Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/24/2017
-
Perry, Zinke Committee Votes Postponed Until Further Notice
Jan 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has postponed scheduled votes on Rick Perry's nomination to become Energy secretary and Rep. Ryan Zinke's nomination to be Interior secretary, according to an emailed notice to aides obtained by POLITICO. -
Democrats Plan Forum for Pruitt Critics
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Senate Democrats will hold their own hearing today on Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), President Trump's pick for U.S. EPA administrator. -
Trump’s New EPA Transition Team Draws From Oil Industry Groups
Jan 24, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has drawn heavily from the energy industry lobby and pro-drilling think tanks to build its landing team for the Environmental Protection Agency, according to a list of the newly introduced 10-member team seen by Reuters on Monday. -
Sources: Trump Picks DOE White House Liaison, Senior Aide
Jan 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The Trump administration tapped Wells Griffith as the Energy Department’s new liaison to the White House and Dan Wilmot to be a deputy chief of staff to Energy Secretary designee Rick Perry, two sources tell POLITICO. -
Looming Deadline for TSCA
Jan 23, 2017 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger
While industry is properly focused on the recent flurry of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) "reform" activities, an important deadline is approaching for companies that manufacture or import polymers under the existing TSCA "polymer exemption." -
Commission Fitness Checks Chemicals Customs Inventory
Jan 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has begun a fitness check of the European Customs Inventory of Chemical Substances (ECICS). -
A Non-Estrogenic Alternative to Bisphenol A at Last?
Jan 23, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sarah Vogel
Last week a new study was published showing promising results for a non-estrogenic alternative to polymers based on bisphenol A (BPA) used to line the inside of food cans. -
Congress Should Investigate Cancer Collusion
Jan 23, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Julie Kelly
During her confirmation hearing to be ambassador to the United Nations, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley put the United Nations on notice that the days of being unaccountable to its top funder are over. -
Trump Aides Said to Ready List of First Days' Changes on Energy
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Donald Trump's advisers have prepared a short list of energy and environmental policy changes he can take now that he has been sworn in as president, including steps to limit the role that climate change plays in government decisions and speed the review of cross-border pipelines. -
White House Ices Energy, Environmental Rules Pending Review
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid and Rebecca Kern
The administration of President Donald Trump is putting recent environmental and energy rulemakings on ice until it can review them and decide which ones to keep and which to toss. -
Critics Renew Challenges To Obama's NSPS As Trump Vows Elimination
Jan 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Opponents of EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new power plants, the rule that provides the legal basis for the more far-reaching measure governing existing plants, are renewing their challenges to the rule even as President Donald Trump takes office... -
Ban on Offshore Arctic Energy is Out-of-Step with Views of the People Who Matter Most
Jan 23, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lucas Frances
A recent opinion submitted by Duane Miller lauded former President Obama’s closure of America’s Arctic to future exploration... -
Dakota Access Pipeline Could Be Freed to Finish Construction; Possible In-Service in May
Jan 23, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The change of presidential administrations and a federal district judge in Washington, DC, could free up for final construction the stalled $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project in the next weeks. -
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Again Taking Up Oil/Gas Royalty Protection
Jan 23, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Less than a month into the new year, Pennsylvania lawmakers will gather on Tuesday for a legislative hearing about an oil and natural gas lease protection package that would, among other things, make it easier for landowners to verify proper royalty payments. -
Trump Administration Tells EPA to Freeze All Grants, Contracts
Jan 23, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
The Trump administration has instructed officials at the Environmental Protection Agency to freeze its grants and contracts, a move that could affect everything from state-led climate research to localized efforts to improve air and water quality to environmental justice... -
Downwind States Move to Defend Obama-Era Air Pollution Rule
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Several mid-Atlantic and Northeast states want to serve as a backstop in the legal defense of an Obama-era regulation to further limit ozone precursor emissions from the power sector, a step that New York's attorney general described as a safeguard against President Donald Trump... -
Trump Scrubs White House Website Clean of Climate Mentions
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Trump administration quickly scrubbed the White House website of all references to fighting climate change, one of President Barack Obama's priorities. -
Trump Seeks 'Balance' on Climate — Spokesman
Jan 23, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
President Trump is looking to "balance" environmental policies with economic growth, his spokesman told reporters today. -
NCEE Paper Suggest Voluntary Programs Could Help Reduce Emissions
Jan 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Staff with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) in a new paper says an Ohio program to encourage voluntary air pollution reductions achieved good results, which could potentially boost President Donald Trump’s expected shift... -
California Regulators Propose Extending Cap-and-Trade
Jan 23, 2017 | Platts
By Ethan Howland
California regulators are proposing to expand efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, partly by extending the state's cap-and-trade program, which is set to end in 2020. -
What's at Stake When Facts Are Ignored? Here Are 10 Examples.
Jan 23, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
White House spokesman Sean Spicer used his first official briefing to announce, against all evidence, that more people had attended President Trump’s inauguration than at any other time in history. It was a case of, “who you gonna believe, me or your own lyin’ aerial photography?”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Perry, Zinke Committee Votes Postponed Until Further Notice
Jan 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has postponed scheduled votes on Rick Perry's nomination to become Energy secretary and Rep. Ryan Zinke's nomination to be Interior secretary, according to an emailed notice to aides obtained by POLITICO.
The committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday has been postponed until further notice, according to the email, which did not provide any explanation for the delay.
Congressional Republicans' annual retreat begins Wednesday, so the votes will not come until next week at the earliest.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Democrats Plan Forum for Pruitt Critics
Jan 24, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Senate Democrats will hold their own hearing today on Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), President Trump's pick for U.S. EPA administrator.
Environmental groups and several Democrats have mobilized to oppose Pruitt, a vocal critic of EPA under the Obama administration who has often sued the agency over its regulations, including the Clean Power Plan.
That record, however, has won support from Republicans and moderate Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The Senate will likely confirm the nomination.
Still, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and other Democratic members of the panel plan to press their case against Pruitt.
"Following the committee hearing on Scott Pruitt's nomination to head the EPA, serious questions remain about the nominee's record and vision for the agency he seeks to lead," Carper's office said in a statement yesterday. The meeting will be a "panel discussion," not an official committee hearing.
Democrats will hear from a number of prominent environmental and public health experts, including John Walke with the Natural Resources Defense Council and Lynn Goldman, dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.
They will also hear from Kelly Foster, a former Environmental Protection Unit chief in the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office who is now with the Waterkeeper Alliance.
Last week, Pruitt's confirmation hearing lasted more than six hours. Democrats mainly focused on his potential conflicts of interest as EPA administrator, given his political ties to the fossil fuel industry. They also pressed him on climate change science.
Yesterday former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) blasted Pruitt over the nominees uncertainty about Califrnia being able to keep autonomy to regulate vehicle emissions.
"My Republican colleague here is all about states' rights," the former governor tweeted, "except the right to clean air & save lives from pollution."
Despite concerns from critics, Carper last week acknowledged that Democrats will likely fail to block Pruitt's confirmation (E&E Daily, Jan. 19).
Schedule: The panel discussion is Tuesday, Jan. 24, at 3:30 p.m. in 202-203 SVC.
Witnesses: Casey Camp-Horinek, Ponca Tribe councilwoman; Kelly Foster, Waterkeeper Alliance senior attorney; Jason Aamodt, Indian and Environmental Law Group; Gretchen Dahlkemper, national field director for Moms Clean Air Force; John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean air program; and Lynn Goldman, dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/24/stories/1060048849
-
Trump’s New EPA Transition Team Draws From Oil Industry Groups
Jan 24, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has drawn heavily from the energy industry lobby and pro-drilling think tanks to build its landing team for the Environmental Protection Agency, according to a list of the newly introduced 10-member team seen by Reuters on Monday.
The email lists at least three former researchers from think-tanks funded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch and at least one former lobbyist for the mining industry. Several members of the team have also publicly argued against U.S. efforts to combat climate change, a key function of the EPA under former President Barack Obama.
The team's make-up has reinforced expectations that Trump will follow through on his promise to slash U.S. environmental regulation as a way to promote drilling and mining.
The team, charged with preparing the agency for new leadership, replaces the initial EPA transition group picked by Trump after the November election but before his swearing-in.
Trump’s nominee to run the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is awaiting Senate confirmation.
"We are looking forward to working with the career professionals at the EPA to make this transition work as well as possible, and to carry out the Agency’s mission to protect public health and the environment," according to the email. "While transitions are always hard, straight forward honest communication combined with respect for each other will make the process work much better."
Charles Munoz was named in the email as White House liaison on the new EPA team. He was a top organizer for Trump in Nevada during his campaign for the White House and helped set up the state's chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a political advocacy group funded by the Kochs.
Another team member, David Schnare, is a lawyer and environmental scientist who spent 33 years as a staffer at the EPA. More recently Schnare was legal counsel at The Energy & Environment Legal Institute, which has received funding from the Koch brothers-linked Donors Trust fund. The institute describes itself as seeking to correct "onerous federal and state governmental actions that negatively impact energy and the environment."
Schnare has also worked at the Center for Environmental Stewardship at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, which has been funded partially by the Charles Koch Foundation.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/01/23/us/politics/23reuters-usa-trump-epa-transition.html?_r=1&mtrref=undefined&gwh=925907B07DC0CFD1FD5F68A940C7AD73&gwt=pay
-
Sources: Trump Picks DOE White House Liaison, Senior Aide
Jan 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The Trump administration tapped Wells Griffith as the Energy Department’s new liaison to the White House and Dan Wilmot to be a deputy chief of staff to Energy Secretary designee Rick Perry, two sources tell POLITICO.
Griffith worked as a deputy chief of staff to White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus when he was chairman of the Republican National Committee. He also worked as the battleground states director for President Donald Trump’s campaign.
Wilmot, worked as an assistant to then-Vice President Dick Cheney and later for Perry during his time as Texas governor.
DOE did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Jan 23, 2017 | National Law Review
By Thomas C. Berger
While industry is properly focused on the recent flurry of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) "reform" activities, an important deadline is approaching for companies that manufacture or import polymers under the existing TSCA "polymer exemption." Specifically, the one-time notification to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which must identify the number of polymers first manufactured or imported by a company under the exemption during calendar year 2016, must be postmarked by January 31, 2017.1
Under the exemption, qualifying polymers are exempt from TSCA section 5 premanufacture notification (PMN) requirements for "new" chemical substances. Companies that rely on the exemption need only make a specific internal written certification of compliance with the exemption as of the date of first manufacture or import under the exemption, comply with certain recordkeeping requirements, and make the above described notification to EPA.
In addition to providing the number of polymers, the notice must include the manufacturer's (or importer's) name and address, as well as the name and telephone number of a technical contact. Although electronic reporting is mandatory for many TSCA submissions, electronic reporting is not currently available for polymer exemption notifications.If a company did not manufacture or import any polymers for the first time under the polymer exemption in 2016, the company is not required to submit the report this January.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/looming-deadline-tsca-polymer-exemption-notification
-
Commission Fitness Checks Chemicals Customs Inventory
Jan 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has begun a fitness check of the European Customs Inventory of Chemical Substances (ECICS).
The aim is to evaluate its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, EU added value and sustainability, and its coherence with regard to other databases.
ECICS is an information tool managed by the European Commission's Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD).
It lists chemical names in several EU languages along with their tariff classification in the European Community's combined nomenclature.
The inventory helps Commission services, economic operators, customs officers and other administrations dealing with external trade of chemicals. It allows them to:
· easily identify chemicals;
· classify them correctly and easily; and
· name them in a number of EU languages for regulation purposes.
The evaluation, which has just begun, will be finished by the end of the year. The work, being carried out by the contractor Economisti Associati, will involve targeted consultations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52343/commission-fitness-checks-chemicals-customs-inventory
-
A Non-Estrogenic Alternative to Bisphenol A at Last?
Jan 23, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sarah Vogel
Last week a new study was published showing promising results for a non-estrogenic alternative to polymers based on bisphenol A (BPA) used to line the inside of food cans. The paper, in Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T), evaluated the estrogenicity of an alternative to BPA— tetramethyl bisphenol F (TMBPF) — and its final polymer product developed by Valspar, a major paint and resin company. The authors found that, unlike BPA and some of its analogs that have been used as substitutes, TMBPF exhibited no signs of estrogenicity.
This was an unusual paper on a number of fronts—how the material was selected, how it was evaluated and by whom. In this post I’m going to explore who was involved, what testing was done and what this might mean for the BPA alternatives market.
But first a bit of context because you may be asking, aren’t there already non-BPA-based polymer alternatives for use in food cans? What about those cans that say “BPA-free”? The reality is that despite serious, decades-long concerns about the estrogenicity of BPA, the chemical continues to be widely used to make linings of food cans due to the considerable versatility of the material, which has made it challenging for alternatives to penetrate the market. There are a few alternatives available but none have offered a total replacement of BPA-based coatings used in nearly all food cans today.
The new research described in the ES&T paper was funded by Valspar, which immediately raises concerns about conflicts of interest, given the considerable financial stakes it has in finding an effective and safer replacement to BPA. But here is where it gets interesting in terms of who was involved in this project and how conflicts of interests were managed.
Who did the research?
To assess the estrogenicity of TMBPF, Valspar worked with leading researchers who have been publicly outspoken about the adverse health effects of BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Dr. Ana Soto, the lead author, runs a laboratory at Tufts University which has been researching BPA and other endocrine-disrupting compounds for decades. And co-author Dr. Maricel Maffini, who also worked at Tufts in Dr. Soto’s lab, has an extensive publication record on the adverse effects of BPA. One could argue that they have an interest in finding a safer alternative to BPA-based resins.
What we know from the disclosure of competing financial interests included in the paper is that Valspar provided Dr. Soto’s laboratory with “unrestricted funds” to conduct tests of the estrogenicity of TMBPF and the final polymer. Valspar also contracted with Dr. Maffini to serve as technical consultant on the project. In addition, a Valspar employee and a former Valspar employee were also co-authors.
(For full disclosure on our part, Dr. Maffini is also a consultant with EDF. We would not financially benefit from the successful marketing of this material.)
Why TMBPF?
The selection of TMBPF for evaluation arose from a reframing of the design problem. Rather than searching for a novel or alternative polymer material, the problem was turned on its head: can the same polymer be used – but employ a safer bisphenol building block? More specifically, how could the highly effective 4,4’-Methylenediphenol polymer chain used in food can linings be made without using an estrogenic bisphenol, like BPA?
The authors note that they selected TMBPF because predictive modeling suggested it was unlikely to bind to the estrogen receptor. They also note that TMBPF was preferred because it could be employed in a two-step process that created an intermediate and hence avoided TMBPF being directly used in the final polymerization process; this would reduce the likelihood of unbounded monomer remaining in the final product—a problem with the BPA-based polymers.
What testing did they do?
The first step was to evaluate the migration of TMBPF from the polymer coating in order to assess the likelihood of exposure in food. No migration of TMBPF was detected above the level of detection of 0.2ppb well below reported levels of BPA migrants from epoxy can linings.
The authors then selected a series of in vitro and in vivo tests that assessed TMBPF’s and the final polymer’s estrogenicity. The in vitro tests included the following:
· E-SCREEN: This uses a human breast cancer estrogen-sensitive cell line called MCF-7. Both TMBPF and migrants from the final polymer were evaluated, along with positive controls (BPA and estradiol) and negative controls. Neither TMBPF nor the migrated material resulted in an increase in proliferation of the cells—which would indicate estrogen receptor activation.
· Real-time quantitative PCR: This test evaluated gene expression of four genes known to be regulated by estrogen receptors. TMBPF was evaluated and compared with a positive control (estradiol) and negative control. TMBPF did not activate expression of any of the genes.
Moving up in biological complexity, the researchers conducted two in vivo whole-animal studies:
· Uterotrophic assay: This test, which followed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) protocol, evaluated the effect of TMBPF exposure on the development of the uterus in immature female rodents.
· Pubertal assay: This test also followed the EPA’s EDSP guidelines to assess development of puberty and thyroid effects. The researchers also evaluated effects on the development of the reproductive organs including the mammary gland.
The paper reports no significant effects of TMBPF on any of these endpoints. (The uterotrophic assay included a positive control while the pubertal assay did not.) Valspar also made reports of tests available on-line.
What additional disclosures would be helpful?
It would be useful to have a more complete description of the criteria used to select the different tests for estrogenicity and how these decisions were made and by whom. A discussion of the terms of the contract would make more transparent the level of independence given to the Tufts Laboratory. We strongly encourage additional disclosure of these details.
That said, the rigor of the assessment went well above anything required by current law. And that deserves praise. While the effectiveness of the final polymer derived from the use of TMBPF (i.e. shelf-life, performance, etc.) as well as additional safety assessments were beyond the scope of this paper, we are cautiously optimistic that Valspar has identified a non-estrogenic replacement for BPA-based polymers food cans.
That is encouraging news.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/01/23/a-non-estrogenic-alternative-to-bisphenol-a-at-last/#more-6101
-
Congress Should Investigate Cancer Collusion
Jan 23, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Julie Kelly
During her confirmation hearing to be ambassador to the United Nations, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley put the United Nations on notice that the days of being unaccountable to its top funder are over. “When we look at the United Nations, we see a checkered history … any honest assessment finds an institution that is often at odds with the American national interest and American taxpayers,” she said.
Haley essentially sent a message to all international agencies that they’ll have to answer to an “America First” administration hostile to global policymakers and a reform-minded Republican Congress.
One already in the crosshairs is the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is under the purview of the United Nation's World Health Organization. Congress is investigating why taxpayers continue to fund this France-based agency that’s been accused of stonewalling conflicts of interest and using shoddy science to promote a politically motivated agenda.
Each year, the IARC looks at a number of factors that may cause cancer, and almost always concludes they do. This earns the agency lots of provocative headlines — and even influences public policy — but there’s little evidence their carcinogen-mining has done anything to protect or improve public health.
In fact, the IARC has lost so much credibility over the last few years that a group of prominent toxicologists recently accused it of causing “unnecessary health scares and unnecessary diversion of public funds.”
The IARC’s 2015 report classifying the weedkiller glyphosate (the active ingredient in RoundUp) as a probable human carcinogen is one of the most controversial. Glyphosate is the target of environmental activists because it’s applied on many genetically engineered crops, known as RoundUp Ready, which they oppose because both were developed by eco-bogeyman Monsanto. Activists exploit the IARC report to stoke fear about the herbicide and are trying, particularly in the European Union, to get its use limited or banned altogether.
But hundreds of studies and government agencies around the world confirm the chemical’s safety; the IARC is the only outlier that warnsglyphosate is probably carcinogenic.
Many scientific groups have disputed that claim, including a review of the IARC's work by four expert panels published in September that said “the totality of the evidence … does not support the conclusion that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen’” and that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”
Given serious doubts about the report’s integrity and the IARC’s motives, Congress is demanding answers. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said the IARC has a “record of controversy, retractions, and inconsistencies” and asked why the National Institutes of Health has spent $40 million since 1992 to fund it.
Chaffetz expressed concern that the IARC “influences American policymaking, even though IARC avoids having to meet the strict scientific standards and government scrutiny afforded to science advisory committees in America.” He asked the NIH to brief the committee about its vetting process and provide any correspondence between the agency and the IARC.
Some congressional leaders also want to know if federal employees collaborated with the IARC on the dubious report. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, accused former Environmental Protection Agency Director Gina McCarthy of giving misleading and untruthful statements to his committee last spring when she denied any EPA employees were directly involvement with IARC work.
Smith requested interviews with EPA employees he suspected played a more significant role in IARC’s glyphosate assessment than the agency admitted. With a new incoming EPA chief, Congress might finally get some answers.
For its part, rather than fielding these concerns head-on, IARC officials are defying inquiries for more information. Despite receiving millions in U.S. tax dollars, the IARC doesn’t think it should comply with transparency laws that apply to all public employee here.
Kathryn Guyton, a top IARC official, advised scientists employed by U.S. universities who worked on the report, as well as employees at both the EPA and NIH, not to respond to open records requests: “Working Group members prepare these documents on behalf of IARC, and not as part of their official employment duties for a state or federal institution, and IARC is the sole owner of all such materials. IARC does not encourage participants to retain working drafts of documents after the related (report) is published.”
So the IARC accepts U.S. tax dollars, relies on expertise from taxpayer-paid scientists and gets assistance from federal agencies, yet it refuses to cooperate with transparency norms here. This prompted another inquiry from Chaffetz earlier this month, seeking clarification from the National Archives office about whether the IARC documents, presumably transmitted via government email addresses, were indeed subject to U.S. open records laws.
Congress should not have to spend time and resources trying to get information from an opaque international agency that U.S. taxpayers support. Defunding the IARC immediately would prove the new administration is serious about making global agencies that readily accept American largess both accountable and transparent.
Julie Kelly is a food policy expert and a long time contributor of The Hill and National Review Online. Her work has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and The Huffington Post.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/315715-congress-should-investigate-collusion-with-international-cancer
-
Trump Aides Said to Ready List of First Days' Changes on Energy
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Donald Trump's advisers have prepared a short list of energy and environmental policy changes he can take now that he has been sworn in as president, including steps to limit the role that climate change plays in government decisions and speed the review of cross-border pipelines.
The list of actions Trump can take imminently includes nullifying former President Barack Obama's guidelines that federal agencies weigh climate change when approving pipelines, deciding what areas to open for drilling or taking other major actions, two people familiar with Trump's transition planning say.
Soon after Trump took the oath of office, an “America First Energy Plan” posted on the White House website that enshrined many of his campaign pledges as formal policy goals, including a commitment to eliminate “harmful and unnecessary” regulations that throttle domestic development. Explicit targets for repeal include Obama's Climate Action Plan, which limits carbon emissions from power plants, and a water pollution rule.
“For too long, we've been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry,” Trump's plan says, describing domestic energy production as critical to “achieving independence from the OPEC cartel and any nations hostile to our interests.”
Trump also is being counseled, according to the people familiar with the planning, to suspend the government's use of a metric known as the social cost of carbon until it can be reviewed and recalculated, and to rescind a 49-year-old executive order that put the State Department in charge of permitting border-crossing oil pipelines.
Quick Action
Conservatives have been urging Trump to act quickly.
“President Obama used a pen and phone to load up the Federal Register with harmful regulations, but Donald Trump has an eraser— and he should use it,” said Andy Koenig, vice president of policy at Freedom Partners, the donor organization tied to billionaires Charles and David Koch. “While all of this won't be resolved overnight, quick action is a positive first step for the new administration to demonstrate its commitment to addressing barriers to economic growth and opportunity for all Americans.”
Latest Plan
Trump's latest energy plan—a revised version of a blueprint published after his election and another touted on the campaign trail—describes revenues from oil and gas production as a way to pay for building new roads and bridges.
In the document, Trump highlights a commitment to clean-coal technology, which promises to cut pollution tied to burning the fossil fuel, and “to reviving America;’s coal industry, which has been hurting for too long.” That reprises Trump's campaign promise to bring back coal mining jobs, in decline as environmental policies and competition from cheaper, cleaner natural gas have lessened electric utilities’ demand for the fossil fuel.
Environmental protections will not be abandoned in the push for greater U.S. energy development, Trump says. “Our need for energy must go hand-in-hand with responsible stewardship of the environment,” the plan says. “Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority.”
On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to use his first day in office to roll back a suite of Obama administration actions on climate. The timeline for some of those reversals might slip, although Trump can put the changes in motion right away by directing agencies to take action.
Coal Mining
For instance, Trump is set to direct the Interior Department to lift an Obama-era moratorium on selling federal coal-mining rights. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell imposed the halt on new lease sales to allow time for a broad environmental review. That analysis is still underway and could continue even after the moratorium is lifted. But any new coal sales could be challenged in court.
Two of Trump's targets have especially symbolic significance, because the Obama administration used them to elevate the role of climate change in government actions.
The social cost of carbon, a calculation reflecting the potential economic damage from climate change, serves as the linchpin for many of the Obama administration's environmental rules, from appliance efficiency requirements to limits on how much methane can leak from oil wells.
Critics say the number, now nearly $40 for every metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, gives artificial precision to uncertain conditions nearly 300 years in the future.
Trump could use an executive order or guidance from his Office of Management and Budget to suspend the social cost of carbon, allowing time for the metric to be freshly analyzed and recalculated.
Conservatives at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Energy Alliance and Heritage Foundation have offered blueprints for change that could serve to lower the number, including making it reflect projected climate costs solely in the U.S., rather than globally.
NEPA Analysis
Trump also can effectively nullify guidance from Obama's Council on Environmental Quality that climate change should be factored into government agencies’ formal environmental reviews. The guidelines were meant to influence analysis of proposed agency actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. A new approach can be developed later.
The president will have wide latitude to rescind executive orders from Obama and past predecessors in the White House. One target: a 49-year-old directive from former President Lyndon B. Johnson that assigned the State Department responsibility for determining whether proposed cross-border energy projects serve the “national interest.” That 1968 order paved the way for the State Department's scrutiny of TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, ultimately rejected by Obama.
TransCanada has not said it would reapply for permission to build the pipeline, but the day after Trump's election, the Calgary-based company said it was looking for ways to convince the incoming administration of the project's benefits to the U.S. economy.
Spokesman Mark Cooper said by phone he was not prepared to discuss its next steps, but emphasized that the company remains “committed to Keystone XL.”
While campaigning for president, Trump said he would approve the project but would insist on a “better deal” for Americans.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104564899&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104564899&jd=104564899
-
White House Ices Energy, Environmental Rules Pending Review
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid and Rebecca Kern
The administration of President Donald Trump is putting recent environmental and energy rulemakings on ice until it can review them and decide which ones to keep and which to toss.
Rules boosting energy efficiency of appliances and regulating mercury dental fillings, permits streamlining home, road and power line construction and a slew of other federal environmental rules may either be frozen or delayed under a White House order issued after President Trump's inauguration.
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus sent a memorandum Jan. 20 directing departments and agencies to “immediately withdraw” any regulations that were sent for publication in the Federal Register until a Trump-appointed agency head has reviewed and approved them. For rules and permits that already have been published, Priebus called for “a temporary postponement of their effective date for 60 days from the date of this memorandum.” The memo allows exceptions under emergency situations to rules that deal with “health, safety, financial, or national security matters.”
Freezing regulations until they can be reviewed is a common practice when a new administration comes into office.
Rules Withdrawn
Following Trump's election, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy and Agriculture departments issued a slew of rules that have yet to be published and will be withdrawn for review:
• DOE rules, issued Dec. 28, to increase energy efficiency requirements for walk-in coolers, portable air conditioners, commercial boilers and uninterruptible power supplies.
• EPA rule, issued Dec. 15, to require 103,000 dental clinics to use dental amalgam separators to capture mercury from fillings prior to discarding them down sewer drains.
• The pre-rule, which USDA sent Jan. 18 for interagency review, that seeks comments on crafting a national standard for labeling genetically-engineered foods, a result of last year's passage of the genetically-modified organisms disclosure law (Public Law No: 114-216).
The Obama Administration issued 50 new or updated appliance standards as part of its climate action plan, which Trump has pledged to undo.Energy efficiency standards set minimum requirements to reduce the amount of energy that appliances and equipment use, which leads to reductions of carbon emissions as well as savings for consumers who end up using less electricity to operate the products. The DOE is required by law to review energy standards for more than 60 regulated products every six years.
Face Litigation
Energy efficiency advocates note that the DOE under the Trump administration could face litigation, which has occurred in the past when previous administrations missed statutory deadlines on updating energy efficiency standards.
The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, which represents home appliance manufacturers, is pleased with the review of the energy efficiency rules since the group didn't support the latest standard on commercial boilers, saying it was based on flawed analyses.
“Under the law, DOE is only required to review these and other rules, not make changes to them,” Stephen Yurek, AHRI president and CEO, said in a Jan. 22 statement. “It is entirely possible that this administration will choose to merely leave current efficiency levels in place for some products.”
The Priebus memo also postponed the effective implementation dates of rules and permits that the EPA, DOE and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did manage to publish, but hadn't yet taken effect. For final rules or permits that involve a substantial change in policy, the memo directed the agencies to consult the White House Office of Management and Budget. These include:
• fifty reissued and two new nationwide permits, published Jan. 6 by the corps that take effect March 19, authorizing dredge-and-fill activities in wetlands and streams with minimal adverse impacts for a variety of projects, including mining, home building, agriculture, manufacturing and road construction;
• a stormwater general permit, published Jan. 19 by the EPA that takes effect Feb. 16, to reduce polluted runoff from construction sites;
• a Superfund rule, published Jan. 9 by EPA that takes effect Feb. 8, adding vapor intrusion from soil beneath buildings as way to evaluate contamination levels for waste sites under Superfund consideration; and
• energy efficiency rules, published in January by DOE that takes effect between mid-February and May, for ceiling fans, pool pumps, central air conditioners and wine coolers.
Nationwide, Stormwater Permits Scrutiny
The National Association of Home Builders interpreted the Priebus memo as applying broadly to all permits, including the corps’ nationwide and stormwater permits, Owen McDonough, the association's environmental policy program director, told Bloomberg BNA.
Regarding the package of nationwide permits, McDonough said, “if they are to be reviewed, we would hope the process is expedited to avoid a lapse in the availability of these fast-track, streamlined permits.”
The current package of nationwide permits expires March 18.
The EPA's revised stormwater permit has drawn the ire of home builders who are concerned about provisions that allow multiple builders to be liable for individual violations. It could be among those singled out for further scrutiny.
Waiting on EPA Response
Eva Birk, who also is the association's environmental policy program manager, told Bloomberg BNA the group is waiting for the EPA to clarify whether the memo applies to the 2017 construction general permit for stormwater and to indicate what steps it will take.
“As to whether we think the permit will be held up for scrutiny, I think the only persons who can respond to that question now are Acting Officials at EPA, and the Office of Management and Budget,” Birk said.
Nathan Gardner-Andrews, chief advocacy officer for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, cautioned Bloomberg BNA that the stormwater permit only applies in states where the EPA is the permitting authority, but the memo would affect permits in states that were delegated authority to issue their own Clean Water Act permits.
Gardner-Andrews said the same reasoning could be applied to nationwide permits that are issued and regulated by the corps.
Unclear Impact on Nano Rule
Attorneys said they were unsure of the memo's impact on an EPA rule (RIN:2070-AJ54) that requires manufacturers, importers and processors to submit information about nanoscale chemicals, including production volumes. This rule was published Jan. 12 and takes effect May 12, more than 60 days from the date of the Priebus memo.
Martha Marrapese, an attorney with Keller & Heckman LLP told Bloomberg BNA, said the memo could shift the effective date 60 days, meaning its requirements would enter into effect July 11.
However, Lynn Bergeson, an attorney with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., and Lawrence Culleen, an attorney with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, said the nanoscale materials rule may fall outside the scope of the memo because of its later effective date.
Also falling under the regulatory freeze is a Superfund rule the EPA proposed, and published Jan. 9, that would establish financial assurance commensurate with the risk of producing, handling, storing, moving or treating hazardous substances from hard rock mining. Another Superfund rule, which was published Jan. 11, would establish financial responsibility for the chemical manufacturing, petroleum and coal manufacturing and electric power generation and transmission sectors.
Slowing Pipeline Safety Rules
At least three of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's recent rules may be affected by the memo, including a final rule that was published in the Federal Register Jan. 23.
The agency is amending the timeframe for notification of accidents, alcohol and drug testing requirements and incorporating certain standards for in-line inspections.
The rule goes into effect March 24.
“What's interesting about the pipeline safety final rules is that they've been under development for several years, and even though both of them have provisions in them that are designed to react to accidents in the next couple of years, they don't have that emergency urgency to them,” said Susan Olenchuk, partner at Van Ness Feldman LLP.
Olenchuk said it's difficult to say if the delay will benefit anyone outside the executive branch, but for pipeline operators, the freeze might temporarily postpone capital investments necessary for compliance.
—With assistance from Sylvia Carignan, Pat Rizzuto and Tiffany Stecker.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104564905&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104564905&jd=104564905
-
Critics Renew Challenges To Obama's NSPS As Trump Vows Elimination
Jan 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Opponents of EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new power plants, the rule that provides the legal basis for the more far-reaching measure governing existing plants, are renewing their challenges to the rule even as President Donald Trump takes office amid new pledges to eliminate the regulation and other parts of the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan.
Critics of the power plant new source performance standards (NSPS) Jan. 23 filed reply briefs in pending litigation, North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al., that doubled down on their charges that the measure is unlawful, largely because the carbon capture technology that new coal plants must install is not “adequately demonstrated.”
They are pushing back in the face of the Obama EPA's defense of the standards, outlined in a Dec. 14 opening brief filed weeks before Trump took office.
Filings from the large coalition of states challenging the rule, and from industry opponents, were not available at press time, though two briefs filed early Jan. 23 focused on the issue of lignite-burning coal plants from North Dakota and niche industry groups had been submitted.
It is unclear, however, whether other opponents' briefs will suggest procedural means that the Trump administration, which has promised to kill the rule, will seek to use to remand the measure to EPA for further review or elimination.
Industry and state critics have already tried unsuccessfully to extend the briefing schedule to give the Trump administration time to short-circuit the suit. But their effort failed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected their requests.
Observers have said the Trump administration could seek voluntary remands of several high-profile climate rules that are in pending litigation, including the NSPS and the companion rule for existing sources, though the Obama EPA, along with its state, utility and environmentalist supporters, had called the opponents' scenario about potential changes by Trump officials “speculative.”
The court's rejection of critics' requests means the recent reply briefs come just after Trump entered office. But moments after Trump was sworn in, the White House website was updated to reflect the new administration's priorities, which included a renewed commitment to “eliminate” the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan -- of which the power plant rules are a centerpiece.
The Trump administration must now take over defense of the NSPS rule, with final briefs from EPA due Feb 6. However, it is unclear what sort of action the new administration will take, particularly since the Trump team is opposed to the NSPS.
And Trump's nominee to head EPA, departing Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, was one of the more than two dozen state attorneys general who challenged the NSPS.
Nonetheless, should the Trump administration change course or drop its legal defense of the NSPS, a coalition of states, major environmental groups and several low-carbon utilities would continue to defend the rule. Such groups reiterated their intent in Dec. 21 response briefs, noting that they -- “many of whom sued EPA a decade ago to force EPA to adopt the challenged Rule -- will continue defending the Rule.”
CCS Technologies
Reply briefs from other NSPS critics, slated to be filed Jan. 23, are likely to reiterate the arguments made in their Oct. 13 opening briefs in the case, with a substantial focus on their charges that the regulation unlawfully relies on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Opponents describe CCS technologies as “nascent” and falling far short of the Clean Air Act requirement that it be “adequately demonstrated” and shown to be “achievable.”
Under the NSPS, new coal plants must meet a GHG emissions rate of 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. That standard is based on the use of CCS to capture a portion of a plant's CO2 emissions.
While that requirement is sometimes referred to as a “CCS mandate,” the rule does not require installation of the technology. EPA notes in the rule that plants can comply with the standard by co-firing with natural gas.
Two briefs available at press time addressed the issue of lignite-burning coal plants, which opponents to the rule argue are a special case and therefore cannot meet the rule's best system of emissions reduction (BSER).
North Dakota in a Jan. 23 reply brief rejects Obama EPA arguments that the NSPS standard is achievable for all new coal plants -- arguing that lignite coal-fired power plants, which are the majority of its units, cannot meet the standard and thus the NSPS serves as a “de facto ban on new power plants fueled by North Dakota lignite.”
The North Dakota brief charges that EPA in its response brief “offers up a patchwork of partial, small-scale, hypothetical demonstrations as purported 'proof'” that its standards are achievable, but argues the agency “still fails to show that the entire BSER is commercially available for implementation at new, full-scale, lignite-burning [power plants] and that the standard is achievable for new lignite-burning” plants.
North Dakota also argues that SaskPower's Boundary Dam CCS unit, which EPA uses to defend its standard, “fails to 'adequately demonstrate' the BSER” for several reasons, including that it does not employ all components of EPA's BSER and “its myriad of operational and financial failings.”
In terms of lignite coal in particular, North Dakota argues Boundary Dam is only “one-fourth to one-half the generating capacity” of an existing lignite coal plant in the state, and notes that EPA “does not even attempt to explain” how a comparison between Boundary Dam and a typical lignite plant “could be valid.”
A Jan. 23 reply brief from several lignite coal groups also charges Boundary Dam is “insufficient” to show that CCS is adequately demonstrated for new lignite-fired units larger than the Canadian project. In addition, the lignite groups seek to discredit an amicus brief filed by a number of CCS experts defending the technology as “adequately demonstrated,” arguing that several of the scientists' institutions and prior public statements “contradict the claims in their brief.”
“[W]hile the CCS scientists claim in their brief that CCS with underground storage is 'adequately demonstrated,' some of the institutions with which they are affiliated, including the University of Texas and Columbia University, are to receive grants premised on the notion that CCS with underground storage is not yet feasible for widespread use,” the lignite groups write.
The groups' also cite several specific statements from individual scientists listed on the amicus brief that they say contradict their support of the EPA rule.
For example, “in a LinkedIn post on April 1, 2016, almost six months after the Final Rule was published, Roger Aines of the of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory stated that CCS 'is too expensive to put on electric power facilities . . . ,'” the lignite groups write.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/critics-renew-challenges-obamas-nsps-trump-vows-elimination
-
Ban on Offshore Arctic Energy is Out-of-Step with Views of the People Who Matter Most
Jan 23, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lucas Frances
A recent opinion submitted by Duane Miller lauded former President Obama’s closure of America’s Arctic to future exploration. The author correctly states that, “As a major economy, we need a strategic, diversified approach to energy development,” but then goes on to reach exactly the wrong conclusion for how we should achieve that goal. Closing off America’s largest domestic oil and gas resource, not only ignores fundamental questions over our future energy security, but also the wishes of a majority of Alaskans.
Exactly one month before leaving office, the former President invoked an obscure and rarely used provision in a 1953 law, to designate the vast majority of the U.S. Arctic Ocean “indefinitely” off limits to future offshore oil and gas development. For good measure, the Obama administration also removed the planned Arctic lease sales in the existing 5-Year Plan and eliminated future Arctic lease sales in the new Plan. The announcements came as a devastating shock to the diverse set of Alaskan business groups, labor unions, Native organizations, elected officials, and former military leaders who had repeatedly petitioned the Obama administration to do the very opposite.
In newspaper opinions, congressional testimonies, meetings with administration officials, and even a series of advertisements, groups representing wide-ranging interests, came together to advocate for continued offshore oil and gas development and ensure that Alaska’s perspective was heard beyond state lines and especially by decision makers in Washington, D.C.
Considering how frequently Alaskan and Native views have been misrepresented by activist groups, it is no wonder that they felt compelled to tell the rest of the country how they really feel about Arctic drilling: They overwhelmingly support it.
A 2016 poll commissioned by the Arctic Energy Center highlighted this point in the clearest terms, with 76 percent of Alaskans backing offshore resource development. And as a new infographic we have released today shows, two thirds of respondents feel that the opinions of local residents should matter most on the issue, and also believe that banning oil and gas development in Arctic waters is a clear example of federal overreach.
Significantly our poll also canvassed Native groups, including those on Alaska’s North Slope, for the first time. As the communities which would see the most direct impact of development, their opinions have often been misrepresented by environmental groups that have frequently justified a ban in their name. When announcing its moratorium, the White House even cited the need to protect Arctic waters “which many Alaska Native communities rely (on) for subsistence use and cultural traditions”.
But our survey demonstrated that this argument is completely out-of-step with Alaskan Natives’ actual views, 72 percent of whom support oil and gas development in the Arctic. And having been burned by “special interest groups (that) continue to use our people and culture as a backdrop for their fundraising agendas or to further their anti-development views,” as Wainwright Mayor John Hopson, Jr. put it, it is unsurprising that almost 80 percent of Native respondents believe that their opinions should be prioritized.
The results of our research have since been echoed by other Native leaders. Following President Obama’s ban, Sayers Tuzroyluk, Sr., head of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat wrote, for “those of us who live in the Arctic, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that his eleventh-hour actions benefit the environmental groups more than they do us – the people directly affected by selfish decisions made on his watch … Our region has once again been used as a tool for elevating Obama’s personal environmental record while sticking it to the people who live here.”
Fortunately for Alaskans a silver lining exists. Contrary to the claims of environmental activists determined to maintain the moratorium by any means possible, the incoming administration will have the opportunity to reverse the decision and put the state back on a path towards developing a vibrant, self-sustaining economy.
Previous applications of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act show that the Obama administration’s ban can be undone just as easily as it was made. Almost three decades ago, President George H.W. Bush used the Act to withdraw parcels of American waters from oil and gas leasing in an executive memorandum, a decision that was subsequently rescinded by President George W. Bush, who used the same law to open the areas back up. We urge President Trump to pursue a similar course of action and rescind President Obama’s memorandum within the first 100 days of taking office.
Mr. Miller’s piece concludes that, “Over the last eight years, not only have we reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but we have also grown our economy.” We couldn’t agree more. But the means by which this growth was achieved, was through expansive development and use of America’s natural gas, a resource that resides in great measures below the very same Arctic waters Mr. Miller now wants to permanently take out of commission.
To ignore the opinions of the people of Alaska, and the reality of the resource that resides in America’s Arctic, we would forgo not only the tenets of our democracy but our future energy needs.
Lucas Frances is spokesman of the Arctic Energy Center.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/315722-ban-on-offshore-arctic-energy-is-out-of-step-with
-
Dakota Access Pipeline Could Be Freed to Finish Construction; Possible In-Service in May
Jan 23, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The change of presidential administrations and a federal district judge in Washington, DC, could free up for final construction the stalled $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project in the next weeks. A start-up of the nearly 1,200-mile pipeline for moving Bakken oil from North Dakota could happen in May, according to analysts.
Energy Transfer Partners' (ETP) DAPL filed a reply Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and if the newly installed Trump administration decides not to respond to that court filing, a judgment allowing the pipeline project to complete its final segment could come in early February.
Questioned in a White House press briefing Monday afternoon about whether President Trump would act to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to move forward, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the president is interested in “maximizing the use of the nation’s natural resources” and in “areas that can increase jobs.” Spicer said the Dakota pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline fit in both of those categories.
An early February ruling favoring the DAPL project "would imply an in-service date of early May," said Christi Tezak, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, which has been projecting that the six-month-old dispute between ETP's nearly completed pipeline project and the federal government would be resolved in the first half of this year.
On Friday, as President Trump was being sworn in during the inauguration, DAPL attorneys filed a reply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) opposition to the pipeline project's cross-claim and motion of summary judgment seeking the court to confirm that the project can proceed with its final segment based on an easement the USACE granted in July.
The July 25 easement to cross a dammed portion of the Missouri River, Lake Oahe, in south-central North Dakota was granted by the USACE only to be rescinded at the eleventh-hour by the Obama administration in the face of stiff opposition from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose reservation is adjacent to the pipeline route and near the lake.
As legal matters now stand, the USACE needs to respond to DAPL's latest filing in the next 10 days, and the Trump administration could choose not to do so, leaving Judge James Boasberg to rule in favor of the pipeline "relatively soon," according to ClearView's Tezak.
On Monday, Standing Rock leaders passed a resolution urging the protesters still in North Dakota to leave their encampment. Calling the opponents of the pipeline "water protectors," the tribe's statement urged them to "vacate the camps and head home with our most heartfelt thanks."
In North Dakota, a key Trump administration backer, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), told a local radio interviewer that the Obama administration's halt of the final DAPL construction could be reversed as early as Monday. Cramer said his "hope and expectation" was the final pipeline construction work would resume within a week.
In the past, ETP officials have said the water crossing under Lake Oahe would take 90 to 100 days complete.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109142-dakota-access-pipeline-could-be-freed-to-finish-construction-possible-in-service-in-may
-
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Again Taking Up Oil/Gas Royalty Protection
Jan 23, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Less than a month into the new year, Pennsylvania lawmakers will gather on Tuesday for a legislative hearing about an oil and natural gas lease protection package that would, among other things, make it easier for landowners to verify proper royalty payments.
Lawmakers returned to the capital on Monday to start the 2017-2018 regular session. For years they've failed to pass legislation that would ensure greater protections for landowners that have been crying foul about post-production costs and shorted royalty payments.
The Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee is scheduled to meet on SB 138 and SB 139, both sponsored by Republican committee Chairman Gene Yaw, who represents leading shale producing counties in Northeast Pennsylvania. Both bills stalled last year after they failed to gain traction in the House energy committee.
SB 138 would allow royalty interest owners the opportunity to inspect the records of a gas company to verify proper payment. That information would be confidential and could not be disclosed to anyone else. It would also require that royalties be paid within 60 days of production.
SB 139 would prohibit a gas company from "retaliating" against a landowner by terminating a lease agreement or ceasing development because a landowner questions the accuracy of payments. The package, Yaw said in a December memo, is meant to "support leaseholders who seek more transparency and protection while engaging the gas industry on their lease agreements."
Landowners across the state, primarily in Northeast Pennsylvania, have consistently voiced their concerns about post-production costs being deducted from royalty payments to cover expenses such as compression, dehydration and transmission. The issued culminated in 2015 when the state Attorney General's office filed a lawsuit against Chesapeake Energy Corp. for allegedly deceptive business practices related to post-production expenses. That case is still in state court.
Local elected officials in Northeast Pennsylvania, led by those in Bradford County, have hosted public meetings, staged protests and have pressured lawmakers to pass legislation for greater royalty protections. Bradford County launched a public relations campaign last year to help their efforts and several counties in the region are discussing forming a coalition to increase pressure in the state capitol.
Another bill that would have been key to resolving some of those goals also has failed for years. HB 1391 would have clarified the state's Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act of 1979, which sets forth the minimum payment to landowners but doesn't address marketing costs and how they should be factored into royalties. The clock ran out on the bill at the end of last year's legislative session as it has in the past.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Garth Everett of Northeast Pennsylvania, said at the time that he would reintroduce the legislation this session. But thus far, legislative records show he hasn't done so. Jackie Root, president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO), said she expects that legislation to be reintroduced soon.
“We do expect traction this year. I wouldn’t say that bill fell by the wayside; we almost made it,” Root said of HB 1391. “At the end of the session, what we got from leadership is that they understand this is a huge problem; it has to be fixed and it’s not going away.”
NARO hosted a public meeting in Southwestern Pennsylvania on Saturday, where Root said more than 100 people attended to air concerns similar to those voiced in the northeast part of the state.
“We’re doubling down on our efforts to provide factual information on why this is so important,” she added. “It’s not a matter of saying that everyone is [deducting post-production costs] -- that every company is doing it. We’re saying specific companies are doing it.”
While Root acknowledged that Yaw’s legislation doesn’t address how post-production deductions should be handled, she said the bills and similar legislation are also important.
SB 138 and SB 139 were referred to the Senate energy committee last week. Senators will meet to discuss the bills at 10:30 a.m. EST in Room 461 of the Capitol Building in Harrisburg.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109149-pennsylvania-lawmakers-again-taking-up-oilgas-royalty-protection
-
Trump Administration Tells EPA to Freeze All Grants, Contracts
Jan 23, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
The Trump administration has instructed officials at the Environmental Protection Agency to freeze its grants and contracts, a move that could affect everything from state-led climate research to localized efforts to improve air and water quality to environmental justice projects aimed at helping poor communities.
An email went out to employees in the agency’s Office of Acquisition Management within hours of President Trump’s swearing-in on Friday.
“New EPA administration has asked that all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately,” read the email, which was shared with The Washington Post. “Until we receive further clarification, which we hope to have soon, please construe this to include task orders and work assignments.”
According to its website, each year the EPA awards more than $4 billion in funding for grants and other assistance agreements. For now, it appears, that funding is on hold, casting a cloud of uncertainty over one of the agency’s core functions, as well as over the scientists, state and local officials, universities and Native American tribes that often benefit from the grants.
A spokesperson for the EPA declined comment.
It is unclear whether the move by the incoming administration was related to President Trump’s order Monday that federal agencies halt hiring in all areas on the executive branch except for the military, national security and public safety, which also curbed contracting as a way of compensating for the freeze. “Contracting outside the Government to circumvent the intent of this memorandum shall not be permitted,” the memorandum states.
Administration officials inserted the language in an apparent attempt to curb the growth in federal contracts that arose during previous freezes imposed under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. But the total halt in contracts and grants for a single agency appeared to go beyond that specific provision, which applied solely to contracting activities in response to the halt in hiring.
Myron Ebell, who oversaw the EPA transition for the new administration, told ProPublica on Monday that the freezing of grants and contracts was not unprecedented.
“They’re trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don’t want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first,” said Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-backed group that has long sought to slash the authority of the EPA.
“This may be a little wider than some previous administrations, but it’s very similar to what others have done,” he told the publication.
But not in recent history has such a blanket freeze taken place, and one employee told ProPublica he did not recall anything like it in nearly a decade with the agency.
The move is likely to increase anxieties inside an already tense agency. Ebell and other transition officials have made little secret about their goal of greatly reducing the EPA’s footprint and regulatory reach. Trump has repeatedly criticized the EPA for what he calls a string of onerous, expensive regulations that are hampering businesses. And his nominee to run the agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has repeatedly sued the EPA over the years, challenging its legal authority to regulate everything from mercury pollution to various wetlands and waterways to carbon emissions from power plants.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/23/trump-administration-tells-epa-to-freeze-all-grants-contracts/?utm_term=.99b03677d741
-
Downwind States Move to Defend Obama-Era Air Pollution Rule
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Several mid-Atlantic and Northeast states want to serve as a backstop in the legal defense of an Obama-era regulation to further limit ozone precursor emissions from the power sector, a step that New York's attorney general described as a safeguard against President Donald Trump (Wisconsin v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1406, motion filed 1/19/17).
The states, led by New York, are seeking intervenor status in litigation over the 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Update Rule, a regulation that sets more stringent caps on utility sector nitrogen oxides emissions in 22 upwind states across the eastern U.S. The regulation aims to limit emissions of nitrogen oxides that cross state lines and affect the ability of downwind areas to meet and maintain the 2008 national ozone standards of 75 parts per billion.
Intervenor status would allow those states to participate in defending the regulation against challenges brought by power industry organizations and some of the upwind states that are subject to emissions caps. Several environmental and public health advocacy organizations, including the American Lung Association, previously asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for intervenor status in the Cross-State Update litigation.
The Trump administration has inherited a number of ongoing lawsuits over Obama-era air regulations, including challenges to the 2015 ozone standards and an update rule finding that it is necessary for the federal government to regulate utility sector mercury emissions. John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA in December that any efforts by Trump's EPA to reverse course on environmental protections that are subject to litigation are likely to be opposed by environmental advocates involved in the cases.
States to Defend Against Trump
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) described involvement of the downwind states in the case as a “critical safeguard” against any effort by the Trump administration to undermine the regulation.
“The Trump administration has signaled its desire to roll back federal environmental protections, including those that protect states from out-of-state polluters,” Schneiderman said in a Jan. 19 statement announcing the state request. “This is why defending this sensible, fair, and crucial rule is so important.”
The White House website was updated after Trump's inauguration to feature an energy plan that calls for the elimination of “burdensome regulations” on the energy sector.
The downwind state coalition, which also includes Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts, said in its Jan. 19 motion that the EPA regulation is expected to result in a significant reduction in power plant emissions that will improve air quality in the states and aid in efforts to meet the ozone standards. The EPA projected that the rule will cover 886 power plants and cost $68 million annually.
Pruitt Critical of Program
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), Trump's nominee to lead the EPA, has acknowledged the authority the EPA has in addressing emissions that cross state lines, while criticizing the methodology used by the previous administration to do so. Pruitt, during his Jan. 18 nomination hearing, defended his role in a legal challenge to the EPA's first Cross-State Rule, which aimed to address interstate transport under the 1997 ozone standards and the 1996 and 2007 fine particulate matter standards.
“I believe that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is a very important statute that EPA should enforce,” Pruitt said. “The lawsuit was not questioning the authority of the EPA to regulate under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, it was more that they were trying to assess damages against certain states that were in excess of their allocated share.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 upheld the framework of the Cross-State Rule, which sets statewide emissions budgets and achieves pollution cuts through emissions trading. But the court also found the EPA doesn't have the authority to require states to achieve emissions reductions beyond what is required to bring all affected downwind areas into compliance with the relevant air standards (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation LP, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 78 ERC 1225, 2014 BL 118432 (U.S. 2014)).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104564889&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104564889&jd=104564889
-
Trump Scrubs White House Website Clean of Climate Mentions
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Trump administration quickly scrubbed the White House website of all references to fighting climate change, one of President Barack Obama's priorities.
Until noon on Jan. 20, the whitehouse.gov site highlighted Obama's “climate and energy” accomplishments among five broad subject areas that also included sections on health care and American leadership. All were removed within minutes of Trump becoming president.
Also deleted was a reference to climate change as a top issue, along with others such as civil rights and the economy, listed on the home page.
As revamped by the Trump administration, the new White House site includes its own list of “top issues” but makes no mention of climate change.
The six top issues on the Trump administration's site now include a new “America First Energy Plan” followed by policy areas ranging from “America First Foreign Policy” to “Trade Deals Working For All Americans.”Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA he expects environmental groups that want action on greenhouse gas emissions to complain about the revision. “No there's no outcry, the public is on our side on this,” Inhofe said of the website changes.
“The lines are clearly drawn, and I think right now I'm very proud that he's doing that rather than trying to string people along,” Inhofe said.
Inhofe noted that voters elected Trump, who vowed during the campaign to “cancel” the Paris climate pact and called climate change a hoax. Voters also put Republicans, who generally favor fossil fuel development, in charge of both the House and Senate.
“The hoax, if anything, is that the world is coming to an end because of man-made gases,” Inhofe said.
Climate, Waters Rule in Crosshairs
Trump's America First Energy Plan, a page on the reconfigured White House site, puts two of Obama's environmental initiatives in the crosshair—his climate action plan and a Clean Water Act rule that industry and many states see as jurisdictional creep over small streams and waterways.
“President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule,” the new White House website said.
Rolling back the climate agenda and water rule together would boost wages by more than $30 billion over the next seven years, it said.
The waters of the U.S. jurisdictional rule was issued by the EPA, along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in 2015.Obama's 2013 climate action plan—essentially his go-it-alone strategy given congressional inaction on climate issues—outlined policies from ending U.S. support to overseas coal-fired power plants to domestic climate regulations.
The climate regulations included more stringent vehicle efficiency standards and Environmental Protection Agency power plant carbon pollution limits. The plan also pledged continued U.S. leadership to secure the global climate deal nearly 200 nations reached in Paris in 2015. That's the agreement Trump has vowed to cancel.
Trump's American First plan also backs clean coal technology and “reviving America's coal industry, which has been hurting for too long.” West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D), who often clashed with Obama over the previous administration's climate regulations, applauded Trump's vow to back coal.
“I am happy to see the President immediately commit to advance coal technology and fuels that will help our nation ensure reliable baseload generation,” Manchin said in a prepared statement. “The last administration's energy policy crippled my state and this change will be welcomed in West Virginia.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104564872&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104564872&jd=104564872
-
Trump Seeks 'Balance' on Climate — Spokesman
Jan 23, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
President Trump is looking to "balance" environmental policies with economic growth, his spokesman told reporters today.
In his first formal press briefing from the White House, Trump spokesman Sean Spicer was asked about the president's plans for addressing climate change.
"I think he's going to meet with his team, figure out what policies are best for the environment," Spicer said.
"One of the things that he talked about during the campaign is there's a balance, and he's trying to make sure that we use our resources appropriately, that we maximize things to make sure that we don't do so at the detriment of economic growth and job creation. There's a balance, and I don't think it's an either-or situation. We can ensure that we're doing things that are smart for the environment and smart for our longevity, as well as making sure that we're doing things that create economic growth and job creation."
Trump has sent mixed signals about how he plans to deal with environmental issues. He said in a December interview that he was "still open-minded" on the environment, and he met during the transition with climate change activists Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio (E&E Daily, Dec. 12, 2016).
But many of Trump's actions have outraged environmentalists, including his nominations for top environmental posts, like selecting a U.S. EPA administrator who has sued the agency over its climate policies. Trump has previously referred to climate change as a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
Spicer declined to give details about potential White House moves aimed at advancing controversial oil pipelines, but he signaled that action could be coming soon.
The Obama administration rejected the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline and slowed the Dakota Access pipeline by ordering a full environmental review. Both moves were seen as wins by environmentalists, who have staunchly opposed both projects.
"I'm not going to get in front of the president's executive actions, but I will tell you that areas like Dakota and the Keystone pipeline, areas that we can increase jobs, increase economic growth and tap into America's energy supply more, that's something that he has been very clear about," Spicer said today.
He added, "I think that the energy sector and our natural resources are an area where I think the president is very, very keen on making sure that we maximize our use of natural resources to America's benefit. It's good for economic growth, it's good for jobs and it's good for American energy."
Trade deal, nominees, press tensions
Spicer also today defended Trump's order this morning to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (Greenwire, Jan. 23).
"When you enter into these multinational agreements, you're allowing any country, no matter the size — any one of those 12, including us — to basically have the same stature as the United States in the agreement," Spicer said. "When you look at big, multinational agreements and multilateral agreements, they're not always in the best interest of the United States."
Additional executive orders aren't expected today, but more could be coming this week, Spicer said.
Trump's spokesman hammered Senate Democrats for the slow pace of confirming Trump's nominees, noting that President Obama had seven nominees confirmed on his first day in office in 2009, compared with two of Trump's nominees who were confirmed on his first day.
Trump is likely to announce a Supreme Court nominee within the next couple of weeks, Spicer said.
Much of his first official news conference involved sparring over the new administration's already tense relationship with the media.
Spicer attempted to smooth that relationship somewhat today, answering a flurry of questions and follow-ups from reporters in the White House briefing room.
He said, "We want to have a healthy dialogue" with the media and the public.
But he said Trump and the administration aren't getting a fair shake from the press.
"Over and over again, there's this constant attempt to undermine his credibility and the movement that he represents, and it's frustrating for not just him, but I think so many of us," Spicer said. "The default narrative is always negative, and it's demoralizing."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/23/stories/1060048834
-
NCEE Paper Suggest Voluntary Programs Could Help Reduce Emissions
Jan 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Staff with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) in a new paper says an Ohio program to encourage voluntary air pollution reductions achieved good results, which could potentially boost President Donald Trump’s expected shift in focus from mandatory air controls to voluntary partnerships with industries.
The paper, recently posted to EPA’s website, found that mere invitation from state regulators to join the Ohio program by state regulators appeared to be a strong factor in motivating emissions cuts.
Voluntary programs provide a potential alternative to regulation, which could win favor with the Trump administration -- although the paper does not mention Trump and focuses solely on Ohio’s program. The NCEE paper also makes clear it is written by the staff and does not represent any agency position.
Currently, EPA operates many voluntary programs, the NCEE researchers note. “At last count, the U.S. EPA had almost 40 voluntary initiatives targeting issues ranging from air quality to pollution prevention to energy and climate change,” the researchers say.
In the paper, the researchers evaluated the results of Ohio’s Tox-Minus program from 2003 to 2012. The program, operated by Ohio EPA, the state’s environment agency, aimed to reduce air and other toxics emissions from industrial facilities. The NCEE team compared emissions reductions from participating facilities to those of similar non-participating plants.
“Our results suggest that being invited to the program, regardless of whether a facility joined the Tox-Minus Initiative, produced a significant decline in the absolute level of air emissions. Degree of regulatory attention also appears important, though we find that participants reduced emissions subject to the Clean Air Act by significantly more than non-participants in the post policy period,” the researchers conclude.
Under Tox-Minus, the Ohio EPA in 2007 asked 100 of the top contributors of emissions to EPA’s toxics release inventory (TRI) in 2005 to participate.
Ohio EPA on its website lists the program’s goals as to “identify, evaluate and implement feasible and effective pollution reduction or prevention strategies to reduce waste, air and water-related TRI emissions.”
The broader purpose was to move Ohio “down in the TRI listings, which will help enhance our image as an environmentally proactive, yet economically competitive state.”
Companies participating in the program had to establish their own goals for reducing releases of chemicals reported to the TRI over a five-year timeframe beginning in 2007, or a longer time frame if companies prefer.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/ncee-paper-suggest-voluntary-programs-could-help-reduce-emissions
-
California Regulators Propose Extending Cap-and-Trade
Jan 23, 2017 | Platts
By Ethan Howland
California regulators are proposing to expand efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, partly by extending the state's cap-and-trade program, which is set to end in 2020.
California's goal of cutting its GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 is the most ambitious carbon emissions reduction requirement in the US. The state is close to meeting its current target of getting down to 1990 emissions levels by 2020, according to the draft plan, released Friday by the California Air Resources Board.
The proposed "scoping plan" relies on existing measures, such as getting half of the state's electricity from renewable sources and doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030, coupled with new efforts such as requiring oil refineries to cut their GHG emissions by 20%.
The draft plan assesses the prospects of having a carbon tax or other regulations instead of the cap-and-trade program, but found the program was a more reliable way to cut emissions.
"The year-over-year reductions under a cap-and trade program ... provide certain and measurable reductions over time; a carbon tax, while putting a price on carbon to be sure, may not be enough to drive reductions by altering behavior," the plan said.
California's cap-and-trade program sets a statewide limit on GHG emissions and covers about 450 entities. The program, with a cap that declines by 3% a year, covers generators and industrial facilities that emit more than 25,000 mt of carbon dioxide a year. The program started covering fuel distributors in 2015.
The cap-and-trade program is linked to the Canadian province of Quebec and Ontario is slated to join next year.
The plan said that the cap-and-trade program's high compliance rates show that the program's infrastructure and implementation features are "effective and understood by the regulated community."
CARB may tighten its limits on the use of offsets that generators and others can use to meet their compliance targets, according to the plan. CARB limits offset use to 8% of each covered entity's compliance obligation.
CARB pegs the proposal's net cost to be $1 billion, but estimates that commercial and residential customers will see overall savings because of reduced fuel costs.
A key element of the proposal that could affect generators is to expand the use of electric and zero-emission vehicles in the state.
The transportation sector accounted for 37% of the state's GHG emissions in 2014, followed by industry at 24%, in-state power production at 12%, out-of-state generating serving the state at 8% and agriculture at 8%, the plan said.
CARB will hold public meetings on the plan in January, February and April and will take public comments on the proposal through March 6.
Meanwhile, in a move related to the GHG reduction plan, California's investor-owned utilities are proposing to spend about $1.3 billion on electric vehicle infrastructure over five years.
Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison filed the plans Friday at the California Public Utilities Commission, which approved an initial phase of the utilities' electric vehicle programs last year.
The plans are driven by an executive order California Governor Jerry Brown issued in 2012 that set a goal of having 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road in the state by 2025 to help lower GHG emissions.
Under the proposals, SoCal Ed would spend $554 million, PG&E would spend $253 million and SDG&E would spend $225 million.
SoCal Ed and SDG&E asked the PUC to approve customer rates that would encourage electric vehicle charging when electricity prices were the lowest such as when solar facilities are producing power.
While the proposals largely focus on trucks, buses and heavy equipment, SDG&E is proposing to install 90,000 residential charging stations. SoCal Ed would like to build five fast-charge sites that would have up to five charging stations with 50 ports on each station.
There are about 250,000 electric vehicles in California and as of July there were about 10,000 electric vehicle charging ports at 3,400 public charging stations in the state, according to an October report from the California Energy Commission.http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/portland-maine/california-regulators-propose-extending-cap-and-21680770
-
What's at Stake When Facts Are Ignored? Here Are 10 Examples.
Jan 23, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Keith Gaby
White House spokesman Sean Spicer used his first official briefing to announce, against all evidence, that more people had attended President Trump’s inauguration than at any other time in history. It was a case of, “who you gonna believe, me or your own lyin’ aerial photography?”
How many people actually attended the January 20 event may seem unimportant to some, but a willingness at the highest levels of government to flout evidence is deeply problematic. It begs the question: What comes next?
Will data needed for decision-making – by policymakers, legislators, farmers, business people and others – soon be replaced with “alternative facts?”
While every White House spins numbers for political or policy reasons, they do not normally dispute such numbers themselves. If the unemployment rate is going up, for example, they blame someone or something else, but they don’t claim it’s going down.
To give you a sense of what may be at stake, here are 10 data sources with important environmental information that is regularly reported by the government and on which many sectors of our economy depend:
1. EPA’s air pollution data
These numbers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lets us know how much air pollution is in the air and being emitted across the country. The amount of this pollution affects the health of millions of Americans.
2. Energy employment numbers from the DOE
These numbers from the U.S. Department of Energy show, among other things, that 2.2 million Americans are employed, in whole or in part, in energy efficiency jobs.
3. Temperature records from NASA and NOAA
This data from NASA and National Oceanographic and the Atmospheric Administration shows what impact greenhouse gas pollution is having on our climate. The latest report showed 2016 was the hottest year on record globally – the third year in a row of record-breaking heat.
4. Energy Information Agency data
Almost all information from this agency, which tracks energy use and related information, is of utmost importance. The EIA reports how fast clean energy is growing in the U.S., for example, and it provides tools for making projections about energy use and production.
5. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
This program requires facilities above a certain size to report greenhouse gas emissions from facilities above a certain size. It includes a section requiring operators across the oil and natural gas supply chain to estimate methane emissions, an important source of detailed, transparent data.
6. National Park Service Air Monitoring Program
This division of the NPS measures air pollution levels in our national parks and helps us know if we’re protecting our most important natural places.
7. The U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory
The inventory tracks total annual United States emissions. This way we know what progress we’re making against the pollution that is causing dangerous changes to our climate. The Inventory also compiles total emissions by source such as methane from the oil and gas sector, and data on gas mileage and gas mileage and pollution from cars.
8. The Toxics Release Inventory
This database tracks the management of many toxic chemicals that can be a threat to our health and the environment.
9. Water quality data
The federal government assembles this information from water quality reports by more than 400 state, federal, tribal, and local agencies.
10. Asthma data from Centers for Disease Control
The CDC, among many other things, collects data on asthma rates and other diseases linked to air pollution. Because more air pollution means more asthma attacks, it’s important to have a clear picture of the extent of this condition among Americans.
These are just a few of thousands of important statistics that the government collects related to environmental protection that are vital to keeping us safe and that support our economy.
The scientists and other workers who compile this data are dedicated to their missions, and I have no fear that they will suddenly drop their commitment to providing accurate information.
It is up to the rest of us to insist that the political appointees above them learn from the backlash against Spicer’s foray through the looking glass.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/01/23/whats-stake-when-facts-are-ignored-here-are-10-examples
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested