Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/25/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Division Welcomes Recommendations for Innovation to Support Packaging Sustainability
Jan 25, 2017 | Healthcare Packaging
“America’s Plastics MakersTM welcome collaborative efforts such as the Catalysing Actionreport aimed at promoting innovation and advancing the sustainability of plastics. -
(ACC Mentioned) Jubilant Life Sciences Gets Responsible Care 14001: 2013 Certificate
Jan 25, 2017 | PharmaBiz
Jubilant Life Sciences, an integrated global pharmaceuticals and life sciences company, receives ‘Responsible Care 14001:2013 certification’ under the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Responsible Care programme for its corporate office in Noida and for its manufacturing unit in Gajraula. -
(ACC Mentioned) Jubilant Life Gets Responsible Care Certification
Jan 25, 2017 | The Hindu Business Line
Jubilant Life Sciences, an integrated global pharmaceuticals and life sciences company, has received ‘Responsible Care 14001:2013 certification’ under the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care programme for its corporate office in Noida and for its manufacturing Unit in Gajraula. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Rules Could be Foiled by Regulatory Oversight Bill
Jan 25, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
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. -
Trump Administration Blocks EPA Communications to Public
Jan 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Trump administration officials have allegedly ordered the US EPA to cease releasing information to the public until further notice, according to multiple media outlets. -
US Companies Sign Chemicals in Furniture Pledge
Jan 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
More than 200 US businesses have pledged to ask their suppliers if the materials and furnishings they supply contain any of five groups of chemicals. -
Safer Chemicals, Health Families Congratulates Target on New Chemical Strategy Policy and Goals, Urges Amazon and Other Retailers to Follow Suit
Jan 25, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Michele Setteducato
Today Target announced a new chemical policy and goals. These new steps build on the Sustainable Product Index announced by the company in 2014 and updated in 2015 and 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) Balancing Jobs and the Environment
Jan 25, 2017 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
Some readers will disagree with this, but the business climate in the United States has been pretty good the past few years. Consider fracking, for example. -
Trump Revives Keystone XL, Dakota Access Pipelines But Wants to 'Renegotiate' Projects
Jan 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
President Trump signed two presidential memorandums Tuesday to advance construction of the controversial Keystone XL (KXL) and Dakota Access (DAPL) oil pipelines, projects that had been thwarted or delayed by the Obama administration. -
Pipeline Foes Eye Courtroom After Trump Boosts Projects
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Amanda Reilly
President Trump's attempt to streamline approval of two contentious oil pipelines may spark a legal powder keg as opponents of the projects vow to battle it out in the courtroom. -
Enviros, Now on the Outs with White House, Look to the Courts
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Emily Holden
President Trump yesterday began making good on his promises to boost the oil and gas industry, signing memos reviving two controversial pipelines that have become the face of the climate movement and officially kicking off a war with environmentalists. -
House Prepares to Kill Coal, Methane Rules
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
The House plans to start the process of overturning major Obama administration environmental regulations as early as next week. -
Utility Taps Aliso Canyon
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
The controversial Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field was tapped yesterday, causing a local uproar ahead of hearings next week to determine the future of the site. -
(ACC Mentioned) OSHA Takes Closer Look at High-Risk Chemical Plants, Refineries
Jan 25, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sam Pearson
Chemical facilities and oil refineries covered under OSHA’s Process Safety Management program could see closer attention from inspectors under new instructions issued in the final days of the Obama administration. -
DHS Leadership Picks Elevate Cyberdefense Mission
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Experts say the Department of Homeland Security is unlikely to relinquish its day-to-day role in sharing cybersecurity threats with the private sector, despite hints from President Trump that he would pass some duties to the U.S. military. -
KCS Sets 2017 Capex Program
Jan 25, 2017 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Kansas City Southern will invest $550 million to $560 million in 2017 capital, a 4% to 5% percent reduction from its $584 million 2016 capex program. -
Grant Freeze to be Narrower, Shorter Than Expected — Officials
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Emily Holden
The Trump administration's controversial freeze on U.S. EPA's massive grant program is expected to end Friday, according to EPA officials. -
Tillerson's Written Responses on Climate Fail to Satisfy Dems
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac and Hannah Hess
Former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson, President Trump's choice to lead the State Department, said at his confirmation hearing that climate change is real but provided vague answers on climate science and hazy replies about international climate negotiations. -
Donald Trump’s EPA Pick Will Help Make the West Great Again
Jan 25, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Paul Gosar
It should come as no surprise that President Trump won a majority of Western states not only in the primary election but also in the general election. -
Trump Delays Dozens of EPA Regs
Jan 25, 2017 | The Hill - Regulation
By Tim Devaney
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will delay dozens of Obama-era regulations that were ensnared by President Trump’s regulatory moratorium. -
Trump EPA to 'Stand Down' for Now on Website Climate Data Removal Plans
Jan 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA is temporarily suspending its plans to remove the main climate change page from the agency's website, amid news reports that the page was slated to be removed Jan. 25, though the Office of General Counsel (OGC) has been tasked with reviewing the implications of removing some material, according to an agency source. -
Court Weighs Whether Cap and Trade is a Fee or a Tax — or 'Neither'
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Judges considering a challenge against California's landmark climate change laws asked pointed questions yesterday aimed at figuring out its status under the state's tax rules.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Jan 25, 2017 | Healthcare Packaging
“America’s Plastics MakersTM welcome collaborative efforts such as the Catalysing Actionreport aimed at promoting innovation and advancing the sustainability of plastics.
“Catalysing Action recognizes that plastics combine ‘unrivalled functional properties with low cost.’ And every day plastics contribute to sustainability by reducing material use, energy use, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions in everything from packaging to transportation to homes and buildings. A recent study by Trucost found that switching from plastics to alternatives would quadruple environmental costs, causing them to grow from $139 billion to $533 billion annually.
“The Catalysing Action report focuses on recycling—an undeniably important element of material sustainability. However, critical issues of resource efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions must also be taken into account when setting policy to advance sustainability. And life cycle studies consistently find that plastic packaging delivers more food and other products with significantly less environmental impacts than alternatives.
“Looking ahead, discussions building on this report would benefit from focusing less on specific resins and more on the functionality of the package in its specific use. In the United States, partnerships that have explored the functionality issue include the Wrap Recycling Action Program, which is working to increase collection and recycling of flexible polyethylene wraps and bags at 18,000 retail locations throughout the country; the Materials Recovery for the Future initiative, which is developing technical solutions to improve recovery opportunities for film packaging; The Recycling Partnership, which brings best practices and infrastructure to underperforming communities; and programs that promote opportunities to convert non-recycled plastics into valuable fuels and energy. Additionally, building in greater input from lifecycle assessment experts and voices from rapidly developing economies would provide greater context.
https://www.healthcarepackaging.com/plastics-division-welcomes-recommendations-innovation-support-packaging-sustainability
-
(ACC Mentioned) Jubilant Life Sciences Gets Responsible Care 14001: 2013 Certificate
Jan 25, 2017 | PharmaBiz
Jubilant Life Sciences, an integrated global pharmaceuticals and life sciences company, receives ‘Responsible Care 14001:2013 certification’ under the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Responsible Care programme for its corporate office in Noida and for its manufacturing unit in Gajraula. Awarded to the life science ingredients business, the certification is a demonstration of Jubilant’s continued commitment towards sustainable business operations.
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. Jubilant Life Sciences is one of the very few companies in India to achieve the certification, the distinction is an evidence of company’s exemplary business practices and good corporate governance.
Commenting on the achievement, 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. As we work towards a sustainable future, we ensure that we champion Responsible Care principles across business operations. The certification reiterates our commitment of delivering best value to our stakeholders.”http://www.pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=99972&sid=2
-
(ACC Mentioned) Jubilant Life Gets Responsible Care Certification
Jan 25, 2017 | The Hindu Business Line
Jubilant Life Sciences, an integrated global pharmaceuticals and life sciences company, has received ‘Responsible Care 14001:2013 certification’ under the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care programme for its corporate office in Noida and for its manufacturing Unit in Gajraula.
Responsible Care is a global initiative of chemical companies to ensure that the chemicals 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 today.
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.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/jubilant-life-gets-responsible-care-certification/article9501744.ece?homepage=true
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Rules Could be Foiled by Regulatory Oversight Bill
Jan 25, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
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.
https://www.bna.com/chemical-rules-foiled-n73014450209/
-
Trump Administration Blocks EPA Communications to Public
Jan 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Trump administration officials have allegedly ordered the US EPA to cease releasing information to the public until further notice, according to multiple media outlets.
The order includes a halt on press releases, blogs and social media activity, along with posting any new material to agency websites. The administration will also review upcoming scheduled public speaking appearances and webinars, to determine which ones will move forward.
Similar restrictions are reportedly in place at the US Department of Agriculture and the US Department of Health and Human Services.
The alleged silence comes during a transitional time for the EPA in the wake of Trump’s inauguration on 20 January, which includes the absence of an administrator while Scott Pruitt, Mr Trump’s controversialnominee, awaits senate confirmation.
Simultaneously, the Trump administration has ordered a freeze on all EPA grants, along with a delay on regulations across the federal government. While freezing grants and regulatory actions are a common practice during a change in presidential administrations – the practice dates as far back as President Clinton – some NGOs believe the actions go too far.
“The EPA, like all federal agencies, is funded by taxpayer dollars, and Americans have the right to know what’s being done to protect or harm public health and the environment,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.
Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in reaction to restrictions placed on scientists: “These agency scientists carry out research in support of policies that protect our health and safety ... and it makes no sense to put up walls between them and the public, or unilaterally halt the work they do.”
While the initial reactions were strong, the impact may depend on the length the public information restrictions are in place. New administrations typically want to take account of government actions and that can be difficult to do while agencies conduct regular business.
Chemical regulation
The administration issued a memo shortly after the inauguration, calling for agencies to immediately stop sending regulations to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) until they have been approved by a Trump-appointed department or agency head.
Among other requests, it also said regulations that have been published in the OFR but have not taken effect must temporarily postpone their effective date for 60 days from the date of the memorandum, “for the purpose of reviewing questions of fact, law and policy they raise”.
Where appropriate, agencies should also consider proposing a rule to further delay the effective date for these regulations, says the memo.
The EPA issued a notice that the regulatory delay will affect 30 regulations. These will now all take effect on 21 March. This includes the regulation on formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products, which had been scheduled to take effect on February 10.
The freeze does not affect the timeline of the nanoscale materials reporting rule or delay rules to implement TSCA, according to the EPA’s notice.
Chemical Watch sent a request to the EPA’s press office on 23 January, seeking more information on how chemical-related regulations could be affected by the new administration’s actions. This was acknowledged later that day, but no answers were provided.https://chemicalwatch.com/52408/trump-administration-blocks-epa-communications-to-public
-
US Companies Sign Chemicals in Furniture Pledge
Jan 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
More than 200 US businesses have pledged to ask their suppliers if the materials and furnishings they supply contain any of five groups of chemicals.
The What's it made of? campaign, launched by the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and Sustainable Furnishings Council (SFC), targets flame retardants, fluorinated stain treatments, anti-microbials, vinyl and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including formaldehyde.
ASBC CEO David Levine told Chemical Watch that the campaign “aims to have every company in the home furnishings industry asking questions that push their suppliers to reduce harmful chemical inputs.”
Individual employees are also able to sign the agreement, with the intent of encouraging discussion in their supply chain, “whether their company has made a corporate commitment yet or not”, he said.
SFC executive director, Susan Inglis, said: “We know that specifiers wield significant influence, so we have no doubt that simply asking for transparency is going to inspire many companies to make sure they have answers their customers are looking for.”
The two organisations are developing an online tool for consumers that will list companies which have received confirmation from their suppliers that their product is free of the five chemical groups.
Companies which have signed the pledge include:
Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams;
Lee Industries;
American Leather;
Nourison;
BDI;
Libeco;
Room & Board;
ViSpring;
Moore & Giles;
Valdese Weavers;
Fermob;
Vaughan Bassett;
Cisco Brothers; and
ABC Home
ASBC and SFC are providing support for companies that sign the pledge through a series of webinars, which outline the initiative and give advice on how to carry out discussions with suppliers. The next webinar will take place on 16 March.
The campaign is being supported by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), the Healthy Materials Laboratory at Parsons the New School and GCI General Contractors.
A similar pledge aimed at furniture purchasers was launched by the CEH last year. It asked companies to buy office furniture free from antimicrobials, fluorinated compounds, VOCs, PVC and flame retardants.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52376/us-companies-sign-chemicals-in-furniture-pledge
-
Jan 25, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Michele Setteducato
Today Target announced a new chemical policy and goals. These new steps build on the Sustainable Product Index announced by the company in 2014 and updated in 2015 and 2016. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign has challenged Target and other retailers to develop comprehensive policies to eliminate and substitute toxic chemicals.
Mike Schade, Mind the Store Campaign Director said: “We congratulate Target on this bold new commitment. The company is showing real leadership on toxic chemicals within the retail industry. We’re very happy to see that Target is setting clear goals with concrete timeframes.
By working with suppliers to remove toxic chemicals like phthalates, perfluorinated chemicals and flame retardants from products, Target will bring safer products into the shopping carts of millions of consumers. A growing body of scientific evidence has linked even low levels of exposure to these chemicals to chronic diseases on the rise.
Including fragrance in its transparency goal is huge. Fragrances can contain harmful chemicals and consumers have no way to find out what they are. Any consumer who wants to know what they’re putting on their body or exposing their kids to will applaud this step.
Target’s new commitment to invest in research into safer alternatives will also further accelerate the development of safer products for all consumers.
We challenge other leading retailers, like Amazon and Costco, to join Target in using their market power to adopt comprehensive safer chemical policies to tackle toxic chemicals that affect their customers’ health.”
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/safer-chemicals-health-families-congratulates-target-on-new-chemical-strategy-policy-and-goals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Balancing Jobs and the Environment
Jan 25, 2017 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
Some readers will disagree with this, but the business climate in the United States has been pretty good the past few years. Consider fracking, for example.
Coming out of the recession, most communities have been eager to do just about anything to support local jobs. Hollywood may be worried about fracking. But in places like Ohio, money and jobs have trumped concern about pollution and earthquakes.
Yes, we’ve seen places around the country that have banned hydraulic fracturing. But that’s mostly been in places without rich shale gas reserves.
In much of the nation’s midsection, fracking has been a lifeline to small communities that were dying.
Is that about to change? Recent headlines hint that it’s possible. But I think the November elections suggest we’re still in a pro-jobs, pro-energy political climate. And that’s important to the plastics industry, now that more new U.S. resin plants, fueled by inexpensive natural gas feedstocks, move forward around the country.
Consider Shell Chemicals’ plan to build a massive plastics and petrochemicals plant in Potter Township, Pa., about 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. On Jan. 18, the Township Supervisors voted to allow the project to move ahead, approving a conditional use permit for the plant.
A week earlier, the board held a hearing on the issue that stretched late into the evening. I watched a video of the meeting, and I saw many residents and opponents pushing for the project to be delayed or scrapped.
It reminded me of my days covering city council and school board meetings for daily newspapers. Usually those meetings are pretty dry (lots of “motions” and “seconds,” with little debate). But every once in a while a controversial issue comes up and angry people jam the meeting rooms, ready to debate topics like closing their neighborhood elementary school or banning a book from the library.
(One of the most entertaining of my news career was a city council hearing before a vote banning topless dancing. But I digress…)
Anyway, that scene was exactly what happened at the Potter Township hearing. Maybe you consider it American democracy in action. Maybe you think it’s just another case of NIMBY (“not in my backyard.”) All the citizens’ comments were against the Shell project. And I don’t blame those residents for being concerned. I’d be worried if someone wanted to build a petrochemicals plant in my neighborhood, too.
At the end of the meeting, the board voted unanimously to move ahead — generating lots of negative reaction from the audience.
Now fast forward to last week: The vote was in favor of the project at the Jan. 18 meeting, too. But there was one significant difference. According to local news reports, this time the room was lined with citizens in favor of the project. Many had nicely printed placards that said “Family supporting jobs for Beaver County” and “Environmentally responsible growth.”
No doubt they’re inspired by local business interests, and by the economic opportunity that the plant represents. Shell estimates the plant will support 6,000 jobs during construction, and it will have 600 workers when it’s operational.
So, in this case, and for now at least, the scale tipped in favor of jobs.
Meanwhile, another community 1,500 miles away is having a similar debate. ExxonMobil Chemical and Saudi Basic Industries Corp. are planning a $10 billion plastics and chemicals plant near Corpus Christi, Texas.
On Jan. 17, the local school board had a hearing about a tax abatement for the project. According to news reports, at least 40 protestors came to the meeting. Some wore air pollution masks and matching T-shirts that said “Portland Citizens United.” A smaller group wore “United for Growth” shirts made by the local chamber of commerce.
The number of jobs in Texas is similar to the Shell project in Pennsylvania: up to 11,000 during construction, and 600 permanent positions.
This is a question that’s going to be asked again and again in communities all over the country in the next few years. According to the American Chemistry Council, which applauded the Potter Township move, 281 chemical projects valued at $170 billion have been announced to date, and about half have been completed or are under construction.
Will jobs trump concerns about the environment in Texas, too? I suspect that it will. Residents are doing their civic duty to question how these projects will impact the local community and the environment, and to hold the companies responsible for making sure they’re operated as cleanly and safely as possible.
That’s also the job of the state and federal authorities who eventually will be responsible for regulating these projects. Based on the November election results, I don’t expect either of those parties to be constructing roadblocks to the new polyethylene projects.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170125/OPINION01/170129940/balancing-jobs-and-the-environment
-
Trump Revives Keystone XL, Dakota Access Pipelines But Wants to 'Renegotiate' Projects
Jan 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
President Trump signed two presidential memorandums Tuesday to advance construction of the controversial Keystone XL (KXL) and Dakota Access (DAPL) oil pipelines, projects that had been thwarted or delayed by the Obama administration.
Trump also signed separate memorandums ordering the Commerce Department to submit a report to him on ways to streamline the federal permitting process for domestic manufacturers within 60 days, and for Commerce to develop a plan to maximize the use of American steel for pipeline construction within 180 days.
During a signing ceremony at the White House, Trump said the memorandums allowing the two pipelines to proceed were subject to "renegotiation."
While signing the KXL memorandum, Trump said the project is "something that's been in dispute, and it's subject to a renegotiation of terms by us. We're going to renegotiate some of the terms and, if they'd like, we'll see if we can get that pipeline built. A lot of jobs. 28,000 jobs. Great construction jobs."
Trump then signed the DAPL memorandum. "Again, [this will be] subject to terms and conditions to be negotiated by us," the president said.
It was unclear if the memorandum on pipeline construction would directly affect KXL or DAPL. "We are, and I am, very insistent that if we're going to build pipelines in the United States, the pipes should be made in the United States," Trump said. "[This is] going to put a lot of steel workers back to work. We will build our own pipeline. We will build our own pipes, like we used to in the old days."
Also unclear are the terms the Trump administration has laid out for Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) and TransCanada Corp., the companies looking to complete DAPL and KXL, respectively. During the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference last May, Trump said that if elected, he would invite TransCanada to reapply for KXL and would approve it, but on renegotiated terms that would put money in the U.S. treasury.
The KXL memorandum invites TransCanada to resubmit its application to the State Department for a presidential permit for construction and operation of the pipeline. The southern portion of the pipe, from Cushing, OK, to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico has already been built and is in service.
Although Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley are both KXL supporters, ClearView Energy Partners LLC speculated that any renegotiation could trigger resistance from the province. Trump could be angling for a new tariff, new terms under a post-NAFTA package, U.S. receipts from a border tax adjustment, or a requirement to use American-made pipe, according to ClearView.
"None of these outcomes necessarily represents an unalloyed victory for KXL sponsors," said Christi Tezak, managing director at ClearView.
The projects
Progress on completing the $3.8 billion DAPL -- a 1,172-mile pipeline to transport 500,000 b/d of Bakken Shale crude oil from North Dakota to a pipeline interconnect in Patoka, IL -- has been stalled since November, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delayed making a final decision on a 1,000-foot easement to tunnel under Lake Oahe. USACE denied the easement one month later.
Protests over completion of DAPL, some of them violent, erupted last year and have evolved into a cause célèbre for environmental groups. Opponents of the pipeline have joined with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which opposes the pipeline over concerns it will impact water and tribal land. However, the tribe recently asked protesters to leave the site.
DAPL, which is more than 90% completed, has also been the subject of a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Last Friday, ETP filed a reply to USACE's opposition to the pipeline project's cross-claim and motion of summary judgment asking the court to confirm that the project can proceed with its final segment based on an easement the USACE granted last July. USACE has 10 days to respond to the filing, but the Trump administration could block it from doing so.
Last November, Sunoco Logistics Partners LP agreed to acquire ETP in an all-stock deal valued at nearly $20 billion. The deal is expected to close in 1Q2017.
Meanwhile, KXL -- a 1,700-mile pipeline starting in Alberta that would transport 830,000 b/d, including 100,000 b/d from the Bakken, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast -- was blocked by the State Department in November 2015 after determining that the $8 billion project was not in the nation's interest.
One year ago, TransCanada said it intended to file a claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement over the Obama administration's rejection of the pipeline. The Calgary-based company said it would seek $15 billion in damages. It also filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston over the rejection.
Reaction
The reaction to Trump signing the presidential memorandums was swift and came from all quarters.
"For too long, private infrastructure investment has been held hostage by government interference driven by fringe interests," said Karen Harbert, CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy. She added that the memorandums "demonstrate that we finally have an administration that is serious about putting American energy to work for the entire economy...These two projects will create good American jobs and improve access to affordable energy."
American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard applauded the move and said it signals a "new direction" in the nation's energy policies. He said the Trump administration recognizes "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.
"Critical energy infrastructure projects like KXL and DAPL will help deliver energy to American consumers and businesses safely and efficiently."
Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, said the two pipelines "are long overdue infrastructure projects that have been senselessly and needlessly delayed by politics.
"In both cases, the previous administration changed the rules in the middle of the game, violating the rule of law and betraying Americans' trust in the federal government. The Trump administration is sending a strong signal that it is serious about putting Americans' needs first, and that pipelines and other important energy projects will no longer languish due to political pressure from the 'keep-it-in-the-ground' crowd."
Environmental groups and their allies said otherwise.
"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. "By granting the easement, Trump is risking our treaty rights and water supply to benefit his wealthy contributors and friends at DAPL.
"We are not opposed to energy independence. We are opposed to reckless and politically motivated development projects, like DAPL, that ignore our treaty rights and risk our water. Creating a second Flint does not make America great again."
Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said Trump "has made it clear that his America does not include the millions of Americans who fought to protect our land, water, sacred cultural sites and climate from dangerous pipelines. Trump has emphatically pledged his allegiance to the oil companies and Wall Street banks that stand to profit from the destruction of public health and the environment."
Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said "less than four days into Trump's presidency, it is clear that the next four years will be about catering to corporate interests and big donors instead of putting American families and communities first. Overruling the scientists and experts who have previously warned about the dangers of these pipelines puts big oil profits above all else. This move by the president is dangerous, reckless and heartless."
During the signing ceremony, Trump said "the regulatory process in this country has become a tangled up mess and very unfair to people." He also said the expediting of environmental reviews and approvals for high-priority infrastructure projects was necessary because "we intend to fix our country -- our bridges, our roadways.
"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."
After the ceremony, a reporter asked the president if he had any comment to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, but he shook his head no.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109164-trump-revives-keystone-xl-dakota-access-pipelines-but-wants-to-renegotiate-projects
-
Pipeline Foes Eye Courtroom After Trump Boosts Projects
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Amanda Reilly
President Trump's attempt to streamline approval of two contentious oil pipelines may spark a legal powder keg as opponents of the projects vow to battle it out in the courtroom.
The presidential memorandums, signed yesterday in the Oval Office, do not grant final approval or authorize construction for Dakota Access or Keystone XL. Instead, one orders expedited review for Keystone XL if developers resubmit their application, and another directs the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider its December decision to perform additional environmental review for the $3.8 billion Dakota Access project.
Dakota Access opponents, who are already engaged in litigation, are prepared to challenge any reversal of the Obama administration's direction on the hotly contested project.
"The previous administration correctly found that the process violated tribal treaties and that a further analysis of route alternatives needed to be conducted," Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who is representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told E&E News. "This administration arbitrarily reversed that before they even have a new secretary of the Army in office. They're breaking the law, and we're going to take them to court."
Tribal leaders also vowed to take legal action to block construction activity, citing environmental laws and treaty rights. Cheyenne River Sioux Chairman Harold Frazier accused Trump of trying to "steamroll" tribal treaties, and the National Congress of American Indians expressed concern that the presidential memo "circumvents the legal process for environmental review."
Pipeline advocates, meanwhile, say Trump's action merely corrects course after the Obama administration interfered with Army Corps plans to greenlight the project. With 95 percent of construction complete, the 1,200-mile line's main missing link is a stretch across Lake Oahe, a dammed section of the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
The Obama administration last year responded to swelling protests by withholding a federal easement for the pipeline to cross the lake, ultimately deciding to launch an in-depth environmental impact statement to consider risks and alternative routes (Energywire, Dec. 5, 2016).
Yesterday's executive action directs the Army Corps to quickly determine whether the EIS is necessary and "review and approve in an expedited manner" the Lake Oahe easement — so long as it is consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act, Clean Water Act, and Rivers and Harbors Act.
Mechanics of a Dakota Access challenge
James Coleman, an energy law professor at Southern Methodist University, noted that Trump's memo is carefully worded to avoid direct challenges. It includes layers of legal disclaimers, calling on Army Corps officials to review the Obama administration's decisions "to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, and with such conditions as are necessary or appropriate."
"The memorandum goes out of its way to say that it's not changing the law, which makes it harder [to challenge]," he said. "It will also be important what the Army Corps of Engineers says when it issues that easement. It's going to want to give some justification for why it's again reversing course."
Hasselman argued that there could be no real justification for expedited approval.
"This is a garden-variety Administrative Procedure Act issue that agency action has to be reasoned," he said. "It has to be based on the appropriate statutory factors, and it has to comply with all the required procedures."
The Dakota Access pipeline's final easement, he said, cannot be legally approved under the Mineral Leasing Act until the Army Corps conducts additional review to consider the impacts on the Sioux and tribal treaty rights.
Hasselman plans to challenge the easement, if issued, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where a Dakota Access lawsuit is already pending. He'll file the challenge as an amended complaint within the existing litigation rather than opening a new case. That means the issue will still go before Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee who has rejected previous attempts to freeze pipeline construction.
Jim Murphy, senior counsel at the National Wildlife Federation, said challenges to the easement would likely center on core issues that have already been raised, including whether the Army Corps' review of the pipeline met the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. And Boasberg might be receptive to claims that easement approval now is purely political, he said.
"Certainly, the fact that the corps itself has made a decision that there is reason to reject this and that there is more information that they felt was needed is something that may be compelling to a judge, especially if he's inclined to maybe view the reversal and the direction on the reversal as political," he said. "Ideally, the agency should look at the facts and look at the law and not just act under the whims of a presidential order. A judge may look at it differently through that lens."
KXL a 'different animal'
When it comes to challenging the approval of the projects in court, Keystone XL is a "very different animal" from Dakota Access, said Patrick Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School.
"I don't see an effort to reverse a Trump decision to approve Keystone getting very far in U.S. courts," Parenteau said. "If Trump's determined to approve Keystone and if there's still a market — I suppose there is — then it's probably going to happen."
Trump's memo invites pipeline builder TransCanada Corp. to resubmit its application to build the pipeline to transport crude from Alberta's oil sands to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico. It directs the State Department to issue a decision within 60 days of the company's submittal.
The government would approve KXL through what's known as a presidential permit, a process for cross-border oil pipelines that was formalized through a series of executive orders beginning with a directive issued in 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson.
Courts have ruled that those types of permitting decisions are unreviewable. For example, a federal district judge in Minnesota threw out a lawsuit in 2015 challenging the Alberta Clipper crude oil pipeline on the grounds that the court didn't have jurisdiction.
"Past cases have suggested that presidential permit decisions are not subject to judicial review because there's no law that applies to them," said Jim Rubin, an environmental attorney at Dorsey & Whitney.
The quirks with the presidential permit likely rule out challenging the pipeline's approval under the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental reviews of major federal actions, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity.
"I'm not sure at this point what the NEPA process is going to yield us as an action at the president," he said. "This is why electing the president matters. The president does get some authority to decide this international permit."
But Snape said that there may be other ways to stop the pipeline through challenging the issuance of separate water permits for the project or bringing Endangered Species Act claims. He said he also expected to see people on the ground continuing to challenge government attempts to seize land that the pipeline must cross.
Outside the courts, Snape said that civil disobedience could slow the project.
"This is a blow. It's not what we wanted," he said. "But the fight is far, far from over."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/25/stories/1060048939
-
Enviros, Now on the Outs with White House, Look to the Courts
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Emily Holden
President Trump yesterday began making good on his promises to boost the oil and gas industry, signing memos reviving two controversial pipelines that have become the face of the climate movement and officially kicking off a war with environmentalists.
Trump directed the State Department to expedite its approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would connect Canadian oil sands with U.S. refineries. He also told federal agencies to quickly approve the Dakota Access pipeline, which last year sparked protests from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and activists around the nation.
Environmentalists in response were defiant, promising to use protests and the courts to keep the two pipelines from going forward. Within hours, groups mobilized hundreds of protesters outside the White House.
"We will fight it. We will fight it with everything we've got in the courts and in the streets," said Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org.
McKibben said he expressed "a certain amount of hope that we will prevail in the end," citing widespread belief in the President Obama's first term that the administration would approve Keystone XL.
"President Trump will live to regret his actions this morning," said Michael Brune, the Sierra Club's executive director. He, too, predicted success.
But where former President Obama eventually bowed to environmental pressure on KXL, denying it a permit in 2015 in the run-up to a landmark U.N. climate summit in Paris, the same protest tactics seem unlikely to work on Trump. He yesterday said that "environmentalism is out of control."
Christopher Guith, a senior vice president for policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's energy section, said the Obama administration "caved and made a bad policy decision when a thousand people rang the White House."
"I don't think you're going to see that happen here," Guith said, adding that the people protesting Trump's policies over the weekend "weren't the ones who got him into the White House."
Trump's moves yesterday are his opening shot against the environmental movement, which for years has had at least a sympathetic ear in the White House.
Climate activists will have a harder time blocking pipelines under Trump, although they say they are ready to take their battles to states and localities, where they might have a strategic advantage. Because the projects have huge symbolic meaning to both environmentalists and conservatives, the fights won't go down easily.
A small carbon footprint but a big climate symbol
The Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline protests have defined much of the modern environmental movement. It's hard to prove, however, that either project would have a meaningful impact on greenhouse gas emissions or the overall rate of climate change (Climatewire, Dec. 19, 2016).
Paul Bledsoe, a senior fellow on energy at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former Clinton administration climate adviser, said that "by delaying, and then denying, the permit so conspicuously, Obama helped elevate Keystone to iconic status in climate protection, when in fact the pipeline itself won't have any serious effect on emissions."
Trump's actions yesterday won applause from industry backers and GOP lawmakers who say pipelines would grow employment, lower energy costs and bolster U.S. energy independence.
"We're making America great again," joked John Stoody, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines' vice president of government and public relations.
Stoody said pipelines have "overwhelming public support." Environmental advocates counter that the tide is rising against a large-scale oil and gas infrastructure build-out. They say they will work with landowners who don't want companies using their property by claiming eminent domain.
Ben Schreiber, a senior political strategist for Friends of the Earth, pointed to Trump's low approval ratings and called him "thin-skinned."
"He is now going to have a totally different experience here [compared with on the campaign trail] because we're going to be out in the street protesting all of his actions," Schreiber said. "He's not going to be receiving unabashed love and admiration."
Environmental groups contend that the oil and gas industry already has enough pipelines in the United States. They think pipelines are unsafe and that approving more will lock the country into fossil fuel use.
PolitiFact found that the pipeline wouldn't make much of a difference in how much oil gets extracted in the area.
So far, Trump seems immune to the backlash. Yesterday, he met with auto industry executives to talk about how to grow manufacturing jobs and roll back regulation. There, he boasted that he sees himself as an environmentalist (E&E News PM, Jan. 24).
The president then signed several other actions, including an executive order to the Council on Environmental Quality to identify "high priority" infrastructure projects and find ways to speed them. He also sent memos to the Commerce Department to explore ways to "streamline" manufacturing permits and to require pipelines to be made with American materials to "the maximum extent possible." More details on how those policy changes would work might take months.
Lengthy permit processes offer greens a glimmer of hope
In the meantime, opponents to the pipelines are poised to pursue more litigation.
Jane Kleeb, president of the Bold Alliance, said the newly resurrected Keystone XL would face at least a two-year legal process in Nebraska. TransCanada Corp.'s route would depend on the use of eminent domain laws to commandeer a quarter of the land it needs in the state, she said, but that move would trigger litigation by environmental and landowner advocates, who would argue that eminent domain laws cannot be used to benefit private corporations.
"So we will fight in the courts on that level," she said.
Nebraska is also the only state that still has not provided a state permit for the project. It could take TransCanada a year to gain one, providing other opportunities for public input and challenge.
On the federal level, the project would require Clean Water Act permits for places where it crosses streams and other water bodies. Greens are monitoring whether the executive orders will provide more openings for them to challenge the cross-border permit process for the project.
The memo calls for a cross-border permit to be processed within 60 days using an environmental impact statement produced by the Obama State Department, which determined that the project would exacerbate climate change. Anthony Swift of the Natural Resources Defense Council said the project's National Environmental Protection Act process could also afford opportunities for challenge.
Environmental activists held out some hope that the threat of delays in the states and courts, coupled with changes in the economics of relatively expensive oil sands development, might influence the company to choose not to reapply.
But TransCanada said yesterday that it would prepare and submit an application.
"KXL creates thousands of well-paying construction jobs and would generate tens of millions of dollars in annual property taxes to counties along the route as well as more than $3 billion to the U.S. GDP," TransCanada said in a statement. "With best-in-class technology and construction techniques that protect waterways and other sensitive environmental resources, KXL represents the safest, most environmentally sound way to connect the American economy to an abundant energy resource."
Trump also reiterated that the projects would be required to use U.S. steel, despite the fact that TransCanada has already purchased much of its product, and it was not produced stateside.
Trump wants U.S. to get a cut, but profit margin waning
Trump has long said he views the TransCanada project as an opportunity for dealmaking. In a May statement from the campaign trail, the then-nominee said he might "be asking for a big piece of the profits" from the KXL project.
Later that summer in an Iowa speech, he said the United States should receive "25 percent of the deal."
"They're going to make a fortune," he predicted.
But profit margins for oil sands product have thinned since TransCanada proposed the project in 2008 as global oil prices have declined.
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said this loss of revenue is one of the reasons Keystone XL would be so valuable to the northern Alberta oil sands industry, because it would make shipping the product less costly.
"The Alberta economy needs to be enjoying the benefits of a higher return for oil and gas," she said in a press conference in Calgary. "That is definitely something that will happen as a result of" KXL.
But that expectation may not be compatible with protectionist tariffs or border adjustment taxes paid to the United States. And Liberal Party Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might balk if the new U.S. president tries to use the project as leverage in upcoming negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trudeau backs the project but has fended off criticism at home in recent weeks for saying Canada needs to shift its economy away from fossil fuel development.
Notley said she has seen an "evolution" in the way Trump has spoken about Canada in the last few days that has led her to believe he understands that the cost to the U.S.-Canadian relationship would be great if Trump tries to "untangle" the two nations' energy interests.
"Am I completely unconcerned? No," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/25/stories/1060048946
-
House Prepares to Kill Coal, Methane Rules
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
The House plans to start the process of overturning major Obama administration environmental regulations as early as next week.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wrote in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that Republicans will target specific rules using the Congressional Review Act, which allows a simple majority in both chambers to strike down actions promulgated within the last 60 legislative days.
"In the weeks to come, the House and Senate will use the Congressional Review Act to repeal as many job-killing and ill-conceived regulations as possible," McCarthy wrote in an op-ed. "Perhaps no aspect of America's economy has been as overregulated as energy."
Lawmakers plan to target the Interior Department's Stream Protection Rule, which McCarthy said could destroy "tens of thousands" of mining jobs. The previous administration disputed such claims.
Interior released the Stream Protection Rule, which would implement new water quality restrictions on coal mining, last month.
Shortly thereafter, Reps. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) and Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.) each put forward resolutions to block the new mandates (E&E Daily, Jan. 6).
McCarthy also said the House would seek to reverse new methane regulations, pointing to an American Petroleum Institute review of a recent U.S. EPA rule.
McCarthy is likely to run into procedural roadblocks, however. An analysis last month by the Congressional Research Service raised questions about whether the rule is eligible for repeal through the CRA (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2016).
More likely for inclusion will be the Bureau of Land Management's recent methane rule, which would limit emissions from venting and flaring at oil and gas operations on public and tribal lands.
McCarthy also said the House plans to target the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulation to require publicly traded mining and drilling companies to report payments to governments.
Issued last June, it was the SEC's second attempt at the rule, which lawmakers required under a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Greenwire, June 28, 2016).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down the SEC's first attempt. Drilling and business interests said it would have burdened them and undermined competitiveness.
Senate
In the Senate, Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said utilizing the CRA is high on the chamber's list of priorities for the coming weeks.
And Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he was working on his own list of regulations that fall within that panel's jurisdiction for possible CRA challenges (E&E Daily, Jan. 11).
The only time Congress used the CRA effectively was in 2001. Lawmakers and President George W. Bush overturned a Clinton administration rule setting ergonomic standards in the workplace.
If a rule is axed under the CRA, federal agencies are not allowed to reissue the regulation or craft a similar rule in the future, leaving a lasting impact on the system.
New bills
The attack on regulations goes well beyond the CRA. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) yesterday introduced H.R. 674 to require agencies to repeal or revise one or more existing rules before issuing a new one. The measure mirrors a proposal President Trump put forth last year (Greenwire, Nov. 11, 2016).
Trump's pick to lead the White House Office of Management and Budget, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), has also expressed interest in this kind of regulatory "pay-go" system, where old and ineffective regulations are scrubbed before new ones are introduced (E&E Daily, Jan. 25).
"The law actually currently requires OMB to do a retrospective review, but it's not happening," Mulvaney said at his confirmation hearing yesterday. "My very distinct impression from working with the transition team is that regulatory reform is going to be an absolute priority."
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) yesterday introduced a resolution, H.J. Res. 32, that would amend the Constitution to give states the authority to repeal federal regulations when they have the consensus of two-thirds of the state legislatures.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/25/stories/1060048976
-
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
The controversial Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field was tapped yesterday, causing a local uproar ahead of hearings next week to determine the future of the site.
Southern California Gas Co. said increased consumer demand forced it to reopen the facility, which caused the worst methane leak in U.S. history in fall 2015. In the hours after withdrawing gas, the utility stopped using the facility on demand decline. The company had issued a warning of natural gas shortages.
This was the first withdrawal since January 2016. Some accused the utility of manipulating the gas supply to make a case for reopening the storage field.
"Reopening Aliso, even on a limited basis, is inadvisable given the fact that we cannot determine that the facility is safe without first knowing what caused the biggest methane gas blowout in U.S. history," advocacy groups Food & Water Watch and Consumer Watchdog said in a letter yesterday to state Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D).
According to San Diego engineer Bill Powers, an expert on the issue, utility data show the utility had decreased the amount of natural gas it was buying even as temperatures cooled in the area. Then, Powers said, the company tapped gas from Aliso Canyon.
"I've been projecting for two weeks that they've been looking for a chance to withdraw gas from Aliso Canyon," said Powers, who signed the letter to Becerra.
The utility claims Kinder Morgan, the supplier, had reduced gas delivery. Kinder Morgan said its services have gone as scheduled and there are no delivery issues in the Southern California area.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/25/stories/1060048967
-
(ACC Mentioned) OSHA Takes Closer Look at High-Risk Chemical Plants, Refineries
Jan 25, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sam Pearson
Chemical facilities and oil refineries covered under OSHA’s Process Safety Management program could see closer attention from inspectors under new instructionsissued 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/
-
DHS Leadership Picks Elevate Cyberdefense Mission
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Experts say the Department of Homeland Security is unlikely to relinquish its day-to-day role in sharing cybersecurity threats with the private sector, despite hints from President Trump that he would pass some duties to the U.S. military.
Trump's choice of retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly to lead the sprawling civilian agency last month — the third general offered a senior position in the new administration — fueled early speculation about a more militaristic government strategy for securing cyberspace (Energywire, Dec. 12, 2016). Such an approach appeared to be consistent with Trump's pledge to set up an infrastructure-focused "cyber review team" led by the Department of Defense, scouting out potential weak spots in crucial U.S. energy and water computer systems.
After Kelly easily won Senate confirmation Friday, one of his first actions as secretary of Homeland Security was to hire a former cyber risk consultant with expertise in critical infrastructure security to be chief of staff. While many political vacancies remain in DHS leadership, Kirstjen Nielsen's chief of staff appointment drew accolades from former colleagues and cybersecurity experts.
"To the extent that people have concerns about the number of retired generals who are in the Cabinet or are in the broader government, I think the fact that General Kelly has chosen a civilian, someone with private-sector experience, a woman — all are good indicators that he's going to have a diversity of experience and perspectives around him," said Christine Wormuth, senior adviser on defense and homeland security issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank.
Wormuth, a former undersecretary of Defense for policy under the Obama administration, recalled working closely with Nielsen while the latter security professional served on President George W. Bush's Homeland Security Council in the mid-2000s.
"[Nielsen] knows what it's like to be on the inside, knows how the interagency process works, knows the challenges of bringing all the departments together, particularly on issues like cybersecurity where you have multiple agencies in the same space at the same time," Wormuth said. While Wormuth called Nielsen a "strong pick," she nevertheless cautioned against drawing too many conclusions about Kelly's plans for DHS from a single appointment.
In an introductory letter to DHS employees obtained by E&E News, Kelly said he "had the opportunity to work closely with Kirstjen, and I have the utmost confidence in her expertise and leadership capabilities."
Kelly went on to thank DHS workers for their service and cited the "superb leadership" of his predecessor in the Obama administration, Secretary Jeh Johnson. He said he expected to build on past work at DHS while laying out his own vision for the department.
Unlike the case at many energy and environmental agencies, "there's nothing in the current cyber policy framework that stands out as an obvious area where a new administration would immediately want to rescind current policy," said Christian Beckner, deputy director of the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security. "As is the case with any new administration, [Trump's team] will want to take a fresh look at things and assess how to prioritize issues, and potentially modify different agency roles and responsibilities and reallocate funding."
Beckner said he expects DHS under Trump and Kelly to avoid major shake-ups in the cybersecurity arena and lean toward a "balance" established before even the Obama administration.
"Although DHS has a way to go in terms of its maturity, I think ultimately companies are going to be more comfortable cooperating in terms of information sharing with a civilian agency rather than a military agency," Beckner noted, echoing the assessment of several key lawmakers, including House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas).
A few politicians on the left, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), have expressed their hopes that Kelly and his influence as secretary of Homeland Security will have a "moderating influence" on Trump (Energywire, Jan. 11).
Despite the overwhelming 88-to-11 vote to confirm him in the Senate, Kelly will likely come under partisan scrutiny if and when Trump pursues his polarizing immigration policies. It's not yet clear how the president will carry out plans to expand the partial U.S. border wall with Mexico, or how he might rework Obama-era immigration programs such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. But Kelly's agency will doubtlessly be expected to play a key role, given that DHS houses U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Amid significant shake-ups at other agencies, DHS cyber components have stayed relatively free of political fireworks, although Beckner worries Trump's federal hiring freeze could have significant repercussions (Greenwire, Jan. 24).
"DHS has pushed to hire new cybersecurity people in the last year with some of these work fairs," Beckner noted. "Will this [freeze] winnow down their ability to bring in people to support some of these high-need areas, in particular cybersecurity, where there is a real shortfall of positions?"
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/01/25/stories/1060048937
-
Jan 25, 2017 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Kansas City Southern will invest $550 million to $560 million in 2017 capital, a 4% to 5% percent reduction from its $584 million 2016 capex program.
Close to 45%, $247 million to $252 million, of the anticipated spend will go toward maintenance activities, while 6%, $33 million to $33.6 million, will go toward technology.
Two large 2017 expansion projects will be the continued work on the $60 million Sanchez Yard, located in Mexico across the border from the Nuevo Laredo yard, and on the Sasol project. KCS plans to spend 11% of its 2017 capital program, approximately $60 million, on the Sasol project and 7%, approximately $39 million, on Sanchez Yard.
In 2016, KCS completed 10 classification tracks, one circulation track, car repair tracks and a wye track at Sanchez. The three-year project is on schedule to be complete in 2017 with 10 additional classification tracks, additional repair tracks and a car repair and locomotive shops. The Sasol project is scheduled to be completed in 2017. In 2015, KCS reached an agreement with Sasol Chemicals LLC for the construction and long-term lease of a storage-in-transit (SIT) rail yard to support Sasol’s new ethane cracker and derivatives project in Lake Charles, La. In addition to building the SIT yard for lease to Sasol, KCS will replace and expand its existing railcar classification yard in Mossville, La.
KCS plans to spend 10% of its 2017 capital program on Positive Train Control (PTC). Executives said 2017 will be “the big push year for PTC,” and they “anticipate a substantial reduction in spending” for this category beginning in 2018.
“General and maintenance spend will reduce in 2017, given the improvements in infrastructure we have made over the past several years, including the completion of the Monterrey to Nuevo Laredo track upgrade, which was completed in 2016,” said KCS Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Jeff Songer. “While overall capex will reduce, we remain committed to capacity enhancements across the network, led by our continued investment in Sanchez Yard and additional main line siding capacity projects.”
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/m_and_w/kcs-sets-2017-capex-program.html
-
Grant Freeze to be Narrower, Shorter Than Expected — Officials
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Emily Holden
The Trump administration's controversial freeze on U.S. EPA's massive grant program is expected to end Friday, according to EPA officials.
Reports of the grant pause generated shockwaves yesterday among EPA employees, former officials and grant recipients who said halting the agency's roughly $4 billion grant program would create uncertainty and have wide-ranging consequences for entities counting on the cash.
But the freeze on grants and contracts won't be as extensive as some feared, according to plans laid out by EPA.
Doug Ericksen, the Trump transition team's communications lead for EPA, said the grants review should be over this week.
"It depends how well we are able to communicate with agency professionals," said Ericksen, a Republican Washington state senator. Ericksen is at EPA on a temporary assignment as part of Trump's "beachhead" team.
Ericksen said several sources of funds have not been paused — including revolving fund accounts to states, tribes and other entities for capital construction and wastewater treatment — as well as for Brownfield and Superfund cleanup projects.
An internal EPA email sent last night and obtained by E&E News said that agency staff are working on reviewing grant programs with the transition team.
"EPA staff have been reviewing grants and contracts information with the incoming transition team. Pursuant to that review, the Agency is continuing to award the environmental program grants and state revolving loan fund grants to the states and tribes; and we are working to quickly address issues related to other categories of grants. The goal is to complete the grants and contracts review by the close of business on Friday, January 27," the email said.
Ericksen and others close to the Trump administration have said the pause on grants was necessary so the incoming team could evaluate the money flowing out of the agency.
"$4 billion is a lot of money. People in the Trump administration speak a different language. Sometimes we need translators," Ericksen joked today.
EPA grants have come under scrutiny in the past, including in Ericksen's state of Washington. Several Republican lawmakers have targeted EPA over its grant money being used for an advocacy campaign called "What's Upstream." That campaign included billboard advertising targeting farming operations for polluting waterways (E&E Daily, April 21, 2016).
"We want to make sure that grants reflect the new administration and that money is not being wasted," Ericksen said. "President Trump is obviously concerned about taxpayer money."
Myron Ebell, a scholar at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute who led Trump's EPA transition team, said yesterday that he thinks freezing grant programs at the agency is "a good idea, and I don't think there's anything unusual about it."
There was no such freeze when the Obama administration came into office, said Scott Fulton, who was EPA general counsel under President Obama. "The assessment was done before the inauguration as opposed to after," he said.
A temporary freeze, Fulton said, "may ultimately not be that difficult to contend with."
Karl Brooks, who led EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management under Obama, said it's not unusual for a new president to want to get an overview of what agencies are doing and "to put in place a brief pause to survey the landscape." He added, "The pain will vary depending on how long it lasts."
For now, states have continued to receive at least some of their EPA grant funding, including money to meet federal air standards.
"No one has called to explain it, but I think it means the grants to states, localities and Tribes under the STAG [State and Tribal Assistance Grant] program go on as usual — no change in operations," said Bill Becker, head of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. "I think they are limiting their review to other contracts and grants — not state programmatic grants."
Clint Woods, director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, said there were at first "some question marks about the scope" of the review (Greenwire, Jan. 24).
"Some of that had to do with the way the information came out," he said, adding that it now appears to be "a little bit narrower than initially reported."
The programs that seem to be under review could include grants to nonprofits or international projects, for example, he said.
Woods said he's hopeful any previous misunderstandings will lead to greater communication among state regulators and with EPA.
By halting or cutting EPA grants, the new administration could face a backlash from recipients of those funds and potentially Republican members of Congress.
"It smells like they're trying to destroy that collaborative workspace that has been very present in the U.S. government," said Michelle DePass, who led EPA's Office of International and Tribal Affairs under the Obama administration. Much of EPA's grant money goes to state and local environmental programs.
"The elected officials have always been energetic about ensuring that resources come to their districts to be able to meet these needs," DePass said. "It didn't matter which side of the aisle you were coming from. I do not doubt and I'm encouraged by the fact that I know that they will speak up."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/25/stories/1060048978
-
Tillerson's Written Responses on Climate Fail to Satisfy Dems
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac and Hannah Hess
Former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson, President Trump's choice to lead the State Department, said at his confirmation hearing that climate change is real but provided vague answers on climate science and hazy replies about international climate negotiations.
What the oilman told senators in writing only slightly clarified things.
In responses to Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tillerson said Exxon did not lobby against economic sanctions against Russia, cited the work of a well-known climate-denying scientist and said he has made a "clean break" from his old company.
"I came to my personal position on climate science as an engineer and a scientist over 20 years based on thoughtful study and informed discourse," he wrote to Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who asked about misinformation campaigns to muddy public opinion on climate science. "I look forward to continuing to engage in a discourse on this subject that is well-informed, open and free."
Tillerson declined to answer how he would counsel Trump that climate change is real and grave. He also said climate change is not a pressing national security risk. "I do not see climate change as an imminent national security threat," he said, adding that the United States should "remain engaged" in global climate talks to protect "American competitiveness."
And he said he doesn't believe greenhouse gases are the "key" factor fueling rising temperatures worldwide, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 11-10 on Monday, along party lines, in favor of Tillerson. A full Senate vote is expected next week.
"I believe inquiries into Mr. Tillerson's nomination have been fair and exhaustive," Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said in a statement. "His hearing lasted over eight hours, and he's responded to over 1,000 questions for the record," Corker added. "I personally have no doubt that Rex Tillerson is well-qualified."
While Tillerson is almost guaranteed to be confirmed as the next secretary of State, Democrats have made it clear they still have concerns about his climate views, business ties at Exxon and perspectives on human rights abuses overseas.
Asked by E&E News if he agreed with Tillerson that the connection between fossil fuels emissions and rising temperatures was not yet settled, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said the nominee was wrong.
"The science is overwhelming," Peters said. "And to ignore it and dismiss it is simply irresponsible."
Peters added: "It's certainly not surprising, given that Mr. Tillerson is an executive of the fossil fuel industry."
David Turnbull, campaigns director for the climate advocacy group Oil Change International, said Tillerson's responses to climate change questions are incorrect.
"It's simply a lie to say that there is no scientific consensus on the degree to which humans are impacting climate change," Turnbull said. "His answer should put to rest any conversation of Rex Tillerson being a moderate on climate change," he added. "He is not."
In comments to Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the nominee referenced the work of a man named John Christy, who he said worked at NASA and completed work disputing the accuracy of climate models. (Christy is a high-profile scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who is openly skeptical that climate change is a dire threat to humanity.)
Democrats intend to keep digging.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the Foreign Relations Committee ranking member, said his aim is not to get Tillerson on the record about climate science. He said he wants to drill down for answers that might help other undecided Democrats make up their minds.
"That's not the purpose to get on the record. The purpose is this is our opportunity to get information to our colleagues, so that's why I restricted it," Cardin said last night, describing a second round of questions he has posed to Tillerson related to climate policy and personal finance. "I really narrowed the focus."
Tillerson left questions blank in his answers to Cardin.
He also refused to directly answer questions about his role and the responsibility of Exxon in funding human rights violations in Indonesia. Exxon has been locked in a 16-year federal lawsuit with Indonesian villagers, who say mercenaries that Exxon oversaw killed, raped, beat and harassed them, loved ones or neighbors (Climatewire, Jan. 23).
Democrats who told E&E News they are on the fence about the nomination said their concerns were largely about Tillerson's ties to Russia or his stance on human rights — not climate.
"Especially with the president's Russia connection, I've got some heartburn about it but I haven't yet made up my mind," Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said. Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said his decision is about Tillerson's ability to "disengage from a life based on Exxon Mobil to a life based on America." And Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said, "I'm more interested in what he knows about the bribes paid by the oil and gas industry in Russia to Vladimir Putin."
Corker said he is frustrated with Democrats trying to delay the vote when, by his count, Republicans already have the 52 votes needed to confirm Trump's top diplomat.
"I would recommend that he stop answering questions," Corker said last night. "There's no reason for it. They've already declared what their vote is going to be, so there's no reason for him [Tillerson] to continue."
While Tillerson didn't provide detailed answers to dozens of questions, often supplying boilerplate replies, he has addressed in writing a broad swath of foreign policy topics.
He said supporting a two-state solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel should be U.S. policy, pledged to review the environmental permitting process the Obama administration completed on the Keystone XL pipeline, told Udall he has not talked with the president about paying for a border wall between the United States and Mexico, and informed Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that Exxon never backed a campaign to confuse the public about climate science.
"Not to my knowledge," Tillerson wrote Markey.
Yet at the Exxon shareholders meeting last year, Tillerson said the company has benefited from and would maintain a strong relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that opposes efforts to cut carbon emissions, such as carbon taxes.
Environmentalists have almost universally spurned the lifelong oilman's bid to lead the State Department. Still, he got the endorsement of a sharp critic of the fossil fuel industry.
"Rex Tillerson has the potential to be an excellent Sec of State," Tesla Motors Corp. boss Elon Musk said in a Twitter post yesterday.
"Rex is an exceptionally competent executive, understands geopolitics and knows how to win for his team," Musk said. "His team is now the USA."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/25/stories/1060048942
-
Donald Trump’s EPA Pick Will Help Make the West Great Again
Jan 25, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Paul Gosar
It should come as no surprise that President Trump won a majority of Western states not only in the primary election but also in the general election. These victories were because he recognized that an overreaching federal government had abandoned Western communities during the Obama administration.Too often, the most important issues to the West such as water rights, land management and wildfire prevention are mishandled or ignored by unelected Washington bureaucrats who care more about pushing their own political agenda than the well-being of western communities.
Federal agencies like the EPA were created to ensure that the best interests of the American people are protected. Yet, under President Obama, the EPA has done far more harm than good for Western farmers, ranchers and small business owners. Over the past eight years, this agency has unleashed a record number of job-killing rules and regulations that threaten the livelihood and economy of many Western states. Many of these regulations, including the Waters of the U.S. Rule, are not based on science and were enacted unilaterally through lies to Congress and the American people.
President Trump’s nomination of Scott Pruitt for EPA administrator is a clear signal to the West that people, not politics, will be the top priority of in his administration. A true Westerner and the current Attorney General of Oklahoma, Pruitt has witnessed first-hand the negative consequences the EPA’s unconstitutional regulations have inflicted on hard-working Americans.
In response, he has led the charge to return balance to the EPA by spearheading court challenges against the EPA’s unconstitutional Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rules. These actions do not mean Pruitt wants to dismantle the EPA, as far-left environmental groups would want you to believe. Instead, he believes the EPA should work with local and state governments to enact common-sense regulations that will protect the environment without crushing western economies.
This philosophy stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s overreaching EPA which attempted to rule by executive order and unlawful regulations instead of respecting the legislative process. Their constant display of autocratic arrogance has resulted in federal courts repeatedly striking down and staying unconstitutional rules. Additionally, President Obama and his agency minions neglected the Constitutional fact that overreaching executive orders and regulations can be undone by an executive order and Congress. By working with Western states, instead of against them, Mr. Pruitt has a far better chance of cementing a lasting legacy of positive environmental reforms.
As the Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, I enthusiastically endorse Scott Pruitt’s nomination for EPA administrator because I know that he will listen to the unique concerns of Western communities and work with Congress to develop legislative solutions. Mr. Pruitt agrees with the more than 50 members of the Western Caucus that the EPA should support American energy producers, not vilify them. By unleashing America’s energy revolution in a responsible way, we will bring new jobs, wealth and accountability to the American people.
I urge the U.S. Senate to confirm Attorney General Scott Pruitt in an expeditious manner.
Congressman Paul Gosar is Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and represents Arizona’s Fourth Congressional District.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/316043-donald-trumps-epa-pick-will-help-make-the-west-great
-
Trump Delays Dozens of EPA Regs
Jan 25, 2017 | The Hill - Regulation
By Tim Devaney
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will delay dozens of Obama-era regulations that were ensnared by President Trump’s regulatory moratorium.
The EPA said Wednesday it is freezing 30 regulations, most of which were published in the Federal Register after the 2016 election but have not yet taken effect. They will be delayed until March 21.
The renewable fuel standard published in December is the EPA’s highest-profile rule to fall victim to Trump’s regulatory moratorium. Emissions standards for wood manufacturers will also be delayed.
This will give Trump’s EPA pick, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, time to review the rules after he is confirmed by the Senate. At that point, many of the EPA’s more controversial rules could be entirely dismantled.
Per Trump’s regulatory moratorium, the Transportation Department also withdrew new regulations for hazardous materials that have not yet been published in the Federal Register. This is one of 18 rules scheduled to be withdrawn Thursday by federal agencies.
Here are a few other rules that will be published in Thursday’s edition of the Federal Register:
Finance: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is delaying automated trading regulations.
The CFTC proposed new rules for automated trading in December 2015, and updated its proposal last November, but is now extending the comment period to give the public more time to consider the changes.
This delay appears to be of the CFTC’s own making, and is not related to Trump’s regulatory moratorium.
The public has until May 1 to comment.
Endangered: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is delaying new conservation regulations that would protect endangered species.
The conservation regulations address enhancement-of-survival permits. The rules were scheduled to go into effect on Thursday, but will be delayed until March 21 in response to Trump’s regulatory moratorium.
Investment: The Small Business Administration (SBA) is delaying new investments in small businesses.
The SBA issued a rule to “expand permitted investments in passive businesses” through the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program in December, but is now delaying the implementation to comply with the regulatory moratorium.
The rule will now go into effect on March 21.
http://thehill.com/regulation/316049-trump-delays-dozens-of-epa-regs
-
Trump EPA to 'Stand Down' for Now on Website Climate Data Removal Plans
Jan 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA is temporarily suspending its plans to remove the main climate change page from the agency's website, amid news reports that the page was slated to be removed Jan. 25, though the Office of General Counsel (OGC) has been tasked with reviewing the implications of removing some material, according to an agency source.
Members of the “beachhead team” -- temporary appointees from the new Trump administration -- “agreed to stand down” on their plans to remove the main climate change page on EPA's website, the source says.
The source had told Inside EPA late Jan. 24 that the page was slated to be removed as soon as Jan.25, adding to mounting concerns from climate scientists and advocates that the administration is preparing to ignore what they consider an urgent global issue. Reuters also reported the website removal plans late Jan. 24.
The agency source tells Inside EPA that OGC will conduct a review of the implications of removing the page, which includes high-profile links to the agency's 2016 Climate Indicators Report on climate impacts, fact sheets on the health impacts of climate change for vulnerable populations, and links to a comprehensive report on domestic climate health impacts showing “every American is vulnerable to the health impacts associated with climate change.” The page also links to external sources of information including climate data from NASA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
Inside EPA first reported plans to remove some climate information from the website Jan. 17, and also reported that the agency had begun to remove links and many references to voluntary climate programs put forth by the Obama administration, including the Climate Action Plan, oil and gas methane strategies and others.
Other sources had said the plans called for removing non-regulatory climate initiatives, which would have excluded items such as EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program or other climate regulations, including high-profile Obama EPA rules governing power plant and vehicle GHGs.
However, EPA's main climate change page includes references to the GHG reporting program and other regulatory initiatives under the heading of “What EPA is doing” to address the issue.
'Political Toy'
In a Jan. 25 statement reacting to news of the planned removal of climate information from the agency's website, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune says EPA's “public scientific information is vital to the health and safety of our communities, not a political toy for the fossil fuel industry hacks who have invaded the agency to play with. This purge by the Trump administration leads down an extremely dangerous and dark path, and must stop now.”
Sierra Club recently filed an expanded Freedom of Information Act request with EPA focused largely on climate change data -- and filed similar FOIA requests with the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Geological Survey -- in a bid to halt what is expected to be widespread scrubbing of federal climate data by the new Trump administration.
In addition to already removing some climate data from EPA's site, recent Trump administration arrivals at the agency have directed EPA to freeze grants and contracts; and imposed a gag order on EPA releasing information through its press office, blogs and social media.
In response to questions about the gag order, EPA's press office told Inside EPA, “The EPA fully intends to continue to provide information to the public. A fresh look at public affairs and communications processes is common practice for any new Administration, and a short pause in activities allows for this assessment.”
The Trump transition's “landing team” -- active during the transition period since the election -- has been largely disassembled and replaced by what is known as a “beachhead team” whose members went into departments beginning Jan. 20 under temporary 120-day appointments.
The landing team members were volunteers whose duties ended on Inauguration Day, and only three members joined the beachhead team. Landing team members' job was to work with EPA to develop an action plan in preparation for the new administration taking office, while the beachhead team is tasked with organizing and staffing EPA to implement the plan, which has yet to be released or reviewed by EPA Administrator nominee Scott Pruitt.
While the long term plans for the EPA climate site are not entirely clear, such a move would complicate access to recent EPA and other analyses of climate change implications, including explanations of major sources of GHGs and steps both the agency and private individuals can take in response to the issue.
For example, the main page includes a feature, “What are the impacts of climate change where I live?” which offers the ability to select regions of the country to learn about climate impacts.
Also on the front page are links to various other pages that take deeper dives on topics including reducing GHG emissions, adapting to global warming, the causes of climate change, the future of climate change, and “what you can do” in response to the problem.
“By taking action to reduce emissions that warm our planet, we can reduce the risks we will face from future climate change,” EPA says, for example. “EPA, businesses and individuals all have an important role to play.”
Other deeper dive topic links on the front page a full page on the climate indicators report -- complete with references to trends including wildfires at an “all-time high,” arctic sea ice at record lows, and migration of marine species northward.
Another linked page on climate science discusses “climate change fundamentals,” and it includes more links to topics such as future climate change impacts. “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to further climate changes,” says the future impacts page, including more acidic oceans, higher sea level sand “increased threats to human health.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-epa-stand-down-now-website-climate-data-removal-plans
-
Court Weighs Whether Cap and Trade is a Fee or a Tax — or 'Neither'
Jan 25, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Judges considering a challenge against California's landmark climate change laws asked pointed questions yesterday aimed at figuring out its status under the state's tax rules.
California businesses argued in the 3rd District Court of Appeal that the state lacks authority to conduct auctions of greenhouse gas permits as part of its economywide cap-and-trade program. The auctions have become a lucrative source of funding for the state, generating more than $4 billion so far for high-speed rail, affordable housing near transit and other programs linked to emissions reductions.
The three-judge panel yesterday peppered both industry and state attorneys with questions about whether the program meets the state's definition of a tax. If it does, it could fall afoul of a constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds vote to approve new taxes.
The case, filed in 2012, is not challenging the entire system. Rather, it is challenging the method by which California distributes its greenhouse gas permits. The California Chamber of Commerce and Morning Star Packing Co., a tomato processing company, have argued that the state-run quarterly auctions amount to an illegal tax under California laws.
The case could end up setting a precedent in terms of how California generates state revenues, by building on a prior case, Sinclair Paint v. Board of Equalization. That ruling found that mitigation fees for lead paint poisoning were not illegal taxes. The current case could either expand or narrow the scope of programs that qualify as taxes or fees. It could also create a new category of revenue-raising programs that are neither taxes nor fees and thus are not subject to a two-thirds vote under the terms of Proposition 13 or a later amendment, Proposition 26.
Associate Justice Elena Duarte asked attorneys whether the Sinclair test was the right one to apply: "How is it helpful, if what we're looking at is neither" a tax nor a fee?
Industry lawyers sought to narrow the judges' options. "Under case law, there's no other category," said James Parrinello, representing the California Chamber of Commerce. "There's nothing in between."
Parrinello also argued that the auctions are not necessary to the cap-and-trade program, but Duarte pushed back.
"Something not being necessary is not the same as not having the authority to do it," she said.
'The way we expected it to go'
The state, for its part, contended that industry was using a tax argument to avoid the cost of doing business in California.
"Petitioners do not oppose cap and trade," said state Justice Department attorney David Zonana. "They just want the emitters to have all the allowances for free."
Associate Justice Harry Hull also quizzed Zonana on whether the revenues were reasonably related to the costs of reducing emissions, as well as whether they were really limited to funding activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as the state has argued.
"High-speed rail, low-income housing, $500 million to the General Fund," he said. "Where does this end?"
Observers said the questions seemed to indicate the judges would uphold the auctions.
"I think the court is likely leaning in the favor of the state," said Rick Frank, director of the California Environmental Law & Policy Center at the University of California, Davis.
"It sure seems to me like this is leaning the way we expected it to go," said Andre Templeman, a principal at the consulting firm Alpha Inception LLC who advises businesses on their compliance plans.
An industry supporter said he expected the court to hew to the narrow tax-or-fee framework set out in Sinclair.
"I think this court is ultimately going to find it is constrained by Sinclair Paint," said James Burling, director of litigation for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented Morning Star. "The California Supreme Court could make something else, but not this court."
A decision is due out within 90 days. Regardless of the outcome, observers expect the losing side to petition the state Supreme Court. While the state's highest court hears just 4 percent of the cases that it receives, the case's high profile and potential for precedent could raise its chances of review.
"This is an atypical case," Frank said. "It might attract the Supreme Court."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/01/25/stories/1060048949
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested