Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/25/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Pulls U.S. Out Of Pacific Trade Deal
Jan 24, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
President Donald J. Trump on Jan. 23 formally withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a trade deal strongly supported by the chemical industry and many other U.S. businesses. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Pulls US From Trans-Pacific Partnership
Jan 24, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
President Donald Trump followed through with a campaign promise this week and pulled the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: US Specialty Chemicals Market Volumes Up
Jan 25, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Callum O'Reilly
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has reported that market volumes in the US specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.3% in December 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) Jubilant Life Gets Responsible Care 14001:2013 Certification
Jan 25, 2017 | Press Trust of India (In India.com)
ubilant Life Sciences, an integrated global pharmaceuticals and life sciences company, today said it has received ‘Responsible Care 14001:2013 certification’ under the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Responsible Care program for its corporate office in Noida and for its manufacturing Unit in Gajraula. -
Information Lockdown Hits Trump's Agencies
Jan 24, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia , Alex Guillén and Nancy Cook
Federal agencies are clamping down on public information and social media in the early days of Donald Trump's presidency, limiting employees’ ability to issue news releases, tweet, make policy pronouncements or otherwise communicate with the outside world, according to memos and sources from multiple agencies. -
Trump Administration Puts 30 EPA Rules on Hold Until March 21
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
The Trump administration is freezing 30 Environmental Protection Agency rules until March 21. -
Dems Hold Separate Hearing On Pruitt
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Senate Democrats yesterday held their own hearing on Scott Pruitt, President Trump's nominee for U.S. EPA administrator. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Rules Could Be Foiled by Regulatory Oversight Bill
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical regulations Congress ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to issue could be foiled by a House-approved regulatory oversight bill, say advocates from two environmental organizations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Body Calls For Rethink Of TSCA Small Business Definition
Jan 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US Small Business Administration (SBA) has called upon the US EPA to consider a broader range of factors in determining what constitutes a small business under the new TSCA. -
Industry Weighs Data Strategy To Challenge EPA's Nano Reporting Rule
Jan 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Nanomaterial producers are eyeing a strategy for challenging EPA's reporting rule for their products by claiming that the agency failed to seek public input on certain information in the final rule, and that the incoming Trump administration could scale it back if a federal court agrees that the new data should have been issued for public comment. -
(ACC Mentioned) Cefic Takes Over ICCA Secretariat From ACC
Jan 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Chemical industry Council (Cefic) has assumed the role of secretariat of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) for a two-year term. -
Trump Pins Keystone, Dakota Pipeline Fate on Renegotiation
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Meenal Vamburkar and Jennifer Jacobs
President Donald Trump took steps to advance construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, while demanding a renegotiation to get a better deal for the U.S. government. -
Energy Industry's Pipe Dreams Closer to Reality Under Trump
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
“My God, this is going to be refreshing.” That was Kelcy Warren, the Texas billionaire behind the controversial Dakota Access pipeline, days after Donald Trump swept to victory. -
In Briefs, NSPS Critics Sidestep Talk of Trump Approach
Jan 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
State and industry opponents in reply briefs in litigation challenging the Obama EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new power plants sidestepped discussion of procedural implications now that the Trump administration -- which is expected to oppose the rule -- has assumed defense of the regulation. -
House Passes DOE 'Research And Innovation' Bill
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
The House passed legislation by voice vote yesterday that would overhaul Department of Energy policies and research. -
(ACC Mentioned) OSHA Takes Closer Look at High-Risk Chemical Plants, Refineries
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Occupational Safety and Health Reporter
By Sam Pearson
Chemical facilities and oil refineries covered under OSHA’s Process Safety Management program could see closer attention from inspectors under newinstructions issued in the final days of the Obama administration. -
Regulatory Freeze Slows Pipeline, Hazmat Safety Rules
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is under pressure to complete upcoming pipeline and hazmat safety rules, despite a regulatory freeze from the White House. -
Trump EPA Pulls Air Pollution Rules From Review
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Trump White House halted a pair of Clean Air Act rules that failed to clear review before the end of the Obama administration as a regulatory freeze takes effect. -
Trump Pledges Rapid Permitting Amid Industry Push For Air Permit Reform
Jan 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
President Donald Trump is vowing to speed up the environmental permitting process for industry, promising “a short process” where most applications will be approved quickly, amid a broader industry push for streamlining of the air permitting program that critics say hinders industrial development and slows economic growth. -
Trump Admin Tells EPA To Take Down Its Climate Change Webpage: Report
Jan 24, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Paulina Firozi
The Trump administration has requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take down the climate change page from its website, according to a new report. -
California Court Weighs Legality of Cap-and-Trade Auctions
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A California appellate court has 90 days to decide whether the quarterly cap-and-trade auctions the state uses to distribute carbon allowances are illegal (California Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Bd., Cal. Ct. App., No. C075930, 1/24/17). -
Save Climate Pact by Arguing It's No Big Deal: Sen. Corker
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Donald Trump may hold off on pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate pact if he's persuaded by a rather unorthodox argument being made by a top Senate Republican: The deal doesn't really require the U.S. to do all that much on climate change. -
Americans Are Surprisingly Supportive Of Government Regulations Trump Wants To Dismantle
Jan 24, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Emily Guskin and Scott Clement
On his first Monday in the White House, President Trump vowed to eliminate at least 75 percent of government regulations, cut taxes “massively” and impose a border tax on companies that move production out of the country. The three promises are aimed at making good on a campaign promise to reverse a decades-long trend of outsourcing manufacturing jobs, but they receive mixed marks with the public at-large.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Pulls U.S. Out Of Pacific Trade Deal
Jan 24, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
President Donald J. Trump on Jan. 23 formally withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a trade deal strongly supported by the chemical industry and many other U.S. businesses.
The action fulfills Trump’s campaign promise to abandon the Pacific Rim trade pact early in his Administration. “We’ve been talking about this for a long time,” Trump said after signing a memo effecting the change.
Shortly after his election last November, Trump denounced the 12-nation Pacific Rim trade agreement as a “potential disaster for our country.” He said he would pursue bilateral trade deals with individual countries that offer more protections for U.S. workers.
TPP was negotiated by former president Barack Obama’s Administration. But Congress refused to ratify the deal last year after it came under criticism from both Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Chemical manufacturers backed TPP, saying it had the potential to eliminate punitive tariffs and taxes and provide new market opportunities for U.S chemical exports. Although tariffs on most chemicals with TPP member countries are relatively low, the fees on some products are as high as 25%, particularly for plastics.
The agreement would have eliminated tariffs on most chemicals as soon as it took effect. An analysis by the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, estimates that gaining unfettered access to growing markets in the Pacific Rim had the potential to boost U.S. chemical exports by $1.2 billion per year.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), an association representing the specialty chemical industry, urged the new Administration to continue to pursue trade agreements in Asia and elsewhere.
“While we are disappointed about the Trump Administration’s decision to pull out of TPP, we hope that this marks the next step forward for future, high-caliber trade negotiations,” says Brittany Mountjoy, SOCMA’s manager of government relations.
TPP was not perfect, but it did contain many important provisions to level the playing field for chemical exporters, she tells C&EN. “We look forward to working with Congress and the Administration to further open up markets for our members, whether it is the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] or other strong future trade agreements,” Mountjoy says.
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a biotech trade association, had no comment on Trump’s action. And the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, which represents brand-name drug manufacturers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Both groups had criticized the TPP agreement for failing to deliver sufficient intellectual property protection for biological drugs.
Trump is expected to sign a presidential memorandum soon that will launch renegotiation of NAFTA—a trade agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. Trump has blamed that deal for an exodus of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. since it went into effect in 1994.
The President said on Jan. 22 that he would soon open talks with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Nieto.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/01/Trump-pulls-US-out-of-Pacific-trade-deal.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Pulls US From Trans-Pacific Partnership
Jan 24, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
President Donald Trump followed through with a campaign promise this week and pulled the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The pact created more stringent trade rules with 11 other countries in the Pacific region including Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia.
Opponents of the deal have argued that it favors corporations ahead of public interests. But supporters of TPP said it would create needed rules for environmental protections, labor and intellectual property. It was also designed to give the U.S. more clout in the region and balance China’s power.
The American Chemistry Council has been strongly supportive of the deal, saying that “future economic growth for the chemical sector depends on establishing trade policies that ensure a strengthened competitive position.”
Billions of dollars in trade potential was on the line for the chemicals industry. According to estimates by the International Trade Administration, TPP would have allowed the American chemicals industry to tap into a $7 billion market in Japan, a $928 million market in Malaysia, a $465 million market in Vietnam and millions more in the other countries.
In lieu of far-reaching deals like TPP, President Trump has expressed interest in striking one-on-one agreements with individual countries.
President Trump also asked Dow Chemical CEO, Andrew Liveris, who is now the head of the American Manufacturing Council, to work with leaders from other major companies like Dell, Ford and Tesla to come up with a plan within 30 days to stimulate manufacturing in the US.
Fortune reports that after meeting with President Trump, Liveris said that the two discussed a border tax and whether that would hurt the industry.
"Look: I would take the president at his word here. He's not going to do anything to harm competitiveness. He's going to actually make us all more competitive," Liveris said.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/01/trump-pulls-us-trans-pacific-partnership
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: US Specialty Chemicals Market Volumes Up
Jan 25, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Callum O'Reilly
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has reported that market volumes in the US specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.3% in December 2016.
This follows an upwardly revised 0.5% gain in November 2016. Volumes have generally been climbing since May last year. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments monitored, 17 expanded in December, 10 markets experienced decline and one was flat. During December, large gains (1% and over) were noted only in oilfield chemicals.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was stable on a year-over-year (y/y) 3MMA basis. The index stood at 105.4% of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 3.30 million t. The downturn in the oil and gas sector affected headline volumes and weakness spread to other segments. Year-earlier comparisons were negative since 2Q15 but are now stable. On a y/y basis, there were gains among 19 market and functional specialty chemical segments.
https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/petrochemicals/25012017/acc-us-specialty-chemicals-market-volumes-up/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Jubilant Life Gets Responsible Care 14001:2013 Certification
Jan 25, 2017 | Press Trust of India (In India.com)
Mumbai, Jan 25 (PTI) Jubilant Life Sciences, an integrated global pharmaceuticals and life sciences company, today said it has received ‘Responsible Care 14001:2013 certification’ under the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Responsible Care program for its corporate office in Noida and for its manufacturing Unit in Gajraula.
Responsible Care (RC) is a global initiative of the chemical companies to ensure that the chemical produced are processed, handled, used and stored in a safe, environmental friendly and sustainable manner across entire life cycle, it said in a statement issued here.
Responsible Care 14001: 2013 is an internationally recognised standard of excellence for chemical manufacturing companies.
Jubilant Life Sciences was presented with the certification for its robust management system that ensures highest standards of health, safety, security and environmental performance for both its products and operations, the statement added.
Pramod Yadav and Rajesh Srivastava, CO-CEOs, Life Science Ingredients business, Jubilant Life Sciences said, “At Jubilant, we value the health, safety and security of our employees, customers, suppliers, neighbours and environment”.
http://www.india.com/business/jubilant-life-gets-responsible-care-140012013-certification-1782534/
-
Information Lockdown Hits Trump's Agencies
Jan 24, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia , Alex Guillén and Nancy Cook
Federal agencies are clamping down on public information and social media in the early days of Donald Trump's presidency, limiting employees’ ability to issue news releases, tweet, make policy pronouncements or otherwise communicate with the outside world, according to memos and sources from multiple agencies.
The steps to mute federal employees — seen to varying degrees in the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of the Interior, Transportation, Agriculture and Health and Human Services — are sparking early fears of a broader crackdown across the government, as Trump vows to pursue an agenda sharply at odds with his predecessor.
New administrations have long sought to control the message coming out of federal agencies. But watchdog groups worry about what restrictions the Trump administration may yet impose on federal workers, who are already reeling from the president’s decision Monday to freeze most hiring, as well as a move in Congress to allow lawmakers to impose draconian salary cuts for individual employees.
“From what we can tell, the cloud of Mordor is descending across the federal service,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
“It’s a dark time right now,” said Liz Purchia, who headed EPA’s public affairs office during the Obama administration. “People are nervous and they are scared about what they can and can’t do. They don’t want to get in trouble and they want to do the right thing.
“It’s ironic that Trump based his entire campaign on Twitter and social media and now he’s preventing the staff that work from him from communicating with the public,” Purchia added.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on this story. But Trump aides have rejected criticism that they’re planning to embark on a “witch hunt” targeting federal employees.
During a briefing with reporters on Tuesday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he was still looking into the agency restrictions, but added, "I don’t think there’s any surprise that when there’s an administration turnover, we’re going to review the policies.”
Still, a wholesale clampdown on public information would pose risks, said Steve Lenkart, the executive director of the National Federation of Federal Employees.
"I would advise this new administration to tread lightly when ordering any increase of secrecy of government operations or policies," he said. "The American people expect an open, transparent and honest government."
The directives to federal employees — at least some apparently self-imposed by career staff — come amid a lingering fear among Trump loyalists that the president’s critics in the federal bureaucracy will seek to undermine his agenda. That’s especially the case where Trump’s priorities clash with those of previous administrations, such as former President Barack Obama’s use of EPA regulations on power plants, automobiles and the oil and gas industry as bulwarks of his approach to climate change.
Those concerns were compounded on Inauguration Day, when the Interior Department ordered a shutdown of all its Twitter accounts after the National Park Service retweeted photos showing a substantially smaller crowd at Trump’s swearing-in than had greeted Obama in 2009. Interior’s Twitter service was restored the next day, but only after the park service deleted the offending tweets and apologized.
Asked about that matter Tuesday, Spicer said: “My understanding is that because they had inappropriately violated their own social media policies, there was guidance that was put out to the department to act in compliance with the rules that were set forth.”
Other agencies have since followed suit to restrain their employees' external communications.
On Monday, the Transportation Department advised its employees not to publish news releases or engage on DOT’s social media accounts until they get more guidance from the new administration. The move was not a “ban,” a department spokesperson told POLITICO, and DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration continued to tweet about distracted driving and vehicle recalls.
Meanwhile, employees at HHS and the National Institutes of Health received emails telling them to halt external correspondence — a move that one official later said was meant only to implement a White House-ordered temporary halt to regulatory activity.
"For your additional awareness, please note that we have been directed not to send any correspondence to public officials (to include Members of Congress and state and local officials) between now and February 3, unless specifically authorized by the Department,” said one section of the emails, which was obtained by POLITICO.
But an HHS official disputed the idea that the agency had been muzzled, and said people were misinterpreting a memo from acting Secretary Norris Cochran that "pertains only to proposed or pending regulations." Trump had ordered a "regulatory freeze" Friday night, telling agencies to hold off on all pending rules until his administration can review them.
"Contrary to erroneous media reports, HHS and its agencies continue to communicate fully about its work through all of its regular communication channels with the public, the media and other relevant audiences," the official said. "There is no directive to do otherwise.”
NIH spokeswoman Renate Myles said her agency was told “to hold on publishing new rules or guidance in the Federal Register or other public forums and discussing them with public officials until the administration has had an opportunity to review them.”
At EPA, the lockdown extends well beyond formal coordinated messaging. Aside from a block on any press releases and social media posts, a Monday memo circulated internally and obtained by POLITICO warned that EPA employees scheduled to speak at public events like conferences in the next month must alert Trump’s team of temporary political appointees.
Trump’s team will also review EPA's previously planned public webinars "and decide which ones will go forward." And EPA employees were cautioned to send only “essential” messages to email lists, since those messages "can be shared broadly and end up in the press."
Separately, employees of the USDA’s Agriculture Research Service received a memo Monday from branch chief of staff Sharon Drumm telling them that the release of documents, including “but not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds and social media content,” would be held until further notice.
The service did send out a news release Monday, touting a National Academy of Sciences award given to one of its scientists, and retweeted an Academy statement on the win.
The move was unusual for USDA’s research arm, which looks at the broad scope of food and agriculture issues including nutrition, crop yields and even detecting fire ants.
In a call with reporters hastily thrown together late Tuesday, acting Deputy Secretary Michael Young — director of the Office of Budget and Program Analysis and currently the highest ranking official at USDA — said he had not signed off on the ARS memo and will have the agency clarify its position.
The worries about freedom of information in the government extend well beyond tweets and press releases. On Monday, two of Trump’s political aides visited Voice of America, where a little-noticed move by Congress will give the president unprecedented control over a broadcasting agency that has been governed by a bipartisan board of directors. And the CDC gave no explanation as it canceled a conference planned for next month on climate change — a move that one of the event's scheduled speakers described to The Washington Post as a "strategic retreat."
Some agencies appeared undeterred — at first.
The Twitter account of Badlands National Park in South Dakota, for example, posted a series of messages Tuesday seemingly at odds with the new president's skepticism on climate change science, including: "Today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. #climate" But by Tuesday night, those tweets had vanished.
The park service later blamed the tweets on "a former employee who was not currently authorized to use the park's account." It added that its social media managers "are encouraged to continue the use of Twitter to post information relating to public safety and park information, with the exception of content related to national policy issues."
Federal workers have been on alert since Trump’s transition, when a series of leaks from the new president’s team raised the possibility that the new administration could target specific employees seen as contradicting its agenda. One memo to the Energy Department asked for the names of any employees who worked on Obama’s climate initiatives — a request then-Secretary Ernest Moniz refused. Another memo to the State Department asked for details of existing programs aimed at promoting gender equality.
Not all employees appear all that worried about the latest moves, which come as most of Trump’s Cabinet nominees are waiting for Senate confirmation. One current EPA official said the early moves, which include halting work on the agency’s grants, raised eyebrows. But the official added, “If this freeze on hiring and on contracts, grants and interagency agreement continues for several months, then I will be concerned.”
Still, the restrictions on public communications could be just the first volley against career employees. The Trump administration’s budget is expected to advocate for deep cuts targeting disfavored domestic agencies in which Trump has little interest, compared with national security. A past budget blueprint from the Heritage Foundation, which has played a leading role in developing policy for Trump, calls for slashing programs inside the EPA, the Energy Department, the State Department and the National Endowment for the Arts.
“The hiring freeze is kind of like an opening jab, and then the right cross will be a budget that in some of the target agencies like EPA we assume are going to see deep, double-digit budget cuts,” said Ruch, from PEER. “So we’re dusting off legal research about reduction in force, return rights, things like that.”
Ruch also warned that his group is fielding concerns that the hiring freeze could prevent even seasonal government hires, including firefighters at the Forest Service or national parks rangers during the busy summer season. “Those agencies run on seasonals,” he said.
Within the first few days of the Trump administration, the hand-off of power varied from agency to agency.
Places with a confirmed Cabinet secretary, such as DHS and the Department of Defense, hummed along, according to agency sources, while employees at the other places, like USDA or the Department of Education, felt directionless and rudderless.
One senior official at the FDA said people there felt “mass confusion” and that “no one knows who is on first.” The FDA’s acting commissioner was set to have his first meeting with Trump’s "beachhead" team Tuesday, the official added. For comparison, eight years ago, the Obama-Biden transition team showed up a week after the election.
Similarly, the White House OMB’s website has been down since shortly after Trump was sworn in Friday afternoon. OMB is a key agency that helps manage the sprawling federal government and will be central to carrying out Trump’s goal of shrinking the size of the federal government through potential budget cuts.
Over at the State Department, employees also waited. “Not much has happened. I’ve not personally met with anybody [from the Trump team,]” said a department spokesperson. “Most assistant secretaries have had one or two meetings, but it’s far less developed than it was from Bush to Obama or Clinton to Bush. All transitions are different, but this one seems less developed.”
Sources familiar with the issue said Trump’s team did little to coordinate with State ahead of the president’s move on Tuesday to advance the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. The State Department is the lead agency in charge of reviewing the project.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/01/information-lockdown-hits-federal-agencies-145377
-
Trump Administration Puts 30 EPA Rules on Hold Until March 21
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
The Trump administration is freezing 30 Environmental Protection Agency rules until March 21.
The suspended rules include standards governing renewable fuel standards, formaldehyde emissions, oil and hazardous substances pollution, solid waste landfill permitting, pesticides, radon emissions and air quality.
The move comes in response to White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus’ Jan. 20 memo directing agencies to suspend new and pending regulations until the administration has had a chance to review them.
In particular, the administration will be looking for rules it thinks will be shot down by the Congressional Review Act, as well as non-controversial rules it wants to implement, Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, said.
But overturning a rule that has already been published in the Federal Register won't be easy. Doing so would require the Trump administration to launch an entirely new rulemaking, undergoing the arduous notice-and-comment process.
Standard Practice?
While it is standard practice for incoming administrations to issue regulatory freezes, President Donald Trump's consistent anti-regulatory comments suggest that his freeze could be more meaningful than most.
“I think he's trying to signal that this is more serious” than previous administrations’ regulatory pauses, Susan Dudley, who headed the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President George W. Bush, told Bloomberg BNA.
But, Batkins said Priebus’ memo duplicates that of Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff for President Barack Obama, “almost word for word.”
Until and unless the Trump administration blows past statutory or judicial mandates to implement any regulations, it won't be doing anything previous administrations haven't already done, Batkins said.
He further said the pause is especially necessary because the Obama administration issued a flurry of rules in its final days.
“This just gives the new administration a chance to review the regulatory landscape and everything that has happened,” Batkins told Bloomberg BNA.
Concerns About Trump's EPA
But Amit Narang, regulatory affairs analyst at Public Citizen, sensed an ideological focus on environmental protections from the Trump team.
“We've seen, in the first few days of the Trump administration, a disproportionate focus on the EPA, basically shutting everything down,” Narang told Bloomberg BNA. “We worry that that is going to become not a temporary position but a permanent position: that they will do everything to shut down the EPA except turn out the lights.”
Narang said that the overwhelming number of regulations frozen and reviewed by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations ended up taking effect.
Formaldehyde Emissions
Companies that want to apply to the EPA to be recognized as certifiers of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood will have to wait to apply, Mark Duvall, an attorney with the Washington office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., told Bloomberg BNA.
He referred to EPA's delay from Feb. 10 to March 21 of its final Toxic Substances Control Act rule (RIN: 2070-AJ44) limiting formaldehyde emissions from plywood, medium-density fiberboard and particle board (81 Fed. Reg. 89,674).
The delayed implementation of the formaldehyde rule and White House memo, which ordered the effective date postponement, also gives the EPA an opportunity to determine whether it would be appropriate to amend, withdraw or take some other action regarding the rule, Duvall said.
The EPA did not delay the implementation of a data-collection rule (RIN:2070-AJ54) the EPA issued Jan. 12. That rule, which becomes effective May 12, requires chemical manufacturers and processors to submit chemical identity, production volume and other data to the agency.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104610589&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104610589&jd=104610589
-
Dems Hold Separate Hearing On Pruitt
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Senate Democrats yesterday held their own hearing on Scott Pruitt, President Trump's nominee for U.S. EPA administrator.
Led by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, senators heard from witness after witness who took shots at the Oklahoma Republican attorney general's environmental record. The unofficial meeting in the bowels of the Capitol was the latest move by Democrats to derail Pruitt's nomination.
Environmental groups and several Democrats have met Pruitt's nomination with fierce opposition. However, the EPA nominee, who has often sued the agency over its regulations, is expected to be confirmed with Republicans and moderate Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia likely to support him.
The Senate EPW panel last week held its confirmation hearing, which lasted more than six hours. Still, Democrats hoped yesterday's meeting would expand even more on Pruitt's record, perhaps to sway some senators to vote down the nomination.
"This is part of the story that was not told in the committee hearing and it needs to be told," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
Democrats heard from several witnesses from Oklahoma who discussed Pruitt's lack of litigation against polluters and other environmental criminals.
Casey Camp-Horinek, a Ponca Nation tribal councilwoman, recounted how her community has been plagued with pollution as well as earthquakes, which have been linked to waste disposal by the oil and gas industry.
"We are not getting any action from the attorney general," she said. "We are not finding that Scott Pruitt has been answerable on any of these issues."
Jason Aamodt with the Tulsa, Okla.-based Indian and Environmental Law Group said that Pruitt has done little to go after environmental criminals as Oklahoma attorney general.
"He should really be recalled to answer questions about his enforcement record because it's not good," Aamodt said.
Pruitt was pressed by Democrats at last week's hearing over what he did to protect the environment as Oklahoma attorney general. Pruitt mentioned several cases, which Democrats countered did little to clean up the environment or were initiated by his predecessor.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Pruitt had engaged in "shell game federalism," closing down his office's environmental protection unit and moving it into a new federalism unit. Whitehouse said Pruitt was claiming credit for environmental cases he didn't initiate.
"It's a bizarro world," Whitehouse said.
"It's alternative facts," Aamodt replied, getting laughs from the crowd.
Whitehouse and other senators also sent a letter to Pruitt yesterday, saying his "evasions" in last week's confirmation hearing were "troubling."
After the meeting yesterday, Carper said senators who attended could share insights picked up from the witnesses who know Oklahoma and Pruitt's record with their colleagues as they prepare to vote on the EPA nominee.
"I think we have an obligation to share their perspective more broadly than simply just within the confines of this room today," Carper said.GOP reaction
The Democrats' meeting on Pruitt was met with a swift backlash from Republicans.
Pruitt's confirmation team released a statement from former Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.) blasting the "misguided and one-sided 'hearing'" and saying Pruitt deserved swift confirmation.
In a statement put out before the meeting started, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the EPW Committee chairman, said, "Attorney General Pruitt has had a very thorough confirmation process."
"At his nomination hearing, Mr. Pruitt answered significantly more questions than any past EPA administrator has," Barrasso said. "He has been comprehensively vetted and has demonstrated his qualifications to lead the EPA."
Barrasso's staff compiled figures on how many questions EPA nominees have answered at their confirmation hearings, finding Pruitt was asked at least 206 questions, much more than prior picks for the agency job.
In a floor speech later in the day, Barrasso said, "I'm confident that Attorney General Pruitt will be able to right the ship at the EPA."
Barrasso also told reporters that "we're ready to move ahead" on Pruitt's nomination, though he wasn't specific on when his panel would vote on the EPA nominee.
Carper said his and the chairman's staff have been in talks and that the committee may vote in early February on Pruitt. The Delaware senator noted that Pruitt has to respond to more than 600 questions for the record stemming from his confirmation hearing.
Carper said he was also concerned about reports that EPA had locked down its communications and frozen its grants. He said that he was especially worried about those involving clean water, and other Democrats asked the Trump administration yesterday to not pull back funding meant for the Flint, Mich., drinking water crisis.
"We're going to drill down and find out exactly what's going on," Carper said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/25/stories/1060048933
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Rules Could Be Foiled by Regulatory Oversight Bill
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical regulations Congress ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to issue could be foiled by a House-approved regulatory oversight bill, say advocates from two environmental organizations.
Congressional inertia could prevent either body from voting on chemical rules within the deadlines imposed by pending legislation and the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016, said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund. Eve Gartner, an attorney with Earthjustice, shared Denison's concern.
The pending legislation to which they referred, Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (H.R. 26), gained House approval Jan. 5 on a largely party-line vote. It was introduced Jan. 4 in the Senate (S. 21) with no further action so far.
The logistical fences the bill would require agency regulations to jump over could mean the EPA wouldn't meet deadlines set by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (Pub. Law No. 114-182), Denison and Gartner said. The Lautenberg Act, which amended TSCA, passed both chambers with near unanimous, bipartisan support.
Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who toiled to secure passage of the TSCA amendments, doesn't buy the argument that the REINS Act will delay mandated chemical regulations.
“Every time Congress tries to put the brakes on the over-regulation that comes out of the EPA, [opponents] use things like ‘it's going to be too time-consuming,” Inhofe told Bloomberg BNA. “I just don't believe it.”
Legislators understand the need to approve EPA's chemical regulations, Inhofe said. Opponents of the REINS Act will argue it would impede chemical regulations as a means to block the regulatory oversight bill, he said.
Measure Sets Deadlines
The REINS Act, introduced in the Senate Jan. 4 by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and backed by 30 Republican cosponsors including Inhofe, includes many deadlines.
For example it would give Congress up to 70 legislative days to vote to approve major rules issued by regulatory agencies. Without an affirmative vote in each chamber, the rules “shall not take effect,” the REINS Act says.
House votes could be taken only on the second and fourth Thursday of each month, according to REINS.
Chemical regulations the EPA would issue to comply with the TSCA amendments could be among those requiring congressional approval under the pending bill, Denison said.
The REINS Act covers major rules. Major means not only rules with an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more but also rules expected to cause significant cost or price hikes, or to have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or innovation.
A single legislator could hold up Senate approval of a rule, Denison said. Yet, the TSCA amendments require the agency to publish three final regulations by June 2017, he said. The three rules would establish the procedures the agency would use to:
• identify chemicals in commerce,
• determine which of those chemicals should be scrutinized due to potential health or ecological harms they could cause and
• evaluate the chemicals to determine whether they pose such risks.
The amendments set additional deadlines by which the EPA must complete its risk evaluations and issue regulations to curb identify risks.
Chemistry Council Backs REINS
Chemical regulations could be blocked, regardless of whether REINS Act supporters—such as the American Chemistry Council—intend such a result, Denison said.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents major U.S. chemical manufacturers, issued a Jan. 10 statement applauding the House for passing two regulatory oversight bills.
“The ‘REINS Act’ and the ‘Midnight Rules Relief Act’ are important parts of a broader effort to modernize federal rulemaking, where greater transparency and accountability is sorely needed,” the chemistry council said.
The council declined more than six Bloomberg BNA requests for it to elaborate on its statement. These requests included seeking comment as to whether the council's support for the REINS Act had anything to do with concerns about the rules that are required under the TSCA amendments, which it also has supported.
Maybe, Maybe Not
Judah Prero, an attorney with Sidley Austin LLP who used to work for the chemistry council, told Bloomberg BNA: “Generally speaking, the reg reform bills should not slow down EPA, were they to pass and be enacted into law.”
The focus of most of regulatory oversight bills is on rules that would have significant economic price tags attached, Prero said by e-mail.
“The TSCA implementation bills really just affect how EPA does business,” he said. “Therefore, I would not expect the implementation bills to be effected by the various reg reform bills that have been introduced.”
Gartner said the thrust of the REINS, Midnight Rules and related bills needs to be recognized.
The goal is to require agencies to issue “least burdensome” regulations, she told Bloomberg BNA.
Congress amended TSCA and specifically cut the original law's requirement that the EPA issue the least burdensome chemical regulations, Gartner said.
It eliminated that requirement because the cost-benefit analyses required to prove a particular rule would be the least-burdensome hurdle the agency was unable to leap over, she said.
Nixing the Nano Rule?
The Midnight Rules Relief Act, H.R. 21, which the House passed Jan. 4, could result in EPA's nanoscale materials rule (RIN:2070-AJ54) being overturned, Gartner said.
The EPA published that data-collection final rule Jan. 12 more than 10 years after agency advisers urged it to require more toxicity and other data about nanoscale chemicals (82 Fed. Reg. 3641)
Whether industry accepts or fights the nanoscale rule will be the first of a number of tests showing whether chemical manufacturers are serious about their support for strengthening TSCA, Denison said.
“It took EPA 11 years to get out a very modest rule,” he said. Fighting that rule would send a very strong signal about industry's intentions, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104610582&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104610582&jd=104610582
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Body Calls For Rethink Of TSCA Small Business Definition
Jan 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US Small Business Administration (SBA) has called upon the US EPA to consider a broader range of factors in determining what constitutes a small business under the new TSCA.
In a comment letter, the SBA’s Office of Advocacy recommended that the EPA discard its existing definition of a small business. The agency, it said, should instead focus on developing a new standard that evaluates the current state of regulated chemical manufacturers, “not merely setting the stage for an adjustment of the current size standard for inflation”.
The comment came after the EPA requested feedback last month on whether the definition of a small business under TSCA requires revision.
TSCA’s current small business standard is based on SBA’s 1988 standard, adjusted for inflation. Small businesses are defined as entities with annual sales, including their parents, of less than $40m, and which produce less than 100,000 pounds of a single substance. Businesses under $4m in annual sales are considered small businesses, even if they produce more than this.
The SBA said that the 1988 standard must be revisited and might not serve as an appropriate baseline. The EPA’s regulations employ a “ single one-size-fits-all industries standard”, it said; it “should be considering whether a revision is warranted, based on the need to have different standards according to the industry”.
The administration also noted that the EPA uses revenue-based size standards for service industries and employee-based for manufacturing, and comparing these “is misleading because it conflates major industrial sectors with significantly different characteristics.
“It should not be used as basis for determining whether EPA’s size standard has been set appropriately, without significantly more data and analysis.”Industry groups in agreement; state agency disagrees
A number of industry groups agreed that the definition merits revision.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said that the current small business standards are so low that almost any chemical manufacturer would exceed them. As the SBA suggested, the ACC would like the EPA to move away from a revenue-based model.
The ACC offered a number of suggestions, including establishing a size standard using employees’ average wages, or wages as a percentage of shipments, to determine a company’s total threshold. It also suggested consideration of a methodology, based on the number and size of shipments a company makes.
Other groups with similar recommendations included the Plastics Industry Association, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) and the International Fragrance Association North America (IFRANA).
The lone dissenting comment came from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
The agency said the EPA should not modify the definition to exempt more organisations from reporting, arguing that a business’s size does not reduce the risk it may pose. Instead, it would like to see any recordkeeping and reporting exemptions tied to the risk profile of the chemicals being manufactured.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52369/trade-body-calls-for-rethink-of-tsca-small-business-definition
-
Industry Weighs Data Strategy To Challenge EPA's Nano Reporting Rule
Jan 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Nanomaterial producers are eyeing a strategy for challenging EPA's reporting rule for their products by claiming that the agency failed to seek public input on certain information in the final rule, and that the incoming Trump administration could scale it back if a federal court agrees that the new data should have been issued for public comment.
EPA Jan. 11 announced its long-delayed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) reporting rule for nanomaterials in commerce, which the agency has said will guide its future oversight of the novel substances.
The rule generally requires manufacturers and processors of nanomaterials to report identifying information on those substances as well as other reasonably ascertainable data. The rule also retains a controversial requirement for future reporting on manufacturing or processing, though the agency softened its proposed 135-day notification period after industry urged the agency to scrap the provision altogether, arguing it was unnecessary and would delay production.
The final rule takes effect 120 days after its release, and companies have 60 days from that date to file a lawsuit.
James Votaw, of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, which represents a wide range of companies including those who produce nanomaterials, said in a Jan. 11 interview with Inside EPA that certain EPA changes from the draft version of the rule to the final rule present new information that industry had no opportunity to provide input on, providing a pathway for companies to file an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the rule in federal court.
“There are a number of issues throughout the rule where EPA has responded to comments that there were ambiguities and [has] given additional content, but no one has had the opportunity to vet whether that is an appropriate solution,” he says. The final rule raises hurdles to reporting that industry could have addressed in comments, he adds.
EPA has some flexibility to expand on provisions in the proposed rule, Votaw says, but that the new information included in the nano reporting rule should have been vetted through a public comment process.
“The gaps were things you couldn't clarify,” he says. “It's like they proposed large empty tracts of land and came back with buildings.”
The objections to EPA's nano rule come as industry, Republican lawmakers and the incoming Trump administration are weighing avenues for rolling back various Obama-era regulations. Votaw says the nano rule is not a likely candidate for a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.
But he notes that a provision in TSCA could bring the Trump administration greater flexibility in rolling back the reporting rule, should a court deem that EPA should have provided an opportunity for public input on new information included in the final rule.
'Procedural Pathway'
While modifying federal rules often requires a lengthy new rulemaking process, Votaw says, TSCA allows EPA “to modify or set aside the rule” when a court backs a litigant's argument that additional information should have been included in the rulemaking record but was not issued for comment.
“In theory, if someone were to initiate a challenge, [TSCA] provides a procedural pathway for an administration that felt differently about this rule” to make some changes, Votaw says.
EPA's final rule followed years of wrangling with the nano industry, including repeated calls for the agency to withdraw its April 6, 2015, draft rule and issue a revised version after further consultation with industry. Companies also urged EPA to scrap the proposed requirement for future reporting, and argued that the draft rule lacked adequate clarity for identifying reportable substances.
While EPA declined industry calls to withdraw and re-propose, staff revised the final rule with new definitions to clarify reportable substances, and added flexibility to the future reporting requirement by allowing reporting as little as 30 days in advance of new production or processing provided that was when a company decided to begin a new process.
But Votaw argues that EPA's solutions in the final rule to critical industry comments create new hurdles that could have been resolved through public comment, and that other ambiguities also remain in the final version.
For example, while EPA added flexibility to the proposed requirement for future reporting by softening a 135-day notification period to 30 days in certain circumstances, the new 30-day time frame may leave inadequate time to report, given an agency estimate that completing aspects of reporting takes roughly 164 hours.
Industry could have addressed such practical concerns if EPA had sought public input on its changes “rather than coming out with an untested new final rule,” Votaw says.
Final Regulation
EPA's final rule also seeks to address critical industry comments that the proposed version lacked sufficient clarity to identify reportable substances, by adding a definition of unique and novel properties and other terms. Industry did not have an opportunity to comment on those new definitions prior to their appearance in the final rule, Votaw says.
Additionally, he argues that EPA failed to address other ambiguities that could complicate reporting and potentially lead to a greater regulatory burden for some companies than others and also pose enforcement challenges.
The final rule calls for reporting of “reasonably ascertainable” data, suggesting companies with greater knowledge of their products might report while others might not, Votaw says, noting that enforcement staff also may have a different concept of what data companies could reasonably ascertain.
Also, while industry groups argued that the proposed rule could create duplicative reporting on the same materials from different entities within the supply chain, EPA failed to adequately address that criticism in the final rule, instead promising to issue future guidance to better clarify the issue, he says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-weighs-data-strategy-challenge-epas-nano-reporting-rule
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cefic Takes Over ICCA Secretariat From ACC
Jan 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Chemical industry Council (Cefic) has assumed the role of secretariat of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) for a two-year term.
Cefic has taken over from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and says it aims to sharpen the association's role in improving best practice in managing chemicals safely around the globe.
The secretariat will be led by Cefic's Dr Hariolf Kottmann as ICCA president, as well as Cefic's director general Marco Mensink as ICCA council secretary. They will be actively involved in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm).
A stakeholder meeting on 7 February in Brazil will start discussions on what will replace Saicm after 2020, when its current mandate expires. Mr Mensink will speak in an informal discussion session.
Cefic will also aim to further the goals of the ICCA Responsible Care Global Charter, which encourages companies to adopt robust health, safety and environmental protection policies around the responsible use of chemicals. In addition, it will encourage the chemical industry to contribute to the UN's sustainable development goals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52372/cefic-takes-over-icca-secretariat-from-acc
-
Trump Pins Keystone, Dakota Pipeline Fate on Renegotiation
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Meenal Vamburkar and Jennifer Jacobs
President Donald Trump took steps to advance construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, while demanding a renegotiation to get a better deal for the U.S. government.
Trump stopped short of green lighting construction on either pipeline but put a deadline on the government's review of TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL to transport Alberta oil sands crude to U.S. refineries. Trump also announced policies to encourage the use of American-made products in U.S. pipeline projects and to curtail federal environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects.
“If we're going to build pipelines in the United States, the pipes should be made in the United States,” Trump said.
The moves, taken on Trump's fourth full day in office, are a major departure from the Obama administration, which rejected the Keystone proposal in 2015 and has kept Dakota Access blocked since September. Environmentalists, concerned about climate change and damage to water and land, now face an executive branch that's less sympathetic to their efforts. For the oil industry, it heralds more freedom to expand infrastructure and ease transportation bottlenecks.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer cast that possible renegotiation of the Dakota Access project as a way to address concerns by stakeholders, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which is concerned about Native-American cultural sites and the safety of its water supply.
While both projects will create jobs and grow the economy, they also will enrich the companies behind them, Spicer told reporters. “If we're going to do all these things to expedite these projects that go over or under American soil,” then Trump wants to make sure American taxpayers get “the best deal possible,” he said.
TransCanada is preparing its re-application and intends to submit it, the company said in a statement.
The documents signed Jan. 24 include an executive order designed to expedite “high-priority infrastructure projects.” Under the directive, Trump said projects that win that classification from the White House Council on Environmental Quality will be given swifter reviews, under “expedited procedures and deadlines for completion” of necessary environmental analysis.
A separate memo asks the Secretary of Commerce to develop strategies for streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturers.
“We intend to fix our country, our bridges our roadways,” Trump said. “We can't be in an environmental process for 15 years if a bridge is going to be falling down or if a highway is crumbling.“
Trump also told the Commerce Department to develop a plan to force a “Buy America” requirement on all new pipelines, so they “use materials and equipment produced in the United States.” In a memo outlining the change, Trump said the rules should apply “to the maximum extent possible.“
About half of Keystone XL was set to be built with steel fabricated in the U.S., according to a 2012 breakdown from TransCanada of an earlier version of the project. Roughly a quarter was set to be supplied by Canada, TransCanada said at the time, with Italy and India providing the rest. Most of the Dakota Access pipeline is already finished, with 57 percent of the project manufactured in the United States.
Jack Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute, said he was “pleased to see the new direction being taken by this administration to recognize the importance of our nation's energy infrastructure by restoring the rule of law in the permitting process that's critical to pipelines and other infrastructure projects.“
Canada has not received any formal notice of action by Trump on the pipelines but still supports Keystone, a project for which Canadian approvals remain in place.
“It's good for Canada and it's particularly good for the people of Alberta,” Canada's natural resources minister Jim Carr told reporters Tuesday in Calgary.
Environmental activists vowed to continue battling both projects.
The Standing Rock tribe said it “will take legal action to fight” Trump's action, terming it a “politically motivated decision” that “violates the law.“
“President Trump is legally required to honor our treaty rights and provide a fair and reasonable pipeline process,” said Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “The existing pipeline route risks infringing on our treaty rights, contaminating our water and the water of 17 million Americans downstream.”
To accelerate the Dakota Access pipeline, Trump directed the Army secretary to reconsider its earlier decision to conduct deeper environmental scrutiny of the project. The Army Corps of Engineers should consider relying on an earlier, broader assessment from July instead, Trump said in a memo. Project foes would almost certainly challenge any decision by the Army Corps to abandon the environmental analysis ordered under the Obama administration.
Trump compelled similar action to speed permitting of Keystone XL, asking TransCanada to re-submit its application for the project and giving the State Department a 60-day deadline for determining whether the pipeline is in the U.S. national interest. In a memo, Trump asks the State Department to rely on an earlier environmental review of the project for its determination, rather than conducting new analysis that could take months or years.
The company's plans for Keystone XL have already been vetted, with years of environmental scrutiny culminating in Obama's 2015 decision rejecting the project.
Environmentalists’ Fight
The makeup of Keystone XL has come under scrutiny before. When the Senate considered legislation that would force approval of the project in 2015, Republicans blocked attempts to require the project be built with domestically produced steel.
Environmentalists fiercely battled Keystone XL, making it a flashpoint in broader debates about U.S. energy policy and climate change. Landowners in the pipeline's path have warned that a spill of dense crude could contaminate the Ogallala aquifer, a source of drinking water that stretches from Texas to South Dakota. And activists said it would promote further development of oil sands in Alberta, Canada that generally require more energy to extract.
Violent Protests
Dakota Access opponents say the pipeline would damage sites culturally significant to Native Americans and pose an environmental hazard where it crosses the Missouri River. Earlier this month, the Department of the Army withheld the final easement necessary for construction beneath the lake.
Swift approval of Dakota Access could reinvigorate the sometimes violent protests at the site of the proposed construction.
Josh Nelson, the deputy political director of the CREDO activist group said the action shows Trump is “in the pocket of big corporations and foreign oil interests.“
“Fierce grassroots activism has stopped these pipelines over and over again,” he said. “CREDO will do everything in its power to stop the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, and keep dirty fossil fuels in the ground where they belong.”
Energy Infrastructure
Pipeline supporters said a final easement for the project would illustrate Trump's commitment to building out energy infrastructure needed to ferry oil and gas around the U.S. Although Keystone XL would transport oil sands crude from Canada, some space on the line is slated to be filled by supplies from North Dakota's Bakken shale play.
Dakota Access, likewise, is aimed at giving Bakken producers a new route to energy markets, allowing them to forgo more costly rail shipments that have been a backstop when existing pipes fill up. With a capacity of about 470,000 barrels a day, Dakota Access would ship about half of current Bakken crude production and enable producers to access Midwest and Gulf Coast markets.
“What we saw today was bold and decisive action by President Trump,” Terry O'Sullivan, general president of LiUNA, said in a conference call with reporters. “He said he was going to create middle-class jobs, and by what he did today, that's exactly what he's going to do.“
Energy Transfer owns the Dakota Access project with Phillips 66 and Sunoco Logistics Partners LP. Marathon Petroleum Corp. and Enbridge Energy Partners LP announced a venture in August that would also take a minority stake in the pipeline.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104610616&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104610616&jd=104610616
-
Energy Industry's Pipe Dreams Closer to Reality Under Trump
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Meenal Vamburkar
“My God, this is going to be refreshing.”
That was Kelcy Warren, the Texas billionaire behind the controversial Dakota Access pipeline, days after Donald Trump swept to victory.
He sure wasn't kidding.
With the stroke of a pen, President Trump on Jan. 24 breathed new life into the Dakota Access and Keystone XL projects, and, in the process, the nation's energy pipeline complex.
The latest step to dismantle policies of the Obama administration, the Jan. 24 move underscores how energy, perhaps more than any other American industry, is poised to benefit under the new president.
Powerful Ally
While Trump has taken the opportunity to berate and threaten individual companies, energy executives have long viewed him as a powerful ally who will roll back regulation, particularly regarding the environment.
That view was reflected in the stock market on Jan. 24, where shares of Warren's Energy Transfer Partners LP, as well as those of TransCanada Corp., the Calgary-based company behind the equally controversial Keystone XL, rose on the news. Obama had rejected Keystone XL in 2015.
President Trump did, however, vow to extract a deal from TransCanada. He said he would ask the company to ensure the pipe for the vast Keystone system, which runs from Alberta to Illinois, Texas and Oklahoma, be manufactured in the U.S. It was unclear if that means the existing parts of Keystone would have to be rebuilt with American-made pipe.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which on Jan. 23 cautioned Trump about his plans to walk away from trade agreements, welcomed the developments. The chamber has urged Trump to strengthen the economy via tax cuts, infrastructure spending and deregulation.
“For too long, private infrastructure investment has been held hostage by government interference driven by fringe interests,” Karen Harbert, head of the U.S. Chamber's energy unit, said in an e-mailed statement.
Executive Orders
Trump also signed an executive order to expedite environmental reviews of other infrastructure projects. Under the order, a determination on whether a project is “high priority” should be made within 30 days. Those projects should receive “expedited procedures and deadlines” for approvals.
For TransCanada, the move could shorten the timeline for completing Keystone XL, which was first proposed in 2008. In a memorandum, Trump invited TransCanada to reapply for the projects. The company said it would do so.
For ETP, the orders will immediately affect North Dakota, where the company wants to complete a final piece of the 1,172-mile (1,885-kilometer) pipeline under Lake Oahe. The project has made national headlines because of protests by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and other Native American groups, who say the pipeline would endanger water supplies and sacred burial grounds.
Together, the orders remove some obstacles for pipelines that could ship more than 1 million barrels a day of crude from Canada and North Dakota to refiners across the U.S. Keystone XL would increase the amount of Canadian crude reaching the Gulf, from where it could also be sent around the world.
“Canada has a problem with lack of export outlets and this will help with that,” Tim Pickering, founder and chief investment officer of Auspice Capital Advisors Ltd. in Calgary, said by phone.
In contrast to his critical remarks about the drug and auto industries, Trump's stance toward fossil fuels align neatly with industry interests. But he's imposing a condition: pipeline projects need to use American steel and equipment.
The White House issued a memorandum asking for a plan for all pipeline projects, whether new, retrofitted, repaired or expanded ones, to “use materials and equipment produced in the United States.“
Trump has also placed energy executives in several key cabinet posts, among them Rex Tillerson, the former chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil Corp., and Rick Perry, who previously sat on the board of Energy Transfer.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104610617&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104610617&jd=104610617
-
In Briefs, NSPS Critics Sidestep Talk of Trump Approach
Jan 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
State and industry opponents in reply briefs in litigation challenging the Obama EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new power plants sidestepped discussion of procedural implications now that the Trump administration -- which is expected to oppose the rule -- has assumed defense of the regulation.
The briefs, filed late Jan. 23, instead simply double down on their earlier criticisms of the rule and rebut claims made by the Obama EPA in defense of the rule. As such, they leave it to the new Trump administration to decide if and how to change course on the power plant new source performance standards (NSPS).
The Obama EPA's “failures to justify the need for the Rule and to demonstrate that the [best system of emissions reduction (BSER)] can be implemented expose the Rule for what it is -- a pretext for the administration to put coal companies and dictate the nation's energy mix at the federal level,” reads a Jan. 23 brief from the coalition of states challenging the rule.
Industry and state critics had already unsuccessfully tried to extend the briefing schedule in the case, North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al., to give the Trump administration time to short-circuit the suit. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected their requests.
Observers say 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. But the Obama EPA, along with its state, utility and environmentalist supporters, called opponents' scenario about potential changes by Trump officials “speculative.”
However, moments after Trump was sworn in, the White House website was updated to reflect the new administration's priorities, including a renewed commitment to “eliminate” the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan -- of which the power plant GHG rules are a centerpiece.
Final briefs from all parties are due Feb. 6. In addition, the court has requested parties submit by March 6 proposals for structuring the case's oral arguments, which are scheduled for April 17.
It is unclear how the new administration will react as it assumes defense of the rule. The briefs from state and industry critics do not address any procedural steps the Trump team could take if it shifts its position on the regulation.
Instead, their briefs largely push back on the Obama EPA's defense of the NSPS, in particular rebutting the agency's claims that its BSER, which is based on the installation of partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, is “adequately demonstrated.”
“EPA relies on inapposite case law applying different statutory standards to claim that all it needs to show is that individual components of the BSER are separately operational. . . . Perhaps aware that this approach is legally unsupportable, EPA devotes much of its brief to asserting instead that its BSER is commercially available, based primarily on the Boundary Dam facility in Canada,” reads the states' brief.
But the states argue that Boundary Dam “cannot sustain the weight that EPA assigns to it.”
The Jan. 23 brief from industry groups echoes many of these arguments and charges that the rule is unlawful because the treatment of new coal-fired and gas-fired power plants is inconsistent.
“EPA required coal-fired (but not gas-fired) units to adopt CCS. Such discrimination is the essence of arbitrary decisionmaking and demonstrates that the standard for steam generating units must be vacated,” industry writes.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/litigation-briefs-nsps-critics-sidestep-talk-trump-approach
-
House Passes DOE 'Research And Innovation' Bill
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
The House passed legislation by voice vote yesterday that would overhaul Department of Energy policies and research.
The "Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act," H.R. 589, from House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), aims to speed up the commercialization of new technologies, boost advanced nuclear reactors, and establish research initiatives on electricity storage, solar fuels and other technologies.
The measure was considered under suspension of the rules, a process meant to fast-track legislation. Under suspension, lawmakers cannot submit amendments, and measures must receive a two-thirds majority to pass.
Some of the bill's language was in an amendment to a major energy reform package that stalled last year. Other language was included in separate bills that passed the House last year.
"This bill includes the first comprehensive authorization of the DOE Office of Science, which is the largest supporter of physical sciences research in the country," said ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), who joined several Democrats in support.
The measure also would authorize national laboratory directors to use technology transfer funds for early stage projects; would push for more innovation hubs; and would establish a database that lists all research contracts, grants and cooperative agreements.
It calls for the elimination of duplicative research and increased coordination across the department, including through a review of science and technology activities.
"This review allows the secretary to pinpoint programs that cost too much and could be better accomplished by the private sector," Smith said on the House floor.
The Union of Concerned Scientists said it was "generally supportive" of the bill, outside of a provision boosting research on advanced nuclear technologies.
"We just don't believe that Congress should be mandating fast reactor development. The DOE is already in the process of evaluating the need for an advanced test or demonstration reactors. There's no need for this provision," said Rob Cowin, the group's director of government affairs for climate and energy.
Separately, senators introduced companion legislation yesterday to two bills that passed the House this week. S. 190 from Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) would exempt life-safety alarms or surveillance systems from a DOE efficiency rule.
Bill supporters said the exemption is needed because the targeted rule isn't compatible with the devices, which need to be on constantly. The bill extends their current exemption, set to expire this year, to 2023.
A second measure, S. 186 from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would amend the Federal Power Act to allow challenges to rate decisions that take effect without an official decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Currently, affected parties cannot seek a rehearing without an official agency decision (E&E Daily, Jan. 24).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/25/stories/1060048921
-
(ACC Mentioned) OSHA Takes Closer Look at High-Risk Chemical Plants, Refineries
Jan 24, 2017 | BNA Occupational Safety and Health Reporter
By Sam Pearson
Chemical facilities and oil refineries covered under OSHA’s Process Safety Management program could see closer attention from inspectors under newinstructions issued in the final days of the Obama administration.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration explained the changes in a directive, “PSM Covered Chemical Facilities National Emphasis Program” (CPL 03-00-021) dated Jan. 17 and released Jan. 23.Changes to Emphasis Program
The changes renew a National Emphasis Program for facilities with highly hazardous chemicals above specified quantities and for the first time incorporates oil refineries under the same document. The document also instructs agency inspectors to use data from EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) to identify sites for closer attention.
Other changes include specifying that fireworks manufacturing facilities are considered explosives manufacturing plants under the initiative. OSHA updated its guidelines for inspecting fireworks manufacturers, storage facilities and stores in 2011 (CPL 01-01-053).
Under OSHA’s Process Safety Management program, facilities with covered chemicals above certain levels are required to take actions to avoid the chances of an unplanned release. OSHA issued 727 violations totaling a proposed $3,094,187 in fines for violations of the PSM program in 2016, according to agency data.
The emphasis program supersedes a program from November 2011, the document said.Impact Unclear
The directive said that inspections associated with the program “will begin immediately in all regions.” But, with OSHA and the Labor Department without Senate-confirmed leadership, it is unclear if the document will lead to a change in OSHA policies.
Jennifer Gibson, vice president of regulatory affairs at the National Association of Chemical Distributors, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 24 the group would warn member companies they might see increased PSM inspections.
“This is one action item OSHA was able to take immediately and appears to be a way for the agency to leverage its inspection resources to make sure EPA RMP facilities are covered,” Gibson said in an e-mail.
The emphasis program could be one tool the outgoing OSHA had to focus inspections after the change in administration reduced the chance its rulemaking to update the PSM program (RIN:1218-AC82) would continue, Gibson said.
An American Chemistry Council spokesman declined to comment Jan. 24, citing the political uncertainty at OSHA.
https://www.bna.com/osha-takes-closer-n73014450212/
-
Regulatory Freeze Slows Pipeline, Hazmat Safety Rules
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is under pressure to complete upcoming pipeline and hazmat safety rules, despite a regulatory freeze from the White House.
In the days leading up to the presidential inauguration, PHMSA moved rules updating emergency notifications after pipeline accidents, extending reporting and inspection requirements to more pipelines, aligning hazardous material regulations with international standards as well as other changes.
On Jan. 20, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus issued a memo asking agencies to hold off on their unpublished rules. According to the memo, rules published in the Federal Register must postpone their effective date for 60 days from Jan. 20, if not further.
Proposed rules cannot be sent to the Federal Register for review unless they are urgently needed.
Though PHMSA's rules may not be emergency regulations, Susan Olenchuk, partner at Van Ness Feldman LLP, said the agency is under pressure to get them finalized.
“It's a long row to hoe for PHMSA to get final rules in place, and they've been under a lot of scrutiny to get rules in place and rules issued,” she said.
Safety Rules Delayed
At least three of PHMSA's recent pipeline rules may be affected by the memo.
A rule (RIN:2137-AE71) expanding the use of excess flow valves for gas distribution systems was scheduled to go into effect April 17, though that will likely be subject to the 60-day delay.
The valves, which are safety devices intended to reduce the risk of explosions, are currently required for gas lines servicing single-family homes. The rule would expand that requirement to multi-family residences and small businesses.
PHMSA announced another final rule (RIN:2137-AE66), regarding the safety of pipelines transporting hazardous liquids, on Jan. 13. The Federal Register has yet to determine a publication date for the final rule.
The rule partially focuses on criteria for repairing aging and high-risk infrastructure.
Josie Long, consultant at Process Performance Improvement Consultants LLC, said industry is still evaluating PHMSA's “highly technical” repair criteria.
Setting aggressive criteria and requiring immediate repairs can divert resources away from other critical areas, she said.
“As of now, industry's kind of on pause, thinking about what really does promote safety,” Long said. The regulatory freeze “allows operators to reflect on that, and to help PHMSA issue thoughtful regulations.”
Late Entry
The Federal Register published a final rule (RIN:2137-AE94) from PHMSA Jan. 23, which was scheduled to go into effect March 24. It sets up several changes to accident notification and operator qualifications.
Bryn Karaus, associate at Van Ness Feldman LLP, said the agency may have wanted to withdraw the rule in light of the memo.
“Since the memo is not an executive order, and it doesn't have the force of law, it's not clear if it's going to be withdrawn somehow,” she said. “The regulations governing the withdrawal of documents with the Federal Register only applies to documents that have not yet been published.”
A representative for PHMSA could not comment.
‘Major Implications’
A PHMSA final rule aligning hazardous material regulations with existing international standards (RIN:2137-AF20) would also be affected by the delay.
George Kerchner, executive director of the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association, said in a statement that the association is concerned about the delay's effects.
His association's members were prepared to comply with new labeling, testing and packaging requirements because of the rule, he said, but its withdrawal has “major implications.”
Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, said he hopes the regulatory freeze is “just precautionary.”
“We believe that any further delay continues to put the American public and environment at some level of additional risk,” he said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104610599&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104610599&jd=104610599
-
Trump EPA Pulls Air Pollution Rules From Review
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Trump White House halted a pair of Clean Air Act rules that failed to clear review before the end of the Obama administration as a regulatory freeze takes effect.
The regulations, which were withdrawn from the White House Office of Management and Budget Jan. 23, address emissions standards for grain elevators and pollution controls on ozone precursor emissions from oil and gas operations on tribal lands in Utah. OMB review is typically the final step before major proposed and final regulations are signed and released to the public.
The decision to pull the Obama-era rules from consideration is consistent with the regulatory freeze imposed on Trump's first day in office. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, in a memorandum issued Jan. 20, directed departments and agencies to withdraw any regulations set for publication in the Federal Register pending review by a Trump appointee and delay the effective date of already-published rules that have not yet gone into effect.
The grain elevator standards, proposed in 2014 but not sent to OMB for review until late October 2016, would have been the first update in 33 years to federal emissions requirements for new and modified grain elevators. A coalition of agricultural organizations including the Corn Refiners Association and the USA Rice Federation, voiced opposition to the Obama's EPA's proposal (RIN:2060-AP06) to set new limits on particulate matter pollution from grain elevators.
The oil and gas rule (RIN:2008-AA02), which was only at the proposal stage, aimed to set federal requirements for curbing emissions of volatile organic compounds from oil and gas operations within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. The Uinta Basin faces unique wintertime ozone issues so severe that the area is unlikely to meet the 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion. If the basin were to be labeled as a nonattainment area by the EPA, it would then be likely to lead regulators to seek emissions reductions from oil and gas operations in the area.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104610593&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104610593&jd=104610593
-
Trump Pledges Rapid Permitting Amid Industry Push For Air Permit Reform
Jan 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
President Donald Trump is vowing to speed up the environmental permitting process for industry, promising “a short process” where most applications will be approved quickly, amid a broader industry push for streamlining of the air permitting program that critics say hinders industrial development and slows economic growth.
Speaking to car industry CEOs at the White House Jan. 24, Trump pledged to remove environmental regulatory hurdles that slow down industrial projects and hinder job growth. Trump said that some in industry “go many, many years and they can’t get their environmental permit over something that nobody ever heard of before, and it’s crazy,” according to news reports.
Calling the current situation “out of control,” Trump said, “we’re going to make it a short process and we’re going to either give you your permits or not, but you’ll know quickly and generally speaking we’ll be giving you the permits.” The president promised to be “very friendly” to permit applicants.
While Trump did not delve into the details of environmental permitting, his remarks come as industry figures are pushing the White House to raise the profile of permitting issues. Although lower-profile than other issues, such as greenhouse gas regulations, permitting problems can raise roadblocks to industrial expansion. This contradicts Trump's stated goal of an industrial jobs revival and should be addressed, sources say.
One industry lawyer said that, given the preponderance of other environmental issues that the new administration and Congress wants to deal with first, the permitting question had, until now, seemed to be on the back burner.
In the air policy world, the number one issue that requires attention is the new source review (NSR) air permit program, which can raise significant hurdles to industrial expansion, sources say. NSR reform has not been a priority for EPA in recent years, and the issue received little attention during the election campaign, but it is “still significant and very important to fix,” the lawyer says.
However, if Trump carries through his campaign goal of reviving U.S. manufacturing, “NSR would once again be a big issue,” the source says. “Eventually NSR is going to move up the list.”
Air Act Reforms
Leading industry figures are floating ideas for how the administration and Congress can improve the situation. Think tank Resources for the Future (RFF) is outlining ideas for reform of Clean Air Act permitting that could enable industrial growth.
In their paper titled “EPA's New Source Review Program: Time for Reform?” published in the January issue of the Environmental Law Reporter, legal and policy experts Art Fraas, John Graham and Jeff Holmstead set out ideas for EPA and Congress to change the NSR air permit program to spur industrial development. Their ideas range from seemingly simple administrative steps to more far-reaching legislative reforms that face higher hurdles.
RFF researcher Fraas retired from a long career in the federal government in 2008, culminating as chief of the natural resources, energy and agriculture branch of the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Graham was OIRA chief under President George W. Bush, and is now dean of the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs.
Holmstead served as head of EPA's air office during the Bush administration and is now a partner at the Bracewell law firm. He was floated as a possible candidate for the EPA deputy administrator position, but is understood to no longer be in the running for that post after criticism from conservative groups over his past positions acknowledging human-caused climate change as a problem.
The NSR program and its close relative, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, require new and modified major sources of air pollution to obtain permits to limit their air emissions. NSR applies in areas designated “nonattainment” with EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), while PSD applies in areas designated attainment.
Industry and GOP critics have for years criticized aspects of the program as implemented by EPA. Industrial sources applying for permits must demonstrate that their projects will not compromise attainment of NAAQS, but EPA in the past has been slow to publish implementation rules and guidelines for permitting, following the release of a new or updated NAAQS.
This complicates life for industry, as permit applicants are unsure how to demonstrate their projects will comply with new NAAQS, critics say.
A case in point is EPA's ozone NAAQS of 70 parts per billion (ppb) finalized in 2015, tougher than the prior standard of 75 ppb. EPA has proposed, but not finalized, an implementation rule guiding states on how to craft their state implementation plans, required by the air law to show how states will meet the new standard.
Further, as NAAQS standards have become tougher, permitting has also become tougher, especially in areas classed as nonattainment. In certain circumstances, for example, permit applicants must purchase “offsets” from other pollution sources to mitigate their increased emissions. But this can be difficult, or even impossible, in areas where offsets are in short supply, or simply not available. The result is a serious constraint on economic development, EPA's critics say.
Novel Solutions
In their paper, the authors note these problems and others, and suggest some novel solutions. One problem the Trump EPA could address itself is the overly conservative assumptions that they say EPA includes in its air quality modeling guidelines. These assumptions result in overestimates of likely pollution from projects, needlessly triggering costly permitting and pollution control requirements, the authors say.
“EPA’s current modeling guidance requires deterministic air quality models using the maximum allowable emissions rate and the maximum allowable operating conditions for each averaging time. It also requires the use of modeling assumptions that yield the maximum impact on air quality” in calculating background air quality, “including the effect of other sources in the area,” they write.
“However, sources typically operate well below their maximum allowable emission rates, and it would be highly unusual for all the sources in an area to be emitting at their highest allowable rates at the same time -- and during a period when weather conditions would maximize the ambient impacts of their emissions. As a result, EPA’s current modeling guidance substantially overstates the ambient air quality effects of a potential new source.”
EPA should therefore adopt “probabilistic” modeling techniques instead, they say, to more accurately reflect real-world conditions.
EPA could further help address the scarcity of offsets by making it easier to obtain offsets from areas outside the nonattainment area in question, they argue. To date, EPA has required complex modeling demonstrations to show how this will benefit the nonattainment area in question, but the agency's own research has shown how ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), in particular, are transported across state lines.
“EPA and states could in many cases rely on the long-range transport studies that EPA has already done to show that emissions from 28 states contribute to ozone and fine PM [nonattainment] in many other states. Even where EPA has not already done such modeling, companies seeking to rely on out-of-area offsets should be able to employ similar studies to justify the use of such offsets. This reform would not address all the concerns about current offset requirements, but it would significantly expand the pool of potential offsets in many parts of the country (especially in rural areas) while still achieving the program’s environmental goals,” the authors say.
They further suggest that EPA treat sources consistently that have permit applications pending when NAAQS are tightened, ensuring that “reasonably complete” applications are processed under the older NAAQS under grandfathering provisions. EPA has not done so consistently in the past, they say, creating problems obtaining permits for sources -- sometimes requiring sources in areas newly deemed nonattainment to obtain an NSR permit with offsets, rather than a less onerous PSD permit without them.
Also, “one of the most important reforms EPA could make is simply to make sure that the necessary implementation rules, guidance, and air quality models are already in place when a revised NAAQS comes into effect. This would require a commitment of EPA resources that the Agency has so far not been willing to make, but it certainly could be done,” they say.
Legislative Changes
On the congressional side, the authors suggest more far-reaching changes to NSR/PSD permitting, both calling for “emissions fees” in lieu of existing requirements and suggesting, as a “narrow” fix, a substitution of the fees for emissions offsets.
“We propose a narrow statutory reform that could address these issues while still obtaining most or perhaps even more of the environmental benefits of the current program: allow permit applicants to pay emissions fees in lieu of meeting the current offset requirements, and require the state or local environmental agency to use these fees to pay for or subsidize emissions reductions that the agency believes will do the most good in terms of reducing environmental risks,” they say.
A broader reform could see emissions fees “replace the entire NSR permitting program with a system of industrial emissions fees. The fees could be based on the projected per ton cost of controlling different pollutants, or they could instead be damage-based.”
Damage-based fees “could vary based on geographic location, insofar as reasonable estimates of damages are available. Different fees would be applied to different pollutants, based on the best available knowledge of their relative toxicity to human health and the environment. Emissions near population centers would likely be assessed a higher fee than emissions in rural areas.”
While a fee-based approach would eliminate much of the delay and uncertainty inherent in NSR permitting, its rests on the assumption that there are safe levels of pollution that regulators could deem acceptable. The authors admit that this assumption has increasingly been called into question by environmentalists backing tougher NAAQS. In recent NAAQS reviews, scientists have tended to find adverse health effects from ever-lower levels of pollution.
Other Priorities
The industry legal source says, however, that although air permitting issues are hugely important, they are far down the list of priorities for the Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress right now. Other more pressing issues, such as scrapping EPA's Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gas reductions from power plants, are now seen as more urgent, the source says.
Calling the RFF paper “provocative,” the source says that “a lot of things in the paper will never happen,” but nevertheless welcomes the paper as a starting point for conversation. The out-of-area offsets proposal, for example, could run into trouble if offsets are sought from other states, given the Trump EPA's likely emphasis on states' rights, the source says.
Of all the ideas in the paper, the emissions fee proposal is “very, very unlikely” during Trump's first term, given the need to broadly reopen the Clean Air Act to revision. This would then open the law to multiple, potentially conflicting reform efforts, the source says. “Do you have the political will? It is a very high bar,” the source says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-pledges-rapid-permitting-amid-industry-push-air-permit-reform
-
Trump Admin Tells EPA To Take Down Its Climate Change Webpage: Report
Jan 24, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Paulina Firozi
The Trump administration has requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take down the climate change page from its website, according to a new report.
President Trump's administration ordered the page go down as early as Wednesday, Reuters reported.
The page, which was still up as of Tuesday evening, includes links pages detailing the causes of climate change and information about greenhouse gas emissions.
"If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear," an EPA staffer told Reuters.
The staffer told Reuters that some EPA employees were moving quickly to save information from the website before it went dark and were hoping to convince the Trump administration to keep parts of it.
The report follows President Trump’s ban on EPA employees from posting on social media or speaking with the press, an apparent effort from the new administration to gain control over federal agencies and minimize dissenting views.
The EPA’s climate change site won’t be the only page from the Obama era to be taken down as a new party takes control of the Oval Office.
The climate change webpage from the White House’s main site was taken down less than an hour after Trump was sworn in on Friday.
Webpages on LGBT rights were also taken down from the White House and Department of Labor websites shortly after Trump’s inauguration.
The White House regulations page also disappeared on Monday.
-
California Court Weighs Legality of Cap-and-Trade Auctions
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A California appellate court has 90 days to decide whether the quarterly cap-and-trade auctions the state uses to distribute carbon allowances are illegal (California Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Bd., Cal. Ct. App., No. C075930, 1/24/17).
Whatever ruling the court hands down is likely to be further challenged by either the state or by petitioners, who are seeking to overturn a 2013 trial court ruling that upheld the California Air Resources Board authority to sell emissions allowances.
A stay pending resolution of the litigation has allowed the auctions to continue and would probably stay in place should either party petition the California Supreme Court for review of the appellate court decision.
California's cap-and-trade program is a key element of the state's climate change strategy to meeting short- and long-term carbon reduction targets.
Oral Arguments Heard Jan. 24
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District in Sacramento heard on Jan. 24 a second round of oral arguments in consolidated lawsuits filed by the California Chamber of Commerce and Morning Star Packing Co., a food processor regulated under the state's economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program.
Two key legal questions are at issue in the case. Does the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, known as A.B. 32, allow the sale of emissions allowances as part of a carbon reduction program? Are the prices regulated entities pay for the allowances illegal taxes, which require a two-thirds vote by the Legislature?
Questions From Judges
“The judges asked good, careful questions on the important issue of climate change,” Environmental Defense Fund attorney Erica Morehouse, who attended the hearing, told Bloomberg BNA. There was also a discussion on the importance of CARB's innovative trading program, she said.
The Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and the International Emissions Trading Association are among parties intervening in the case on behalf of CARB.
“The cap-and-trade program had a very good day,” Alex Jackson, legal director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's California Climate Project, said in a written comment issued after attending the hearing.
“While we don't know how the court will rule, there is no doubt that holding polluters accountable and investing in clean energy will remain an essential part of California's leadership against climate change,” Jackson said.
April 24 Ruling Deadline
The court's decision could come at anytime, but the court has until April 24 at the latest to issue a ruling, unless additional briefings are requested.
CARB and the environmental groups have argued that A.B. 32 gave the state agency broad authority in adopting regulations, including market-based measures, to control greenhouse gas emissions. Cap-and-trade programs and their auctions are flexible alternative to direct regulations, the state has said.
In court filings, the California Chamber of Commerce and business groups intervening on its behalf said the auctions are not needed to meet A.B. 32's goal to cut carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Petitioners said the auctions raise revenue for a variety of government services and programs, rather than regulating business activities and are an illegal tax.
Petitioners are not challenging the trading program itself, just the auctions.
While the chamber hasn't asked the court to return auction revenues to regulated entities, intervenor the National Association of Manufacturers has suggested that if the case is remanded to the trial court, the costs to businesses could be considered.
The CalChamber didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment on the case.
Potential Impacts
The eventual outcome of the case will have some impact on the state's carbon market, according to a Jan. 18 report by ICIS energy market analysts.
“If the court rules in favor of the CARB and the status quo is retained, increased certainty could bring bullish sentiment to the market,” the report said. Should the CalChamber prevail, CARB could amend the program to hold auctions under the legal definition of a regulatory fee, the analysts said.
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has asked the legislature to pass an urgency measure to extend the cap-and-trade program beyond 2020. Although Democrats now have super-majority, passage of such a bill is not guaranteed.
So far, at least one bill, A.B. 151, has been introduced to confirm CARB's authority to continue the trading program. The bill, however, does not address the pre-2020 period of the existing program.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104610603&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104610603&jd=104610603
-
Save Climate Pact by Arguing It's No Big Deal: Sen. Corker
Jan 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Donald Trump may hold off on pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate pact if he's persuaded by a rather unorthodox argument being made by a top Senate Republican: The deal doesn't really require the U.S. to do all that much on climate change.
“They know there's no real substance to what the United States has to do” under the 2015 climate pact, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told reporters Jan. 24.
“What they're likely to do is formulate their own policies and move along for a while, and gain a greater understanding on how they might influence those things,” Corker said. “But I don't see them waking up tomorrow and saying, ‘we're out of it’ because again, there's just no demands on U.S. citizens” imposed under the international climate pact if Trump leaves the deal alone, the chairman said.Corker said he has “had some conversations” with the new administration urging it to go slow in deciding the pact's fate. His comments may be a sign that the deal's supporters may be shifting away from an oft-heard argument against U.S. withdrawal—that doing so would fracture international relationships—to a more pragmatic one highlighting the fact that the deal largely relies on pledges and cooperation without imposing binding emissions reduction targets.
One member of the Republican leadership, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)., said the new administration is likely to take into account the degree to which the climate pact actually imposes obligations on the U.S.
The question is “how much of this is aspirational in the Paris deal [and] how much of it is binding,” Thune told Bloomberg BNA. The climate pact's fate likely rests on whether the administration views the deal as economically harmful, Thune said, or a relatively benign international agreement “that's just pledges and goals and things like that.”
The South Dakota Republican also suggested there may be other options for Trump besides “completely abrogating” the deal, but added it is still unclear what those might be.
Democrats See Winning Argument
The Paris Agreement, the first climate deal in which developed and developing nations vowed action to address rising global temperatures linked to greenhouse gas emissions, didn't include binding targets that ultimately sunk the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, countries put forth pledges that were specifically kept out of the deal, though those pledges are supposed to be anchored in domestic policies or laws.
The pact does include some binding elements, including transparency requirements to ensure countries accurately report their emissions and verify whether nations make good on their pledges to cut emissions. But even the pledge by richer developed nations to provide $100 billion a year in combined private and public funds for nations vulnerable to climate impacts was, largely at U.S. insistence, kept out of the Paris Agreement and housed in a side agreement.The argument that the Paris deal doesn't require the U.S. to do all that much may seem awkward for Senate Democrats who are certainly more vocal supporters of the climate pact than Corker, such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and Hawaii Democrat Brian Schatz.
They were among 10 Democratic senators to fly to Paris in the days before the December 2015 UN deal was reached to back what they saw as an historic opportunity to get the first truly global climate pact, one that had eluded negotiators for more than two decades.
But Cardin largely backed Corker's argument to reporters, suggesting Trump should reverse his campaign vow to “cancel” the Paris pact because staying in the deal doesn't cost the U.S. much.
“When 190-plus nations reached an agreement and one country is going to pull out—the United States—well, that doesn't make a lot of sense, particularly given it's voluntary compliance” approach, Cardin told reporters.
A Quiet Campaign?
Cardin noted that Trump's pick for secretary of state, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, and Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor picked to become the next U.S. representative to the United Nations, have called for keeping the U.S. at the table in climate negotiations.
“I think there will be people who advise him [Trump] ‘you can't do it anyway as quickly as you would like, let's give this a chance,’” Cardin said.
Tillerson cleared the Foreign Relations panel Jan. 23 along a party-line 11-10 vote. The committee Jan. 24 approved Haley's nomination by voice vote, although Democratic Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.) and Chris Coons (Del.) asked to be recorded as “no” votes.
Hawaii's Schatz said Democrats are quietly urging Republican colleagues to counsel Trump to stay in the Paris deal to keep the U.S. from being seen as fickle on international agreements.
“The hope is that regardless of one's views on climate, that there's got to be bipartisan agreement that America doesn't go back on its word,” the senator told Bloomberg BNA. “My sense is that we want this to be a quiet bipartisan foreign policy-oriented discussion, rather than something that lines up around D's (Democrats) and R's (Republicans) and climate,” the senator said.
“We need some foreign policy pragmatists to advise that it's just not in America's interest to get out of the agreement that we just got in,” Schatz said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=104610607&vname=dennotallissues&fn=104610607&jd=104610607
-
Americans Are Surprisingly Supportive Of Government Regulations Trump Wants To Dismantle
Jan 24, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Emily Guskin and Scott Clement
On his first Monday in the White House, President Trump vowed to eliminate at least 75 percent of government regulations, cut taxes “massively” and impose a border tax on companies that move production out of the country. The three promises are aimed at making good on a campaign promise to reverse a decades-long trend of outsourcing manufacturing jobs, but they receive mixed marks with the public at-large.
Several recent polls find Americans are hesitant to ease regulations or taxes on businesses, particularly loosening environmental rules, though a slight majority supports retribution against companies that outsource jobs. All these policies are supported by majorities of Republicans, so Trump is likely to satisfy his base -- if not independents and Democrats.
In a Quinnipiac poll this month, 39 percent of registered voters said Trump should remove regulations on businesses and corporations, while 51 percent said he should not remove regulations. And a December Pew Research Center poll found adults splitting narrowly on the question of whether business regulations in general are necessary to protect the public interest (45 percent) or if they usually do more harm than good (48 percent).
The idea of jettisoning environmental regulations, some of which Trump has already begun peeling back, is even less popular. Roughly 6 in 10 (59 percent) of voters in the Quinnipiac poll opposed Trump removing regulations that are intended to combat climate change. The Pew survey found that by a 25 percentage-point margin, 59 to 34 percent, more Americans think stricter environmental laws and regulations are “worth the cost” than say they “cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.”
The public expresses mixed support for Trump’s proposal to slash business income taxes, with a Post-ABC poll this month finding 48 percent support and 45 percent oppose such a proposal. Trump’s broader view that businesses are overtaxed in the U.S. was shared by only 12 percent of adults in an Gallup poll last spring, while 67 percent said corporations do not pay enough in taxes.
The most popular of Trump’s three proposals is one that would punish companies that move jobs from the United States to other countries, which a narrow 53 percent majority supported and 43 percent opposed in a Post-ABC poll from earlier this month.
Trump’s policies are much more appealing among fellow Republicans, who tend to support deregulation and tax relief. Two-thirds of Republican voters told Quinnipiac that Trump should remove business regulations and 71 percent of Republican-leaning adults told that Pew government regulation does more harm than good. Smaller majorities of Republicans and leaners said environmental regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy (58 percent in the Pew poll), and 52 percent of Republican voters said in the Quinnipiac survey that Trump should remove climate change regulations.
About two-thirds of Republicans in the Post-ABC poll also support reducing business taxes (65 percent) and punishing companies who move jobs out of the country (67 percent).
Beyond support for specific policies, Trump’s actions on these issues could reinforce a widespread perception that he will shower favor on corporate America, who many see as having more influence than it should.
A January CBS News poll found that 72 percent of Americans expect Trump policies will mostly help large corporations and 74 percent in the latest Pew survey who think corporations will gain influence under Trump.
But Americans aren't exactly thrilled with big business itself. Twice as many people surveyed by Pew last summer said large corporations have a negative than positive impact on the way things are going in the country, and in a January 2016 poll, Gallup found that 63 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the size and influence of major corporations. Most of that group said corporations should have less influence.
Trump’s gamble is that a mix of taxes, deregulation and threats against would-be outsourcers will fuel a growing economy -- and that the public might well overlook their reservations about policy specifics if the economy is thriving 2-3 years from now. If he doesn’t meet the public’s expectation that he improve the economy, however, Trump may struggle to defend tax and regulation cuts that lack broad support on their own.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/24/americans-are-surprisingly-supportive-of-government-regulations-trump-wants-to-dismantle/?utm_term=.79fd0e935fc4
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested