Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/7/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lobbying’s Top 50: Who’s Spending Big
Feb 7, 2017 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Fifty companies and industry groups shelled out more than $716 million to lobby the federal government and Congress last year, according to data provided to The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. -
Hundreds of Current, Former EPA Employees Urge Senate to Reject Trump’s Nominee for the Agency
Feb 7, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Nearly 450 former Environmental Protection Agency employees Monday urged Congress to reject President Trump’s nominee to run the agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, even as current employees in Chicago sent the same message during a noon rally. -
Pruitt Faces Open Records Lawsuit Over Emails
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President Trump's nominee for U.S. EPA administrator, is facing litigation over his emails. -
Trump Administration Issues Guidance on Regulatory Reduction
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Trump administration has published interim guidance, clarifying a recent executive order that calls for agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation issued. -
Trump Executive Order Seeks to ‘Rationalise’ Financial Regulations
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
In the latest potential blow to the US conflict minerals reporting rule, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that will seek to “rationalise” the federal financial regulatory framework. -
Speculation on Trump Agenda Unlikely to Justify Delaying EPA Rule Suits
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Industry arguments that speculation about President Donald Trump's agenda for EPA and how it might change the agency's approach to enforcement and other policies is seen by observers as an inadequate reason to delay pending suits over EPA rules, although some groups continue to argue that the agenda's uncertainty justifies such delays. -
(ACC Blog) Are There Really Thousands of Untested Chemicals in Everyday Products?
Feb 7, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
If you’ve ever read a news article or blog post about chemicals, you may have come across the oft-cited claim that there are 84,000 untested chemicals in the products we use every day. -
Environmental Group Argues for Stricter Labelling Laws in Canada
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government should introduce stronger product labelling rules for cleaning and personal care products, according to a new study from Environmental Defence. -
Children's Health Advisors Poised to Urge Stronger EPA Lead Protections
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's children's health advisors are poised to urge the agency to revise the lead and copper rule (LCR) to reduce lead in drinking water and strengthen EPA's lead-based paint hazard standard for lead in paint, dust and soil in a letter expected to soon be approved for transmission to the agency's leadership. -
Another Study Confirms Methane Problem Warrants Action
Feb 7, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ramon Alvarez
A new study from the U.S. Department of Energy adds to the large and growing body of research on the problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
After FERC Marathon of Pipeline Approvals Some NatGas Projects Still Stranded
Feb 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
The dust has settled after a busy week at FERC, and while several major natural gas pipeline projects have certainty moving forward, others face risks of delay as the Commission heads into a quorumless stretch. -
Marcellus Pipeline Project Spurs Latest Protest Campout
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
A group of pipeline opponents in Lancaster, Pa., have set Friday as the kickoff date for a planned "large-scale encampment" to protest construction of the Atlantic Sunrise project, a $2.6 billion effort to connect natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale formation to markets in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. -
Final Approval Could Put Pipeline in Service by May
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Dakota Access pipeline could go into service in early May if everything goes according to plan for project developers. -
Safety Board Chief Remains in Place as Trump Reshapes Agencies
Feb 7, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board appears it will not become one of the numerous agencies and commissions facing swift early leadership swaps under President Donald Trump, attorneys and advocates tell Bloomberg BNA. -
NTSB: Broken Axle Triggered North Dakota Oil Train Crash
Feb 7, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
A broken axle on a grain train car caused a fiery collision with an oil train in December 2013 in North Dakota, the NTSB announced today. -
Trump Team Being Pulled in 2 Directions on Climate Pact
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
For every conservative who dreams about ripping up the Paris Agreement, there's a company executive who wants to stay in. -
GOP Chairman: Trump Can ‘Right the Ship’ at EPA
Feb 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The chairman of the House Science Committee is calling on the Trump administration to make big changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) use of science. -
Pruitt Had a Plan for CO2 Cuts: Let States Decide
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) may waffle on climate science but he has laid out some specific thoughts on how he would have written federal carbon regulations for coal plants. -
Coalition Pushes Back on Utility Effort to Delay MATS Case
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of more than 20 states, cities and other organizations has lined up against an industry-backed bid to delay proceedings in litigation over U.S. EPA's cost finding for its power plant mercury rule, arguing that there's no concrete reason to believe the Trump administration wants to settle the case.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lobbying’s Top 50: Who’s Spending Big
Feb 7, 2017 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Fifty companies and industry groups shelled out more than $716 million to lobby the federal government and Congress last year, according to data provided to The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The eye-popping total represents nearly a quarter of all federal lobbying dollars in 2016 and a slight increase over 2015, when the 50 biggest spenders doled out $715 million.
The five biggest spenders in lobbying last year, in descending order, were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Realtors, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the American Hospital Association and the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.
Rounding out the top 10 were the American Medical Association, Boeing, the National Association of Broadcasters, AT&T and Business Roundtable.
Influencing the government has become a multibillion-dollar business, with companies and trade associations hiring lobbyists and attorneys to push their agenda and shape policymaking.
Anger at lobbyists and special interests was a focal point of the presidential campaign, most famously expressed in President Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington.
Trump has signed an executive order seeking to slow down the “revolving door” between administration jobs and the private sector, but few expect the deluge of lobbying to slow down under the new administration.
“Everyone across the board believe there’s going to be lots of activity in Washington,” Marc Lampkin, the managing partner of the Washington office at law and lobby firm Brownstein Hyatt -Farber Schreck, told The Hill last month.
“Corporate America has been seeking relief from the overreach of the Obama administration, so there will be activity on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue,” added Lampkin, a former aide to former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Some of the companies and groups that boosted their lobbying spending last year did so in response to major legislative and regulatory fights.
Dow Chemical, which is seeking to merge with DuPont, boosted its advocacy spending by 26 percent, to $13.6 million.
Other companies that increased their spending included Prudential Financial, which paid lobbyists $9.4 million in 2016, an 18 percent increase over 2015; AbbVie which spent 39 percent more on lobbying; and T-Mobile, which spent $8,089,900, an increase of 32 percent.
Amazon significantly expanded its footprint in Washington last year. The company spent $11.4 million on advocacy, a 20 percent increase.
Some of the increases in advocacy spending were driven by the 2016 election.
The two groups that spent the most, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors, included all political spending in their lobbying reports, which includes things like campaign advertising. Most entities do not report election activities in their total.
The Chamber’s spending totaled close to $104 million, while the Realtors spent almost $65 million.
Other companies and business groups dialed back their lobbying spending last year, in part due to the lack of legislative activity on Capitol Hill.
The National Association of Manufacturers spent $16.9 million on lobbying in 2015 as it pushed for passage of a sweeping Pacific Rim trade deal negotiated by the Obama administration. With that push stalled last year, the group trimmed its lobbying spending to $8.5 million, a nearly 50 percent drop.
One industry expert told The Hill that corporations are cutting back on the amount of dues they’re paying to large trade groups and trade associations, choosing instead to target their spending.
Many companies refused to comment about their advocacy on the record.
Year-to-year comparisons between the 50 largest lobbying spenders are imprecise, because different companies and groups come off and on the list each year.
Twenty-nine of the organizations on the top 50 spenders list for 2015 cut back their lobbying budgets in 2016, while seven companies and trade associations fell off the roster entirely.
The American Petroleum Institute, Qualcomm, America’s Health Insurance Plans and George Soros’s Open Society Policy Center all slashed spending on advocacy in 2016. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which scored a win on a GMO labeling law midway through 2016, reduced its advocacy 44 percent from the year before, spending $4.7 million.
But the biggest drops on the list came from CVS Health and General Electric.
CVS’s lobbying total plummeted 60 percent, to $6 million, in part because of how the company reported its figures. Last year, CVS only included federal lobbying in its advocacy total. The year prior, the company had included both state and federal lobbying in the total, according to a company spokeswoman.
GE, which was the sixth-biggest lobbying spender during 2015, plunged to No. 53 in 2016.
Meanwhile, AARP, Bayer, T-Mobile, American Airlines, Chevron, AbbVie and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers jumped onto the list — with AbbVie, which ranked 88th in spending in 2015, hitting the No. 50 spot last year. T-Mobile climbed to No. 42 from No. 66 in 2015.
Lobbying Spender's Chart found at: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big
-
Hundreds of Current, Former EPA Employees Urge Senate to Reject Trump’s Nominee for the Agency
Feb 7, 2017 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Nearly 450 former Environmental Protection Agency employees Monday urged Congress to reject President Trump’s nominee to run the agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, even as current employees in Chicago sent the same message during a noon rally.
“We retirees, we tend to like to lay low. But this has gotten a bunch of us quite concerned,” said Bruce Buckheit, whose three decades in government included working in the EPA’s enforcement division under the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
Republicans have defended Pruitt as a capable leader who will return the agency to its core mission of protecting the environment while rolling back what they see as years of regulatory overreach that has unnecessarily burdened industry. A coalition of nearly two-dozen conservative advocacy groups has backed his nomination, insisting that Pruitt has “demonstrated his commitment to upholding the Constitution and ensuring the EPA works for American families and consumers.”
Buckheit was among the former agency officials who signed onto Monday’s letter imploring senators to vote against confirming Pruitt because of his opposition to the EPA in recent years. In lawsuits, Pruitt has challenged the agency’s legal authority to regulate toxic mercury pollution, smog, carbon emissions from power plants and the quality of wetlands and other waters.
“Our perspective is not partisan,” the group wrote, noting that many of the 447 names on the letter had served as career employees under both Republican and Democratic administrations. “However, every EPA administrator has a fundamental obligation to act in the public’s interest based on current law and the best available science. Mr. Pruitt’s record raises serious questions about whose interests he has served to date and whether he agrees with the long-standing tenets of U.S. environmental law.”
The former officials said Pruitt “has gone to disturbing lengths to advance the views and interests of business” — a reference to his close ties to the fossil fuel industry, with which he often has sided in his cases against the EPA. “By contrast, there is little or no evidence of Mr. Pruitt taking initiative to protect and advance public health and environmental protection in his state.”
The controversial nomination advanced out of a Senate committee last week after Republicans used their majority to suspend committee rules and approve Pruitt despite the absence of all Democrats, who boycotted the nomination vote partly because of his anti-regulatory bent. He could be approved by the full Senate as early as this week.
Opposition to Pruitt from environmental groups and congressional Democrats has only grown more vehement since his confirmation hearing last month, in which he declined to say whether he would recuse himself from his ongoing cases against the EPA if confirmed as the agency’s new leader. In addition to those legal attacks, opponents have pointed to his substantial financial support from the oil and gas industry and his views on climate change as reasons he should not lead the agency charged with protecting the air and water of all Americans.
Even though the EPA was created under Richard Nixon, the agency’s employees have clashed in the past with Republican leaders, particularly under the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. But the prospect of Pruitt’s arrival has particularly shaken many employees, current as well as former, who fear that the agency’s authority could be undermined, its workforce slashed and important regulations weakened under his watch.
In an unusual move, EPA employees in the agency’s Region 5 office, headquartered in Chicago, participated in a downtown rally during their lunch hour on Monday and called on the Senate to reject the nomination and any efforts to roll back the agency’s authorities.
Although it was unclear exactly how many current employees attended Monday’s rally, both career employees and members of two advocacy groups, the Sierra Club and People for Community Recovery, demonstrated at the city’s Federal Plaza. More than 100 people showed up for the event, carrying signs that read, “Save the EPA,” “Science is Real” and “We want clean air and clean water!”
Organizer Nicole Cantello, chief steward of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, said employees are alarmed by Pruitt’s nomination and Trump’s environmental rhetoric overall.
“People are worried about losing their jobs because administration is interested in dismantling, or downsizing in the extreme, the EPA,” she said. Agency officials had sent out an ethics advisory that gave current employees guidance on what they could and could not do “when acting for their free speech rights,” Cantello added.
Judith Enck, an Obama appointee who recently left her post as head of the Region 2 office, said she had never seen “the level of concern at EPA that I’m seeing today.” Enck signed Monday’s letter because Trump’s choice of Pruitt “is an unprecedented assault on environmental protection,” she said, “not just on EPA as an agency, but on our country’s ability to enjoy clean air, clean water and a logical agenda on climate change.”
President Trump himself has said the environmental regulations put in place under President Obama are “a disgrace.” A key official helping with the Trump transition has suggested the agency’s workforce be cut from about 15,000 employees to 5,000. And a bill introduced by a freshman Republican congressman from Florida last week would dissolve the EPA altogether.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/06/hundreds-of-current-former-epa-employees-urge-senate-to-reject-trumps-nominee-for-the-agency/?utm_term=.d1a3b6c848a0
-
Pruitt Faces Open Records Lawsuit Over Emails
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President Trump's nominee for U.S. EPA administrator, is facing litigation over his emails.
The Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, is planning to file a complaint against Pruitt in state court for failing to turn over documents in response to the group's open records requests.
CMD has filed nine requests with Pruitt's office since January 2015, many dealing with communications between him and oil and gas companies, as well as the Republican Attorneys General Association.
Pruitt's office has acknowledged that it is reviewing 3,000 emails that are relevant to CMD's first request made more than two years ago, the group said.
Nick Surgey, CMD's director of research, said Pruitt not disclosing his emails has hurt the Senate's ability to vet the EPA nominee.
"Public servants at the EPA spend each day trying to counter corporations' injection of dangerous chemicals into our air, water and homes, but Pruitt refuses to discuss his deep connections to the companies he would oversee and has repeatedly shown contempt for the Senate's responsibility to their constituents to properly vet his nomination," Surgey said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma and Robert Nelon, a First Amendment and media lawyer at Oklahoma-based firm Hall Estill, are representing the group.
Lincoln Ferguson, a spokesman for the Oklahoma attorney general's office, told E&E News in an email that it has not received a copy of the group's lawsuit yet but plans to review the complaint once it does.
Ferguson called the litigation "political theatre" considering the attorney general's office was about to respond to CMD's request.
"Just last week, our office contacted the Center for Media and Democracy to notify them that release of their request was imminent," Ferguson said. "The fact that they have now filed suit despite our ongoing communications demonstrates that this is nothing more than political theatre."
He added, "The Office of Attorney General remains committed to fulfilling both the letter and spirit of the Open Records Act."
Democrats have pressed Pruitt, a vocal EPA critic, for more records from his tenure as attorney general. In response, Pruitt has told lawmakers to file open records requests. That has frustrated Democrats, leading them to boycott two committee votes last week on the EPA nominee who was then advanced by Republican senators on their own.
Democrats say the Senate should not vote on Pruitt's nomination until his emails are released. In a joint statement today, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as well as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Republicans have been "crowing" about emails from Democratic figures in the past, such as former secretary of State and 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
"Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Republicans aren't outraged by secret emails; instead, they are fast-tracking Pruitt's nomination. Mr. Pruitt shouldn't be rewarded for a coverup — he should be held responsible for it," said the senators. "Congress and the public deserve to know what Mr. Pruitt is hiding. Until those emails are released, the Senate should not vote on Mr. Pruitt's nomination."
There are several requests pending at the Oklahoma attorney general’s office.
In a Dec. 22, 2016, response to documents, Pruitt's office told E&E News that the staff was working on 63 such requests.
And in correspondence from Jan. 23, Pruitt's staff said there were a "considerable number" of requests pending at the office.
Pruitt's confirmation vote has been delayed until at least next week as Democratic senators have stalled several of Trump's picks from advancing (E&E Daily, Feb. 7).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/07/stories/1060049673
-
Trump Administration Issues Guidance on Regulatory Reduction
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Trump administration has published interim guidance, clarifying a recent executive order that calls for agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation issued.
Along with the one in, two out mandate, the order also requires agencies to balance costs.
New regulations must not create any net new cost for government, unless an agency receives written permission from the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The guidance says that in order for agencies to be in compliance with these requirements, they must issue two “deregulatory” actions for each new significant regulatory action that imposes costs. They must identify these two to strike “a reasonable amount of time” before issuing a new regulatory action.
Total incremental costs of new significant regulatory actions must be fully offset by 30 September.
The 2 February memo, issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, provides further clarification on how agencies should calculate “the opportunity cost to society” for each regulation, as laid out in the OMB Circular A-4.
This cost will be used throughout the federal government’s 2017 fiscal year to balance that of new regulations. The Trump administration will issue further guidance for the 2018 fiscal year and beyond, the memo says.
The memo answers some questions that arose following President Trump’s executive order. Of note, agencies can transfer cost savings from eliminated regulations to different parts of the same agency, as needed. Also, agencies that struggle to find enough savings for new regulations, can submit a request to OMB to transfer savings from another agency.
With regards to consideration of benefits that a regulation confers, the guidance notes that these are not affected by the cost cap.
“The goal of the requirement to eliminate two existing regulatory actions for each new significant regulatory action is to provide a mechanism for agencies to identify and repeal outdated, ineffective, or unnecessary regulatory actions,” it says.
In Q&A, it also addresses several additional areas, including:
whether guidance and interpretive documents are covered;
what regulatory actions might qualify for waivers; and
how to calculate cost savings from various deregulatory actions.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53410/trump-administration-issues-guidance-on-regulatory-reduction
-
Trump Executive Order Seeks to ‘Rationalise’ Financial Regulations
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
In the latest potential blow to the US conflict minerals reporting rule, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that will seek to “rationalise” the federal financial regulatory framework.
The executive order, 'Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System', lays out six policy priorities detailing how the administration believes the financial system should be regulated. And it directs the secretary of the Treasury to work with each of ten federal agencies – including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – to report on the extent to which existing rules and requirements promote or inhibit those principles.
The first report is due to the president within 120 days.
The order comes amid mounting pressure in Washington to repeal or amend the Dodd-Frank Act. This includes the conflict minerals rule, which requires publicly traded companies to conduct due diligence and report to the SEC on whether their sourcing of conflict minerals – tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (3TG) – is supporting armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or neighbouring countries.
Speaking in a Friday press conference, White House press secretary Sean Spicer described described Dodd-Frank as a “disastrous policy” which the Trump administration will address with a two-pronged approach. The White House, he said, will plan to rectify administrative issues through executive actions, while also working with Congress to look for a “legislative fix”.
Several Dodd-Frank reform bills, introduced in the 114th Congress, sought to repeal or defund the conflict minerals reporting requirement, and the new legislative session is likely to see such measures returning.
Meanwhile, the acting chair of the SEC has directed agency staff to reconsider the implementation of the conflict minerals rule, citing concerns with the reporting measure’s on-the-ground effects in the DRC. The commission is accepting public comments on the proposal this month.
In contrast, events in Europe seem to be moving in the opposite direction, with a proposed EU conflict minerals Regulation looking likely to become law in the next few months.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53391/trump-executive-order-seeks-to-rationalise-financial-regulations
-
Speculation on Trump Agenda Unlikely to Justify Delaying EPA Rule Suits
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Industry arguments that speculation about President Donald Trump's agenda for EPA and how it might change the agency's approach to enforcement and other policies is seen by observers as an inadequate reason to delay pending suits over EPA rules, although some groups continue to argue that the agenda's uncertainty justifies such delays.
The argument to stall EPA-related lawsuits is a short-term one because once top Trump officials are working at the agency in the coming weeks and months they will likely offer clarity on the new agenda and how it differs from the Obama administration, removing the current uncertainty at the heart of some litigation delay requests.
But until then, groups challenging EPA rules continue to cite the lingering questions over the Trump EPA's agenda as a reason to delay the suits -- although EPA's top administrative law judge (ALJ) has rejected one such request.
To date, it appears that the only groups arguing for delays in EPA-related cases are coming from groups representing individual companies or particular industries. For example, utilities are asking the D.C. Circuit to delay litigation over EPA's power plant air toxics rule due to the potential for reaching a settlement with the Trump transition.
The D.C. Circuit previously rejected a call to extend briefing deadlines in litigation over EPA's new source performance standards setting greenhouse gas limits for new and modified power plants, despite industry's claim that the Trump administration might adopt new policies that could call into question the need to continue the suit.
And several Chinese motorcycle makers being sued by the agency over alleged Clean Air Act violations tried, but failed, to convince the ALJ to delay that proceeding until December based on the argument that the Trump EPA might change the agency's enforcement policy and raise questions over the pending case's fate.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a suit over former President Barack Obama's health care law agreed to delay proceedings due to the change in administration, suggesting that judges will not reject the claims out of hand -- though whether the court would adopt the same logic in EPA cases is unclear.
Environmentalists say they are not surprised by the industry attempts to cite the change from a Democratic to Republican administration in a bid to delay lawsuits and potentially get a favorable settlement from the new administration, but they also note that such arguments will not succeed because speculation about future policies is not a solid legal theory.
“Why are industry attorneys pursuing it? Dark hopes spring eternal too; the Death Eaters never gave up on Voldemort's return,” said John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Project, and Climate & Clean Air program in an email to Inside EPA. In the Harry Potter novels, the Death Eaters are members of the secret society devoted to the villain Voldemort, and operated in secret for years after his initial defeat, hoping to eventually take over the government when he returned to power.
“Industry attorneys obviously believe the Trump administration and their co-counsel, Scott Pruitt, will carry out industry's agenda,” said Walke, referring to the Oklahoma attorney general (AG) Trump has nominated to head EPA, and who as AG pursued a host of lawsuits against Obama EPA rules.
High Hurdles
Other legal observers acknowledge the high hurdles that industries face in trying to convince EPA or federal judges of the delay argument, but nevertheless expect the effort to continue in the short term.
Attorney Seth Jaffe, of the firm Foley Hoag, said in an email to Inside EPA that “such arguments are certainly longshots, but that doesn’t mean that the defendants shouldn’t make them. The probability that an argument will win doesn’t have to be that high to make it worthwhile, if the cost of defending the action will be substantial.
Jaffe added, “Obviously, the merits increase as the subject of any particular enforcement action get closer to something Trump has already said or done.”
The D.C. Circuit has signaled it will not reject such requests outright, issuing a Dec. 5 per curiam order in a suit over Obama's health care law that delayed proceedings due to the change to the Trump administration.
GOP lawmakers that are pursuing the suit, House of Representatives v. Sylvia Burwell, in a Nov. 21 filing noted the election of Trump -- a critic of the health care law -- and said their request to delay proceedings “is not unusual. Parties frequently request such abeyances in pending matters due to elections that produce changes in Presidential Administrations and corresponding changes in Administration policies.”
The outgoing Obama administration opposed the request in a Nov. 23 filing that called the House challenge to the law “unprecedented” and said the lawmakers identified no harm to justify a stay.
“The House does not suggest that the incoming Administration would welcome heretofore unprecedented suits by subcomponents of Congress that seek to alter the way the Executive Branch is administering federal law. That principle alone is reason not to halt briefing mid-course,” the government argued.
The subsequent order issued by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, David Tatel, and Sri Srinivasan overseeing the Burwell case granted the House lawmakers' request and directed parties to file motions to govern further proceedings in the suit by Feb. 21.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/speculation-trump-agenda-unlikely-justify-delaying-epa-rule-suits
-
(ACC Blog) Are There Really Thousands of Untested Chemicals in Everyday Products?
Feb 7, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
If you’ve ever read a news article or blog post about chemicals, you may have come across the oft-cited claim that there are 84,000 untested chemicals in the products we use every day. Taken at face value, this figure is startling. But, if you check the facts and take a closer look, you’ll also find that this figure simply is not true.
Check out this video, which provides some clarity andcontext. You see, the 84,000 number is based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical inventory list. Established in 1979, this inventory has not been an accurate reflection of the chemicals actually used in products. Why? For one thing, any chemical that has ever gone on the inventory has stayed there, even if it’s not used anymore.
A more accurate count of the total number of chemicals in commerce is closer to 7,700 – this reflects chemicals produced in what EPA considers “significant amounts” and widely used in commerce.
All new chemicals are subject to an EPA safety review before they are used in products. And, under the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” signed into law last year, EPA has even greater authority to review any chemical, at any time, to protect public health and the environment. Plus, more than a dozen other laws and six federal agencies also help to regulate the use of chemicals. So, for more than 35 years, the number of new chemicals that have come to market without U.S. EPA review has been ZERO.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/02/are-there-really-thousands-of-untested-chemicals-in-everyday-products/
-
Environmental Group Argues for Stricter Labelling Laws in Canada
Feb 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Canadian government should introduce stronger product labelling rules for cleaning and personal care products, according to a new study from Environmental Defence.
The NGO also calls on them to mandate clear health warning labels on products that contain cancer-causing or endocrine disrupting chemicals.
The recommendations come following an Environmental Defence-sponsored focus group study. Surveyed citizens said they would like warning labels, similar to those used in the EU, that alert consumers of potential health risks associated with certain chemicals. The study said that Canadian consumers purchasing personal care and cleaning products currently do not have access to the information needed to make informed choices.
Canadian law does not require cleaning products and many cosmetics to feature a complete ingredient list.
“Canada is falling behind the European Union and US jurisdictions like California, when it comes to product labelling and ingredient disclosure,” said Muhannad Malas, toxics programme manager at Environmental Defence. “Canadians deserve stronger labelling rules that enable them to avoid toxic chemicals that put their health, families and environment at risk.”
The EU requires companies to include certain information on product labels, including product identifiers, hazard pictograms, hazard and precautionary statements, where applicable.
California’s Proposition 65 requires manufacturers to alert consumers if products contain chemicals that are considered carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. Under updated requirements that take effect from August 2018, Prop 65 warning statements will need to carry the name of at least one substance for which warning is being required, and must include a hazard pictogram.
Full ingredient disclosure in cleaning products, though, has been a continued point of contention in the US that is likely to be subject to further debate this year, at both state and national level. An ingredient disclosure bill (AB 708) narrowly failed to pass California’s Assembly last year, but will probably be reintroduced in the new legislative session.https://chemicalwatch.com/53408/environmental-group-argues-for-stricter-labelling-laws-in-canada
-
Children's Health Advisors Poised to Urge Stronger EPA Lead Protections
Feb 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's children's health advisors are poised to urge the agency to revise the lead and copper rule (LCR) to reduce lead in drinking water and strengthen EPA's lead-based paint hazard standard for lead in paint, dust and soil in a letter expected to soon be approved for transmission to the agency's leadership.
"The current medical and scientific consensus is that there is no safe blood lead level in children," a final draft of the advisors' letter states. "Even levels below 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (ug/dL) are associated with decreased academic achievement, lower IQ scores, attention-related behavior problems and antisocial behavior.”
The letter identifies "the four highest priorities for EPA action" to prevent children's exposure to lead, including: "Strengthen the agency's lead-based paint hazard standard for lead in paint, dust and soil; revise the lead and copper rule to reduce lead in drinking water; improve risk communication efforts to provide clarity and consistency; and encourage the administration's infrastructure investment program to support healthy housing and schools, and safe drinking water."
EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) met Feb.1-2 in Washington, D.C., to finalize a letter advising EPA on its "highest priority advice" for the agency on childhood lead exposures. The committee lacked a quorum by the time members had completed their review of the final draft later late on Feb. 2, after many members had left to catch flights home. A final vote on the letter will take place via email.
CHPAC's designated federal official, Martha Berger, called the situation "a fluke, but not a problem at all."
The letter goes on to remind EPA that "lead-based paint is the most significant source of elevated blood lead levels in young children," and urges EPA to update its standard, set in 2001, to reflect newer guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). When EPA set its standard, CDC's reference level for intervention was set at 10 ug/dL. CDC in 2012 lowered that reference level to 5 ug/dL, and EPA and other agencies have been working since to update various lead standards to match this new advisory.
"The best evidence shows that a young child living in a home meeting the current lead dust standard still has a 50 percent chance of exceeding the CDC reference level for blood lead," CHPAC's letter states. "At this blood lead level, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has found sufficient evidence of decreased academic achievement, lower IQ scores, and attention-related behavior problems. In 2012, EPA's Science Advisory Board recommended that the agency revise its scientific model to better reflect the risk."
The advisors also point to a Feb. 1 announcement from the Housing and Urban Development Department that it had "substantially lowered" its lead dust standard for housing grants, and argue that "these actions indicate that EPA needs to strengthen its dust-lead standards."
Lead Exposures
Pointing to lead exposures in drinking water in Flint, MI, Washington, D.C., and Sebring, OH, over the past decade, the advisors also warn that drinking water can be a "significant source of exposure to lead," and they call on EPA to revise its LCR under the Safe Drinking Water Act. They note that health risks from this exposure pathway are "highest for formula-fed infants because they drink the most water of all age groups in proportion to their body weight."
The advisors point to 2015 recommendations from another advisory committee, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), which recommended that EPA overhaul the LCR, and urge EPA to follow its advice. CHPAC highlights several aspects of NDWAC's advice, namely: "making lead service line replacement an essential and ongoing part of a long-term program rather than only a last resort when other methods fail"; "establishing a water concentration at which a formula-fed infant is likely to have an elevated blood lead level"; "requiring water utilities to notify the local health department and residents when tap water tests for lead exceed the above health-based water concentration"; and "updating how water testing for lead is performed to make it more accurate and relevant."
EPA is scheduled to propose an overhaul to its LCR in 2017, and as part of its preparations released a white paper last fall floating options that include more-specific measures than NDWAC's recommendations, including how to resolve legal issues with replacing lead service lines and to impose new water sampling requirements.
EPA is also taking initial steps toward developing the infant elevated blood lead level concentration, releasing last month a draft report, "Proposed Modeling Approaches for a Health-Based Benchmark for Lead in Drinking Water," that outlines how the agency plans to assess the relationship between constant rate lead exposures of children and blood lead levels. The models include both exposures for an individual, representative child and a population of children across different age ranges, and address different lead exposure scenarios. The draft was released for public comment and a planned peer review of its risk assessment approaches,
Public Understanding
Beyond these efforts, CHPAC also calls on EPA to increase public understanding of the risks of lead exposure, arguing that doing so "will enable them to take steps to prevent harm," and encouraging as a first step that "EPA broaden and strengthen" an agency brochure on lead in in homes that must be provided at every home sale and rental of homes built before 1978. CHPAC calls it outdated.
"This brochure focuses on lead-based paint hazards, but provides little information about other important household lead sources including but not limited to drinking water faucets, plumbing, traditional and cultural products, and take-home exposures from work."
CHPAC also calls on EPA to work with other agencies "to help ensure that all Administration infrastructure investment programs make housing and schools healthier and drinking water safer." It points to Congress' direction in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to establish a $300 million grant program to replace lead service lines for residential property in disadvantaged communities.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/childrens-health-advisors-poised-urge-stronger-epa-lead-protections
-
Another Study Confirms Methane Problem Warrants Action
Feb 7, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ramon Alvarez
A new study from the U.S. Department of Energy adds to the large and growing body of research on the problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. Methane is both the main component of natural gas and a powerful climate pollutant – which is why regulators, scientists, and industry all have a vested interest in developing a more complete understanding of how much methane is emitted and from which sources.
Researchers with the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) used a life cycle model to integrate data from several of EDF’s methane studies, and estimated that 7.3 million metric tons of methane were emitted along the natural gas supply chain in 2012. This value is about 10% higher than the corresponding estimate in the 2016 EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI), although the difference was not statistically significant (the NETL confidence interval ranged from -20% to +30% of the central estimate).
The NETL effort provides additional support for the methodological changes that EPA made in the 2016 GHGI that resulted in a 13% increase in estimated emissions from natural gas systems relative to the 2015 GHGI. While the new NETL and revised EPA estimates are reasonably similar, there are important differences in emissions from specific source categories.
The NETL study and 2016 EPA GHGI both show an outsized influence of pneumatic controllers and gathering compressor stations. The NETL study also highlights “unassigned” emissions sources at production sites, which a recent paper attributes to unintended, unpredictable conditions that lead to large emissions – ‘super-emitters’. Although EPA has discussed including super-emitters in the GHGI, the 2016 GHGI largely excludes these large sources.
What about emissions from gas-producing oil wells?
The NETL study serves as a lower-bound estimate of methane emissions from the U.S. natural gas supply chain. If methane emissions from oil wells are also considered, methane emissions from the highly integrated oil and gas industry are certainly higher than those reported in the NETL study. The NETL study is not explicitly accounting for the higher proportional emissions from oil wells, which currently produce about 30-40% of total U.S. natural gas. We know from aircraft measurements of atmospheric methane enhancements in a diversity of geographies that basins with higher proportions of oil-to-gas production exhibit higher proportional methane leak rates. An additional limitation is the study’s exclusion of emissions from condensate tanks at natural gas production sites. This exclusion arose as a result of life-cycle modeling conventions of applying emissions to specific sources like natural gas and oil, but still results in a quantitative underestimate of overall emissions from the integrated oil and gas supply chain.
What’s next
This is the first time that data from a subset of the studies coordinated by EDF have been integrated to produce a national estimate of the methane emissions from a large portion of the natural gas supply chain, but this study’s narrow focus on natural gas production wells means it does not provide a complete picture of overall methane emissions associated with the production and delivery of natural gas in the U.S. A synthesis that examines a more diverse and complete set of sources of methane emissions across the oil and gas industry is being conducted and the results should be out later this year. That effort will disaggregate emissions down to the basin and county scale in order to examine regional variability in emissions and to enable comparison to published top-down estimates.
Our understanding of oil and gas methane emissions will undoubtedly be strengthened as more scientific research unfolds, but there is one thing NETL’s study makes clear now. It underscores the urgent need to reduce the oil and gas industry’s methane problem, which at current levels, undercut the climate benefits natural gas may have over other fossil fuels.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/02/07/another-study-confirms-methane-problem-warrants-action/
-
After FERC Marathon of Pipeline Approvals Some NatGas Projects Still Stranded
Feb 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
The dust has settled after a busy week at FERC, and while several major natural gas pipeline projects have certainty moving forward, others face risks of delay as the Commission heads into a quorumless stretch.
In anticipation of former Commissioner Norman Bay's departure, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission buckled down and issued a rapid-fire series of Natural Gas Act (NGA) certification orders late last week.
Energy Transfer's Rover Pipeline, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co.'s (Transco) Atlantic Sunrise expansion and National Fuel Gas Co.'s (NFG) Northern Access expansion -- representing more than 5 Bcf/d of capacity in total -- were among the biggest pending pipe projects to get FERC's blessing in Bay's last week.
Now FERC has just two out of five sitting Commissioners, unable to issue NGA certificates or vote on other major decisions.
While Rover, Atlantic Sunrise and Northern Access all got the orders they sought, the Nexus Gas Transmission pipeline -- another major project that had lobbied FERC for an order prior to Bay's departure -- will have to wait until the Commission regains its quorum. Nexus is backed by Spectra Energy Corp. and DTE Energy.
The lack of an order for Nexus had analysts at Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. opining that "without a FERC quorum for the near future, the construction start date for Nexus will likely be delayed. How far the project gets pushed back is unclear as President Trump will have to appoint at least one additional FERC Commissioner who will have to receive Senate approval."
Spectra spokesman Creighton Welch told NGI Monday that "pending timely issuance of FERC’s certificate authority, we remain committed to placing the project in service in the fourth quarter of 2017, and are working with our contractors to ensure a safe and responsible construction plan is in place to achieve it."
Nexus received its final environmental impact statement in late November and had been planning on an NGA certificate arriving sometime in 1Q2017, based on its publicly released timetable. The odds of that happening appear lower given the uncertainty over how quickly new appointees will be put in place to restore the Commission's quorum.
Industry groups have been lobbying the Trump Administration to act quickly on new FERC appointments. The Process Gas Consumers Group and Electricity Consumers Resource Council on Monday, echoing earlier comments from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, urged the administration to "expeditiously nominate individuals to [FERC] who will safeguard the interests of large manufacturing employers that consume natural gas and electricity to make their products."
Other pending NGA certificate applications could be negatively impacted by FERC's quorumless stretch, according to analysts at ClearView Energy Partners.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline, the PennEast Pipeline and the Columbia Gas WB Xpress pipeline are among those that could be "adversely impacted" based on their respective environmental review timetables, the firm said.
ClearView said the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is unlikely to be affected (backing up Dominion CEO Thomas Farrell's outlook).
Meanwhile, the natural gas projects that received certificates last week -- a list that also includes Dominion Carolina's Transco to Charleston Project and Tennessee Gas Pipe Line Co.'s Orion Project -- should be clear to proceed with construction activities in the absence of a FERC quorum.
Rover, for one, on a tight deadline to begin tree-clearing activities to avoid impacting protected species along the pipeline route, wasted no time in seeking approval to get started.
In a Friday filing, Rover requested "the critical and immediate issuance of a Notice to Proceed with preconstruction felling of trees" and "the full release to begin all construction activities of all certificated facilities and related workspaces and contractor yards." Energy Transfer is planning to bring the Rover project fully into service by November.
FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen told NGI Monday that the Office of Energy Projects has authority to review implementation plans and approve most construction-related activities once a certificate order has been issued.
Young-Allen said rehearing requests challenging NGA certificate orders will not halt construction activities for those projects. Under last week's delegation order, FERC staff has authority to issue tolling orders on rehearing requests that will essentially "stop the statutory clock from ticking" until FERC regains its quorum and can act on those requests, she said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109325-after-ferc-marathon-of-pipeline-approvals-some-natgas-projects-still-stranded
-
Marcellus Pipeline Project Spurs Latest Protest Campout
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
A group of pipeline opponents in Lancaster, Pa., have set Friday as the kickoff date for a planned "large-scale encampment" to protest construction of the Atlantic Sunrise project, a $2.6 billion effort to connect natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale formation to markets in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast.
The Atlantic Sunrise project is being developed by a subsidiary of Williams Cos. and involves 183 miles of new pipeline to be laid in Pennsylvania as well as modifications to equipment and pipelines in its Transco system in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Once built, it would allow the company to deliver gas throughout the Eastern Seaboard and as far south as Florida.
The project won conditional approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday during the last hours before FERC lost its decisionmaking ability as a result of the resignation of its former chairman, Norman Bay. That departure puts major decisionmaking by the body on hold until the Trump administration is able to secure Senate approval of a replacement for him (Energywire, Feb. 6).
Christopher Stockton, a spokesman for Williams, said the next steps for the project will be to certify within 30 days its plans to comply with the environmental and safety conditions that FERC put on the project. The project has yet to obtain approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands crossings and from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for wetlands and waterbody crossings, he said.
Stockton said work within the fence line of existing facilities is expected to start by April, and the company hopes to proceed with so-called greenfield construction by the second half of this year, once those permits are obtained.
Stockton said he was unaware of any ongoing legal challenges to the project but declined to speculate on whether it would be challenged either through FERC's appeals process or in the courts. "There are people out there who are willing to challenge just about anything they disagree with, so it wouldn't surprise me," he said, but pointed to broad support for the project's promised economic benefits in the areas where work would be done.
Stockton declined to say what portion of the pipeline's needed right of way has been secured to date. Transco, the Williams subsidiary that is behind the project, typically acquires about 5 percent of a pipeline's right of way via eminent domain, he said, noting that the legal tactic has not yet been used for Atlantic Sunrise because negotiations with landowners are still ongoing.
Digging in
In Lancaster County, those negotiations look to be in rough shape.
A group called Lancaster Against Pipelines has been organizing opposition to the project based on worry that it would bring safety and environmental risk to the area and threaten agriculture and the "rural way of life" of local communities.
Yesterday, the group live-streamed on Facebook a gathering of protesters at a farm that they said would be disrupted by the new pipeline route, inviting opponents of the pipeline to gather in opposition to the project.
"Starting Friday of this week, on Feb. 10, the Lancaster Stand encampment will officially open for campers and for supplies to be donated," an unidentified man read in a prepared statement.
A webpage for the group describes the gathering as "a peaceful gathering place formed in opposition to the construction of the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline," to be hosted on a private farm on the banks of the Conestoga River.
In the video, a woman who identifies herself as Malinda Clatterbuck, a founding member of the opposition group, said Lancaster Against Pipelines opposes the use of eminent domain for private gain — a rallying cry popularized in the fight against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines that activist Jane Kleeb, founder of the Bold Alliance, has used to draw bipartisan opposition to pipeline projects (Greenwire, Sept. 19, 2016).
"We are forced to relocate our selves and our families out of our homes and live in the pathway of this route in order to protect what is most dear to us, and necessary for our health and safety," Clatterbuck said yesterday.
This weekend, opposition groups will host a two-day workshop on "nonviolent mass action scenarios" that they say will serve as an orientation to the encampment.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/07/stories/1060049643
-
Final Approval Could Put Pipeline in Service by May
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Dakota Access pipeline could go into service in early May if everything goes according to plan for project developers.
Lawyers for Dakota Access LLC — an arm of the Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP — told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia yesterday that once a final federal easement is secured, the company could move oil through the pipeline in 60 days and start commercial service in 83 days.
Government lawyers say a decision on that easement could come by the end of this week, likely followed by a two-week congressional notification period, putting the pipeline in service by May 18.
Justice Department attorney Matthew Marinelli noted, however, that easement approval still remains uncertain. Complying with a presidential memo issued two weeks ago, the Army Corps of Engineers has completed a review of its December decision to withhold a final easement and instead do an in-depth environmental impact statement. Now the decision is in the hands of the Department of the Army, he said.
The Army could decide to grant or deny the easement, and it could need additional time to make its decision, Marinelli said, adding that he could not "give a more definite timetable."
The timeline is critical for opponents of the project, who expressed concern last month that if an easement is issued, Dakota Access could finish work before the court has a chance to consider challenges from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose reservation is just south of the pipeline's path (Energywire, Jan. 31).
Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman raised that issue again yesterday, urging the Army Corps to give the tribes notice before issuing an easement and urging Judge James Boasberg to order the agency to submit the administrative record — a trove of internal decisionmaking documents — once an easement decision is announced. Boasberg, a President Obama appointee, declined to issue such an order but encouraged the corps to compile the record quickly to expedite review.
Legal challenges are expected to follow an easement approval, though Hasselman said the tribe has not yet decided whether it will try to block pipeline construction or oil transport through the pipeline.
Boasberg noted that, given Dakota Access' 60-day estimate for putting oil in the pipeline, he would have those two months to make a determination about the case.
ClearView Energy Partners LLC analyst Christi Tezak said Boasberg may be hinting that he would consider the full merits of the case — the original July 2016 lawsuit focused on National Environmental Policy Act claims against the pipeline — during that 60-day period.
"It appears to us that moving on to the merits of the case — instead of entertaining another emergency injunction — could fully resolve all the claims including the NEPA-related claims related to groundwater pollution," she wrote in a memo.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/07/stories/1060049623
-
Safety Board Chief Remains in Place as Trump Reshapes Agencies
Feb 7, 2017 | Bloomberg BNA
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board appears it will not become one of the numerous agencies and commissions facing swift early leadership swaps under President Donald Trump, attorneys and advocates tell Bloomberg BNA.
The Trump administration’s swift actions have swapped leadership at agencies and commissions across the board, but the president won’t be able to have a hand in molding the CSB in the first few months of transition, attorneys and advocates say. Though in theory a change could tilt the board more in favor of businesses.
Unlike most other government agencies, CSB members can’t be removed without reasonable cause, though there is precedent for the agency’s leadership to step aside in times of transition. At the same time, industry groups have not pushed for such a change, and the Trump administration would be wise to not “rock the boat that doesn’t need rocking,” a refining industry official familiar with the board told Bloomberg BNA. The official asked to remain anonymous because of ongoing litigation involving the CSB.
At a public meeting Jan. 24, CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland said she discussed how the agency would “approach things like obtaining information about federal agency operations, specific agency work, [and] possible commissioner or board nominations in the future, but it was all very high level,” in a transition call with other small agencies.
Leadership changes at other agencies since Trump took office Jan. 20 have included the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. But, Trump’s administration can’t make similar changes unilaterally at CSB, Mark Farley, an attorney at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in Houston told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“He can nominate a new member to the open seat, but I do not believe he can force Sutherland out of her role before her term ends,” Farley said.
Under the CSB’s authorizing legislation, the CSB chairman is also a board member, all five of whom must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. While the White House can remove a chairman or board member, the law states it must be for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Sutherland and Board Member Kristen Kulinowski’s terms run through August 2020, while board members Rick Engler and Manny Ehrlich’s terms expire in December 2019.
Past Practices
Former CSB Chairman John Bresland who was confirmed twice—first for a five-year term as a board member in 2002, and then again when former President George W. Bush tapped him to lead the CSB for an additional five-year term in 2008—stepped down in 2010 from his leadership position.
Bresland said in a statement it was because two board member positions were empty and “it seems appropriate that the new administration should also have the opportunity to select the chairman.”
He retired from the CSB in 2012 and is now a research fellow and president of a consulting firm.
Bresland and the White House did not respond to Bloomberg BNA’s request for comment Feb. 1.
Under former President Barack Obama, the White House asked for the resignation of former CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso in March 2015 before the expiration of his five-year term. Moure-Eraso was accused of poor management contributing to low staff morale and delayed investigations.
Other board members have stepped in but only during a period in 2015 when the CSB had no confirmed chairman. CSB Board Member Mark Griffon later ran the agency after Moure-Eraso’s departure, and the White House later designated CSB Member Rick Engler as acting chairman from when Griffon departed to when Sutherland was confirmed in August 2015.
CSB Adds Staff Before Hiring Freeze
Before the federal hiring freeze instituted by Trump, the CSB hired Tom Zoeller, who will provide input to Sutherland in a role that appears modeled on that of the former managing director position.
That position is held by Daniel Horowitz, who has been on paid administrative leave since June 2015.
CSB spokeswoman Hillary Cohen said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA that Zoeller started work Jan. 17, just days before the new Trump administration issued a hiring freeze for federal agencies.
The CSB also hired a new human resources manager who started in early January, the agency previously said.
“CSB will continue to operate effectively following the change in administration and follow all applicable hiring practices,” Cohen said in an e-mail.
https://www.bna.com/safety-board-chief-n57982083432/
-
NTSB: Broken Axle Triggered North Dakota Oil Train Crash
Feb 7, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
A broken axle on a grain train car caused a fiery collision with an oil train in December 2013 in North Dakota, the NTSB announced today.
The axle, which was found to be defective, caused the first train to derail onto another track and into the path of an approaching oil train, which could not stop in time to avoid impact, the board said.
"Inadequate interchange rules" and the oil's high flammability contributed to the crash and its severity, NTSB said. The accident triggered a massive fire that sent vast plumes of smoke into the air and forced the evacuation of residents in nearby Casselton, N.D.
Board members also questioned federal regulators' interpretation of a requirement for "buffer cars" carrying nonhazardous materials between the cab where crewmembers ride and tank cars loaded with crude.
Agencies currently allow railroads to have one such car — instead of five required for mixed freight trains — separating crews from flammable cargo on unit trains that can have more than 100 tankers, which the board said creates "different levels of safety" for those rail workers compared to other freight consists.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Trump Team Being Pulled in 2 Directions on Climate Pact
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
For every conservative who dreams about ripping up the Paris Agreement, there's a company executive who wants to stay in.
That's the political choice facing President Trump: Bend to ideological opponents of global climate action, or listen to the capitalists who see a financial angle in the small print.
As the wait continues for the new administration to show its hand on whether to withdraw from the 2015 deal, conservative think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation, the source of some Trump transition staff, are keeping up the drumbeat for an early exit.
But individual companies selling products as diverse as petroleum and beer continue to support the deal. Trade groups with diverse memberships, meanwhile, remain carefully agnostic.
"For true believers on either side, this is a litmus test," said Frank Maisano of Bracewell LLP. "For companies and industries that have different priorities, objectives and limitations, this effort to pull out of Paris just isn't worth the political and economic capital."
Big business — usually a Republican constituency — is telegraphing that it would rather see the administration roll back the domestic agenda of former President Obama, instead of chasing Trump's campaign promise to "cancel" the Paris Agreement.
National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said he doubts that canceling the deal was part of the group's wish list when it met with administration officials late last year.
"I would be very surprised if that was a major concern, simply because it is by no means a priority for the U.S. industry, and I'm not sure it's a top-tier priority for the administration, either," he said when asked if the group's representatives had raised the agreement during talks with Trump officials.
"We've seen what the priorities are," he added.
Trump spent the months after his election nominating Cabinet members who prioritize business interests over environmental safeguards. Since his inauguration, he's begun rolling back Obama-era rules, including aspects of Wall Street regulation last Friday. The GOP-controlled Congress, meanwhile, approved legislation last week to kill streambed protection rules that the mining industry calls onerous.
"I think that our priorities line up with the administration and with the Congress," said Popovich. "There's immediate pain right now caused by regulations that, in our view, do not convey benefits but are very, very harmful to the coal industry and its communities."
The Paris Agreement isn't inflicting that kind of pain, he said, in part because NMA's membership includes some minerals and metals companies that operate in Europe, where participating in the global deal is more popular.
The agreement's only binding elements relate to reporting and transparency — not actually reducing emissions.
Inhofe: Forget about Paris
That's a point that Republicans on Capitol Hill increasingly cite as a reason to reprioritize Paris. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, recently noted to reporters that the deal doesn't require the United States to take even procedural steps until late in Trump's term.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), perhaps the most vociferous doubter of man-made warming in the Senate, told E&E News last week that Paris is so ineffectual it doesn't require Congress or the administration to undertake a formal withdrawal.
"It really is hardly worth even addressing," he said. "This is not a binding thing."
A presidential statement walking back the U.S. commitment would be enough to dispatch the issue, Inhofe said.
Meanwhile, some individual corporations continue to actively support the deal.
Exxon Mobil Corp., where Secretary of State Rex Tillerson worked for 41 years, called the agreement "a very meaningful and constructive process" as recently as last month. And 360 companies, including Levi Strauss & Co., Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. and Unilever, responded to Trump's election last November by urging him to stay the course on the deal despite his campaign promises.
Richard Morningstar, a former ambassador, said companies that operate abroad sometimes bear the brunt of international frustration when the United States pulls out of a deal. As ambassador to the European Union in the early 2000s, Morningstar said, he saw that firsthand when President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol.
"I had many companies coming to me criticizing our pullback from Kyoto because they were saying it made it difficult for them sometimes to operate in various countries, because they would be told, 'Why should we cooperate with you, given what the United States is doing on climate?'" he said. "That was a very real issue, and I think it would be an issue today if we pulled back from Paris."
Morningstar said it would fall to industry advocates to communicate their concerns to the Trump administration.
Trump will be 'hammered' for staying in
Other major industry groups said that while their diverse memberships make it difficult to advance a unified position on Paris, the prevailing view is that the deal would hobble U.S. sovereignty on energy policy.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Stephen Eule, who attended U.N. summits as a delegate during the George W. Bush administration, said that failing to withdraw from the Paris Agreement would allow subsequent administrations to pick up where the Obama administration left off, even though the Senate never approved it.
Paris isn't as nonbinding as it might appear, argues Eule, who is vice president of climate and technology at the chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy. If the United States remains a party, it will have to participate in actions in 2018 and later that lead to a tougher emissions-reduction commitment. It will also have to make a statement on climate finance for poor countries.
"That commitment is not legally binding, but of course we know when America makes a commitment, it usually sticks with that commitment just because of the way we do things," Eule said.
"Strictly from a political aspect, why would you subject yourself to getting hammered like that for four years?" he said.
A former member of Trump's transition team said there is little diplomatic upside in staying in Paris, especially since the United States could be seen as refusing to satisfy Obama-era commitments.
"If you roll back the regulations, you roll back the [nationally determined contribution]," the former official said.
The U.S. pledge to cut emissions between 26 and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025 was supported by policies like the Clean Power Plan, which faces certain doom in a U.S. EPA likely to be run by former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R).
"If you don't meet the commitment, you're going to get it no matter what," the official said, referring to criticism. "You may as well withdraw from Paris."
Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who headed the EPA transition team, suggested that companies and interests that didn't back Trump early on would have little pull with the new administration.
"The 'business advocates' in Washington are hopelessly mired in the swamp which is now being drained," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/07/stories/1060049647
-
GOP Chairman: Trump Can ‘Right the Ship’ at EPA
Feb 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The chairman of the House Science Committee is calling on the Trump administration to make big changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) use of science.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on Tuesday railed on the Obama administration’s use of science to justify regulations and vowed to move forward again on his legislation to restrict the scientific data the EPA can use.
“Legitimate science should underlie all actions at the agency, from research to regulations, and be an integral part of justifying their actions,” Smith said in opening a hearing that he dubbed “Making EPA Great Again,” borrowing from President Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”
“Unfortunately, over the last eight years, the EPA has pursued a political agenda, not a scientific one.”
Smith said that under Trump, “there is now an opportunity to right the ship at the EPA and steer the agency in the right direction.”
The EPA, he said “can once again become an agency that is credible and respected,” recommending it add more “balanced” perspectives within the agency and eliminate conflicts of interest.
Smith said he would continue to push legislation to eliminate the use of “secret science” at the EPA, a term Republicans use for scientific data that they do not believe to be sufficiently transparent.
Democrats have criticized the legislation, saying that the GOP wants information like personal medical data to be made public, and that the measure unnecessarily restricts the data the EPA can use.
“I’m disappointed, but not really surprised, that the very first hearing of this Congress will be focused on attacking the Environmental Protection Agency, as was so often the theme of our hearings the last Congress,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), the Science Committee’s top Democrat.
“The efforts by some to undermine how the EPA and other federal agencies use science threatens our economy, threatens public health, threatens the environment, threatens public confidence in our government.”
She accused the GOP of “preemptively limiting scientific input” at the EPA and unjustifiably questioning the scientific process.
“Simply put, limiting the science EPA uses only serves to limit the actions EPA may take to protect public health and the environment,” Johnson said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/318267-gop-chairman-trump-can-right-the-ship-at-epa
-
Pruitt Had a Plan for CO2 Cuts: Let States Decide
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) may waffle on climate science but he has laid out some specific thoughts on how he would have written federal carbon regulations for coal plants.
In 2014, President Trump's pick to lead U.S. EPA came up with a plan he thought would work under his narrow interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
"The Oklahoma Attorney General's Plan" details how Oklahoma, rather than EPA, should determine the scope of regulations limiting carbon emissions to its coal-fired power plants — mainly through efficiency upgrades. The document is a response to the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which set state-specific targets for cutting carbon emissions from the nation's coal-fired power plants.
The plan was recently unearthed by The New York Times. It comes as environmentalists and Senate Democrats call into question how a nominee who has 14 legal challenges to EPA could then serve as its leader.
The document offers a glimpse into how Pruitt might take action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and suggests a loosening of emissions standards to allow greater control to individual greenhouse gas emitters.
It would not achieve nearly the amount of carbon reductions EPA proposed in the Clean Power Plan, which set specific carbon levels or rates for states and let them decide how to get there by shifting to lower-carbon fuels.
While EPA is responsible for developing procedures and emissions guidelines, Pruitt made the argument that it is states that "determine the legally enforceable emission standard" and can decide to make the standards less stringent if circumstances justify a change. He pointed to Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act for giving authority for state action over the federal government.
Specifically, Pruitt advocated a "unit-by-unit" approach to carbon emissions control, which would not determine an emissions baseline or percentage reduction targets but would rather focus on the "nature and characteristics of the generation fleet."
This "accounts for the practical reality that air quality impacts differ from state to state, as do costs and opportunities for CO2 emission reductions," according to the plan.
Plants could avoid meeting stricter standards if the costs of making upgrades would be too high or if the plants are already aging and have a limited remaining life span. States could extend the compliance schedule for state implementation plans as long as the SIP includes "legally enforceable increments of progress."
The plan wouldn't require coal plants to retire or cut back their operations to meet specific emissions targets but rather would require facilities to simply become more efficient.
Finally, states should have more involvement in the development of emissions regulations, since local officials have the best understanding of the facilities being regulated, according to the plan.
The plan's publication came a few months before Oklahoma and eight other states joined Murray Energy Corp.'s lawsuit challenging EPA's Clean Power Plan. The CPP would have required Oklahoma to reduce its emissions from the power sector by 31.8 percent below 2012 levels by 2030.
Click here for more information about Oklahoma under the Clean Power Plan.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/07/stories/1060049648
-
Coalition Pushes Back on Utility Effort to Delay MATS Case
Feb 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of more than 20 states, cities and other organizations has lined up against an industry-backed bid to delay proceedings in litigation over U.S. EPA's cost finding for its power plant mercury rule, arguing that there's no concrete reason to believe the Trump administration wants to settle the case.
"In fact, it remains a matter of speculation whether the new administration will be inclined to propose, let alone finalize, any changes to the rule," Massachusetts and other intervenors allied with EPA wrote in a Friday filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The filing came in response to a motion last week by Murray Energy Corp., the Ohio-based coal company, and other challengers to the cost finding that seeks a blanket 45-day extension in the briefing schedule (E&E News PM, Feb. 2). The proposed postponement, they wrote, would give the administration time "to evaluate the possibility of resolving some or all of the issues that the petitioners have raised in this case."
But in Friday's response, the intervenors noted that EPA attorneys had not signed on to the requested extension. They also cited previous testimony in a related case by an Exelon Corp. executive to bolster their point that "this climate of perpetual litigation harms the electric power industry, which is characterized by large capital investment and long-term planning horizons."
As of this morning, EPA had not weighed in on the extension request. Murray, more than a dozen states and various power producers are challenging the agency's supplemental finding published last spring in response to the Supreme Court's 2015 decision on its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, designed to cut releases of the toxic metal and other pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants.
In the 5-4 opinion, the high court ruled that EPA had failed to give due consideration to compliance costs in making the initial decision to regulate mercury releases. In its supplemental finding, EPA stood by that decision, highlighting that the expected annual health benefits easily outweighed the expense of putting new pollution controls in place.
Jeff Wood, who was recently named as acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, is recusing himself from the case, according to a DOJ spokesman. The division represents EPA in court proceedings.
Wood, a former partner in the Alabama-based firm Balch & Bingham LLP, was until recently a registered lobbyist for Southern Co. (Climatewire, Jan. 30). Various affiliates of Southern are among the challengers to the finding. Besides Massachusetts, the intervenors include New York City, Chicago-based Exelon, and environmental and public health groups.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/07/stories/1060049652
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested