Preview Newsletter

PM ACC 2/1/2017

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Weak U.S. Consumption Is Restraining U.S. Production
Feb 1, 2017 | The Street
By Roger Arnold

Stock quotes in this article: BITE Since the election of Donald Trump the majority of my columns have been dedicated to providing reference, or anchor points, about the structure of the U.S. economy, what they imply about current economic activity and potential...
(ACC Mentioned) Paper and Plastic Recycling Holding Steady
Feb 1, 2017 | American Recycler Newspaper
By Maura Keller

Here’s one thing we know: The paper and plastic recycling industries are in a constant state of flux. In a recent report by the American Forest and Paper Association, the U.S. paper recovery rate increased by 1.4 percentage points in 2015 to a record-high 66.8 percent.
Barrasso: ‘We’re Going to Move This Nomination Forward’
Feb 1, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen and Annie Snider

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso vowed to move Scott Pruitt’s nomination to be EPA administrator to the floor, despite Democrats’ successful boycott of today’s vote.

LCSA News

Will the EPA Continue Clamping Down on Asbestos Under Trump?
Feb 1, 2017 | Consumer Affairs
By Amy Martyn

Last June, Barack Obama signed an environmental bill into law that enjoyed rare bipartisan support from Congress. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named for the senator who had drafted the bill years earlier before dying in 2013...
How Trump's Regulatory Order Jeopardizes the Environment
Feb 1, 2017 | Environmental Leader

Framing it as a “prudent and financially responsible” measure, President Donald Trump Monday ordered federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation issued. Environmentalists warned the order will dismantle protections.

Chemical Management News

New York to Collect Data on Cleaning Product Ingredients
Feb 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell

Manufacturers distributing and selling household cleaning products in the state of New York will be required to disclose their ingredients, under a forgotten law from the 1970s.
Teflon Chemical Found in Fast-Food Wrappings
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith

That greasy burger you devour after a long day of work could be saturated with industrial chemicals.

Energy News

One of House GOP’s First Targets for Regulatory Rollback is Top on Oil Industry’s Wish List
Feb 1, 2017 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson

One of House Republicans’ first targets for regulatory rollback is torn from the oil industry’s wish list: eliminating recent Obama administration requirements that oil, gas and mining companies divulge more information about business payments they make to foreign governments.
Gorsuch Light on Energy Issues but 'Smart as Hell'
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer

A federal judge from Colorado is President Trump's pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Will EPA 'Repeal and Replace' Climate Regs, or Just Repeal?
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann

White House press secretary Sean Spicer declined to detail the timing yesterday of President Trump's potential efforts to revoke the Clean Power Plan, a cornerstone of the past administration's climate policies.
TVA President on the Future of Coal, Nuclear and Carbon Policy Under the Trump Administration
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E TV

With major changes expected in the electric power sector, and on energy and environment regulations under the Trump administration, how is the nation's largest publicly owned utility adjusting its outlook and operations for the dramatic changes that could be ahead?
Tax Reform Is on the Minds of US Oil Producers, Refiners
Feb 1, 2017 | Platts
By Meghan Gordon

The wave of fourth-quarter 2016 earnings calls is just getting started, but tax reform already seems to be the topic du jour for oil and gas companies.
Protest Camps Grow Slowly in West Texas
Feb 1, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn

Activists are still trickling in to the camps set up in West Texas to protest oil and gas developments.

Chemical Security News

The Private Sector is the Key to Success for the Department of Homeland Security
Feb 1, 2017 | CSO
By Brian Harrell

With the inauguration of our 45th President of the United States recently behind us, a new administration will be met with emerging and imminent threats to our homeland. As new leadership is appointed by the President and confirmed, the U.S. Department...

Transportation News

Dear Congress: Reform Regulatory Process, Spur Sustainable Infrastructure Investments
Feb 1, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Edward R. Hamberger

“There is no substitute for hard work,” American icon Thomas Edison famously said.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) House Science Panel Aims to Make EPA 'Great Again'
Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing next week on "Making the Environmental Protection Agency Great Again."
EPA Acting Administrator: Communication Pause 'Perfectly Normal'
Feb 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

Acting administrator of the US EPA, Catherine McCabe, has sought to reassure agency employees that the recent block of agency communications and freeze on regulations are “perfectly normal” during an administration transition.
Air: Texas Sues EPA over Revisions to Regional Haze Rule
Feb 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

Texas has filed the first of what could be several lawsuits from other states and utilities over EPA's revised regional haze rule, which the Obama EPA modified to ease compliance by states but also to boost involvement by federal land managers (FLMs)...

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Weak U.S. Consumption Is Restraining U.S. Production

Feb 1, 2017 | The Street

By Roger Arnold

Stock quotes in this article: BITE
Since the election of Donald Trump the majority of my columns have been dedicated to providing reference, or anchor points, about the structure of the U.S. economy, what they imply about current economic activity and potential, and how it relates to foreign economies, probable domestic public policies and the capital markets in general.
Even as U.S. equity markets, Treasury yields and economic confidence have surged in the last few months, along with expectations for continued strength offered by the FOMC in its December decision to raise rates, two alternative measures -- here and here -- of consumption and production are providing counter narratives.
On the consumption side, the Restaurant Performance Index for December, released yesterday by the National Restaurant Association, continues to show a deterioration in restaurant sales; a trend that began in early 2015.
The lack of growth in that segment has not been lost on investors either, as was evident in the Restaurant ETF (BITE) having been liquidated after only 15 months due to low interest.
I've never been a fan of the restaurant business from an investment standpoint, as I discussed in the column, "Restaurants Reflect Consumption Trends (Literally)," but restaurant sales are an excellent way of determining whether people are really confident about their personal financial prospects versus just stating such.
Putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak.
On the production side, the Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), is an excellent alternative to traditional industrial production measures. The American Chemistry Council released the January CAB last week showing an increasing trend.
However, just two days later the Council released the Chemical Production Regional Index (CPRI) showing that production had decreased from November to December and was down in every category and region in the U.S. by an aggregate 1.5% in 2016 from 2015.
What's most important to note about this is that it occurred even as oil prices rose strongly throughout the year and the increased Permian basin production buoyed chemical demand during that period. Without that the CAB and CPRI would have performed much worse.
What's even more important about the decline in the CPRI though is that it occurred during December's cold weather, which caused the Federal Reserve's Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization report, G.17, to surge by the most in 2 years.
Without the cold weather snap that caused utility production to increase that report, the CAB, and the CPRI, would have been worse.
The germane point for investors is that while capital market participants, consumers, and the FOMC, have been expressing increased expectations of accelerating growth, and the media has largely been inanely focused on the Trump administrations initial policy decisions, the real economy is continuing to stagnate.
The dichotomy between expectations and reality of the past few months also caused failed housing sales to spike at the end of last year because the surge in mortgage rates precluded sales from closing.
This is an issue I warned about as mortgage rates started climbing from last summer's lows and last addressed the importance of a month ago in the column, "There's No Pent-Up Housing Demand."
The totality of all of this validates, as I've been warning about for over a year, that production is constrained because consumption is constrained, and consumption is constrained because income and job growth is constrained, and most importantly that net demand is constrained because personal incomes are now fully collateralized to debt service.
The economic term for that is a vicious cycle.
If the dichotomy between expectations and reality continues the vicious cycle will metastasize further and negatively impact all sectors of the economy.
The way that plays out is that The way that plays out is that increases in the cost of capital can't be passed on to final consumers, which results in compression of capital costs vs. capital returns. Costs rise faster than revenue and earnings. Earnings decrease and cost cuts are implemented, which means job and income growth deteriorates further.
A more incipient issue in the current climate of a rising Fed funds rate, which will be particularly hard on the banks, is the inability to offset decreasing productive loan originations with increases in carry loans made to their largest corporate clients.
In fact, as is probable with the recent surge in corporate debt issuance, companies are in the process of paying down short-term rolling bank loans with longer dated maturities.
The natural corrective measure for this activity is either a forced increase in demand provided by fiscal policy, a reversal of monetary tightening or a reduction in economic activity, equities and bond yields.
http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/02/01/2017/weak-u.s.-consumption-restraining-u.s.-production

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Paper and Plastic Recycling Holding Steady

Feb 1, 2017 | American Recycler Newspaper

By Maura Keller

Here’s one thing we know: The paper and plastic recycling industries are in a constant state of flux. In a recent report by the American Forest and Paper Association, the U.S. paper recovery rate increased by 1.4 percentage points in 2015 to a record-high 66.8 percent.
The previous high point of 66.4 percent was recorded in 2011. However, plastic bottle recycling held nearly steady in 2015, with a slight decrease of 0.5 percent from 2014, according to figures released by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The 26th annual National Postconsumer Plastic Bottle Recycling Report indicates the overall recycling rate for plastic bottles for 2015 was 31.1 percent, down slightly from 31.7 percent the previous year.
In 2016, CalRecycle, also known as California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, began developing regulations to implement the tracking of recyclables in California. This new state law requires the Department to collect information from recycling and composting operations and facilities on the types and quantities of materials that are sold, transferred, disposed or exported. Once implemented, this program will dramatically improve CalRecycle’s ability to understand the movement of recyclable materials within and through California.
California’s initiative to monitor and track paper and plastic recycling trends in not an anomaly. Based on surveys performed by CalRecycle, at least 39 other states plus the District of Columbia currently require some level of reporting information on recycling in their state or jurisdiction. Each state manages their system differently. Some states, such as Oregon, have mandatory reporting requirements from municipalities, facilities, businesses, and haulers that handle post-consumer recyclables. Other states, such as South Dakota, rely on voluntary surveys from businesses and municipalities. States have also adopted mixtures of mandatory and voluntary reporting requirements.
According to Ted Davis, vice president, Federal Equipment Company, heavily populated areas seem to have higher recycling rates. In these areas, higher populations contribute to better recycling efforts and more efficient collection practices.
“Our main focus in the recycling industry is the plastics segment,” Davis said. “The sorting of plastics materials is typically done at some intermediary facility where materials are sorted by the type of plastics, like PE, PP, PET, etc.”
Within the plastics segment, Martin Vogt, owner and president of Environmentally Friendly Solutions Plastics, a joint venture of Inteplast Group, a manufacturer of plastics, said the recycling rate of plastics was up until mid-2016.
“Low prime resin pricing is definitely putting a strangle on this industry,” Vogt said. “The rate of recycling depends on the policies and system in place and varies throughout the country but pricing and margins are very low. And finding new end markets are very difficult since manufacturers don’t see such a big price advantage anymore and show low interest in using PCR resins.”
The APR suggested that following 25 consecutive years of growth, several factors contributed to the recent plateau in plastics recycling, including a drop in material collected available for recycling, reduced exports and increased contamination of recyclables. In addition, use of plastic bottles in packaging applications continued to expand but was offset by lightweighting and increased use of concentrates with smaller, lighter bottles.
Samantha Longshore, sustainability advisor at Transwestern, said the East and West coasts of U.S. tend to have the highest recycling rates, which we can attribute to well established infrastructure and subsequently, better recycling habits of occupants within their buildings.
“We have seen a trend in certain areas of an increase in the types of plastics accepted for recycling,” Longshore said. “Numbered plastics and their varying ability to be recycled can serve as a hurdle in ensuring high recycling rates. As municipalities begin accepting more plastic types, this could eliminate some of the confusion and encourage greater recycling of plastics.”
In the world of paper recycling, the trend also is heading in the right direction. According to Paul Kaufmann, founder of Shred Spot in Northbrook, Illinois, it is easier to recycle paper and pricing is on an upswing.
“The top of the upswing is at $170 per ton in our area. In 2011, the sorted office paper (SOP) went as high as $290 per ton, but dropped quickly and has mostly been in the $120 to $150 ton range,” Kaufmann aid. “The market for our paper is doing pretty well as we don’t have an issue finding a mill to buy it. On the occasion that we take in plastic, that is more difficult. Baled stretch wrap is not too bad but baled hard plastic is very difficult for us to sell, especially in smaller quantities.”
So has single stream recycling helped or hurt the paper and plastic recycling industry segments? From Davis’ perspective, single stream recycling has certainly helped increase quality of the end recycled materials as well as helped reduce the cost to recycling materials as the material now arrives at the plastic recycler’s facility.
“This reduces handling and labor costs tremendously,” Davis said. “While paper is often collected and comingled with certain plastics recycling material feed streams, by the time the materials to be recycled have reached our customers, most have already been sorted.”
Longshore stressed that allowing sorting to occur off site and taking the responsibility away from the consumer is one less roadblock. “Food waste is likely to contaminate some of these materials,” Longshore said. “I believe there’s a form of offset experienced from ensuring that recyclable materials are sorted at recycling facilities rather than placed directly into a trash-specific container without the chance for recycling.”
On the other hand, Vogt said single stream has hurt processors, since the material is more contaminated.
“Glass and paper – especially on wet days and in the winter – are a big problem for reprocessors,” Vogt said. “Glass is a problem because it is very abrasive. Wet or even frozen paper cannot be sorted and add a lot of contamination to the plastic stream, especially the mixed plastics and film stream.”
Jafer Patterson, executive vice president at Junk King Franchise Systems, said that single stream recycling has made the idea of recycling easier for consumers, however single stream recycling can have a negative effect on the recycling process.
“Due to the convenience of being able to dispose of all recyclable items in the same bin and then putting the bin on the street, consumers turn a blind eye to process,” Patterson said. “What they don’t realize is that when all recyclable items are housed in the same bin the items can be become contaminated due to the different degrees of recycling products. By recycling this way there is also an increased amount of more broken glass which becomes contaminated and a contaminate. When this happens, there is more of a chance the items will be downcycled instead of truly recycled. This results in a lesser quality item being reproduced from the recycled products.”
There are a myriad of things that can be done on the part of recycling companies and municipalities to increase recycling in the paper and plastic segments. For instance, municipalities can easily implement a pre-sorting effort on the part of the consumer by providing more collection sites with clearly labeled bins where the consumer can drop there discarded recyclable items in the appropriate place.
“This will increase quality as well as reduce costs for the recycling companies,” Davis said. “The better the recycling companies thrive should mean the use of more recycled materials being used and reused over and over again.”
Vogt stressed that municipalities need to commit to processors with supply. “Plastic recycling can be done in an energy efficient way, but it will only work if municipalities start to work more closely with the industry, by providing guaranteed good quality supply,” Vogt said. “They need to pay more attention to the quality of the processor and the actual recycling rates and not just the price. Also, with such low resin pricing, brand owners and manufacturers need to commit to use recycled resins. We need to learn to understand that the cost of not recycling is much higher than just the cost for landfilling our waste.”
Davis believes that as the technology of recycling evolves and awareness of recycling everyday products grows, that the paper and plastics recycling markets will realize not only a steady growth but also an increased demand for recycled materials.
“I think plastic recycling is needed more than ever, especially with more and more packaging being converted to plastic,” Vogt said. “We can’t keep throwing it out, filling up landfills and contaminating our oceans. Plastic recycling makes sense. It saves energy and protects our country and environment. People must really begin to understand this.”
Industry experts agreed that increasing the number of paper and plastic types accepted for recycling could increase rates. “Recycling companies and municipalities that provide properties with well-labeled waste containers and signage could also help, but, unfortunately, even an instructional poster can be ignored,” Longshore said. “Education and habit-building are ultimately key. With knowledge, recycling can become second nature.”
Kaufmann agreed. “The one thing that I know will help is making it clear to consumers what the actual benefits are from the recycling,” Kaufmann said. “People are always surprised when I tell them how many trees are saved by our recycling of paper –17 trees per ton of paper. So a single truckload of baled paper sent to the mill – 42,000 to 45,000 lbs. – saves about 375 trees.”
“While the paperless society is a myth, we are a lesser paper society,” Kaufmann said. “While that may decrease the amount of paper available to recycle, the fact that identity theft and theft of important information is an ever-growing problem means that we will be recycling a greater percentage of paper, so the industry will not go away. I believe the paper shredding industry will change as the total amount of paper may decrease and there will be a continued migration from on-site shredding trucks to more efficient plant-based shredding.”
http://americanrecycler.com/8568759/index.php/news/plastics-recycling/2096-paper-and-plastic-recycling-holding-steady

Return to headline | Return to top
Barrasso: ‘We’re Going to Move This Nomination Forward’

Feb 1, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Alex Guillen and Annie Snider

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso vowed to move Scott Pruitt’s nomination to be EPA administrator to the floor, despite Democrats’ successful boycott of today’s vote.
“We’re going to make sure that Scott Pruitt is moved from the committee to the floor and he’ll go ahead and get confirmed,” the Wyoming Republican told reporters after the committee meeting.
But Barrasso stopped short of describing precisely how that will happen. Republicans were hampered from taking action today in part because of the absence of Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose own nomination to be attorney general was approved by the Judiciary Committee this morning.
Another EPW member, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), hinted that Republicans could interpret the rules to allow action without regardless of Democrats’ actions.
“The rules are very clear and they allow for the movement to the floor, the way that I read them right now, and my expectation is that once we have a full Republican side of the committee we’ll be able to do that,” he told reporters.
Barrasso downplayed comparisons to 2013, when he and other Republicans similarly boycotted Gina McCarthy’s nomination.
“That was not a new president, newly elected,” he said. “A newly elected president, I believe, has a right to their cabinet and that’s what I’m comparing.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Will the EPA Continue Clamping Down on Asbestos Under Trump?

Feb 1, 2017 | Consumer Affairs

By Amy Martyn

Last June, Barack Obama signed an environmental bill into law that enjoyed rare bipartisan support from Congress. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named for the senator who had drafted the bill years earlier before dying in 2013, was celebrated by some environmentalists, EPA officials, and Obama as the first real chemical safety reform the United States had seen in decades.
Previously, all chemicals in commerce in the United States were regulated under the Toxic Control Substances Act of 1976, a law that environmental groups like the National Resources Defense Council said was deeply flawed and ineffective. The original TCSA law grandfathered in an estimated 80,000 chemicals without safety testing, allowing companies to sell products containing chemicals for which little data was available.
The Lautenberg act, an amendment meant to reform the TSCA, was supposed to give regulators the power to demand safety reviews for commonly-used chemicals and require safety testing for new chemicals before they enter the market. Change, as always, would happen incrementally.
“Under the new law, we now have the power to require safety reviews of all chemicals in the marketplace," Jim Jones, assistant administrator of the of Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a press release following the bill's passage.
Asbestos from Montana mine brings new questions
In late November, EPA officials announced ten chemicals that they would evaluate under the new law. "If it is determined that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, EPA must mitigate that risk within two years," the EPA explained at the time. Included in that list was asbestos, which the agency has already acknowledged causes lung disease. The EPA had tried to implement a ban on many asbestos-containing products in 1989, but a federal court overturned the regulations.
About a decade later, residents in the town of Libby, Montana discovered that a W.R. Grace and Co. vermiculite mine just outside town had spread asbestos dust throughout the region. As many as 400 people died as a result, officials estimated. EPA officials from Region 8 spent the next 18 years overseeing the cleanup of a reported 2,000 properties nearby, as well as the mine itself.
The local clean-up was coming to a close shortly before Trump took office.
A warning for other homeowners?
Millions of homes and businesses across the country are likely still insulated with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from Libby, according to the Billings Gazette. But while the EPA implemented a local clean-up, the agency would not commit to informing the millions of other property owners across the country about the risks they faced, the local paper recently reported.
“It’s too early to say what the result will be and what action EPA will take. TSCA requires these chemical risk evaluations be completed within three years,” the paper quoted an EPA spokesperson as saying. The spokesman's comments, made shortly before Trump implemented what has been described as a "gag order" on EPA officials, drew criticism from public health advocates, who accused the agency of dragging its feet.
With gag order, state of chemical safety is unclear
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Donald Trump has claimed in interviews that asbestos is "100 percent safe, once applied." Trump was also sued by undocumented Polish immigrant workers in the late 90s who said they were exposed to asbestos during the construction of Trump Tower.
What Trump's pro-asbestos, anti-EPA attitude means for the fate of asbestos regulations under the EPA remains unclear. News outlets reported last week that employees at some federal agencies, including the EPA, were instructed to cease sending news releases or social media updates to the public. A memo sent to the EPA, obtained by the Washington Post, said that "a digital strategist will be coming on board" to screen the EPA's comments, adding that, “Incoming media requests will [be] carefully screened.”
Asked about the asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana, and whether the EPA will warn other affected homeowners about the contaminated insulation, an EPA spokesman responded to ConsumerAffairs with a brief email: "Checking," is all it said.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/will-the-epa-continue-clamping-down-on-asbestos-under-trump-020117.html

Return to headline | Return to top
How Trump's Regulatory Order Jeopardizes the Environment

Feb 1, 2017 | Environmental Leader

Framing it as a “prudent and financially responsible” measure, President Donald Trump Monday ordered federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation issued. Environmentalists warned the order will dismantle protections.
The executive order states a Regulatory Cap for Fiscal Year 2017 of zero. “…the heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.”
Congressman Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Trump’s pick to head the Office of Management and Budget, has yet to be confirmed.
The executive order is aimed at cutting federal regulations, one of Trump’s top campaign promises.
Trump met with small business owners at the White House before signing the order. He said, “We want to make … life easier for small businesses.” Trump said it would also help large businesses.
“The public will feel the impacts of this harmful EO right away,” warned Robert Weissman, president of the nonprofit Public Citizen.
“Upcoming regulations to update lead safety standards in drinking water, prohibit payday lenders from preying on consumers with unconscionable interest rates and remove unsafe chemicals from the marketplace under the new Toxic Substances Control Act are just a few of the vital new measures that will be shelved,” said Weissman, “until corporate special interests identify public protections for the Trump administration to repeal.”
Environmental groups lost no time in taking aim at the new requirement, which they said will dismantle environmental protections.
“This new policy is as dumb as it gets,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, which plans to fight the order.
“How does this one-step-forward-two-steps-back order work? Suckling demanded. “So you’ll protect my drinking water but only in exchange for allowing oil drilling in national parks and more lead in my paint?”
It would be the same for rules protecting people, air and water from pollution or pesticides, Suckling said. “Agencies entrusted with protecting people, animals, public lands and natural resources will be unable to carry out their duties.”
“Trump is again demonstrating that he has no interest in governing this nation for the benefit of its people or to protect our environment,” said Suckling. “Instead, he’s fixated on realizing the fantasies of the most unhinged, right-wing extremists and profiteers who view government protections as nothing more to an impediment to their profits.”
Starting in 2018, the executive order calls on the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget to give each agency a budget for how much it can increase regulatory costs or cut regulatory costs.
In response, Richard Revesz, director of the non-partisan think tank Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, called the “one in, two out” policy “a deeply flawed and irrational approach to regulation.”
“Judging a regulation based solely on its costs, without considering benefits, is illogical. Yet the order makes no mention of accounting for a regulation’s benefits, which are often carefully quantified by the issuing agency,” said Revesz.
“The executive order’s separate requirement that all regulations’ costs in a given fiscal year must sum to zero, regardless of their benefits, is similarly arbitrary and dangerous,” he said.
The wording of this executive order could cause confusion and chaos, he said.
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus sent a memo to agency heads on Inauguration Day, January 20, advising them not to issue any more regulations.
But it is unclear how the one-for-two executive order applies to new rules that federal agencies are legally required to issue, or how it will treat deregulatory actions.
It is also unclear how the order asks agencies to weigh costs, said Revesz, adding, “Some new regulations, such as energy efficiency rules, are projected to generate cost savings for consumers.”
Since the Reagan administration, presidents of both political parties have worked to improve the quality of federal regulatory decisionmaking. In particular, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has promoted what Revesz called “sophisticated analytical methods” to ensure that regulations are properly vetted and that they will move forward only if their benefits to society justify their compliance costs.
“Regulations help improve the quality of life for Americans: they ensure food safety, protect clean water, and make airplanes and cars safer. Making regulations more efficient and less costly is a worthy goal, but this executive order will not help achieve it. Instead, this order will likely hurt the American public and hinder the functioning of the government.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, CSPI, is a nonprofit health advocacy group based in Washington, DC, that focuses on nutrition and food safety policies.
Executive Director Michael Jacobson criticized the executive order as “arbitrary” and warned that it “threatens public health.”
“This executive order springs from a cartoonish and unsophisticated view of the regulations that keep our air clean, our water potable, our food safe, our planes from crashing, and so on,” said Jacobson, “and ignores the public health benefits of those rules.”
President Trump said that the order is aimed at “cutting regulations massively for small business.” He said it will be the “biggest such act that our country has ever seen.”
The order will not apply to “regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States.”
http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-trumps-regulatory-order-jeopardizes-environment

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

New York to Collect Data on Cleaning Product Ingredients

Feb 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Tammy Lovell

Manufacturers distributing and selling household cleaning products in the state of New York will be required to disclose their ingredients, under a forgotten law from the 1970s.
Under the Environmental Conservation Law - which passed in 1970 - the state exercises "the exclusive right to regulate and control the labelling and ingredients of household cleansing products distributed, sold, offered, or exposed for sale in this state".
However, the law was forgotten and unenforced by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) until 2008, when non-profit environmental law organisation, Earthjustice, came across it and brought it to the attention of the DEC and companies in the sector.
New York State governor, Andrew Cuomo, has now said that he will “exercise existing, under utilised authority” under the law to make information about cleaning products available to the public. The governor made the announcement in his 2017 State of the State book, which outlines his objectives for the year.
Under Governor Cuomo's plans, the DEC and state coalition, the Interstate Chemical Clearinghouse (IC2), will maintain a central product database listing product ingredients.
The State of the State book says: “The information will be readily searchable by the public and will employ the unmistakable identifiers of the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry. Manufacturers must identify chemicals of concern and disclose impurities in their products, as well as content by weight in ranges.”
Exact details of what companies will be required to disclose have yet to be released.
Years of work
The NGO Clean & Healthy New York (CHNY) said, in a press release, that the move was “a culmination of years of work”.
Deborah Goldberg of Earthjustice told Chemical Watch: “It was clear that nobody was aware of the law and it wasn’t being implemented, so we sent letters to all of the major cleaning product manufacturers reminding them of their disclosure obligations and asking them to submit their reports within 30 days."
Earthjustice and a coalition of NGOs, including CHNY, also asked the DEC to enforce the law.
Although some companies disclosed their ingredients following Earthjustice's request, four companies refused to take action unless the DEC created a form they could use for disclosure.
As a result, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the four companies, Procter & Gamble, Colgate Palmolive, Church and Dwight and Reckitt Benckiser, which was dismissed for technical reasons.
In 2009, the DEC said it would move forward with proposals to produce a form which companies could use to disclose their ingredients and Earthjustice decided not to pursue a further law suit.
Since then, the law organisation and NGOs have been waiting for the DEC to produce the form. This has now been finalised but details on what it includes have not been released.
Potential expansion
overnor Cuomo has said that the ingredient disclosure approach will serve as a pilot for potential expansion to other consumer products of concern, such as personal care and children’s products.
It will evaluate factors such as “ease of consumer use, consumer education regarding chemicals and health risks, and manufacturer compliance and enforcement”, according to the State of the State book.
CHNY deputy director, Bobbi Wilding, told Chemical Watch they were “excited to see that they’re looking at this as a potential project for other types of disclosure that the state might require other companies to make”.
Brian Sansoni of the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) said they were awaiting specific details on the proposal, before making detailed comments.
“There’s plenty of information already available, which companies provide on product labels or really in-depth on brand and company websites," he said.
The ACI, along with the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), say they are preparing for a battle this year over ingredient disclosure in cleaning products. Both expect increased discussion on the topic, which has been the subject of federal and state legislation in the past.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52431/new-york-to-collect-data-on-cleaning-product-ingredients

Return to headline | Return to top
Teflon Chemical Found in Fast-Food Wrappings

Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

By Gabriel Dunsmith

That greasy burger you devour after a long day of work could be saturated with industrial chemicals.
Many fast-food wrapping materials contain potentially toxic perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs, that easily seep from the paper and enter the human body, a new report shows. Fast-food chains use PFCs to keep grease from permeating wrappers, bags and boxes.
Some samples even contained C8, also known as perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, despite it being phased out in U.S. production at the end of 2015. Formerly used to make Teflon, PFOA is linked to thyroid disease, high cholesterol, liver damage, and kidney and testicular cancers.
Of over 300 wrapping materials tested in a joint academic and government study, 40 percent contained fluorine, a PFC indicator.
"We're going to be petitioning [the Food and Drug Administration] to ... ban all perfluorinated chemicals from food contact paper," said Bill Walker, managing editor for the Environmental Working Group, the nonprofit that published the report.
FDA has greenlighted 20 PFCs for specific use in food-grade paper and paperboard.
"We still don't know very much about the toxicity of these compounds, but what we do know ... raise[s] incredible concerns," said Dave Andrews, EWG senior scientist.
Andrews added that PFCs do not break down in the environment.
FDA, however, countered that it "has carefully reviewed the available science on short-chain perfluorinated compounds and has not identified safety concerns about the use of these compounds."
The agency did say that long-chain PFCs pose a risk to public health. It barred long-chain versions of the compounds from food packaging last year (Greenwire, Jan. 5, 2016).
But EWG countered that short-chain PFCs exhibit incredibly similar chemical structures to their long-chain cousins.
"[M]anufacturers lack evidence that [short-chain PFCs] are really much, if at all, safer" than the versions FDA targeted, its report says.
A 'grand experiment'
Jimmy John's Franchise LLC, Quiznos of QIP Holder LLC and Taco Time were the study's worst offenders, with 100 percent of their wrapping items testing positive for fluorine. Several franchises showed no fluorine but had relatively small sample sizes.
Burger King Corp. and McDonald's Corp. pledged to cease using PFCs in 2002, but 27 percent and 19 percent of their items, respectively, tested positive for fluorine.
EWG noted that many companies may not be aware of the chemicals their suppliers are using, and that PFOA in particular may have been inadvertently spread via contamination during manufacturing processes. The compound has become notorious: Earlier this year, a jury ordered chemical giant DuPont to dole out $10.5 million to a man who alleged his testicular cancer was caused by PFOA (Greenwire, Jan. 6). It is also a widespread contaminant at military bases across the country (Greenwire, Jan. 31).
EWG urged fast-food companies to tighten control over their supply chain.
"PFC-free paper is readily available, as shown by the fact that the tests detected no fluorine in more than half of the paper samples," the report reads.
"Consumers ... are demanding transparency over what's in the food that they eat, and that includes what's in the wrappings," Walker said. "At the end of the day, this is just one more example of the fact that we are conducting this grand experiment on the American population, exposing them to all kinds of chemicals known and unknown."
In an emailed statement, FDA said that "fluorine in food packaging may be from FDA approved uses of short-chain perfluorinated coatings applied to the packaging or may be from environmental sources."
The National Restaurant Association did not respond to a request for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/01/stories/1060049363

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

One of House GOP’s First Targets for Regulatory Rollback is Top on Oil Industry’s Wish List

Feb 1, 2017 | Washington Post

By Steven Mufson

One of House Republicans’ first targets for regulatory rollback is torn from the oil industry’s wish list: eliminating recent Obama administration requirements that oil, gas and mining companies divulge more information about business payments they make to foreign governments.
A House resolution this week, which aims to scrap the transparency rule imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, is one of the first measures that seeks to use the Congressional Review Act to undo regulations adopted during the final months of the Obama administration.
And it comes at a potentially awkward moment for former ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, who opposed the SEC regulation and is now awaiting confirmation for the position of secretary of state.
The review act could be used to nullify regulations dating back to June last year, experts on the law say.
In this case, the SEC drafted the regulation in response to directions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. The directive was in an amendment backed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and then-Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). “Information is power,” Lugar said at the time. “It is power for shareholders and power for citizens living under oppressive regimes.”
The SEC says that it would “combat government corruption through greater transparency and accountability.”
But the SEC’s first version of the regulation was struck down by a federal district court in the District of Columbia after the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit in 2012. That prompted a second attempt by the SEC. Because the final version was imposed near the end of the Obama administration, it now falls within the time frame that permits Congress and the president to use the review act to undo the regulation.
The oil industry has been particularly incensed about the regulation, complaining that the SEC rule would put them at a competitive disadvantage to foreign firms and be unduly expensive.
The SEC has argued that the rule would help fight corruption not only by companies but by governments around the world. It has also noted that global companies have begun to provide, on a voluntary basis, more comprehensive disclosures. In December 2015, then-commission member Luis A. Aguilar said that at least two large resource extraction companies were already providing payment disclosure on a project basis, and at least one other major resource extraction company was voluntarily providing other disclosures.
“Other global companies are also beginning to open their books to permit a window into their resource extraction payments to foreign governments,” he said.
But Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in an interview that big oil and gas companies compete with state-owned companies that do not have disclosure requirements and that the SEC rule would allow those companies to win contracts after seeing what U.S. firms pay.
“We think it’s a regulation that would have an unintended consequence of hurting U.S. business’s ability to compete,” he said. He said the SEC’s requirement that information be provided on a project basis was particularly objectionable.
He also cited the SEC’s own estimates of the cost the regulation would impose on oil, gas and mining companies. Gerard said compliance would cost between $96 million and $591 million annually for the entire industry. On an individual corporate basis, that would work out to $225,000 to $1.4 million a year, Gerard said.
ExxonMobil spokesman William F. Holbrook said “the SEC largely ignored industry’s comments and published a notice of a final rule that remains based on the [European Union’s] model and likely will adversely affect the ability of publicly traded companies to compete globally.”
Other groups disagree. “Rolling back this law will enable the corruption President Trump told us all he would end,” said Corinna Gilfillan, head of the U.S. office of Global Witness, an advocacy group that targets environmental and human rights abuses. “The oil industry has been striking backroom deals with dictators and tyrants for decades, wrecking developing economies and the environment in the process.”
She added that “this law helps prevent it by making sure people can see how much money is changing hands for their resources, and who is really benefiting from those deals.”
The House resolution was introduced by Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.). The House might take it up as early as Wednesday or later in the week.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/one-of-house-gops-first-targets-for-regulatory-rollback-is-tops-on-the-oil-industrys-wish-list/?utm_term=.11b32004b3f7

Return to headline | Return to top
Gorsuch Light on Energy Issues but 'Smart as Hell'

Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Energywire

By Ellen M. Gilmer

A federal judge from Colorado is President Trump's pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Following a suspenseful buildup to last night's announcement, Trump chose Judge Neil Gorsuch from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as his nominee for the open seat on the high court.
Gorsuch's record on energy and environmental issues is light, but experts have described the Colorado native as well-qualified and traditionally conservative — a logical successor to conservative icon Scalia.
"The court is going to largely seem to stay for now in the same position it was in when Scalia was alive," Dorsey & Whitney attorney Jim Rubin said. "The opinions may be less colorful or not, but the votes will probably still be very similar."
BakerHostetler attorney Mark Barron, who practices in the 10th Circuit, praised him as having Scalia's brand of "intellectual firepower."
"I think, regardless of one's political perspective, that Gorsuch is generally considered to have extraordinary intellectual firepower — quite similar to Scalia in the sense that, even those that disagree with him strenuously think he is smart as hell," Barron said.
In remarks following Trump's announcement, Gorsuch highlighted his commitment to impartiality, independence and collegiality on the bench.
"It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives," he said. "A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands."
Road to the Supreme Court
A 49-year-old Coloradan who enjoys skiing and fly-fishing, Gorsuch also comes with the East Coast Ivy League pedigree typical of Supreme Court justices. He has a bachelor's degree from Columbia University, a law degree from Harvard University and a doctoral degree from Oxford University. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, led U.S. EPA for two years during the Reagan administration.
He clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Anthony Kennedy and the late Byron White, before heading into private practice and briefly serving as principal deputy associate attorney general in the Justice Department.
Rubin, who worked with Gorsuch at the Justice Department, said the young lawyer was well-received by the Environment and Natural Resources Division, which the associate's office oversees.
"He was obviously a very bright and open guy," Rubin said. "He did not have a large degree of environmental background. ... He was interested and willing to work with the division, and he didn't have any preconceived notions."
President George W. Bush appointed him to the 10th Circuit in 2006. Then-Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who went on to serve as Interior secretary under President Obama, introduced Gorsuch for his Senate confirmation hearing, praising him as "very intelligent, thoughtful and appreciative of the great honor it is to be nominated to the Federal bench."
Responding to questions from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) during his hearing, Gorsuch adeptly avoided committing to a particular legal philosophy.
"But if I were to be confirmed, senator, I resist pigeonholes," he said. "I think those are not terribly helpful, pigeonholing someone as having this philosophy or that philosophy. They often surprise you. People do unexpected things and pigeonholes ignore gray areas in the law, of which there are a great many."
He pledged, however, to not be swayed by "personal politics, policy preferences, or what you ate for breakfast."
Big-picture issues
Gorsuch's personal legal style has nevertheless taken shape during his years on the 10th Circuit.
When it comes to agency regulations, Gorsuch is most notable for his extreme distaste for Chevron deference, a legal doctrine under which judges typically defer to an agency's judgment when it is interpreting ambiguous law.
Though deference is not strictly an environmental issue, it crops up frequently in litigation surrounding technical rules from U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and other agencies. Gorsuch has criticized the doctrine in lectures and opinions from the bench.
In a detailed concurring opinion dealing with immigration issues in August, Gorsuch assailed Chevron deference as "more than a little difficult to square" with the Founding Fathers' intentions (Greenwire, Aug. 24, 2016). And in a 2011 dissent in a case related to mining worker safety, Gorsuch expressed frustration with what he considered overly powerful executive agencies.
"Administrative agencies enjoy remarkable powers in our legal order," he wrote in Compass Environmental v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "Their interpretations of ambiguous statutes control even when most everyone thinks Congress really meant something else. Their regulations bind as long as they can make the modest boast that they haven't behaved arbitrarily or capriciously. Their factual findings rule the day unless someone can show they have not just erred but clearly erred."
UCLA School of Law professor Ann Carlson wrote in a blog post last night that Gorsuch's position, if other justices adopt it, would make environmental protection more difficult.
"The big fear many observers have if Chevron is overturned is that it would make agency rule making even more difficult, more uncertain and more vulnerable to legal challenge," she wrote. "That would be bad news for environmental protection."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, flagged Gorsuch's Chevron view as an example of general skepticism about agency expertise.
"What it signals is just that deeper sort of skepticism [of agencies] and the willingness to accept the industry arguments," Hartl said. "His track record is a little limited, but I think it's likely that he'll follow that pattern, and obviously that's not good for us."
A move away from Chevron deference on the Supreme Court could create serious uncertainty not just for environmental rules but for any federal regulations.
In litigation over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, for example, the question of whether Obama's EPA is entitled to wide deference or should be subject to a stricter standard on its interpretation of the Clean Air Act could prove critical if the case reaches the Supreme Court — still a possibility given the long lead time needed for the Trump administration to rescind the climate rule.
CBD attorney Bill Snape said Gorsuch's position could reach even further, noting that it could "place a big question mark about whether he'll accept, let's say, EPA's determination of global warming science."
Rubin added that moving away from the doctrine is a "double-edged sword" that could also disfavor Republicans on regulations they push forward.
Another broad issue that could sway environmental litigation is Gorsuch's view of standing, a legal bar for bringing a lawsuit that requires plaintiffs to show, among other things, that they have been injured by the action they are challenging. A restrictive view on standing can be particularly harmful for environmental groups, who sometimes allege harms others consider abstract or indirect.
Energy and environmental issues
On specific energy and environmental issues, Gorsuch's record is less developed.
Seated on the 10th Circuit, he has seen far fewer environmental cases than judges on, say, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which churned out Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Obama's pick for Scalia's seat, Judge Merrick Garland. The D.C. Circuit handles most major Clean Air Act lawsuits.
If confirmed, Gorsuch will be the first Supreme Court justice to come from the ranks of the 10th Circuit. At the Denver-based appellate court, he's seen several cases dealing with energy, public lands and tribal matters, though he has not written any blockbuster opinions on those issues.
Gorsuch was the lone dissenting voice in a panel decision to reverse a lower court's refusal to allow CBD and two other groups to participate in a lawsuit related to off-highway vehicle use in New Mexico's Santa Fe National Forest. Gorsuch argued that the environmental groups should not be allowed to intervene in the case because their interests were already adequately represented by government agencies.
On the flip side, Gorsuch in 2015 rejected a challenge from the conservative Energy & Environment Legal Institute to Colorado’s renewable energy standard.
In a 2011 opinion, he rejected a challenge to a U.S. Forest Service decision to charge a fee for recreation at Colorado's Mount Evans. In a 2010 decision, he joined a panel of judges in upholding an Interior Department decision to allow coal mining plans to move forward in eastern Utah's Lila Canyon.
Gorsuch also wrote the majority opinion in a 2010 en banc decision vacating an EPA determination that a mining parcel in New Mexico qualified as "Indian land" and required a Safe Drinking Water Act permit from EPA. And in 2009, he rejected a mining company's challenge to a government order that the company pay black lung benefits to a longtime employee.
He also waded into several disputes involving energy companies. In a 2011 opinion, he revived a challenge to an Oklahoma rural electric cooperative's alleged monopolization of electricity services. He also authored a 2008 opinion finding that a mining company could not invoke force majeure for a labor dispute that allegedly prevented the company from delivering agreed-upon volumes of coal to an electric utility.
Though not matching the famously caustic style of Scalia's writing, Gorsuch's opinions are generally snappy, conversational and at times stinging.
Rubin, the Dorsey & Whitney attorney, noted that while environmental groups are ready to seize on any Trump nominee for the Supreme Court, Gorsuch's record does not demonstrate an anti-environment slant.
"I think environmental groups who are challenging him are doing it because of the fear that he's going to have a very strict view on environmental regulation," he said. "That might be true, but I don't think he's shown himself to be an enemy of the environment, I think he's just shown to be a fairly conservative jurist, and that'll cover any regulation."
Hartl said he believes the bar has simply been moved so low that any "not nuts" nominee seems like a solid choice.
"I feel like we live in this Superman-Bizarro World now where any time Trump appoints someone who's not clinically insane, there's an instinct to go, 'Wow, this guy is not nuts. Kudos, President Trump, for not appointing a lunatic,'" he said. "I guess I feel a small amount of comfort, but that's a testament to the times we live in."
Confirmation battle
Critics of the Trump administration have already geared up for a fight. Environmentalists are among a growing number of liberal groups calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster the nomination.
"Democrats must stand with the majority in the streets who see that Donald Trump and his enablers are running roughshod over our Constitution and threatening our Democracy," Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said in a statement. "Senate Democrats are one of the last remaining checks on Trump's power and they should not let him make a lifetime Supreme Court appointment."
Conservatives have panned the approach as obstructionist.
"This is the type of partisan politics the American people just rejected in November," Judicial Crisis Network chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a statement. "Our campaign will be holding the Senate Democrats up in 2018 accountable for their choice whether to lock arms with Chuck Schumer in his plan to block a nominee for four to eight years, or to represent their constituents who voted for President Trump and want to see his nominee get a fair shake."
Senate Republicans held up the nomination of Garland, President Obama's pick for Scalia's seat, for more than six months before the November election.
The Judicial Crisis Network, a coalition of right-wing groups, last night launched the first phase of a $10 million effort to support Gorsuch, with plans to air television ads in Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana and Washington, D.C.
Liberal organizing group CREDO Action, meanwhile, promised "the full wrath of their constituents" for Senate Democrats that don't work to block the confirmation process.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/01/stories/1060049344

Return to headline | Return to top
Will EPA 'Repeal and Replace' Climate Regs, or Just Repeal?

Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

By Evan Lehmann

White House press secretary Sean Spicer declined to detail the timing yesterday of President Trump's potential efforts to revoke the Clean Power Plan, a cornerstone of the past administration's climate policies.
That comes as Republican sources point to an uncertain timeline about addressing the controversial Obama-era rule, which calls for cutting greenhouse gases 32 percent at power plants by 2030. Trump promised to rescind it on the campaign trail.
Spicer also sidestepped a question about whether the administration might target U.S. EPA's endangerment finding, the legal foundation for most regulations aimed at cutting carbon dioxide. The agency used the finding to justify the Clean Power Plan.
"I think the president's been very clear with respect to energy policy, that he wants to review all of the options that we have to use our natural resources to better the country in terms of wind power, solar, clean coal," he said. "We're in the process of reviewing all of our energy policies."
Environmental advocates braced themselves at the time of Trump's inauguration 12 days ago for sudden rollbacks to the climate policies established by President Obama. Trump has so far focused on other priorities like health care, immigration and trade.
Myron Ebell, who recently finished overseeing the Trump transition at EPA, said transition officials discussed potentially delaying an announcement on the Clean Power Plan until Scott Pruitt is confirmed as EPA administrator.
"I think the timing is a matter of discussion based on when the nominee is confirmed. That's my guess," Ebell said last week. "I think they're trying to decide whether to do it before he's confirmed, or wait until after he's confirmed. And of course if the Democrats delay his confirmation, my guess is they won't wait around."
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is set to vote on Pruitt today. The full Senate has not scheduled a roll call vote on his nomination.
Sources close to the transition say that the complicated process of undoing the Clean Power Plan could be better managed under the stewardship of Pruitt and his team at the agency. Questions around the long-term strategy of deconstructing the rule were not answered before the inauguration and probably can't be until Pruitt is appointed, according to one source.
"The question for the Clean Power Plan is very similar to Obamacare. Do you repeal and replace, or just repeal?" the source said.
'Some sort of efficiency standard'
The agency's 2009 endangerment finding determined that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are harmful to human health. The finding was spurred by a Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which directed the agency to regulate those gases if they're found to be dangerous.
That means EPA would have to grapple with satisfying its legal requirements to cut carbon dioxide at certain sources, like power plants. It's unlikely those decisions can be made without an administrator in place.
All of those steps would likely be challenged in court by environmental groups. One line of thinking during the transition involved applying a basic energy efficiency standard to power plants, rather than the Clean Power Plan's broader requirements around establishing emission trading programs.
That might satisfy EPA's legal obligations to regulate carbon, the source said.
"So if [the courts] come back and order us to do a rule, then fine, we'll say that power plants have to do some sort of efficiency standard and we'll call it a day," the source said, describing one line of thinking.
David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, suggested that such standards would be "too puny." Asked if basic efficiency standards would prompt legal challenges by NRDC, he said, "Of course."
"As long as the endangerment finding is intact, then the agency is under legal obligation to curb the emissions from these sources," Doniger said.
Spicer also used the question yesterday about the Clean Power Plan, asked by E&E News, to pounce on Democrats for delaying the confirmation of Trump's Cabinet nominees.
"I'd go back to note that we don't have an Energy secretary confirmed right now because the Senate hasn't moved forward," he said.
The Clean Power Plan and the endangerment finding fall under EPA authority, not the Energy Department.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/01/stories/1060049320

Return to headline | Return to top
TVA President on the Future of Coal, Nuclear and Carbon Policy Under the Trump Administration

Feb 1, 2017 | E&E TV

With major changes expected in the electric power sector, and on energy and environment regulations under the Trump administration, how is the nation's largest publicly owned utility adjusting its outlook and operations for the dramatic changes that could be ahead? During today's OnPoint, William Johnson, president and CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority, explains how coal could play a larger role in TVA's future generation mix. He also talks about the three open positions on TVA's board that are set to be filled by Trump nominees.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Bill Johnson, president and CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Bill, thank you for joining me.
William Johnson: As a frequent watcher of your show, it's a delight to be here. Thank you for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: Oh, thank you. Thank you for coming on. With the Trump administration now in office, there are major changes expected in the electric power sector and also in terms of energy and environment policy and regulations. What do you believe the biggest changes will be at TVA based on how this administration is expected to operate?
William Johnson: Well, obviously the two big changes for us, first before we get to the regulation, our board is appointed by the president and then nominated — confirmed by the Senate, and we have three openings. So the first thing I would expect is he will have an impact on our board, and in fact, he could replace a majority of the board this year.
On the policy front, you know, as a government agency, really a corporation owned by the government, we tend to follow policy but not make policy, right, and I think the environmental policy is going to be important to watch. Where's the Clean Power Plan going, what's going to happen with coal, all these things. So we're sort of watching to see what the tea leaves tell us.
Monica Trauzzi: So let's talk about the three openings that you have on the board. They could very well go to folks who are fans of coal, and then what does that mean for TVA?
William Johnson: Well, TVA is a funny kind of animal. We actually are the creation of a federal statute, and that statute is very clear about what we're supposed to do, how we're supposed to do it and what decisional criteria we should use. So I think the overriding factor for whoever gets on the board is going to be what's the statute say. And what the statute says basically is our job is to make electricity at the lowest feasible rate, and everything we do has to be focused on least cost. So if coal becomes the least cost option, that's where we'll be heading.
Monica Trauzzi: And do you believe that coal could become the least cost option under the Trump administration?
William Johnson: It's possible but, you know, the main market dynamic there over the last five to 10 years has been the price of natural gas. And really a lot of the coal implications in this country have been market-driven, fuel-price-driven, also environmentally driven. I think it will be hard for coal to catch up with where natural gas is, but 10 years ago, none of us thought we'd be talking about natural gas as we are today.
Monica Trauzzi: And certainly President Trump has already signaled that he'd like to see a revitalization of sorts in the coal industry if further incentives were pushed in that direction.
William Johnson: And coal is going to be important to us at TVA for a long time. We have closed a number of coal plants, all based on economics, but today, 25 percent of our energy still comes out of coal. I would expect that to continue for the next several decades. So coal price, coal incentives will be important to us.
Monica Trauzzi: We're expecting the Trump administration will roll back the Clean Power Plan. How does that impact your outlook and operations?
William Johnson: I don't think it will affect us at all. Over the last four or five years, we've made a number of asset decisions based on the age of the asset, material condition, fuel price. During that process, we transferred a lot of gas into the place of old coal. So if the Clean Power Plan was to come into fruition, we would meet it today. But we didn't get there by planning on the Clean Power Plan. We got there by doing customer map, what's the cheapest way to make electricity for our customers.
Monica Trauzzi: Would you be in favor of a shift away from cleaner forms of power generation if that's what this administration was looking to do and the new board was looking to do?
William Johnson: So my main focus in life is what's best for customers. So I'm in favor of low-cost, reliable, but I'm also in favor of cleaner over dirtier. I do think we all live on this planet, we have an obligation to have the least impact we have, so I do think cleaner is important, but I also think the way we're doing coal these days is a lot cleaner than it used to be.
Monica Trauzzi: I'm curious on the heels of the firing of acting Attorney General Yates, you're at all concerned about speaking negatively about the new administration or having disagreements on policy.
William Johnson: I am not concerned because we are federal government employees. I never said anything negative or positive about the past administration and wouldn't do so now. We have disagreements from time to time with the administration, the parts that we deal with. I think that's part of government, and so I'm not too concerned about this.
Monica Trauzzi: Talk about the workforce situation currently at TVA and how you're impacted by President Trump's hiring freeze for federal agencies.
William Johnson: So over the last four or five years, we have reduced headcount by 2,500 positions. We have the lowest headcount at TVA today since 1934. So we're already on the track of right-sizing, downsizing, get our costs in control. The presidential memorandum basically says you can't hire any new people unless you have certain exceptions like public safety, national security. Well, we have both of those obligations so we will find a way to comply with the memorandum. It won't have a big impact on us, but we will make sure that the things we do that are inherently dangerous or related to security, we'll make sure those are done right.
Monica Trauzzi: You've made strides on nuclear. What's next on nuclear? Well, tell us a bit about where you've been and what you've done, what's next, and how do you think this administration will look at nuclear and handle it?
William Johnson: Well, TVA has recently completed the first new nuclear plant of the century at Watts Bar 2, and we of course completed the last one of the last century, Watts Bar 1, so we've had the last two in this country. We also plan to do some upgrades to some of our plants, so in 10 years, about 45 percent of our energy's going to come out of nuclear. We think it's a great source for electricity. We're very pro-nuclear, and we're looking at SMRs. We can talk about that if you want. I think this administration's going to be very pro-nuclear. It's infrastructure, it's jobs, it's clean, it's domestic, so I'm hoping and expecting that they'll be big supporters of nuclear.
Monica Trauzzi: And do you anticipate that they will put the appropriate amount of research dollars towards advanced nuclear?
William Johnson: I think that's an open question, so what I've been reading is a focus on the DOE budget, focus on R&D projects. I do hope we continue with R&D on things like clean coal, small modulars, advanced nuclear. I do think the government has a big role to play in developing those technologies.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it there. Very interesting. Thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate it.
William Johnson: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2196/transcript

Return to headline | Return to top
Tax Reform Is on the Minds of US Oil Producers, Refiners

Feb 1, 2017 | Platts

By Meghan Gordon

The wave of fourth-quarter 2016 earnings calls is just getting started, but tax reform already seems to be the topic du jour for oil and gas companies.
Analysts have been asking executives how they’re preparing for a potentially drastic overhaul in the US corporate tax code.
To recap, House Republicans want to cut the corporate tax rate to 20% from 35% and pay for those cuts with a border adjustment that would tax imports but not exports. The plan could raise consumer prices and upend energy and commodity trade flows.
Economists are still debating how much a stronger dollar would offset those effects. President Donald Trump has sent mixed signals about his preference for tax reform. Talks are expected to last much of the year in Congress, but companies are already lobbying for exemptions and alternative plans.
Some of the early thoughts so far from major oil and gas companies:
ExxonMobil Vice President Jeff Woodbury: “We will continue to advocate for free market principles. … We believe the tax code should be globally competitive, it should be predictable, stable, providing investment certainty and not picking winners and losers.”
Valero CEO Joe Gorder said the refiner already has flexibility in its system to adapt to a potential border adjustment. He said the company has swung from running 600,000 b/d of light sweet crude to over 1 million b/d.
“Obviously you’re going to optimize your crude slate. The big question around this whole border adjustment is how are the markets going to react to it? … Right now there’s a skeleton out there that they’re trying to put flesh on and we don’t know exactly what it’s going to look like. But I think it’s fair to say we’re got to continue to optimize our operations.”
Gary Simmons, Valero’s senior vice president for supply: “Over the last several years, our strategic objectives have been around developing feedstock flexibility and developing export markets, so we believe that puts us in a really good position to be able to handle whatever the border tax may throw our way.”
Chevron CEO John Watson: “The border adjustment concept is complex. We need to take a close look at the consequences — positive and unintended consequences, consumer impact and knock-on effects. I think they’ll settle on the right kind of tax reform at the end of the day. We’ll have a little patience for the different ideas being put out there and hopefully we’ll get to the right outcome.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/02/01/tax-reform-us-oil-producers-refiners/

Return to headline | Return to top
Protest Camps Grow Slowly in West Texas

Feb 1, 2017 | Fuel Fix

By David Hunn

Activists are still trickling in to the camps set up in West Texas to protest oil and gas developments.
Last week, Lori Glover, one of the camp leaders, said the Two Rivers camp, near Big Bend Ranch State Park, had about 15 campers during the week and about 50 over the weekends, including four from North Dakota. The camp is focused on blocking construction of the Trans-Pecos Pipeline being built by Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners.
Some of the camp gathered on Sunday at one of the pipeline work sites as 16-year old Destiny Wilcuts locked herself to a bulldozer, forcing crews to stop construction for an hour, activists said.
Wilcuts, a Sicangu Lakota from North Dakota, was ultimately arrested by Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez.
Wilcuts said she’s fighting to protect water quality. Protesters worry a pipeline break or leak would contaminate waterways.
“This fight means that my kids and my nieces and my nephews will have drinking water for their kids when they get older,” Wilcuts said in a statement. “It’s kind of like me reclaiming my history and roots, I have to relearn everything I knew before but forgot.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/02/01/protest-camps-grow-slowly-in-west-texas/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

The Private Sector is the Key to Success for the Department of Homeland Security

Feb 1, 2017 | CSO

By Brian Harrell

With the inauguration of our 45th President of the United States recently behind us, a new administration will be met with emerging and imminent threats to our homeland. As new leadership is appointed by the President and confirmed, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will maintain a clear understanding of their role within the national security apparatus, and will continue the difficult work of keeping Americans safe and critical infrastructure secure.
John Kelly, the newly confirmed DHS Secretary and former Marine Corps four-star General, has recently addressed the numerous homeland security issues facing the country. His main focus will be on defeating terrorism, more robust cybersecurity protections, and infrastructure security and resiliency. DHS is a huge federal department with many moving parts. The agency includes Customs and Border Protection, Secret Service, Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, and numerous offices dedicated to cyber and physical security missions. However, while the 240,000 employees serve a critical role within government, it’s the private sector that will help and ensure continued success at DHS.
It is widely understood that over 85% of all critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the private sector. Power grid operators, water treatment specialists, and chemical process engineers are the first to encounter security threats at their particular work stations. These subject matter experts are typically supported by cyber and facility security professionals dedicated to keeping their systems and infrastructure secure. The first line of defense resides outside of government and lands squarely in the hands of private industry. Fortunately, industry has long had the support and interest from DHS.
Currently, the most significant reliability threat to the U.S. power grid is associated with squirrels and balloons, and not a coordinated cyber-attack inspired by state-sponsored hackers. However, we have recently seen noteworthy interest in disabling or destroying critical infrastructure. Coordinated attacks specifically targeting the grid are rare, but an attack by a disgruntled former employee, ideologically motivated activist, or a criminal stumbling across a “soft target”, could inflict significant damage.
DHS has always let the Sector Specific Agency (SSA), the Department of Energy (DOE), take the lead on coordinating response, recovery, and the security of the power grid. However, we may see DHS take a more active interest as a result of hackers causing a blackout in western Ukraine. After cutting off power to nearly 250,000 homes and businesses, this event demonstrated how a grid attack in North America could rapidly deteriorate and cascade into a catastrophic national security event. Under the new administration, it will be vitally important to increase information sharing with the electricity sector, provide additional security clearances, and tackle many of the lessons learned from grid security exercises.Brian Harrell
The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), one of the few regulations spearheaded by DHS, identifies and regulates high-risk chemical facilities to ensure they have security measures in place to reduce the risks associated with dangerous chemicals. Currently, there are approximately 2700 facilities falling into strict compliance with the 18 Risk Based Performance Standards (RBPS), which provide individual facilities the flexibility to address their unique security challenges. Chemical plants, oil refineries, and water treatment facilities have long worked with DHS, government coordinating councils, and the trade associations to ensure the regulation is effective and remains malleable to existing threats and vulnerabilities found within the sector.
While CFATS got off to a rough start in 2007, industry and government have seemingly ironed out many points of contention. The Top-Screen process, which identifies facilities responsible for economically critical and mission-critical chemicals, has been streamlined and made painless for industry users. In addition, compliance inspections are now underway and the “help desk” has been a resource for those wanting to gain valuable insight. With over 4,000 inspections complete, CFATS is an example of the government using the expertise found within industry to help craft compliance guidance to better protect high-risk chemical facilities.
The United States Coast Guard enforces the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) which allows for the authority to regulate facilities located on or adjacent to waterways under U.S. jurisdiction. The Coast Guard typically conducts at least one scheduled audit and one unannounced "spot check" each year. MTSA-regulated facilities must complete a Facility Security Assessment (FSA) that identifies and evaluates critical assets, critical infrastructures, and potential threats and vulnerabilities to those assets.
The facility must then develop and submit a Facility Security Plan (FSP). The importance of keeping our ports and waterways secure cannot be overstated. Approximately 90 percent of all global trade and over 25 percent of our Gross Domestic Product moves via the sea. A terrorist attack at our ports could severely disrupt the supply chain, which would be catastrophic to our economy. Private industry and the Coast Guard have a long history of working together to mitigate safety, security, and environmental risks to U.S. ports and maritime critical infrastructure.Brian Harrell
Cybersecurity at DHS has turned into a top priority and the department has seen tangible progress. The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), which can be characterized as the federal government’s 24/7 hub for cybersecurity information sharing, technical assistance, and incident response has grown to be a very useful resource for industry.
In 2016, the NCCIC disseminated more than 6,000 bulletins and responded on-site to 32 cybersecurity incidents. With the recent classification of election systems as “critical infrastructure”, this will add to the mounting pressure for the department to expand its cyber resources, funding, and expertise. This expansion will only aid the private sector when they are faced with cyber threats and will assist with intrusion detection and prevention capabilities.
DHS recently released a refreshed version of its National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP), with a strong focus on how the U.S. can react to cybersecurity threats to critical infrastructure. The NCIRP describes a national approach to dealing with cyber incidents. In addition, it also addresses the important role that the private sector, state and local governments, and multiple federal agencies play in responding to incidents and how the actions of all fit together for an integrated response.
As mentioned above, the majority of infrastructure in North America is owned and operated by the private sector. Because of this, it is vital that the public and private sectors work together to share relevant threat information. Over the past few years, DHS, the FBI, and the Department of Energy have made considerable strides in improving information sharing and giving classified access to intelligence products such as bulletins, alerts, and secret level briefings.
These data points have been used to mitigate threats, reduce risk, and update internal security policies. This data flow has enhanced communications between security teams, management, and board members by providing authoritative threat warnings. Ultimately, information sharing is a two-way street. Private sector entities must remove the words “compliance risk” from their lexicon and readily share timely information as it happens.
Nobody knows their systems better than they do. Cybersecurity alerts coming from industry professionals are imperative to the collaborative exchange process. Simultaneously, federal intelligence partners must alert those within the private sector who actually have the ability to mitigate threats. This partnership can become stronger and timelier with additional security clearances given to the private sector.
Given today’s cyber and physical security threats to the nation, the boundaries between the private and public sector have blurred. Whereas traditional national security has been the domain of the federal government, homeland security is not solely the responsibility of federal agencies, but also of state and local government and the private sector. Homeland security is a shared responsibility that cannot be met by government alone.
Uninterrupted operation of basic services such as energy, communications, water, transportation, and unbroken access to other goods and services used on a daily basis are essential to America’s security, safety, economic vitality. Congressman Mike McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, recently said that, “DHS needs to work more urgently to assist the private sector in defending the nation’s critical infrastructure, including communications, the electric grid and nuclear energy.”
This is a partnership and we need to lean on each other’s strengths and expertise.
This article is published as part of the IDG Contributor Network.
http://www.csoonline.com/article/3161793/security/the-private-sector-is-the-key-to-success-for-the-department-of-homeland-security.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Dear Congress: Reform Regulatory Process, Spur Sustainable Infrastructure Investments

Feb 1, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Edward R. Hamberger

“There is no substitute for hard work,” American icon Thomas Edison famously said.
With a new Congress and Administration getting settled in Washington, D.C., it seems most policymakers are heeding this advice. Leaders across political parties, chambers of Congress and regulatory agencies are advancing so many substantive polices, that it is easy to get lost.
Such is the case when what-would-normally-be top-billed hearings on regulatory reform and infrastructure development – central tenants to the Trump Administration and 115th Congress – take center stage in Senate and House hearingsWednesday, respectively.
America’s private freight rail network, buoyed by world-class infrastructure made possible by sizeable investments, as well as the deregulatory structure enacted nearly 40 years ago, intimately understands both issues. In fact, we argue they go hand-in-hand: nimble regulations for any industry fuels growth, and a growing economy generates dollars for infrastructure investments. In the spirit of discourse, the freight rail industry offers recommendations to leaders of Congress in tackling both issues.
First, on regulatory reform, there is a unique opportunity to not only address specific, harmful policies, but to improve the system that creates rules. Too often individuals writing rules, who may or may not understand operations for the industry they are regulating, lose sight of clearly defined end goals that would ultimately benefit the general population. Rather than telling the cab driver its destination, the government increasingly mandates the route, speed and even the music played.
This may fulfill a perceived obligation to regulate, but it does very little to improve outcomes. We ought to propose more desired ends, and less prescribed means to that end.
At the same time, rules often lack data. Politics, not policy, sometimes drives decision making.
To begin making over the system we propose broad principles for consideration:
·         Regulations should be based on a demonstrated need, as reflected in current and complete data and sound science.
·         All components of an agency’s decision-making should be transparent to the public and subject to meaningful comment before the rule is finalized.
·         Non-prescriptive regulatory tools, like performance-based regulations, should be deployed wherever possible to align the interests of the regulator and the industry, and to foster and facilitate innovation to achieve well-defined policy goals.
·         Regulations should provide benefits outweighing their costs, and the cumulative impact with other regulations should be considered in every rulemaking.
·         Use of “guidance” should be limited to appropriate situations and time periods.
·         Waivers and pilot programs should be a viable path for industry to innovate without being tied down by archaic and outdated rules currently on the books.
On the separate yet related topic of infrastructure, policymakers should first and foremost address the elephant in the room: sustainable funding for the Highway Trust Fund. They should seek solutions that provide steady funding, avoid deferred maintenance and incorporate multiple transportation modes.
To improve the nation’s highways – rated a “D” by the American Society of Civil Engineers, federal officials should institute equitable systems in which users pay for upkeep. The U.S. highway infrastructure currently relies on federal and state gas taxes, as well as significant funding from the general U.S. Treasury. Since 2008, policymakers have transferred $143 billion in general taxpayer funds to the Highway Trust Fund, because gasoline taxes are not enough to fund highway upkeep.
Even more will be needed, because as cars have become more fuel efficient, and policymakers have avoided increasing the gas tax, taxpayers are taking on even more of the infrastructure deficit.
The current system erodes the underlying user pay principle that all users, including major users and industry, pays for its infrastructure. Heavy users get a discount deal in perpetuity, while working Americans pay full price. I hope today’s hearing begins addressing this discrepancy.

The Trump Administration and Congress have an historic opportunity to shape the nation’s economy for generations to come. Today is a step in the right direction. By addressing fundamental issues such as mechanisms of highway funding and improved regulatory oversight, they can help ensure economic prosperity.
Hamberger is President and CEO of the Association of American Railroads
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/317195-dear-congress-reform-regulatory-process-spur-sustainable

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) House Science Panel Aims to Make EPA 'Great Again'

Feb 1, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

By Scott Waldman

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing next week on "Making the Environmental Protection Agency Great Again."
The hearing is likely to delve into the subject of the "Secret Science Reform Act," pushing it another step closer to reality. Science Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has said it is one of his priorities this year.
The bill would require U.S. EPA to use only "transparent or reproducible" science to develop regulations and that such scientific data be posted online so that they can be scrutinized.
The Science panel has scheduled a full committee hearing for 11 a.m. Feb. 7. The controversial science reform act has not yet been introduced but could be by that time.
Proponents argue that the legislation would simply make science transparent and allow for independent scrutiny to ensure science is not politically tainted before it influences policy. Democrats and scores of scientific organizations say the measure would have a crippling effect, since large-scale studies are not easy to reproduce and some industry or private data can't be made public.
President Obama pledged to veto the bill if it ever passed both chambers, but it never advanced to the Senate floor for a full vote.
Witnesses for the majority will include energy attorney Jeff Holmstead of the Bracewell LLP firm; Jason Johnston, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law; and Kimberly White, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council. The ACC has released public statements in support of the bill. Johnston has defended lawmakers who refuse to adapt climate policy and has called EPA's Clean Power Plan a "cynical use of regulatory power."
Witnesses for the Democratic minority include Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS has cautioned that the bill would have a chilling effect on science.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/01/stories/1060049324

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Acting Administrator: Communication Pause 'Perfectly Normal'

Feb 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

Acting administrator of the US EPA, Catherine McCabe, has sought to reassure agency employees that the recent block of agency communications and freeze on regulations are “perfectly normal” during an administration transition.
In a video aimed at EPA career staff, Ms McCabe noted that the president has issued government-wide directives that freeze hiring and regulations, and it has requested “a pause in some of [EPA’s] normal communication and other functions, to allow [the new administration] a little time to get up to speed”.
She said that she understands “that this is a time of anxiety for many of you”. But said that these provisions are “perfectly normal for a new administration”.
“Because we have so many more established routes of communication with the public, this has been particularly challenging and noticeable,” continued Ms McCabe.
“But other than the government-wide directives in hiring and regulations, the administration has not issued any additional written directives specifically to EPA,” she said.
Ms McCabe’s message comes during a tumultuous transition period at government agencies, which has seen the rise of ‘rogue’ Twitter accounts allegedly run by silenced federal employees.
Thirteen appointed positions at the EPA also remain vacant, according to a tracking website run by the nonpartisan organisation Partnership for Public Service.
Ms McCabe is acting as the administrator, while the controversial confirmation of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt works its way through the Senate. Nominees for assistant administrator roles – including for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention – have yet to be publicly floated.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53287/epa-acting-administrator-communication-pause-perfectly-normal

Return to headline | Return to top
Air: Texas Sues EPA over Revisions to Regional Haze Rule

Feb 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

Texas has filed the first of what could be several lawsuits from other states and utilities over EPA's revised regional haze rule, which the Obama EPA modified to ease compliance by states but also to boost involvement by federal land managers (FLMs), a move Texas has said will only increase state burdens.
In its Jan. 23 filing in State of Texas v. EPA, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Texas seeks review of EPA's final haze rule published in the Federal Register Jan. 10 in the waning days of the Obama administration. The rule is designed to resolve several long-running problems with the haze program, which aims to have states restore natural visibility in “Class I” national parks and wilderness areas by 2064.
The final rule delays by three years, from 2018 to 2021, the deadline for states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) for attaining pollution reductions during the next planning period, which will still terminate in 2028. It eases requirements for state “interim” reports mid-way through the 2018-2028 planning period, which will no longer be required as formal amendments to the SIPs.
The rule, however, requires greater consultation of FLMs by states in crafting SIPs, and closer coordination by states with other states that adversely affect visibility in the same Class I area.
Environmentalists in comments on the proposed version of the rule criticized the three year delay in SIP submissions and also the eased requirements on mid-term reporting, which they said would make states and EPA less accountable for their actions.
Texas, meanwhile, is already embroiled in a legal battle with EPA over the agency's federal implementation plan (FIP) imposed on the state after EPA disapproved a state plan it found not strict enough.
In that suit, also known as State of Texas v. EPA, the state appears headed for victory after the 5th Circuit retained jurisdiction rather than dropping the case in favor of the D.C. Circuit, and found in favor of the state and industry petitioners in a preliminary ruling.
Texas in its new lawsuit against the national haze rule revisions provides no reasons for the litigation, but in its Aug. 10 comments on the proposed version of the rule the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the state's air regulator, said it does not believe the proposed changes would streamline compliance, and in fact the reverse is true. EPA finalized the rule largely as proposed.
The proposed amendments to the rule “would make it the principal driver of pollution control expenditures in the U.S., likely pushing them beyond the costs of meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are set to protect public health. The net impact of the proposed amendments would be to increase the burden on states in the preparation of the comprehensive [SIP] revisions, increase the frequency of comprehensive SIP revisions through amendments to the Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) rules, and increase the compliance costs for the program,” said the comments, referring to RAVI, a residual part of the regional haze program predating EPA's overarching regional haze rules.
“EPA asserts that the proposed amendments would streamline the process of regional haze SIP development. They would not, and it is clear that the EPA knows that they would not. All that the amendments would streamline is the EPA’s disapproval of comprehensive SIP revisions submitted under the revised” rule, TCEQ said. Texas opposed changes to the RAVI process that would expend the role of FLMs, among other issues.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/air-texas-sues-epa-over-revisions-regional-haze-rule

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested