he is confirmed, Pruitt will have an opportunity to appoint new members to the board as soon as this fall, and experts can serve up to two three-year terms. The SAB provides guidance to the administrator in the form of peer review of existing studies or original research, and answers questions on topics including engineering, economics and social issues that are related to agency actions, according to EPA.
In September, 30 seats on the Science Advisory Board and scientific advisory board standing committee will either be eligible for renewal for one additional three-year term, or will be open for replacement under the new administrator, the agency said.
Some board members question how much Pruitt would be able to shift its membership in one direction or another. That's because the pool of potential board members is first vetted by the Science Advisory Board Staff Office before the administrator makes a selection.
The board is designed to have a mix of experts from academia, industry and other government agencies whose research focuses on subjects including air, water, land and toxic substances. These individuals have to demonstrate both expertise in their fields and have the ability to engage in broad-based thinking, since members must apply critical thinking to scientific questions they may not have explored previously.
"It's a very open and transparent process. The staff office that runs it goes to great pains to ensure that there isn't a bias or slant of the committee," said Joe Arvai, director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan, and a current board member. He noted that he was speaking as a private citizen.
"The role of the Science Advisory Board is to provide science advice to the office of the administrator, it's not to evaluate the merits of the rule in anything other than scientific things," he said.'Relentless' litigation
Another possible change under Pruitt could be the extent that the administrator reaches out to the board for guidance.
"This new guy that is proposed, he's not known for his belief in or respect of science on a lot of environmental issues," said Bill Schlesinger, president emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and another board member.
Under the Obama administration, board members have worked on three or four reports for Administrator Gina McCarthy or her deputies at any given time. A recent topic tackled by the board was whether hydraulic fracturing contaminates drinking water. Currently, the board is looking into phosphorus pollution in Lake Erie and biomass as a renewable energy source.
"He might choose not to send anything to the Science Advisory Board, I don't know what to expect," Schlesinger said.
He noted that McCarthy had "pretty much" followed the board's advice.
"If she didn't, it would be a vote of no confidence," said Schlesinger.
By contrast, environmental groups and Democrats have slammed Pruitt for his environmental record and opposition to "basic science." The Environmental Defense Fund has counted at least 14 lawsuits against EPA environmental regulations that Pruitt has either started or joined.
"There is this pattern of relentless, constant litigation to block bedrock clean air protections for Americans. I think that's remarkable," said Martha Roberts, an attorney at EDF.
One of the lawsuits is in opposition to EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which set federal regulations to limit power plant emissions of mercury, arsenic and other toxic metals.
In a legal brief joined by Pruitt, opponents of the mercury rule argued that EPA was not able to prove that power plants' mercury emissions and emissions of other metals were at significant enough levels to be harmful to human health.
Groups such as the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association and Physicians for Social Responsibility countered that by saying the rule would "significantly lower" the amount of mercury women and young children are exposed to through fish consumption. This would help to prevent the neurological disorders and health effects like reduced attention span, poor memory and impaired fine motor skills.
To environmental groups like EDF, the legal brief in the MATS case exemplifies a disregard for science-based rulemaking, a claim Pruitt himself disavowed in his confirmation hearing this week.
"I think it's EPA's obligation in taking steps, both in rulemaking and otherwise, to ensure it has the most up-to-date, objective scientific data possible," Pruitt said.
Even if Pruitt does little to personally change the Science Advisory Board, his presence at EPA could be enough to change who is interested in taking the job.
"I've spoken to people now who have said, 'If I were asked, I would say no,'" Arvai said. "I've spoken to people who have said, 'I think I might resign from this.' I think there is a lot of soul-searching going on right now about what the best course of action is."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048705
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Limits Companies' Ability To Keep Trade Secrets
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA rejiggered its chemical reporting guidelines yesterday, forcing manufacturers to provide justification when they request that information on certain compounds be kept secret.
The new guideline stems from the Toxic Substances Control Act reforms signed into law last summer. It will ultimately result in fewer confidential business information (CBI) claims when companies make new chemicals, freeing up information for public consumption, advocates say.
"Traditionally, companies were able to simply claim some item of information as CBI without justifying why it was a trade secret warranting protection," said Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, in an emailed statement. "EPA was then forced to protect it from disclosure."
But EPA's notice implements what is known as "upfront substantiation," wherein CBI assertions must be accompanied by a thorough explanation of need.
"EPA's notice today marks an important victory for the public's right to know about toxic chemicals," said Liz Hitchcock, legislative director with nonprofit Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, in a statement.
The original TSCA "allowed chemical companies to hide too much of the limited information that was available about chemicals from the public eye," she added.
In the past, the CBI provision was "overly used and abused," locking chemical details behind company doors, Hitchcock said in an interview with E&E News.
But the tightening of the law now means EPA will have greater access to information and can thus more efficiently regulate chemicals, Denison said in a blog post.
The American Chemistry Council is "reviewing the notice ... to determine that it comports with the [law's] requirements," according to Christina Franz, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs. "If we identify any concerns, we will discuss them with our membership and with EPA."
The American Cleaning Institute, whose member companies manufacture a variety of chemicals, expressed some skepticism.
"Confidential business information is an important piece of the process for companies to innovate and succeed in today's marketplace," the group said. "We appreciate EPA's publication of this language detailing requirements for making CBI claims going forward, though we still need to review the language in detail to ensure the process is clear and straightforward for our member companies."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048709
-
EPA Issues TSCA Report To Congress
Jan 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has reported to Congress on its capacity to conduct risk evaluations under the reformed TSCA.
The move was a statutory requirement laid out under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.
The agency says the new law's increased requirements and tighter deadlines have increased staffing and contractor resource needs. It has begun to bring in extra resources and is leveraging past experiences to reduce the lead time for identifying personnel to complete technical and scientific tasks.
It is also conducting in-house training of existing staff "to better equip them to meet the expanded requirements and accelerated time frames for the risk evaluations and management actions."
The EPA projects that once fully implemented the risk evaluation programme will cost $35.8m a year. This factors in 30 ongoing risk evaluations – 20 initiated by the EPA and as many as ten requested by manufacturers – estimated at $3.7m per evaluation.
The costs are expected to ramp up over the next several years. Fiscal year 2017 is projected to carry a total cost of $12.3m, rising to $38.3m by FY2019.
The agency notes that its resource estimates do not factor in petitions submitted under section 21 of TSCA, "as the number, nature and complexity of these petitions are unknown". It says, though, that it expects to receive petitions that may result in additional risk evaluations.
The EPA says it is developing a rule on fees collection. The law allows the agency to collect fees to defray 25% of its annual costs for carrying out sections 4, 5,6 and 14 of the law; these are capped at $25m for the first three years.
The agency says it looks forward to a "continued partnership with Congress to successfully implement" the law. It will provide updates as resource estimates are refined and the workload becomes clearer.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52306/epa-issues-tsca-report-to-congress
-
Chemical Law Is Priority, Says Trump’s EPA Pick
Jan 20, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Pat Rizzuto
Implementing the amended Toxic Substances Control Act is absolutely a priority, Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, testified Jan. 18.
The EPA also must make managing certain chemicals, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a priority, Pruitt told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during his nomination hearing.
Committee chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) were among the senators who asked Pruitt about TSCA implementation during his nomination hearing.
Pruitt told Capito that TSCA implementation would “absolutely” be a priority.Core TSCA Rules
He later listed core, or “framework,” regulations the amended chemicals law required.
Issuing those mid-year, as the statute requires, should be the next EPA administrator’s priority, Pruitt said.
Amended TSCA requires the EPA to issue three fundamental implementation rules by June. The rules would establish procedures the EPA would use to: update the TSCA inventory so it distinguishes between chemicals that have been made, sold or used during the last 10 years and chemicals that have been in commerce, but now aren’t; review the chemicals in commerce and determine which need to have potential risks from their health effects and exposures evaluated; and evaluate those risks.
A fourth core regulation, referred to as the fee rule, would establish the fees chemical manufacturers and processors would pay to help the EPA recoup its chemical oversight costs.
The fee rule does not have a statutory deadline, but the EPA needs the revenue the rule would generate to carry out the law’s mandates.‘Teflon’ Chemical in Drinking Water
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she’s concerned about perfluorooctanoic acid that is contaminating her state’s drinking water supplies.
PFOA should be tested under the chemicals law, she said.
“If it is a carcinogen as many scientists say it is, it needs to be banned,” Gillibrand said.
Perfluorooctanoic acid has been phased out of U.S. production, but can still be imported. For decades, it was used to make other chemicals that go into cookware, cables, textiles and other products with stick-, stain- and heat-resistant properties.
PFOA also remains in the environment as related chemicals break down to it. DuPont’s former use of PFOA to make other chemicals, which in turn were used to manufacture Teflon and other nonstick cookware has led to the chemical being dubbed the “Teflon” chemical.
New York, New Jersey, California, Minnesota, Ohio and West Virginia are just a few states where the local officials have detected the chemical in drinking water supplies.
Pruitt said PFOA needs to be addressed quickly whether under TSCA or the Safe Drinking Water Act.
https://www.bna.com/chemical-law-priority-n73014450073/
-
California Issues DINP Safe Use Determination For Certain Fabrics
Jan 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has issued a safe use determination (SUD) for the use of DINP in Phifertex® fabric used in outdoor furniture products.
It says these fabrics can contain up to 25% DINP by weight and remain below the no significant risk level (NSRL) of 146micrograms/day.
Products meeting this concentration limit are not required to provide an exposure warning under Proposition 65.
The SUD was issued at the manufacturer's request.
SUDs for DINP in PVC roofing and for vinyl flooring have been issued in recent years.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52316/california-issues-dinp-safe-use-determination-for-certain-fabrics
-
On Inauguration Day, Trump's Energy Agenda Starts To Unfold
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
A cavalcade of limousines and marchers is ready to usher Donald Trump to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. this afternoon as the 45th president, in a highly secured procession where every minute detail has been scoped and scripted.
But the currents of energy and economic actions that will follow Trump's inauguration won't resemble today's clockwork plans, based on the new president's guerilla campaign tactics and the unpredictability of energy markets and politics, policy analysts say.
Since the end of World War II, "there has never been such an outsider coming into the presidency," said John Glaser, associate director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. "It's truly very unpredictable. Unsettlingly unpredictable."
Trump will inherit the leadership of a nation that is becoming the Western Hemisphere's Saudi Arabia, according to the International Energy Agency, shipping crude oil, gasoline, natural gas and petroleum products to foreign customers in ever greater volumes, while shrinking the oil imports that weighed down trade balances for a generation.
"The big change in U.S. energy markets that will punctuate the next quarter-century is the shift from an orientation of being a customer to being a supplier," said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners.
At the same time that the new administration hails a U.S. fossil fuel resurgence, it has signaled a retreat from international collaboration on cutting greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, an about-face from America's posture under President Obama with unknowable consequences.
Trump backed his promise to scuttle the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan with the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), an outspoken foe of the plan, to head U.S. EPA. Pruitt told senators at his confirmation hearing this week that he would put the agency in its "proper" role as a partner with the states on clean air and water issues, removing its "heavy hand" under Obama (E&E Daily, Jan. 18).
Trump advisers are also calling for the new administration to pull back from EPA's stepped-up fuel economy targets for cars and light trucks, another cornerstone of the Obama climate plan. EPA got the ruling out this month, accelerating its decision and drawing protests from U.S. automakers.Can't change the stripes on a zebra
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), Trump's nominee to head the Department of Energy, told senators yesterday that he had spoken with the president-elect, adding, "He truly is an all-of-the-above supporter of American energy."
Perry pointed to his home state as a model, with its leading position as a supplier of oil, natural gas and wind power. Speaking carefully to promise senators an all-of-the-above policy platform, Perry indicated he sees a distinction between supporting government research and development on new renewable energy technologies, versus continued backing of federal subsidies for renewable power.
"I'm a fiscal conservative and I don't back away from that. I think that is a badge I wear with honor," he told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee members at his confirmation hearing. "You can't change the stripes on this zebra."
That keeps Perry in line with Trump's endorsement of fossil fuels production and skepticism about federal support for clean energy options. "The federal government should get out of the way" of energy production, Trump said in an energy speech last year (E&E News PM, May 26, 2016).
Trump joins Republican leaders in Congress favoring more oil and gas leasing on federal lands and a green light for pipeline expansion, notes Barclays analyst Warren Russell.
U.S. oil producers are preparing another domestic investment surge after weathering the price collapse in 2014. New pipeline links are likely to double gas shipments to Mexico by the end of the decade, and a first wave of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals will be completed by 2018, with more to follow, according to analysts at RBN Energy.
Trump "is very focused on jobs, the creation of good, high-wage jobs," said Jason Bennett, co-head of the Global Projects Group at the Baker Botts law firm in Houston, and that goal ties into support for a major investment in infrastructure spending of all kinds, including on energy.
The new administration will look for ways to boost gas pipelines, Bennett predicted, putting a focus on the delivery of gas to LNG export terminals and gas-fired power plants, which has replaced coal as the dominant fuel for generation.
But energy markets can't be told to fall in step with energy policy, noted Jonathan Levy, a former DOE deputy chief of staff.
A queue of proposed LNG export terminals needs to be acted on by the agency, for example. "Some of the rhetoric from Republicans in Congress, and industry, is that they should all be approved," he said. "Then the question is, what does the market do in response?"Reading the tea leaves
The path ahead looks far more rocky for the new president's campaign mantra of increasing high-wage U.S. jobs by raising obstacles to foreign imports.
Trump will face a push by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for wholesale tax reform, including a border tax adjustment that is part of the Ryan "Better Way" blueprint advanced in outline form last year.
Under the Ryan blueprint, companies that import foreign components for their products could no longer deduct import costs from taxable income. That provision, coupled with the plan's other key provisions, would effectively raise costs of these imports by 25 percent, says economist Philip Verleger Jr. Automobiles, electronics and other imported items would take the hit, Verleger added in a paper published by the Brattle Group.
"No sector, though, will be more affected than petroleum," he said. The border tax would not apply to U.S. exporters of crude oil and hydrocarbon products, but imports would be. Notwithstanding the surge in U.S. oil output from shale and tight rock formations, "the U.S. is and will remain a net importer of petroleum for the foreseeable future in certain regions," Verleger said, naming the East and West coasts and the Upper Midwest.
U.S. refiners could sell diesel, gasoline or jet fuel abroad without tax liability under the blueprint, but imported energy would be subject to a 20 percent tax on revenues. That would raise the price ceiling enjoyed by U.S. producers, Verleger said, a rich windfall and a reason for Trump's oil-sector allies to press for his support.
ClearView's Book, writing about the border tax plan, noted Trump's coolness to the Ryan plan. "Too complicated," Trump told The Wall Street Journal. In order to take the pain out of higher import prices on consumers, the value of the dollar would have to increase commensurately. Economists can make that prediction, but getting economists' support isn't the same thing as rounding up political backing, he added.
While tax cuts are a priority for Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political analysts expect tax reforms to fall behind a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a confirmation fight over Trump's first Supreme Court nominee and raising the federal debt ceiling. And that doesn't include unpredictable machinations in U.S. relations with Russia, China and Iran.
Trump nominees to lead the CIA and the departments of Defense, Homeland Security and State broke ranks with headline-grabbing pledges in Trump's campaign speeches. Nothing is less clear than how Trump will move U.S. policy in the Middle East, where decisions inside OPEC still drive world oil prices.
Levy asks how can outsiders square Trump campaign rhetoric and recent social media bursts with contrary statements by his nominees. "It's hard to read any of the tea leaves," he said.Energy shocks
Book said logic argues against a conflict that could cause a major energy price shock. Saudi Arabia and Iran may be locked in a fraught struggle for regional dominance, but they have every reason not to let it get out of hand, he said. "Nobody wants to put their economic wherewithal at risk by starting an oil war unless they absolutely have to," he said.
Another Trump promise — to throw coal states an economic lifeline — becomes harder to achieve as the administration promises to open more federal land for oil and gas leases and build more infrastructure, helping restrain price increases on coal's power plant rival, natural gas.
Some industry leaders don't see a renaissance of coal-generated power despite Trump's rhetoric. "For those miners, get ready because you're going to be working your asses off!" he told a rally last summer. But Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., a leading coal producer, said it was too late to restore job losses caused by EPA rules and cheap natural gas. "I've suggested to Mr. Trump that he temper his expectations," Murray told CNNMoney.
With EPA sidelined on carbon policy, the states will move even more decisively to determine their energy futures based on their resources, economic priorities and politics. "States will do what they have always done: organize their industrial capacity and resources nature has provided them to optimize their economies," Book said. "That is history."
"What's driving this change has nothing to do with Trump and has nothing to do with state regulators. It has everything to do with customers and technology," said Tom Fanning, CEO of Southern Co. and chairman of the Edison Electric Institute, representing investor-owned electric utilities.
Blue states will generally seek more renewable power and more customer-owned energy. Red states will lean the other way, but with exceptions (Energywire, Dec. 19, 2016).
But while some directions seem clear under Trump, many analysts' assessments are made with crossed fingers and a pinch of salt over the shoulder.Just imagine
Imagine that Trump decides that DOE rulings on more LNG exports to Europe should be linked unofficially to the U.S. allies' support of NATO. Want more LNG? How much are you paying for NATO?
Imagine that a proposed border tax plan that would hit hard at foreign carmakers is before Congress. Would a Trump administration try to use that to get more investment in U.S. car plants — then wrap the regulation of vehicle gasoline mileage into the bargain?
Will the issue of U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates be merged with discussion about a change in OPEC production quotas that could raise oil prices and put more U.S. oil and gas companies back in the money?
In short, will Trump, who threw away the political playbook in capturing the Republican Party and the White House, do the same for energy and environmental policy, creating never-before-seen negotiating strategies across policy silos?
Perhaps only Trump could answer those questions now, but be ready for something very different, said Barry Worthington, executive of the U.S. Energy Association, a bipartisan energy research group.
"I think Trump is going to come at every aspect of governing as a negotiation, whether it is dealing with Congress, foreign leaders or inside his own administration," Worthington said.
Book cautioned that Trump will find it harder to negotiate around energy than real estate. "The portfolio of executive authority is vast, but jumbled," he said. "Different things move at different speeds. A president can't necessarily trade things like border adjustment for CAFE," he said, referring to the corporate average fuel economy standard.
"That doesn't mean a Trump administration won't try," he added.
Try, Trump will, the experts are betting. Everything about his astonishing ascendancy last year suggests he will write his own script for energy policy, with more unpredictable, unconventional moves and personal engagement, and the first pages will be turning soon.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048692
-
Trump Takes Reins, Lays Out Energy Plan
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Trump painted a grim portrait of the United States today during his inaugural speech as he pledged to "start winning again" and insisted, "I will never, ever let you down."
The 45th U.S. president's speech was thin on policy and thick with rhetoric from the campaign trail, including his signature promise that he would "make America great again."
Trump portrayed a nation with "mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities," "rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones," and an education system that "leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge."
He decried "American carnage" caused by crime, gangs and drugs that have "stolen too many lives."
And he promised a new era.
"From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land," Trump said. "I will fight for you with every breath in my body — and I will never, ever let you down. America will start winning again, winning like never before."
He vowed broadly to restore jobs and wealth, to "bring back our dreams," and to rebuild crumbling roads, highways and bridges.
Trump was surrounded by his political friends and foes alike at the inauguration ceremonies, where he was sworn in by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Former first lady and Trump's presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton, was in the crowd. She wrote today on Twitter, "I'm here today to honor our democracy & its enduring values. I will never stop believing in our country & its future."'America First Energy Plan'
Although Trump didn't touch directly on energy or climate policy during his speech, his administration was quick to update the White House website with details of his "America First Energy Plan."
The plan outlines the new administration's pledge to pursue energy policies that "lower costs" and "maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil."
Trump, the website says, is committed to slashing "harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule."
The administration also pledges to "embrace the shale oil and gas revolution" and to revive "America's coal industry, which has been hurting for too long."
Those energy policies, the website says, will go "hand-in-hand with responsible stewardship of the environment."
Trump will "refocus the EPA on its essential mission of protecting our air and water," it says.Greens pledge vigilance
Environmentalists quickly pounced on the new administration and the White House energy plan.
"President Trump wasted no time siding with Big Polluters. Sad!" said Tiernan Sittenfeld of the League of Conservation Voters in a statement.
"The new administration's energy plan should actually be called 'Big Polluters First,'" she added. "This is a disgraceful way for Trump to begin his presidency, and LCV is ready to go to the mat to defend both bedrock environmental protections and recent progress."
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said, "This president clearly has no mandate. If and when he and his administration try to undermine climate action, assault our democracy, or attack the people and places we love, he will face a wall of organized people who will fight him in the courts, in Congress, in the marketplace, in the states, and in the streets."
And Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica called Trump "a compulsive liar and a bully" whose presidency "is going to test the very foundations of our democracy."
Pica added, "Friends of the Earth will remain vigilant and fight every attack on the laws that have protected our water, air, food supply and democracy."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048742
-
Perry Recants On Abolishing DOE, Ponders Climate Action
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry expressed regret yesterday that he ever advocated the elimination of the Department of Energy, telling senators that he has a new appreciation for the work of the agency and its 14,000 employees.
During a 3 ½ hour confirmation hearing to become the 14th person to lead DOE, an affable and relaxed Perry, 66, also professed belief in climate change and a need to act, vowed to protect scientists and their research, and pledged to pursue research and development that could extend the use of coal.
Perry's answers seemed designed to allay fears expressed by many of the panel's Democrats in advance. He espoused an all-of-the-above embrace of energy, from nuclear to renewables and coal.
There were no stumbles, increasing the likelihood that the longest-serving governor in the history of Texas will be confirmed by the committee, where Republicans hold a 12-10 advantage.
In his opening statement, Perry said his past statements about abolishing DOE "do not reflect my current thinking. In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination," Perry said in testimony to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
His change of heart about the work of the department was likely influenced by his multiple discussions with outgoing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, along with previous Energy secretaries.
Perry also poured cold water on press reports that the Trump transition team is touting a blueprint from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that would slash funding for much of the department's research to 2008 levels and eliminate the Office of Electricity, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Office of Fossil Energy.
"It's hard to see how we can pursue an all-of-the-above strategy if much of the department's all-of-the-above capabilities are eliminated," said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
"Maybe they'll have the same experience that I had and forget that they said that," Perry quipped.
"They're cutting the legs out from under you," Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told Perry.
"I hope the people proposing these cuts are watching this hearing. This is absolutely nuts in terms of the future of energy in this country," King said, adding that "it's hard for me to believe that the people recommending these cuts" know what they are talking about.
"I'll allow your statement to stand," Perry replied.Debate on climate change is now about approach
As did other Trump nominees in their confirmation hearings, Perry said the climate change discussion is not about if it's happening but what to do about it.
"When it comes to climate change, I am committed to making decisions based on sound science," he said.
"I believe the climate is changing," he said "I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is also caused by man-made activity. The question is how do we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn't compromise economic growth, the affordability of energy" or jobs.
He was especially critical of an early request to DOE by the Trump transition team for the names of personnel, including scientists, who had attended climate meetings.
"I didn't approve it. I don't approve of it. I don't need that information. I don't want that information," he said.
Perry was forceful in defense of DOE science, "even when it will not yield benefits for a generation," he said, adding that as Texas' governor, he had a habit of "courting" scientists.
DOE's "scientists and labs are the envy of the world. I look forward to visiting our national labs this year, if confirmed, and learning more about the unique work they are doing," he said.
In response to a question from Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), whose state is home to several national labs, Perry said he is "committed to the continuation of using these brilliant scientists, the private sector, our universities in collaboration to finding the solutions to the challenges, whether on renewables or using resources in a more efficient manner."
"You can't change the stripes on the zebra," he said, defending his views on science. "It's the way I am. It's what I believe in. The administration knew that when they asked me to serve in this role."
Perry singled out potential coal-related research into not only carbon capture and storage but also making coal plants more efficient.
"I am certain that some scientist, some incredibly capable man or woman either at the Department of Energy or at one of the university laboratories, has technology to be able to use coal in way that is friendly and is appropriate," Perry said.
Committee Chairwoman Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) commended Perry, offering that "I do not subscribe to the view that only a scientist can manage other scientists.
"Instead, I think what we need is a good manager to manage our scientists — someone who knows they don't know everything, yet someone who is capable of organizing, setting direction, imposing accountability, making the greatest possible use of taxpayer dollars, and reaching goals."Tackling nuclear waste
Perry was asked several times about how the department intends to move ahead on a long-delayed solution to the permanent storage of nuclear waste from the nation's power plants.
"The time of kicking the can down the road — those days are over," Perry said.
He pledged to find "temporary and/or permanent siting of this nuclear waste," which today is scattered across 35 states.
He refused to promise Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) that DOE would not revisit the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
While Perry pledged to seek out local consent for the siting of waste, he added, "I will not sit here in a committee hearing and tell you absolutely no way is Nevada going to be the recipient of any high-level waste."
Addressing cyberthreats, Perry called it "one of the great challenges we have in the short span."
He wants to put together a multi-agency team to tackle threats, starting with scientists at the DOE national labs.
"We can successfully put into place cybersecurity practices that not only secure our private conversations but more importantly our electrical grid and military capabilities," he said.
He rejected a suggestion from Hirono that he support a national renewable portfolio standard.
Instead, he offered that DOE should assist any of the states that do not now have such a standard that may want to craft one.
"One size fits all — except in gym socks — doesn't work well," Perry said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048699
-
U.S. Exports Fill Asia's LNG Demand Gap As Market Tightens
Jan 20, 2017 | Reuters
By Henning Gloystein
U.S. liquefied natural gas exporters are sending tankers to Asia to fill a gap in the region's demand as markets have tightened more-than-expected on surging consumption in China and Pakistan, and because of Australia's struggles to ramp up production.
Benefiting from the Panama Canal expansion last year that allows bigger ships to cross from the Gulf of Mexico into the Pacific, around a dozen LNG cargoes from the United States have gone to Asia since December. Data in Thomson Reuters Eikon currently shows two LNG tankers, carrying a combined 280,000 cubic metres of gas, are currently crossing to Asia from Louisiana.
The U.S. LNG exports are coming from Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass, Louisiana, facility that opened last year as the first U.S. export terminal outside Alaska.
They included the first-ever U.S. shale gas going to South Korea, which arrived this month and was bought by South Korea's private gas company SK E&S Co.
U.S. spot natural gas costs just $3.21 per million British thermal units (mmBtu), while Asian spot LNG prices have soared over 80 percent since June last year to almost $10 per mmBtu.
"This run up in prices definitely took everyone by surprise. In mid-2016, I don't think anyone expected LNG prices to double to reach $10 per mmBtu," said Chong Zhi Xin, principal Asia LNG analyst at consultants Wood Mackenzie. "Cheniere definitely did well (out of filling the supply gap), as they have been selling on a spot basis."
Shipping brokerage Arctic Securities said this week that this Asian LNG premium meant "LNG traders (are) netting $1 million plus per U.S.-Asia cargo."
Along with Cheniere, Royal Dutch Shell, and Spain's Gas Natural Fenosa (GNF) have been active exporters from Louisiana to Asia.
"LNG exports out of U.S. to Asia... is clearly an attractive deal which is benefiting the likes of Cheniere Marketing, and Shell/GNF, who own volumes at the first two trains," Arctic Securities said.
TIGHTER ASIA
The juicy arbitrage route is a result of Asian demand rising faster than expected.
Commodity trader Gunvor has won a major tender to supply 60 LNG shipments to Pakistan over a five-year period, starting this year, while Italy's Eni will supply the country with 180 LNG cargoes over a 15-year period, a Pakistani energy official told Reuters this week.
The expected surge in Pakistani demand is occurring as colder-than-normal winter weather in North Asia has increased LNG requirements.
China's 2016 LNG imports surged 30 percent from 2015 to over 25 million tonnes a year, making it the world's third-biggest LNG importer behind Japan and South Korea.
Including India and Taiwan, the world's five largest LNG consumers are now in Asia, using about 70 percent of globally traded LNG, according to the International Gas Union (IGU). Meanwhile, demand is stagnant in Europe, the next biggest import region.
Asia faster-than-expected demand is happening amid delays and outages at new export sites.
Chevron's Gorgon export facility, which was launched last year in Western Australia, has had several outages due to technical trouble. Upcoming projects like Shell's Prelude, the world's biggest ever floating liquefaction vessel, and Ichthys - led by Japan's Inpex - have had delays in expected first exports.
Still, the LNG market remains well supplied, with available LNG capacity standing 45 percent above demand last year, according to Eikon data.
http://in.reuters.com/article/asia-lng-idINKBN1540EA
-
Lawsuit Challenges Mont. Rule On Fracking Chemicals
Jan 20, 2017 | AP (In E&E Energywire)
A rule that allows energy companies to conceal the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing has been challenged in Montana state court.
Attorneys for a group of Montana landowners, conservationists and health advocates filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to force companies to disclose details on the chemicals they use in energy production.
A 2011 state rule permits energy companies to hide the ingredients of chemicals they consider trade secrets. In September, oil and gas industry regulators denied a petition to overturn the rule.
The lawsuit represents a direct challenge to the regulators' decision.
During the fracking process, industrial fluids are pumped underground to release oil and gas trapped in rock formations (AP/Billings Gazette, Jan. 19). — MJ
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048666
-
New Orleans Residents Speak Out Against Proposed Power Plant
Jan 20, 2017 | New Orleans Times-Picayune (In E&E Energywire)
By Beau Evans
New Orleans East residents are calling on city officials to reject Entergy Corp.'s proposal to build a power plant in their backyard.
Residents aired a variety of concerns about the plant at a news conference Tuesday night. Their major grievances were that the plant would be environmentally shortsighted and costly for taxpayers.
Entergy unveiled its proposal to build a roughly $215 million natural gas plant last summer. The new plant would be constructed on the same site as a former plant that was shuttered in June.
The New Orleans City Council may vote on the proposal later this year.
Dawn Herbert, a New Orleans East resident, said at Tuesday's news conference that the proposal shows Entergy may not honor its past commitments to renewable energy. Entergy broke ground on a solar pilot project last winter and has said that renewable energy factors into its long-term plans.
"If you drive around New Orleans East, you will notice that many of the homes have solar panels," Herbert said. "So why would we be drawing more energy from the plant?"
Kevin Nguyen, another New Orleans East resident, said the new natural gas plant could further contribute to the area's sinking land. The old plant relied on extracting groundwater, a process that some residents believe caused the soil to sink.
"The street is sinking, and it's sinking fast," Nguyen said. "We will suffer the consequences of the streets being broken. It will cost us."
Other residents leveled allegations of environmental racism against Entergy. These speakers said the plant would expose neighborhoods with large African-American and Vietnamese immigrant populations to harmful levels of pollution.
Finally, residents worried about the plant's impact on their wallets. Entergy announced in November that the average New Orleans customer would see his or her bill go up $5.86 per month for the first year after the plant's completion.
Speakers noted that the added cost does not account for any rate changes past the first year. These future rate changes will not be determined until 2018, when Entergy and the City Council begin negotiations over base rates. The news conference did not include representatives of Entergy or the council (Beau Evans, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Jan. 18). — MJ
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048664
-
Pipelines, Carbon On Trump’s Day-One Energy List: Report
Jan 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President-elect Donald Trump’s team is preparing a list of early energy-related executive actions dealing with carbon calculations and pipeline permits, according to a Friday report.
Bloomberg reported that Trump’s team has narrowed in on executive actions to suspend a government metric measuring the climate impact of rules, as well as one to end the process that gives the State Department power to review pipelines that cross federal borders.
The latter was the process by which President Obama denied the Keystone XL pipeline in 2015. Trump has promised to support that project once he is in the Oval Office.
The social cost of carbon metric is an accounting system the Obama administration used to estimate the economic cost of carbon dioxide emissions. Suspending it would clear one hurdle away from Trump actions that would benefit fossil fuel interests by dampening climate scrutiny of projects and rules.
Trump advisers also want the president-elect to sign actions that would open up areas of federal land for new drilling and set aside climate considerations when approving infrastructure projects, according to the report.
Trump made a host of promises for day-one energy actions on the campaign trail, many of them meant to clear the way for more fossil fuel development or transmission through the U.S.
Incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday to expect several early executive orders, but he didn’t telegraph what those might be or when they might come after Trump is sworn in on Friday.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/315251-pipelines-carbon-on-trumps-day-one-energy-list-report
-
PHMSA Rules To Speed Up Spill-Response Time
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on Wednesday issued a rule to boost pipeline safety by improving notification-response time after a spill.
Operators must now report a spill electronically or by phone within an hour of confirming it, according to PHMSA in a statement.
Other rules released at the same time include more rigorous operator classification, cost recovery and other safety changes. They will become effective 60 days after publication Monday in the Federal Register.
PHMSA also added requirements for drug and alcohol testing after an accident.
The changes come after a wave of incidents, including one in 2010, when Enbridge Energy Partners waited 17 hours to report a crude oil spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River.
The changes meet requirements from the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011, PHMSA said (Devika Krishna Kumar, Reuters, Jan. 19). — NB
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048716
-
DOT Rule Probes Value Of 'Real-Time' Oil Train Data
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Transportation safety officials are seeking input on the pros and cons of sharing oil and ethanol train data with state intelligence centers, according to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking issued yesterday.
The document marks the Department of Transportation's latest attempt to fill information gaps laid bare by hazardous-material train accidents and explosions in recent years. In several incidents, including a deadly 2009 ethanol train derailment and fire, first responders reported initial confusion over the hazardous materials they were dealing with, leaving them in the dark about how to respond (Energywire, April 28, 2014).
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 directed DOT to broaden the availability of freight rail data, with an eye toward making firefighters' jobs safer. Last year, DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposed a rule to close an emergency response loophole while toughening reporting requirements for trains hauling 20 or more cars of flammable liquids in a row (Energywire, July 14, 2016).
The new rulemaking launched yesterday would build on that effort. But instead of bringing state emergency response commissions in the loop on oil and ethanol train movements and volumes, it would key in "fusion centers."
These low-profile facilities form a conduit between U.S. intelligence agencies and state homeland security offices in their efforts to combat criminals and terrorists, from hackers to active shooters. Their day-to-day operations are largely shielded from public view. A 2012 Senate report warned of such fusion centers "endangering citizens' civil liberties and Privacy Act protections" while chasing leads "more often than not unrelated to terrorism." There is at least one locally staffed center in each state and federal territory, and they typically draw in additional support and funding from the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.
DOT notes in its rulemaking that "fusion centers are in a unique position to empower front-line law enforcement, public safety, fire service, emergency response, public health, critical infrastructure protection, and private sector security personnel to gather lawfully and share threat-related information."
The document goes on to ask questions about how fusion centers would collect and use train information, including whether they even have the technology on hand to securely process a constant flow of oil train data.
In the past, railroads have voiced concerns about oil and ethanol train information passing into the hands of too many state or federal officials, suggesting it could fall into the wrong hands and cause a security threat. Environmentalists and rail safety advocates have countered that people should have a right to know when mile-long, potentially explosive trains pass through their communities.
DOT is also seeking input on how railroads update information on hazardous materials trains. For instance, the department does not know whether there are electronic systems now running 24/7 to relay sudden changes to train consists.
The questions are ultimately aimed at helping DOT weigh the costs of quickly and widely sharing oil train information. The agency said it wants to know whether such data could avert environmental or health damage, or if they could bring railroads "business benefits from having accurate electronic records of train consists in real-time."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048691
-
PHMSA Seeking Input on Crude-by-Rail Content Rule
Jan 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on vapor pressure requirements for the transport of crude oil and other hazardous liquids by rail.
Officials in the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), where PHMSA resides, said they seek comments on the benefits of deploying various "vapor pressure thresholds" for crude oil transport, something North Dakota oil and natural gas regulators have been working on in recent years after a spate of rail tank car accidents transporting Bakken crude.
"Nationwide, Americans are experiencing the move of energy products in new ways and looking to government to safeguard their communities and neighborhoods," said DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx.
North Dakota is watching closely how PHMSA proceeds, according to Lynn Helms, head of the state’s Department of Mineral Resources. Earlier this month, Helms expressed concerns that the federal agency was looking to "completely overturn" North Dakota's oil conditioning regulations.
For Helms and other North Dakota officials who have helped cobble together state rules in this area, the prospect of a 9 psi vapor pressure requirement from PHMSA would push aside the state's efforts.
Saying the state Industrial Commission (IC) will want to weigh in on the PHMSA proposal, Helms noted that at an IC meeting last Tuesday the staff was asked to prepare comments on PHMSA's proposal as it could be "a major interference" with state oil conditioning rules.
In announcing the ANPRM, federal officials said DOT continues its "collaborative work" with Sandia National Laboratories on a study to better understand the characteristics of Bakken light sweet crude oil in North Dakota "to determine the best sampling and testing methods for this type of crude.” The long-term findings of the study are slated to be used in crafting the eventual new rulemaking.
"The American energy landscape is constantly evolving, and we need to understand the full scope of safety risks involved with moving energy products in new ways," said PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109115-phmsa-seeking-input-on-crude-by-rail-content-rule
-
Obama's Climate Legacy: 8 Years Of Troubles And Triumphs
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Jean Chemnick
When an environmentalist asked a recent adviser to President Obama what the future holds for confronting climate change, the answer cast a shadow on today's inauguration.
That was before almost anyone gave Donald Trump a shot at winning the presidential election. No one would match Obama's zeal on climate, the adviser said. At the time, it was widely thought that Hillary Clinton would succeed him.
"I have certainly heard a few people who know him fairly well say, 'We're not likely to get another president who is more personally committed to climate change action at any time in the foreseeable future,'" recalled George Frampton, who led the White House Council on Environmental Quality under President Bill Clinton.
That view is woven into the fabric of Obama's presidency. Many consider him the first U.S. leader to elevate climate change to the upper ranks of national policy. Over the last eight years, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have dropped 9 percent, according to the White House, and policies are in place to make deeper cuts in the power and transportation sectors.
But for all the credit that Obama gets, he has critics, too. There are holes in his eight-year record that could help Trump unwind some of Obama's accomplishments, like the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement, they say. He prioritized health care reform over climate legislation early in his first term and then, after being stung by an abandoned cap-and-trade bill, he went almost silent on the issue for two years.
"One's tempted to look back at the Obama years with a rosier glow of nostalgia than they probably deserve," said Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org. "In energy terms, basically what the U.S. did was stop burning coal and start burning gas in large quantities. That was with the enthusiastic help and cheerleading of the Obama administration. The result has been a huge increase in the amount of methane flowing into the atmosphere. In total terms, greenhouse gases may not have decreased at all in the Obama years."
But is that a fair assessment?
Not to Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University at Buffalo. He said he believes Obama will be the high standard on climate for years to come. Future presidents will be measured against his actions, and most will fall short, he predicts.
"He's by far and away been the greatest president in addressing climate change," he said. "Even if some of what he's done gets undone, he's still going to be the measuring standard."
Facing a hostile Congress, Obama raised the profile of climate change globally, introduced numerous executive actions on everything from reducing emissions to minimizing flooding, and signed an international agreement that commits 195 nations to climate action.
Overall, Obama made it clear that "this is a really, really important issue" in ways that no one else has, Rome said.The 'climate president'
The cadre of environmentalists who attend the United Nations' annual climate summits also complain about the administration's slow start. Many say it contributed to the collapse of the talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009, which failed to produce a global climate agreement.
But while Obama's domestic climate strategy shifted course between the legislative defeats of the first term and the regulatory endeavors of the second, the administration maintained a laserlike focus throughout its eight years on forging an agreement that it could join without Senate approval.
"I think that they got what they wanted," said Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth, defining that as "an unregulated regime where each country does what it wants. And if a country is more likely to do good, it will do good. If a country doesn't want to do good, it won't do good."
While the progressive environmental movement and those countries that are acutely vulnerable to rising temperatures continue to doubt the bottom-up approach of the Paris Agreement, and whether it can deliver what science indicates is necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change, it is clear that the Obama administration relentlessly pursued that architecture from the very beginning. And it defended it in November's U.N. meeting in Marrakech, Morocco.
But critics are skeptical about its lack of enforcement. The landmark deal of 2015 is mostly self-policing. Countries don't have to meet their emissions commitments under its language. The only things that are legally binding are requirements for nations to report their progress, and do it in a way that's transparent.
It's a model borne out of the United States' failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That treaty took effect in 2006 without U.S. participation, after the Senate refused to ratify it and the George W. Bush administration abandoned it. And the Paris architecture is the opposite of what most countries expected. After the collapse of Copenhagen, the world was still invested in the idea that the biggest polluters should lead, by dividing up emissions-reduction and finance responsibilities among developed countries on a top-down basis.
But the Obama administration balked. It insisted that a nationally determined approach would be required. Instead of the world pointing fingers at big polluters, like the United States, each nation promised to do what it could to lower emissions. That benefited the United States. And it would help bring other countries like China and India to the table as equal participants.
To some, that's one of Obama's greatest achievements. When the United States announced that it had struck a deal with China to peak its rapid outpour of carbon dioxide by 2030, one of the deepest pitfalls to reaching a global pact had been safely bridged, said Frampton, the former chairman of CEQ.
"The reason he's going to be remembered as the climate president is because of the agreement with the Chinese," Frampton said, adding that it "reoriented the world community."Did Obama waste time?
Others see it much differently. The Paris deal essentially let the biggest polluters off the hook while transferring responsibility to smaller nations that disproportionately feel the impacts, but not the benefits, of the world's growing wealth, they argue.
To Orenstein, the United States is responsible for undermining the environmental integrity of the process.
Obama "was able to get the U.S. in, but what that also did was lower the bar for all developed countries, so now all of them have commitments that are not determined by science, they're determined by their own politics," she said.
But other analysts say the collapse of Copenhagen showed the world that climate diplomacy was undergoing a dramatic shift. It was on a parallel path to the world's reordering, going from a few superpowers to a growing egalitarianism. Obama personified that cultural transformation.
"In some ways getting to Paris was really a matter of getting beyond World War II and the Cold War, and the once-bipolar nature of global power to the importance of sovereignty for so many of the nations involved in the climate discussion," said Kevin Book, managing director for research at ClearView Energy Partners.
The bifurcated character of past environmental agreements was breaking down. Top-down pacts like the Montreal Protocol, established 30 years ago, assigned uniform obligations to nations based on their level of development. Copenhagen did too. But it would be the last gasp of "global federalism," as Book describes it. The community organizer in Obama was helping the world push against climate change with one shoulder.
But some observers said the United States could have moved the process along earlier if Obama had prioritized climate change right out of the gate in 2009.
"Of course times were different, but the biggest difference was a U.S. [president] engaged in his second term and not engaged in his first term," said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh.
While Obama "pulled out all the stops" in 2013, such as engaging with China on a series of bilateral agreements and weaving them into other multilateral forums, "it's also true that President Obama could have done everything he started and delivered in his second term in his first term and hence the Paris Agreement could have been achieved four years before it was," he said.
Huq also criticized Hillary Clinton, Obama's first secretary of State, for being less active on climate than her successor, John Kerry. "Kerry [was] very knowledgeable and personally committed to the topic, while Hillary Clinton was not," he added.Climate the 'greatest' threat
The theme runs strong among Obama's critics that he was personally distant in the big legislative fight over cap and trade in 2009 and 2010, choosing instead to prioritize health care reform. A source in the power sector told E&E News in 2015 that Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, called him and other supporters of the legislation to say, sometimes "screaming," that the president was shifting his focus to the Affordable Care Act.
"We're moving to health care; we're not doing climate," Emanuel said, according to the source.
The climate bill whimpered into defeat in spring 2010. The Senate never voted on it, a stinging rebuke for a measure that narrowly passed through the House in June 2009.
Then things changed. Obama barely mentioned climate change for two years.
Book said Obama could not have done a full-court press on climate during his first term. The political cost of the failed cap-and-trade bill, which helped fuel Democratic losses in the 2010 midterm, steered Obama into a defensive position in 2011 and 2012.
"The backlash against one-party rule, such as it was, in the first years of the Obama administration defined Obama's caution on climate and everything else," Book said. Obama could not have offered a Climate Action Plan in 2013 if he didn't retain the White House in 2012, the thinking goes.
Even as Obama was sinking into silence, his administration was busy behind the scenes on key climate actions, like establishing greenhouse gas standards for cars, said Bob Perciasepe, a deputy administrator at U.S. EPA at the time.
"A lot of people think that the administration only focused on climate change in the second term. That's not really the case," said Perciasepe, who's now president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
Even as senators struggled to push cap and trade forward, EPA was proposing its endangerment finding. It was released in December 2009, establishing the agency's authority to begin restricting greenhouse gases on cars. That would grow to include power plants in 2015.
Pete Ogden, who was chief of staff to Todd Stern, the former U.S. special envoy for climate change, also rejects the idea that the United States did little on climate in Obama's first term.
"I think that there may be a perception issue," he acknowledged when asked about some countries' expressions of frustration. "But if you look back to what was put on the table by the administration in 2009, it was actually quite aggressive, and going all the way forward to Paris ultimately totally consistent with where the administration ended up."
Inside the United States, Obama was overcoming his public paralysis on climate change. It was almost as if he was waiting to be re-elected. During his inaugural address in January 2013, Obama catapulted the issue to the top of his to-do list.
"We will respond to the threat of climate change," Obama said then. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms."
Going forward, Obama seemingly used every chance he could to speak about the risks of climate change. The executive orders came just as quickly.
In 2015, he issued an order to slash the federal government's emissions 40 percent by 2025, largely from the huge inventory of government buildings. Most recently, Obama ordered the national security apparatus to ensure that warming is "fully considered" in its "doctrine, policies and plans."
It's also clear that Obama diligently tailors his legacy. The White House yesterday still had a webpage listing 105 actions taken by Obama on climate change. It's called "The Record."
And in case anyone might wonder whether Obama, indeed, is the strongest president on climate, it aims to put those questions to rest. For Obama, it says, "no challenge poses a greater threat."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048703
-
Dancing With The Senate, Perry Glides Around Climate Questions
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Umair Irfan
Energy Secretary nominee Rick Perry showed he was just as graceful before a Senate committee as he is on the dance floor, performing a rhetorical Texas cha-cha around pointed questions on climate change from lawmakers yesterday.
Across a 3-½-hour confirmation hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Texas' longest-serving governor received praise for his record in office as well as criticism for his past statements questioning climate change and his earlier proposal to dissolve the Department of Energy.
But as he walked into his own jokes with committee members, Perry gave himself plenty of room to maneuver with his answers under questioning, leaving the specifics of his agenda for DOE, including its budget and research priorities, off the table.
The agency's portfolio includes 17 national laboratories, a research budget topping $12 billion and the world's largest nuclear arsenal. If confirmed, Perry would be the third Texan to lead the department.
Under the Obama administration, climate change was the driving force behind much of the agency's work. Democrats yesterday pressed Perry over whether and to what extent that would continue.
Perry, meanwhile, took a small step back from his view that climate change is "a contrived, phony mess."
After quoting Perry's past statements saying scientists were manipulating data on climate change for financial gain, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked Perry whether he still holds those views and if he agrees with scientists who say the world must transform its energy system away from fossil fuels.
"Senator, I believe the climate has changed. I believe some of it is naturally occurring. I believe some of it is caused by man-made activity," Perry said.
Sanders pressed on. "I'm asking you if you agree with the scientific community that climate change is a crisis and that we need to transform our energy system to protect future generations," he said.
Perry responded that the question was an "interesting discussion" and an "academic exercise" and pointed to his record as governor. "When you lower carbon emissions by 17 percent and sulfur dioxide by 66 percent and NOx [nitrogen oxides] by 58 percent, don't you think that is a good thing?" he said.
Committee members also pressed Perry on his budget priorities for DOE in light of reports that President-elect Donald Trump's transition team proposed drastic cuts to the agency (Greenwire, Jan. 19). Last month, the transition team circulated a questionnaire at the department asking for names of employees who attended climate change conferences (Greenwire, Dec. 13, 2016).
"I'm trying to understand where you as Energy secretary are going to have priorities," said committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). "I want to know your commitments to protecting these individuals and the scientific budget that goes along with them."
"I am going to protect all of the science, whether it's related to the climate or other aspects of what we're going to be doing," Perry responded.
"Just to clarify, you will protect the scientists and the science budget related to climate?" Cantwell asked.
"Senator, I am going to protect the men and women of the scientific community from anyone who would attack them, no matter what their reason may be, at the Department of Energy," Perry said, carefully eliding the question on the budget.
In a later press release, Cantwell took these responses as a promise to protect scientists and continue climate research at DOE.
Cantwell also called on Perry to protect the clean energy portfolio at DOE, including Mission Innovation, an international agreement holding members to doubling their investments in clean energy research and development.
"Mission Innovation, which is the priority of this agency, and continuing to move forward on renewable energy is also critically important," she said.GOP questions climate but embraces carbon cuts
For many Republicans, assessing Perry's committment to fossil fuels was a top priority.
Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asked Perry to consider new research priorities for DOE under his leadership, particularly in its sub-agencies.
"The Office of Fossil Energy [at DOE] has focused almost exclusively on the environmental aspects of fuels in these recent years, but its mission is supposed to be considerably broader than that," she said in her opening statement. "A renewed focus on pre-competitive research on methane hydrates and other resources could lead to new breakthroughs."
For other Republicans at the hearing, the rhetoric on climate change has shifted, with some wearing reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as points of pride.
"During Rick's time in Austin, he championed an 'all of the above' energy strategy," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said while introducing Perry at the hearing. "He found a way to spur innovation and investment in new technology without stifling existing technology, and while reducing our state's carbon footprint, as well."
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said that cutting greenhouse gases is an important reason for keeping jobs in the United States.
"One thing my office is looking at is the direct relationship between worldwide manufacturing moving to China and a worldwide growth in emissions," he said. "I've told folks that if President Trump is successful at returning manufacturing to the United States ... we'll have more of an impact on greenhouse gas emissions than any other arrangement."
Cassidy also spoke favorably of the oft-maligned loan guarantee program at DOE, citing the Lake Charles plant in Louisiana. The project received a $2 billion loan guarantee last month and turns petroleum coke, a byproduct of oil refining, into methanol while capturing carbon dioxide. "This is something that both the right and the left seem to have embraced," Cassidy said (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2016).
Though Perry said the label of "fiscal conservative" is "a badge I wear with honor," he said he would be open to energy deployment programs and incentives at DOE. "I'm a big believer that we have a role to play, both in basic research and applied research," he said. "My instinct is that [Lake Charles is] the type of program the Department of Energy should be engaged with."
Perry cited his own experience in Texas with the Emerging Technology Fund, a grant program for companies developing innovative products and businesses (Climatewire, Jan. 17).Big budget decisions loom
During his time in Austin, Perry also had a strong affinity for projects that captured carbon dioxide.
"One of the areas that Governor Perry was extremely supportive of was fossil fuel projects with carbon capture, utilization and storage," said Charles McConnell, executive director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University, who led Perry's clean coal initiative in Texas. "Did he do it for EOR [enhanced oil recovery]? Did he do it just for climate? I believe the answer wasn't necessarily that important."
This may indicate that cutting greenhouse gases may be a rising consideration for some Republicans, if not a priority.
"The only reason to brag about CO2 cuts is if you believe that climate change is real and you're doing something good," said Jim Marston, vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund, who works out of Austin.
The smooth moves of the onetime "Dancing With the Stars" contestant may soon carry him to the Forrestal Building. Murkowski said Perry's nomination to lead DOE could see a vote later today (E&E News PM, Jan. 19).
However, he could still trip up once he has to attach dollar signs to his dreams for DOE.
"One of the early tests of the new secretary is going to be where he comes out on the [fiscal 2018] budget," said Dan Reicher, former executive director of the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University, who led DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under President Clinton.
"The first concrete signals are where [Perry] lands on research and applied energy research and how the new [White House Office of Management and Budget] handles it," he added.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048706
-
U.S. Mayors To Trump On Climate: 'Don't Get In Our Way'
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Erika Bolstad
They're starting to sound a little cocky, the mayors of America.
But they truly believe they will be the ones to lead on climate change in America, especially if one of Donald Trump's first acts as president is to yank the United States out of its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If so, cities like Los Angeles, Seattle and New York are prepared to pick up the slack.
"The federal government can't force me to make my buildings more polluting and emit more energy or use more water," Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) said yesterday. "They can't prevent us from taking our own utility and completely getting off coal, which is what we're doing.
"So I think we have a lot of power to exercise," he said.
Garcetti is joined in that sentiment by other U.S. mayors, including some climate-friendly Republicans, who gathered in Washington, D.C., this week at the annual winter meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Mayors from around the country spent the week trying to anticipate how they'll interact with the incoming Trump administration. Immigration and repeal of the Affordable Care Act top their list of concerns, but so does climate.
"It's not just major cities in America," said Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D). "More and more mayors, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, are starting to pay attention here."
Mayors from both parties were quick to point out that climate issues, whether they involve reducing emissions or adapting to climate impacts, transcend partisanship. Any mayor who isn't thinking about the efficiencies of LED lighting or electric vehicle charging stations for residents isn't a good mayor, said Garcetti.
There's also a business and job creation case to made for acting on climate, said Jim Brainard, the Republican mayor of Carmel, Ind. That's how they plan to frame their work to the new administration at least, Brainard said.
Their authority over building codes and, in some locales, utilities is one of the first places to start, said Brainard, who is best known as an international advocate for traffic roundabouts. His city, with more than 100 of the roundabouts, has made the case that they reduce emissions by reducing idling time and cut down on electricity needed for traffic lights.
"These things can be done in a nonpartisan way if we focus on the right issues and look at alternative ways to get to the same endpoint," he said.
He and other mayors are encouraging the Trump administration to consider green jobs among the high-paying jobs of the future. Otherwise, those jobs will go to China, South Korea or Europe, Garcetti said. Energy growth might be even bigger than digital technology growth, he said, and the Trump administration ought to take note.
"I think we've taken some steps backwards on some very important things that are clearly about the Trump agenda: for national security and for manufacturing jobs, for batteries, for electric vehicles, for solar, wind power," Garcetti said. "We can cede those to only being done in other places, or we can try to retain those jobs here."
To a degree, they're waiting to see what happens in the first hours, weeks and months of the Trump administration. The cleanup of Boston Harbor got its start under the George H.W. Bush administration, Walsh said, so he's hopeful that the Trump administration might prove open to environmental issues.
"I think that the administration's not really sure where they are in a lot of different areas, where they're going to go," he said. "I think over the next three months, we're going to get a better snapshot of where we're going as a national government."
But the mayors acknowledged that they're uneasy about how the administration will respond to the growing adaptive measures needed to address the consequences of increased precipitation, heat events and other possible effects of climate change. In California, in particular, drought is also an issue.
"It's really to be determined," Garcetti said. "We don't know who our allies and collaborators will be.
"I guess part of our message is, 'Don't get in our way.'"
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048698
-
Pruitt's New Problem: How To Regulate Carbon
Jan 20, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run EPA, acknowledges it will be his responsibility to regulate carbon emissions, which he says are at least partially responsible for heating up the planet — but he also wants to scrap the Obama administration rules aimed at doing just that.
So what will Pruitt actually do once his nomination to run EPA is confirmed by the Senate?
That’s the question experts are grappling with following Pruitt’s Wednesday testimony to lawmakers that he does not plan to reverse the agency’s 2009 conclusion that climate change is a threat.
After Trump promised on the campaign trail to review and possibly revoke the so-called endangerment finding, which created a legal obligation for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, Democrats pressed Pruitt at his confirmation hearing on whether he would follow through. But the Oklahoma attorney general sought to assuage their concerns.
“The endangerment finding is there and needs to be enforced and respected,” Pruitt told Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Wednesday. “There is nothing that I know that would cause a review at this point.”
Pruitt also acknowledged that the EPA administrator "has a very important role to perform in regulating CO2," thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Left unsaid was that Pruitt will have wide leeway to determine just how far he thinks EPA should go in curbing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite Pruitt's acknowledgment that he has to do something, his promises to work with the Republican-led Congress and not pursue regulations that would unduly damage the economic prospects of oil, gas or coal companies do not have environmentalists ready to pop any champagne corks.
“He didn’t say anything to suggest that he was going to move forward to curb any carbon pollution,” said David Doniger, director of the NRDC’s Climate and Clean Air Program.
EPA in 2009 issued an endangerment finding for cars and trucks, leading the Obama administration to regulate their carbon emissions for the first time ever, in conjunction with tighter fuel-economy standards. The agency later expanded that finding to include power plants, which until recently were the No. 1 sector for carbon dioxide emissions, and used that to justify the Clean Power Plan and other rules. And EPA last year issued a new endangerment finding for aircraft, but has yet to move toward a follow-up rule despite a newly established international standard.
Opponents of EPA’s climate rules argued that the Clean Air Act was never meant to apply to carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases, and that the Obama administration was twisting the law to fit. Revoking the endangerment finding, they have long argued, would be the quickest way to stamp down the various climate rules that followed and prevent the agency from acting again.
But environmentalists warn such an approach would almost certainly fail. The Trump administration would have to present detailed evidence to justify its decision to walk away from the lengthy scientific record EPA used to establish its 2009 finding, which already won in court. "This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question," D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judges wrote in a 2012 ruling siding with EPA against Pruitt and other endangerment finding challengers.
Nonetheless, some Trump backers point to Pruitt's "at this point" qualifier to hold open hope that he decides to revisit the finding once in office.
“At the end of the day, Pruitt is going to be carrying out President Trump’s policies and agenda,” said Chris Warren of the American Energy Alliance, the energy industry-backed conservative think tank that secured Trump’s campaign promise last year to review the endangerment finding. “He’s not in the agency yet, he doesn’t have all the information that will be available to him once he gets in the agency."
Still, even if the endangerment finding stays, it does not mean Pruitt will go nearly as far as his predecessors in regulating carbon. His pace will depend on how quickly the courts dispense with ongoing arguments over Obama's Clean Power Plan, but sooner or later it will be up to Pruitt to write a climate change rule for a president who has called the issue a "hoax."
Under the Clean Air Act, the process would begin with a rule setting emissions limits for newly built power plants, and he may decide to rely just on the most efficient technology available, but not partial carbon capture, as Obama's EPA required. That rulemaking process would likely take at least a year or two.
Then Pruitt could move on to a rule for existing plants, although his approach could mean much less CO2 savings than Obama's plan, which directed states to look for ways to reduce emissions by pursuing new natural gas and renewable power projects — going "beyond the fence line" of traditionally regulated coal power plants.
Nick Loris of The Heritage Foundation, which has called for revoking the endangerment finding, said that Pruitt’s “aggression” toward the Clean Power Plan indicates he would likely go for the “bare minimum” required by the law.
Such an approach could simply require efficiency improvements at coal plants, according to Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA air chief turned industry attorney.
“I think … they will look at what can be done within the fence line, meaning things you can actually do at coal-fired power plants to reduce those CO2 emission rates,” he said. “That will be steps that can be taken to improve the efficiency of those plants.”
Such a strategy could satisfy the Supreme Court’s ruling and the endangerment finding, although it would surely be challenged by environmentalists in court.
Doniger of the NRDC suggested there could be other “inside-the-fence-line” strategies to secure even more savings, including mandating carbon capture technology be installed where possible and requiring coal plants to co-fire with natural gas.
But those would not achieve the same emissions savings as the Clean Power Plan. Even though scientists say carbon emissions need to decrease rapidly to avoid the worst effects of climate change, there’s nothing in the Clean Air Act strictly requiring such drastic action, according to Holmstead.
“The idea that there’s some particular amount of reduction that has to take place is incorrect. There’s nothing like that under the Clean Air Act,” Holmstead said.
The process of repealing the Clean Power Plan and writing new rules for new and existing plants at best would take two to three years, according to Holmstead, although the ensuing litigation would stretch beyond Trump’s first term.
Ultimately, environmentalists are ready to push for deeper cuts, whatever Pruitt does.
“We haven’t gamed out all the moves they could make and all the moves we could make, but it’s going to remain controversial through their term,” Doniger said. “And people need to keep their eye on the ball, which is climate change is real, carbon pollution is driving it and what are they going to do about the carbon pollution.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/01/pruitts-new-problem-how-to-regulate-carbon-145076
-
EPA Offers 2-Pronged Legal Attack On Mact Rule Critics
Jan 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA sought yesterday to fend off a two-sided attack on its emission standards for brick and ceramic manufacturers, arguing in a newly filed court brief that the new limits are strong enough to satisfy public health requirements, yet not skewed against industry.
"Neither side is right," EPA lawyers wrote in the brief, filed yesterday as a rebuttal to the Brick Industry Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other plaintiffs on the standards, issued in 2015 with the goal of cutting releases of mercury, acid gases and other pollutants.
NRDC and the Sierra Club, for example, had previously labeled EPA's reliance on "health-based emissions limits" to curb releases of chlorine and other acid gases as so flimsy that most "major source" brick kilns won't need new pollution controls to comply.
That argument "misunderstands the nature of scientific uncertainty and how EPA must address such uncertainty when regulating," the agency attorneys wrote in yesterday's brief.
Not only did EPA officials analyze the "best available scientific information" in setting the standards, they also turned to risk assessments and modeling "to ensure that the established emission limits would provide an ample margin of safety," the brief said.
In the other corner, the Brick Industry Association, joined by Kohler Co., a Wisconsin-based maker of kitchen and bathroom fixtures, and the Tile Council of North America had objected to EPA's process for setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) limits for mercury, particulate matter and other pollutants.
Even though the MACT requirements apply only to major emissions sources, the industry plaintiffs alleged, EPA had tapped data from minor sources in setting those limits.
In yesterday's response, the agency said it had acted properly in using emissions data from sources that would emit hazardous air pollutants at "major-source levels" if it weren't for federally required pollution controls in determining the floor for mercury and particulate matter emissions from brick kilns.
The agency's approach "is consistent with the statutory requirement to determine MACT floors based on emission levels achieved by the 'best performing' sources," the brief said.
EPA also questioned the tile council's standing to challenge the standards in court, saying the trade group had failed to allege that its members have been injured as a result.
The legal jousting is playing out in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Greenwire, Nov. 15, 2016). Under a recently revised schedule, final briefs are now due on April 28.
EPA predicts that the standards, released after years of delays, will eventually cut overall pollutant releases by a modest 375 tons per year. The quantifiable health savings are valued at a minimum of $48 million per year, or almost twice the $28 million annual compliance price tag. But the agency acknowledged that the new regulations could put two to four brickmaking plants "at significant risk of closure."
The potential impact spurred attacks from both congressional Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in a report last year cited an industry figure that the annual compliance cost could range as high as $110 million (Greenwire, Feb. 2, 2016).
Last year, the House approved legislation, H.R. 4557, that would have put the regulations on hold until all lawsuits are settled. The bill went nowhere in the Senate, however, and died when the 114th Congress went out of business. The sponsor, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), has so far not reintroduced the measure in the 115th Congress, according to an official database.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/20/stories/1060048727
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested