Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 2/20/2017

Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) 2016 a Good Year for PVC Sales; PP, PS Also See Slight Increases
Feb 17, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito

PVC resin sales in the U.S. and Canada enjoyed solid growth in 2016, while North American sales for polypropylene and polystyrene resins saw slight upticks.
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Confirms Pruitt to Lead US EPA
Feb 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon

The Senate has confirmed Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt as administrator of the US EPA. The 52-46 vote ended the confirmation process for one of the Trump administration's more controversial appointments.
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Confirms Scott Pruitt to Lead EPA
Feb 17, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison

On Feb. 17, the U.S. Senate confirmed Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Amid objections from environmental groups, current and former EPA employees, and Senate Democrats, the Senate voted 52-46, primarily along party lines.
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Wins Senate Confirmation to Lead EPA; Perry, Zinke Votes Delayed
Feb 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

The Senate voted 52-46 on Friday to confirm Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one day after a judge in Pruitt's home state ordered him to turn over thousands of emails to a watchdog group.
(ACC Mentioned) Quoted: Early Reaction to Pruitt's Confirmation as EPA Administrator
Feb 17, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Senate earlier today voted to confirm Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next EPA administrator. Here is some of the early reaction.
Senate Confirms Scott Pruitt as E.P.A. Head
Feb 17, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport

The Senate confirmed Scott Pruitt on Friday to run the Environmental Protection Agency, putting a seasoned legal opponent of the agency at the helm of President Trump’s efforts to dismantle major regulations on climate change and clean water — and to cut the size and authority of the government’s environmental enforcer.
Senate Confirms Pruitt, Giving EPA Foe Reins Over Agency
Feb 20, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

The Senate narrowly confirmed Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, positioning the fierce critic of Obama-era climate rules to immediately begin undoing them.
Pruitt Starts at EPA With Speech to Staff, E-Mails Disclosures
Feb 20, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Brian Dabbs

Scott Pruitt will face an eventful first day at the EPA. The new addition to the agency, fresh off a stint as Oklahoma attorney general, is set to deliver his first remarks to EPA staff just as an Oklahoma district court compels the release of thousands of his former office's e-mails with fossil fuel companies.
Five Things Pruitt Can Do to Cripple the EPA
Feb 20, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Annie Snider

President Donald Trump vowed to gut the EPA, and the Senate has just confirmed his man to do it.
Pruitt's Confirmation was Just One Battle. Here's Why We'll Win the War.
Feb 20, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who built his political career by trying to tear down clean air and water safeguards, has just been confirmed to lead the agency that’s supposed to enforce them.

LCSA News

EPA Delays TSCA CBI Policy for White House Review
Feb 17, 2017 | Inside EPA

EPA is delaying implementation of its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule requiring companies to provide “upfront” evidence when they seek to protect data as confidential business information (CBI), belatedly including the policy in the White House's broad delay of new rules to give the Trump administration time to consider revising them.
Be Careful What You Wish For: Revised TSCA Process Slower Than Industry Hoped
Feb 15, 2017 | Lexology
By Timothy J. Coughlin and William J. Hubbard

Last year, former President Barack Obama signed a bipartisan bill that updated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 years after its original passage in an effort to meet the needs of the modern day chemical industry.
It’s Time to Shine a Light on Regulatory ‘Dark Matter’
Feb 20, 2017 | National Review
By Angela Logomasini and Henry I. Miller

President Donald Trump’s desire to shrink the regulatory state by significantly cutting the number of regulations and their impact is laudable.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Picks Science Advisers for New Panel on Chemicals
Feb 20, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess

EPA has named the 18 members who will make up its new Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals.
(ACC Mentioned) Veneer Plywood Expert Kip Howlett Talks Lacey Rules on Endangered Woods April 12
Feb 17, 2017 | Woodworking Network
By Robert Dalheim

Kip Howlett, president of the Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association (HPVA) will lead a presentation at the upcoming Columbia Forest Products PureBond Fabricator Green Cabinet Conference at the upcoming Cabinets & Closets Expo April 12 near Chicago.
Pruitt's EPA Will Lead to More Toxic Chemicals in Our Food and Farms
Feb 20, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Danya Hakeem and Michael Shank

This year is set to witness one the greatest rollbacks of environmental protections in Republican history. Even if Scott Pruitt hadn't been confirmed this week as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) administrator, Republicans are already easing the restrictions on coal mining and rolling back regulations intended to keep our streams pristine and healthy.
Trump Admin Mounts Defense of Obama's HFC Crackdown
Feb 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly

The Trump Justice Department defended an Obama administration rule today for phasing out potent heat-trapping chemicals.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Energy Value Fund – Interview with the Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Energy Fund [Part Three]
Feb 19, 2017 | Value Walk
By Rupert Hargreaves

As mentioned earlier, we are focused on natural gas. We see it as a bridge fuel and believe that natural gas demand, unlike oil, will continue to grow over the next 25 years.
Appalachian Pipeline Projects Get FERC Notice to Start Tree Clearing, Construction
Feb 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin

TransCanada Corp.'s Columbia Gas Transmission LLC (TCO) has received full notice to proceed with construction of its Leach Xpress project.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) How U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith’s Agenda is Harming the Economy
Feb 19, 2017 | Rivard Report
By David Lake

San Antonio is responding to U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). As chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Smith has repeatedly spoken out against what he calls an overreach of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
US EPA Faces Uncertain Future with New Administration
Feb 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon

The Trump administration has made no secret of its desire to reduce the regulatory power of the US EPA, and just a few weeks into the new president's tenure that plan is already taking shape.
Will Decline in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Survive Trump Presidency?
Feb 20, 2017 | BNA Daily
By David Schultz

Renewable-energy investments are on the rise as greenhouse gas emissions go down and the economy grows. And there's not much the Trump administration can do to derail that, energy experts said.
Appellate Judges Appear Skeptical of EPA Power to Limit HFCs Under SNAP
Feb 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith

Federal appellate judges appeared skeptical during recent oral arguments that EPA has Clean Air Act authority to limit hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), refrigerants that are potent greenhouse gases, under a program targeting ozone-depleting substances, suggesting Obama-era climate rules issued under the program could be in danger.
Why Liberals Should Accept a Conservative Carbon Tax Plan
Feb 19, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Dan Cohan

Earlier this month, conservative elder statesmen issued a "Let's Make a Deal" on climate: Nix Obama-era regulations in return for a carbon tax and dividend.

Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) 2016 a Good Year for PVC Sales; PP, PS Also See Slight Increases

Feb 17, 2017 | Plastics News

By Frank Esposito

PVC resin sales in the U.S. and Canada enjoyed solid growth in 2016, while North American sales for polypropylene and polystyrene resins saw slight upticks.
Full-year sales for PVC in the U.S. and Canada were up 4.4 percent to more than 15.3 billion pounds, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales were up 3.7 percent, with exports up 5.7 percent.
Domestic PVC sales into the rigid pipe and tubing end market were up almost 5 percent, to more than 4.7 billion pounds, accounting for 45 percent of all domestic sales. Other PVC end markets posted large gains in 2016 included film and sheet (up 16 percent), extruded windows and doors (almost 17 percent) and fencing and decking (18 percent).
Construction-related uses accounted for more than 63 percent of U.S./Canadian PVC sales in 2016. U.S. housing starts grew almost 5 percent in 2016 to just under 1.17 million. That marked the seventh straight annual increase for the market, which had bottomed out at 554,000 in 2009. U.S. housing starts had been as high as 2.07 million in 2005.
“2016 was a solid year all around for the U.S. housing market, as interest rates remained at historically low levels,” said Phil Karig, managing director of the Mathelin Bay Associates LLC consulting firm in St. Louis. “Housing starts were up, housing sales were up, remodeling and renovation spending was up and PVC production, not surprisingly, was up along with them.”
Drop in PP domestic sales
North American PP sales ticked up 0.4 percent for the year to almost 17.3 billion pounds. Domestic sales fell 2.5 percent, with exports surging up 114.8 percent.
The only sizable domestic PP end market to show growth was injection molded cups and containers, where sales were up 2.4 percent. Among other large PP markets, sales into injection molded housewares were down 8 percent, sales into film were down 9 percent and sales into fiber/filaments were down 12 percent.
“Although PP imports to the U.S. have slowed recently, the overall level of imports in 2016 was still substantial enough to push overall domestic resin sales growth to near zero for the entire year,” Karig said. “And while exports have increased as imports have tailed off, it’s important to remember that much of U.S. exports remains close to home within the NAFTA area.”
“A breakout year [for PP] in 2015 with 5.3 percent growth led to a tight market and producer pricing power in 2016,” said Scott Newell, a market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas. North American PP makers “ultimately priced themselves right out of the market, with imports stealing a big chunk of market share,” he added.
“Producers fought hard to win back market share and are poised for a better 2017,” Newell said. “However, domestic converters are again priced out of the market, only this time it’s because of a volatile monomer market.”
Polystyrene edges upward
North American PS sales in 2016 nudged up 0.2 percent to slightly less than 4.4 billion pounds. Sales into the food service/food packaging end market grew 1.3 percent. That sector accounted for almost 63 percent of regional PS sales in 2016. Expanded PS is not included in that total.
“I wouldn’t say that there was growth in the PS market in 2016,” said Robin Chesshier, a RTI market analyst. “Food packing/services were OK, but the other markets are all down. Food and medical packaging continues to grow in general, so I’m not too surprised to see that.”
Karig said PS volume growth “remains anemic, even in the food packaging area, since PS sales in 2016 actually grew more slowly than the overall growth in the packaging market.”
“PS continues to face stiff competition from competing resins such as PP and PET that are continuing to make inroads on the basis of cost or perceived ease of recycling,” he added.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170217/NEWS/170219906/2016-a-good-year-for-pvc-sales-pp-ps-also-see-slight-increases

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Confirms Pruitt to Lead US EPA

Feb 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By David Stegon

The Senate has confirmed Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt as administrator of the US EPA. The 52-46 vote ended the confirmation process for one of the Trump administration's more controversial appointments.
As attorney general, Mr Pruitt sued the EPA more than a dozen times. And during his confirmation hearing he said he would rein in the agency's regulatory authority. His appointment has sparked heated debate from both sides of the aisle.
Senate Democratic leaders urged a postponement of the vote until the contents of Mr Pruitt's emails during his time as attorney general could be acquired. These, they claimed, would give insight into his relationship with gas and oil drilling companies.
However, the Republican leadership declined and held the vote as planned.
His confirmation comes just a day after the NGO Environmental Integrity Project published a petition with the signatures of nearly 800 former EPA employees. This said that Mr Pruitt threatens the integrity of the EPA and that his public statements strongly suggest he does not agree with the underlying principles of environmental statutes.
Mr Pruitt takes office immediately. He will remain in the position until he either resigns or is removed by the president.
Reaction
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) congratulated Mr Pruitt on his confirmation. It said it looks forward to working with the new administrator "to ensure that credible science and transparency are at the heart of regulatory decisions and that our nation's key environmental statutes are implemented in a sensible manner.
It added that its top priority remains ensuring a successful implementation of the revised TSCA. "Efficient and effective implementation of [the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act] will restore public confidence in EPA's regulation of chemical safety, and will promote American innovation and competitiveness," it said.
But NGO the Environmental Working Group (EWG) says there has never been a nominee for EPA administrator opposed so strongly by environmental and public health advocates, scientists, and hundreds of current and former EPA officials.
"As Scott Pruitt takes the reins at the EPA, we expect to see an unprecedented assault on public health protections," said EWG President Ken Cook.
"We will stand with our colleagues in the environmental movement, and the thousands of committed professionals at the EPA, to resist that assault and uphold the right of all Americans to clean air, safe water and a healthy environment."
https://chemicalwatch.com/53664/senate-confirms-pruitt-to-lead-us-epa

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Confirms Scott Pruitt to Lead EPA

Feb 17, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Jessica Morrison

On Feb. 17, the U.S. Senate confirmed Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Amid objections from environmental groups, current and former EPA employees, and Senate Democrats, the Senate voted 52-46, primarily along party lines.
Pruitt, who began serving as Oklahoma attorney general in 2011, sued EPA more than a dozen times during the Obama Administration to challenge air and water rules. The incoming agency head has opposed EPA limits on carbon dioxide from power plants, and he has objected to rule-making that would overhaul the agency’s chemical plant risk management program.
The American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade association, issued a statement congratulating Pruitt on his confirmation, saying the group looked forward to working with the new administrator on the implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was enacted last year.
“Efficient and effective implementation of the Act will restore public confidence in EPA’s regulation of chemical safety, and will promote American innovation and competitiveness,” ACC said.
On Feb. 16, as the Senate debated Pruitt’s confirmation, an Oklahoma district court ordered Pruitt’s Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General to release thousands of e-mails between Pruitt and oil and gas companies that plaintiffs argued could reveal conflicts of interest.
Senate leadership earlier in the week denied a request from Democrats to delay Pruitt’s confirmation vote in light of the pending court decision.
Calls to severely cut EPA’s staff or terminate the agency altogether go before Pruitt as he takes the agency reins. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill on Feb. 3 that would end the 46-year-old EPA on Dec. 31, 2018.
On Feb. 1, Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives introduced industry-favored legislation that would levy the Congressional Review Act to overturn a chemical plant safety regulation that EPA finalized in late December. The rule modifies the agency’s Risk Management Program in response to a West, Texas, warehouse explosion involving ammonium nitrate that killed 15 people.
In a Feb. 10 letter to EPA, House lawmakers requested details about agency efforts to identify and reduce “administrative waste.” Similar letters were sent to the Commerce, Energy, and Health & Human Services departments.
A series of executive actions, including a memorandum that ordered federal agencies to delay implementation of recently published final regulations, a memorandum that ordered a federal hiring freeze for civilian employees, and directives that temporarily halted EPA grants and restricted external communication, created uncertainty for EPA employees during the first days of the Trump Administration.
On Feb. 15, nearly 800 former EPA employees sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) expressing concern about Pruitt’s qualifications to serve as EPA administrator.
John O’Grady, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents more than 10,000 EPA employees nationwide, tells C&EN that current employees have been contacting their senators in response to Pruitt’s nomination. The federal Hatch Act permits off-duty federal employees to express concern about political issues.
“They can do that as long as it’s on their own time,” says Grady, a biochemist who began working at EPA during the Reagan Administration. “Our people are dedicated to the mission of protecting human health and the environment.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/02/Senate-confirms-Scott-Pruitt-lead.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Wins Senate Confirmation to Lead EPA; Perry, Zinke Votes Delayed

Feb 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

The Senate voted 52-46 on Friday to confirm Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one day after a judge in Pruitt's home state ordered him to turn over thousands of emails to a watchdog group.
Shortly after the vote, the Senate adjourned until Feb. 27. After the recess, lawmakers will hold votes on the nominations of Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to lead the Interior and Energy departments, respectively.
The vote to confirm Pruitt fell mostly along party lines. Two Democrats, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), voted in favor of Pruitt, while one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), votedagainst him, as did Sens. Angus King (I-ME) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and John McCain (R-AZ) did not cast votes.
"I am pleased Mr. Pruitt was finally confirmed as our next EPA administrator," said Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), a new member of the influential House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. "With his healthy skepticism of agency power, Administrator Pruitt will return environmental protection to the states where it rightfully belongs."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, said she had a "keen interest" in whoever leads EPA and voted for Pruitt in part because of how hard her state has been hit by EPA regulations. She also chairs the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, which appropriates funding to EPA.
"Scott Pruitt has extensive knowledge of the laws that guide the EPA, and he is committed to refocusing the agency on actually cleaning up the environment instead of constantly churning out rules with questionable legal authority," Murkowski said. "He and I share a common belief that we can be good stewards of our air, water and land while at the same time growing our economy."
In a post to its official Twitter account immediately after the vote, EPA said "We'd like to congratulate Mr. Pruitt on his confirmation! We look forward to welcoming him to EPA."
According to reports, a district court judge in Oklahoma County, OK, on Thursday ordered Pruitt to turn over 3,000 emails to a watchdog group called the Center for Media and Democracy. The group filed a lawsuit earlier this month, alleging Pruitt violated the state's Open Records Act by failing to make the emails public.
Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons reportedly ordered Pruitt to hand over the emails by Tuesday.
Environmental groups touched on the vote and the email controversy after the vote.
"What those emails will reveal about the relationship between Pruitt and the fossil fuel industry is anybody's guess," said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook. "Today's near party-line vote to confirm Pruitt marks a new low in the GOP's embrace of an aggressively anti-environment agenda that caters to virtually every polluting industry in America."
Rainforest Action Network Executive Director Lindsey Allen said the vote to confirm Pruitt "is not simply an insult to the very name of the EPA, but it is yet another signal that this administration and this Congress believe that corporate profits are more important than clean drinking water, clean air and a sustainable climate."
Conversely, industry organizations issued congratulations to Pruitt and said they looked forward to working with him.
"Coming from the energy-producing state of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt understands the critical importance of implementing policies that both support our economy and protect the environment," said Barry Russell, CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. "Having a clear and fair regulatory framework is critical for independent producers, companies that work every day to safely produce the energy we all rely upon to power our everyday lives while ensuring the environment is protected, conserved, and restored in a balanced, commonsense manner."
The American Chemical Council added that it believes that under Pruitt, the EPA will "ensure that credible science and transparency are at the heart of regulatory decisions, and that our nation's key environmental statutes are implemented in a sensible manner."
President Trump nominated Pruitt to lead EPA last December. The pick was controversial, in part because during his tenure as attorney general, Oklahoma joined other states in a lawsuit against EPA over its proposed Clean Power Plan.
During his confirmation hearing on Jan. 18, Pruitt laid out a vision for a more restrained EPA strictly bound by the letter of the law and Congressional intent. But he also broke with Trump by acknowledging that he thinks climate change is real. Democratic members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee tried to boycott Pruitt's nomination, but Republicans on the panel suspended committee rules to overcome the boycott.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109471-pruitt-wins-senate-confirmation-to-lead-epa-perry-zinke-votes-delayed

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Quoted: Early Reaction to Pruitt's Confirmation as EPA Administrator

Feb 17, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Senate earlier today voted to confirm Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next EPA administrator. Here is some of the early reaction:
The top priority for ACC is ensuring successful implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the landmark revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress and supported by a wide range of stakeholders. Efficient and effective implementation of the Act will restore public confidence in EPA’s regulation of chemical safety, and will promote American innovation and competitiveness. With new and expanded access to natural gas feedstock supplies, the U.S. chemical industry is creating jobs and generating economic growth for the nation; it is critical that TSCA regulation of the products of chemistry continue to support that growth.
American Chemistry Council
Under his leadership, we expect EPA to return to sensible policies that both protect the environment and recognize the need for reliable and affordable coal-based electricity.
Paul Bailey, president and CEO, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
In recent years the EPA has far exceeded its mandate and has used regulations as a cudgel to force states to adopt a political agenda. This agenda has upended whole communities--destroying jobs and subjecting Americans to higher energy costs. That will no longer be the case under Administrator Pruitt, who respects the rights of states and individuals and understands that clean air and water and a robust economy go hand in hand. We look forward to Administrator Pruitt advancing policies that grow the economy, protect the environment, and make life better for American families and workers.
American Energy Alliance
EPA’s workforce is smaller today than it was in 1999, despite a significant growth in responsibilities. Starving this vital agency of the resources it needs to carry out its important work threatens the health and safety of all Americans. The biologists, scientists, lab technicians, engineers, and other civil servants who work at the EPA must be able to do their jobs without political interference or fear of retribution. Ensuring the independence of our career civil servants at EPA and all federal agencies is an essential part of our democratic government and something that we will fight to maintain.
J. David Cox Sr., national president, American Federation of Government Employees
We are confident that Administrator Pruitt understands that environmental protection, economic growth, and energy security are not mutually exclusive, but rather require reasonable balancing. Under his leadership, we can realize the President’s America First Energy Plan, which embraces our country’s potential to be an energy superpower while simultaneously protecting the environment.
Chet Thompson, CEO, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
The Administrator has a keen understanding of how compliance with the government fuel economy/greenhouse gas program depends on what consumers buy, not what automakers produce. That’s why standards must also reflect market realities. We remain convinced the best way to advance our shared goals for the environment, safety, consumer affordability and manufacturing jobs is to reinstate the data-driven [mid-term] review -- under the originally promised schedule.
Mitch Bainwol, president & CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Mr. Pruitt is a clear and present danger to our economic prosperity and the health of our children. He was appointed for one reason: to systematically dismantle our environmental protections when it comes to our water, air and wildlife. He made a career of defending corporate polluters and blocking environmental protections by litigating against the agency he now leads. California will not follow Trump’s destructive path. We’ve proven that you can protect the environment and grow jobs. We’ve delinked economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions and helped turn clean energy into a pillar of our economy that now supports over half a million jobs in our state. Our commitment to balancing quality of life and economic growth is a primary reason why California remains a magnet for immigrants from all over the world and will continue to be America’s capital of technological innovation.
Kevin de León, president pro tem, California Senate
EPA needs an effective leader, un-swayed by the whims of unscientific fear campaigns. Through his service to the great state of Oklahoma, Administrator Pruitt has shown that he carefully listens to the needs of agriculture and other constituents and works to get policy outcomes that adhere to science and law. We are eager to share our priority issues with the new leadership at EPA, including the need for rigor in examining studies used in human health risk assessments. After Sonny Perdue is confirmed as Secretary of Agriculture, we can all focus on getting farmers the finest technology that science can bring.
Jay Vroom, president and CEO, CropLife America
EEI’s member companies are making significant investments in diverse energy resources, including clean coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and energy efficiency. We will continue to advocate for policies that maintain a diverse and balanced energy mix, which is critical to the reliable, affordable electricity our customers expect.
Tom Kuhn, president, Edison Electric Institute
America’s manufacturers, energy producers, farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and families have reason to celebrate today’s confirmation of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under a reformed EPA, Americans will see much needed balance returned to an agency that has moved well beyond its Constitutional authority and imposed costly, unnecessary job-killing regulations on American businesses and workers, and created skyrocketing electricity costs for our families.
Craig E. Richardson, president, The Energy & Environment Legal Institute
Our focus will now be fighting Mr. Pruitt’s agenda of dismantling clean air and water protections that have saved so many lives. If unchecked, the Trump administration’s plans will mean more smog, mercury, carbon, and arsenic pollution in our air and water. In all, removing the many safeguards Mr. Pruitt has opposed in his career would cause up to 50,000 premature deaths, 850,000 asthma attacks, 28,000 hospital and emergency room visits, 21,000 heart attacks, and three million missed school and work days, and would eliminate $500 billion in net economic benefits, based on EPA analysis.
Elizabeth Thompson, president, Environmental Defense Fund Action
Pruitt at EPA means more than just increased drilling and fracking. It will mean more factory farms and pollution in lakes and rivers. It will mean even less scrutiny of Monsanto and Dow’s toxic herbicides (which are already running roughshod through our food system). It will mean more Flint-type drinking water contamination. And it will mean no progress on climate change -- after all, Pruitt is a climate denier. Couple that with Trump’s plans to gut EPA funding and enforcement powers and we’re looking at unimagined human and environmental impacts.
Mark Schlosberg, national organizing director, Food & Water Watch
Coming from the energy-producing state of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt understands the critical importance of implementing policies that both support our economy and protect the environment. Having a clear and fair regulatory framework is critical for independent producers, companies that work every day to safely produce the energy we all rely upon to power our everyday lives while ensuring the environment is protected, conserved, and restored in a balanced, commonsense manner.
Independent Petroleum Association of America
EPA regulations have an enormous impact on electric co-ops and small businesses throughout rural America. We hope the agency will work with us to review these impacts and ensure that future regulations allow cooperatives the freedom and flexibility to continue providing safe, affordable, and reliable power to families and businesses across the nation.
Jim Matheson, CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
If Administrator Pruitt focuses on solutions to our most pressing natural resource challenges, he will find a partner in the National Wildlife Federation. If, however, he takes the tact he did as Oklahoma Attorney General and aims to tear down the fundamental, science-based safeguards that protect Americans’ public health and natural resources, the National Wildlife Federation will stand up for America’s bipartisan conservation values. Our millions of members are mobilizing on-the-ground in every corner of our nation to ensure that Congress and the administration hears the voices of all Americans who care about the health and wellbeing of their families, our wildlife and natural resources, and our outdoor heritage.
Collin O'Mara, president and CEO, National Wildlife Federation
Job number one for the EPA is enforcing our country's environmental laws. Yet while serving as Oklahoma Attorney General, Pruitt refused to enforce the law against companies that polluted the state's air and water, instead doing the bidding of the oil and gas industry at the expense of public health. Let me be clear: my office will stand firmly in the way if Scott Pruitt and the Trump administration threaten to gut the progress we've made in protecting our environment and tackling the dire impacts of climate change. We don't hesitate to protect New Yorkers -- even if that means stepping up enforcement ourselves, and bringing litigation against the federal government -- because too much is at stake.
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schniderman (D)
From asbestos in Libby to air pollution in Billings, Montanans have long and sometimes quietly benefited from the EPA’s work to protect human health. Our country deserves an EPA director who will safeguard our families’ health and keep our water and air clean. Scott Pruitt is not that man.
Kate French, chair of Northern Plains Resource Council
As Mr. Pruitt said during his confirmation hearing last month, ‘To honor the intent and the expression of the Renewable Fuel Standard statute is very, very important.’ We could not agree more. We look forward to working with Mr. Pruitt to ensure the RFS remains on track with strong, annual obligations that follow congressional intent. While the RFS remains our priority, we will also continue advocating for the removal of unnecessary volatility restrictions that have discouraged market acceptance of higher level ethanol blends like E15. Ethanol is the lowest cost, cleanest and highest octane source in the world. We encourage Mr. Pruitt to work with us to ensure consumers have more choices at the pump.
Bob Dinneen, Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO
Scott’s principled approach will respect the law and reinforce the EPA’s core mission to protect our air and water without unconstitutional and job killing overreach, which has brought tremendous harm to West Virginia during the past eight years. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt remained a steadfast partner with West Virginia in challenges to defeat the Obama EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan, New Source Performance Standards, the Waters of the United States rule and regulations targeting oil and gas jobs. The Attorney General looks forward to working with Administrator Pruitt and the Trump administration in efforts to roll back the Power Plan and other regulations.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R)
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/quoted-early-reaction-pruitts-confirmation-epa-administrator

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Confirms Scott Pruitt as E.P.A. Head

Feb 17, 2017 | The New York Times

By Coral Davenport

The Senate confirmed Scott Pruitt on Friday to run the Environmental Protection Agency, putting a seasoned legal opponent of the agency at the helm of President Trump’s efforts to dismantle major regulations on climate change and clean water — and to cut the size and authority of the government’s environmental enforcer.
Senators voted 52 to 46 to confirm Mr. Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general who has built a career out of suing to block the E.P.A.’s major environmental rules and has called for the dissolution of much of the agency’s authority. One Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, crossed party lines to vote against Mr. Pruitt, while two Democrats, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, both from coal-rich states where voters generally oppose environmental rules, voted for him.
Democrats railed all night on the Senate floor against Mr. Pruitt and urged Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, to delay the confirmation vote until after next Tuesday, when the Oklahoma attorney general’s office is under order to release about 3,000 of Mr. Pruitt’s emails related to his communications with the fossil fuel industry.
But the effort did little but deprive Democrats of sleep.
Democrats, environmental groups and even current E.P.A. employees have harshly criticized Mr. Pruitt’s record of fighting the mission of the agency he will now lead, as well as his close ties with the fossil fuel industry he will now regulate. Both opponents and supporters of Mr. Pruitt’s say he is well positioned to carry out Mr. Trump’s campaign trail promises to dismantle the agency and slash its ranks of employees. Mr. Trump vowed to “get rid” of the agency “in almost every form.”
A 2014 investigation by The Times found that energy lobbyists drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send, on state stationery, to the E.P.A., outlining the economic hardship of the environmental rules. Many of the coal, oil and gas companies represented by those lobbyists were also some his largest campaign contributors. Mr. Pruitt also worked jointly with those companies in filing multiple lawsuits against major E.P.A. regulations.
Democrats say the emails to be released on Tuesday could reveal more, and possibly disqualifying, information about those relationships.
“I reminded my colleagues that the release of these documents could be imminent and that we would be wise wait to vote on Mr. Pruitt’s nomination until we had the opportunity to review them — and shame on us if we didn’t,” said Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
“Mr. Pruitt has been nominated by a man who, as a nominee, as a president-elect and now as president, has made clear his goals to degrade and destroy the E.P.A.,” Mr. Carper said. “Like many things President Trump says, we ask ourselves, ‘Did he mean it?’ With the nomination of Mr. Pruitt, it’s clear he did.”
For many Republicans, that appears to be part of Mr. Pruitt’s appeal. During the Obama administration, Mr. McConnell became a leading opponent of the president’s climate change agenda, particularly its centerpiece, a set of E.P.A. regulations intended to shut down heavily polluting coal-fired power plants and replace them with wind and solar power. Those rules, if enacted, could disproportionately hurt the economy of Mr. McConnell’s coal-rich state.
Mr. Pruitt, who has expressed skepticism about human-caused global warming, has been a key architect of the legal battle to overturn the rules.
“Pruitt is just the candidate we need at the helm of the E.P.A.,” Mr. McConnell said. “He’s exceptionally qualified. He’s dedicated to environmental protection. And, as someone with state government experience, he understands the real-world consequences of E.P.A. actions and knows that balance is the key to making policies that are sustainable over the long-term.”
Mr. McConnell added: “We should confirm him. Doing so will represent another positive change in Washington that can give hope to families in Kentucky and across the nation who are still recovering from the last eight years.”
Within days of Mr. Pruitt’s swearing-in, Mr. Trump is expected to sign one or more executive orders aimed at undoing Mr. Obama’s climate change policies, people familiar with the White House’s plans said.
While it will be impossible to undo the rules immediately, the presidential signatures would give Mr. Pruitt his marching orders to commence the one- to two-year legal process of withdrawing the Obama-era climate rules and replacing them with looser, more industry-friendly rules. It is also possible that under Mr. Pruitt, the Trump administration could pursue the bold legal strategy of challenging the underlying legal requirement that the federal government regulate planet-warming greenhouse gases in the first place.
Already, Mr. Pruitt has begun work to reshape the environmental agency. Among the candidates he has interviewed for top positions are several former senior staff members in the office of his fellow Oklahoma Republican, Senator James M. Inhofe, who has become known as Congress’s most prominent denier of the science of global warming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Confirms Pruitt, Giving EPA Foe Reins Over Agency

Feb 20, 2017 | BNA Daily

By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

The Senate narrowly confirmed Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, positioning the fierce critic of Obama-era climate rules to immediately begin undoing them.
By a vote of 52-46, the Republican-controlled Senate Feb. 17 cleared Pruitt's nomination to be EPA administrator over the objections of Democrats who argued he would undermine the agency's core mission of safeguarding the air and water.
Pruitt built his political career fighting federal regulations he said stripped power away from states, frequently tangling with the very agency he will now head. As Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt led or joined more than a dozen lawsuits challenging EPA rules governing power plant pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and wetlands.
Pruitt promised senators last month that his “cooperative federalism” approach would not mean an end to nationwide environmental regulation, but rather “meaningful collaboration between the EPA and the states to achieve important environmental objectives.“
“The states are not mere vessels of federal will; they don't exist simply to carry out federal dictates from Washington,” Pruitt said at his confirmation hearing.
Pruitt is expected to quickly begin work to fulfill President Donald Trump's vow to eliminate a water pollution rule and the Clean Power Plan that forces states to slash greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. Trump is poised to sign directives setting those changes in motion soon after Pruitt is confirmed.
‘Save the EPA’
Pruitt joined more than two dozen other states in challenging the Clean Power Plan, saying the Obama administration overstepped its authority by establishing statewide goals and giving regulators a variety of ways to meet them. Under a plan he set out in 2014, the regulation would be limited to imposing carbon-cutting mandates on individual power plants, resulting in relatively negligible reductions.
Some conservatives want Pruitt to go further and undo the legal underpinning for that regulation: the EPA's 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.
But any of those efforts will face internal opposition from an agency that had made combating climate change its top priority over the past few years.
EPA employees have organized to try to block Pruitt, with current staffers protesting at a rally in Chicago, nearly 800 former employees signing a letter arguing against his confirmation and the union representing agency employees launching an online campaign to “Save the EPA.“
“Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest that he does not share the vision or agree with the underlying principles of our environmental laws,” the former employees said in their letter.
E-Mail Issue
Senate Democrats said Pruitt didn't provide substantive answers to their questions and rebuffed requests for an assortment of documents—including e-mails and other records of his interaction with agricultural and oil companies—by recommending senators use public records requests to get the material from Oklahoma officials.
After a court on Feb. 16 ordered the release of hundreds of Pruitt's e-mails and other documents from his time as attorney general, Democrats tried to get Pruitt's confirmation vote delayed until those documents could be reviewed. They failed.
“For years, all we heard from Republicans—including Trump—was e-mails, e-mails, e-mails,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York. “It's not the worst thing in the world to take a few extra days to properly vet someone who will have immense power over our nation's streams, skies—even the lead levels in our homes, our schools and our water supply.“
Democrats warned that Republicans could pay a political price for backing Pruitt. “Those who vote for this man will own this vote,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. “This isn't the end of the story. This is the beginning of the story.“
Democrats crossing party lines to support Pruitt were Joseph Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. One Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, voted against the nomination. Two senators, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and John McCain of Arizona, were not present for the vote.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105798481&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105798481&jd=105798481

Return to headline | Return to top
Pruitt Starts at EPA With Speech to Staff, E-Mails Disclosures

Feb 20, 2017 | BNA Daily

By Brian Dabbs

Scott Pruitt will face an eventful first day at the EPA.
The new addition to the agency, fresh off a stint as Oklahoma attorney general, is set to deliver his first remarks to EPA staff just as an Oklahoma district court compels the release of thousands of his former office's e-mails with fossil fuel companies. Adding to that, Democrats and environmental groups are pledging to hound the new Environmental Protection Agency administrator to ensure he complies with the law after Pruitt was confirmed Feb. 17 largely along partisan lines.
The Senate's vote capped weeks of gamesmanship and partisan bickering featuring last-minute Democratic pleas to postpone the vote for 10 days so Senators could review the roughly 2,500 e-mails with fossil fuel companies an Oklahoma judge ordered released by Feb. 21. That's the same day Pruitt will address EPA staff.
“Even if the Republicans in Congress are as actively engaged in covering up his misdeeds at EPA as they have been engaged in covering up the dark-money operation of Mr. Pruitt and the e-mails of Mr. Pruitt, there are still avenues of litigation, of ethics disclosure and of press inquiry that open things up quite a lot,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told reporters Feb. 16.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also denounced Pruitt, but said it's unclear whether the Republican Senate will conduct genuine oversight over the new administrator. “We will see,” Sanders told Bloomberg BNA.
Democrats have repeatedly accused Pruitt of secretly raising money from fossil fuel companies, while Republicans and some energy-state Democrats say he will scale back onerous EPA regulations.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a chief Pruitt supporter, said massive regulatory rollbacks may take time.
“I think that's jumping the gun,” Inhofe told Bloomberg BNA. “The next step is to try to fill in his cabinet. His problem is, he is going to have to have personnel to make all these things happen and get busy. But I know he is going to try and do that.”
EPA Extols Pruitt
Still, the EPA lauded the incoming chief in a message immediately following his confirmation.
“He strongly believes environmental law, policy and progress are all based on cooperation among the states, cooperation between the states and EPA and cooperation between regulators and the public,” the agency said in a statement. “Mr. Pruitt will lead EPA in a way that our future generations inherit a better and healthier environment while advancing America's economic interests.”
As an example of his environmental accomplishments, the agency pointed to a deal Pruitt with struck with his Arkansas counterpart to decrease phosphorus pollution in the Illinois River watershed. The statement also referenced Pruitt's extensive track record of litigation against EPA regulations.
“Pruitt is recognized as a national leader in the cause to restore the proper balance between the states and federal government, and established common sense regulations that are fair and provide relief where needed,” said the agency.
An EPA spokeswoman didn't respond for comment on whether Pruitt has already resigned as Oklahoma attorney general. Oklahoma, as represented by the attorney general's office, is still involving in a range of suits against EPA, such as challenges to the Clean Water Rule, Clean Power Plan, ozone air quality standards, mercury standards for power plants and methane limits for the oil and natural gas industry.
Neither the EPA or the White House responded to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment on Pruitt's priorities.
Democratic Rancor
The Pruitt nomination passed the Senate 52-46 with two Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), joining Republicans in support.
An environmental group, Friends of the Earth, pledged to hold Manchin and Heitkamp accountable for undermining the “resistance to [President Donald Trump's] extreme agenda.”
Those Democrats, however, joined the rest of their caucus in voting to delay the vote by 10 days. Manchin told Bloomberg BNA the disclosure of the requested e-mails would have helped properly vet the nominee. “I would have liked to have seen them,” Manchin said, adding that he personally asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to delay the vote. But Pruitt will put in place policies to benefit West Virginia, a state embattled by a loss of coal jobs, Manchin said.
The Center for Media and Democracy, a watchdog group, and the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the state attorney general's office, headed by Pruitt, over a long-delayed open records release of the 2,500 e-mails.
The request calls for Pruitt's correspondence with Peabody Energy Inc., Arch Coal Inc., Murray Energy Corp., Devon Energy Corp. and Koch Industries Inc., among other organizations. Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons Feb. 17 ordered the release of the e-mails by Feb. 21.
Democrats blasted Republicans for refusing to postpone the confirmation vote to assess the e-mails.
“[Republicans] will now own whatever comes out on [Feb. 21] and subsequent releases of the e-mails,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a fierce advocate of combating climate change, told reporters.
Asked why he wouldn't sign off on a delay, McConnell responded: “Because I choose not to. And if they were not making that argument, they'd be making another argument.”

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105798485&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105798485&jd=105798485

Return to headline | Return to top
Five Things Pruitt Can Do to Cripple the EPA

Feb 20, 2017 | Politico Pro

By Annie Snider

President Donald Trump vowed to gut the EPA, and the Senate has just confirmed his man to do it.
Scott Pruitt, who was sworn in as EPA administrator early Friday evening, will wield vast power to reshape the 46-year-old, 15,000-person agency he has criticized so fiercely.
As Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt sued the agency at least 14 times — often in lockstep with fossil fuel companies — to try to overturn the agency's air and water regulations. He has questioned the role of humans play in climate change, while arguing that much of the agency's authority should be in states' hands.
Now, Pruitt's actions — and the executive orders Trump is planning for the agency — could have repercussions for years.
“Most of the business community really is looking to Pruitt to make changes that will be enduring — not to do things that can easily be undone by the next administration, but really sensible things,” said Jeffrey Holmstead, a top EPA official in George W. Bush’s administration and is now at Bracewell LLP.
Here’s POLITICO’s guide to what to watch as Pruitt and Trump move to rein in the EPA, even as environmentalists plan to battle them in Congress and the courts:
1. Climate change: Trump and Pruitt have vowed to dramatically shift course on the Obama administration’s landmark climate change efforts. The president has threatened to pull out of the 2015 Paris climate deal, in which the U.S. and nearly 200 other nations agreed to make sharp cuts in their greenhouse gas output. And EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which requires cuts in the power industry’s carbon dioxide emissions, has a target on its back.
Pruitt is expected to swiftly begin the yearslong process to repeal the Clean Power Plan. But an appellate court is set to rule on that regulation any day now, and it’s not clear that the judges would allow him to undo the rule right away. Moreover, any effort by Pruitt to undercut the regulation would have an easier time if the courts strike it down first. That legal fight probably won't be over until it reaches the Supreme Court.
But even if the Trump administration succeeds in killing the Clean Power Plan, Pruitt will still be on the hook to regulate carbon dioxide emissions because of the so-called endangerment finding — EPA's 2009 scientific conclusion that climate change threatens human health and welfare. Trump promised on the campaign trail to review and possibly revoke that finding, although Pruitt rejected that idea during his confirmation hearing.
“The endangerment finding is there and needs to be enforced and respected,” Pruitt told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “There is nothing that I know that would cause a review at this point.”
2. Water protections: After years of legal confusion about which streams and wetlands deserve protection under the Clean Water Act, the Obama administration issued a landmark regulation in 2015 to cover headwater streams and some wetlands and ponds. Called the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS, the regulation sparked a fierce backlash from homebuilders, farmers and the oil and gas industry, which say it gives the federal government vast power over everything from stock ponds to puddles, and Trump has vowed to kill it.
Working in Trump's favor is that fact that the legal battle over the WOTUS rule isn’t as far along as the fight over the Clean Power Plan, so the administration may simply ask the courts to let it take another stab at crafting the regulation. Pruitt told lawmakers he would seek to rewrite it, although he also said he’d welcome a move by Congress to more clearly define where the line should be drawn — something lawmakers have failed to reach consensus on after nearly a decade of trying.
If Pruitt’s agency takes another stab at the water rule, expect it to sharply shrink the number of tributaries and wetlands that warrant federal protection. While environmental groups would oppose such efforts, sportsmen’s groups may be the political players to watch. Hunting and fishing groups care about the headwaters streams that are home to trout and other fish, and have proven to have pull with the Trump administration.
3. Executive orders: Trump is widely expected to sign one or more executive orders shortly after Pruitt takes the helm at the agency, setting the priorities and tone for his EPA. Top targets for the orders could include the agency’s climate change work, its broad enforcement powers, or its overall approach to regulation.
Of course, executive orders are tied to the president who signs them, and the next administration can quickly undo them. But orders can also be used to set in motion a broader set of changes that aren’t as easily wiped out. For instance, industry groups have long urged EPA to change the way it measures the costs of new regulations, something that could significantly alter the labyrinthine regulatory review process for years. And businesses have sought to install experts more attuned to economic impacts on the agency’s advisory panels.
“If EPA were to expand that and appoint people who have a different way of looking at things, I think it would be hard to put back in the bottle,” Holmstead said.
4. Personnel: One early Trump adviser on the EPA, the fierce agency critic Myron Ebell, had a clear recommendation for reining it in: Slash the workforce.
His call to cut EPA’s staff by two-thirds got a lot of media attention but would be virtually impossible to accomplish, and the Trump administration has distanced itself from that recommendation. Still, attrition can pack a punch, especially when a number of employees are nearing retirement age and the promise of an unfriendly leader has sent morale plunging.
Even the temporary across-the-board federal hiring freeze in place now is having an impact. Catherine McCabe, who has served as acting EPA administrator for the past month, said last week that “the freeze on hiring is already creating some challenges to our ability to get the agency's work done,” in a video posted to the agency’s YouTube channel.
Environmentalists fear that impacts to staffing under the Trump administration could be one of the blows to the agency that’s hardest to recover from.
“To get the experience, to get the staffing, to get the institutional knowledge — those are the kinds of things that happen sometimes below the radar screen, but can have a long-lasting effect,” said David Goldston, director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
5. Legislation: Truly lasting changes in the country’s approach to environmental regulation will require action by Congress. And after eight years of having their efforts met with veto threats from the White House, Republicans on Capitol Hill now see an opening.
But any such legislation will face a 60-vote threshold in the Senate, so a wholesale revamp that many in the GOP want to see is likely to remain out of reach.
Key Republican leaders have said they plan to take a rifle-shot approach to the Clean Air Act, and they may try again to influence the reach of the Clean Water Act. But even with a number of moderate Democrats facing reelection in 2018, it’s not clear that they’ll have the votes to get it through.
However, having Pruitt in place may reduce the intensity of annual appropriations battles, where Republicans in prior years have tried to use EPA spending bills to block implementation of key Obama administration rules. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the agency, said she did not expect to push riders blocking things like the WOTUS rule or Clean Power Plan because the Trump administration will already be working to reverse those.
“So some of those that were pretty high-profile last year, I think we can say, ‘OK don’t need to worry about those,’” Murkowski told POLITICO.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/02/5-things-pruitt-can-do-to-gut-the-epa-148845

Return to headline | Return to top
Pruitt's Confirmation was Just One Battle. Here's Why We'll Win the War.

Feb 20, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Fred Krupp

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who built his political career by trying to tear down clean air and water safeguards, has just been confirmed to lead the agency that’s supposed to enforce them.
This after the Senate rammed through his nomination before its members had a chance to review thousands of emailsrelated to this secretive alliance with oil and gas interests – emails that an Oklahoma judge yesterday ordered Pruitt to release.
If you’re one of the millions of Americans who joined the opposition to this dangerous appointment, thank you for your activism. Your support made this vote much closer than many expected, convincing senators such as Republican Susan Collins of Maine to oppose Pruitt, and putting us in a much stronger position for the fights ahead.
The confirmation process has demonstrated our ability to mobilize and fight back. It helped us build a vibrant community of environmental watchdogs and active citizens who will now follow every move Administrator Pruitt makes.
What we’ve accomplished together since this nomination was first announced gives me hope for the days ahead.
Together, we unmasked Scott Pruitt
Thanks to efforts of activists, the press and many other organizations, every senator was made aware of Scott Pruitt’s disturbing past. Although he tried, he could not obscure his long record of attacking EPA’s mission to keep our air and water clean. Or the fact that he took money from the big energy interests who would benefit from weaker pollution rules.
Activists were able to force the release of the trove of emails between Pruitt and big energy interests. Enterprising advocates and journalists uncovered proof that he dismantled Oklahoma’s environmental enforcement unit in 2011 and raised millions in political cash from the very companies he will now oversee – companies that have violated EPA standards hundreds of times in recent years.
His credibility is now in serious question, which will constrain his ability to move his risky agenda.
This administration may have assumed an easy confirmation process, but we made sure it was a thorough vetting. That will be critically important in our efforts to hold the senators who voted for him responsible for the actions he will take while in office.
We forced him to change publicly held positions
After a career that included suing EPA at least 14 times, Pruitt attempted a confirmation conversion, suddenly claiming a raft of new, environmentally friendly positions on key issues. He claims to have come around on:
Methane: “I am concerned” about the impacts of methane in driving global warming.
Ozone: “I agree that ground-level ozone is a dangerous pollutant that can cause respiratory and cardiovascular harm. … I believe EPA should focus on helping [non-attainment] areas meet that standard.”
Mercury: “I agree … that mercury is something that is very dangerous to the environment and should be regulated….As Administrator, I will enforce the Mercury Air Toxics Rule so long as that Rule remains in force.”
Cross-State Air Pollution: “I believe the Cross State Air Pollution Rule is important and should be enforced by the EPA. An upwind state that contributes to a downwind state’s nonattainment should take responsibility for that contribution.”
The senators who accepted these statements – despite all the evidence to the contrary from his long record – have an obligation to hold Administrator Pruitt to these newly developed views. Environmental Defense Fund, our allies, and the public will hold him accountable, too.
We are winning at the state level
At times like these state action becomes absolutely critical. And in December came an unexpected breakthrough: The state of Illinois stepped up with the most significant climate and energy bill in the state’s history.
The Future Energy Jobs Bill [PDF] will cut Illinois’ carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector almost 56 percent by 2030, far more than the 34 percent goal under the Clean Power Plan, which the Trump administration is threatening to dismantle.
Ohio and Michigan, which like Illinois have Republican governors, are making similar plays.
The lesson? Those playing climate defense in Washington can also play offense at state level, and win.
We can still protect sensible methane regulations
Vital rules limiting methane pollution on federal and tribal lands, which wastes more than $330 million worth of taxpayer natural gas every year, are now under attack in Congress.
Using a little-known legislative procedure, the Congressional Review Act, the House has already voted to block these pollution limits. But we are heartened that the vote was closer than on any oil and gas pollution issue in years.
Members of both parties favor federal standards to limit oil and gas methane leaks, according to results of a recent survey [PDF], and by large margins. Senators who vote to roll back the BLM methane waste rules do so against the will of the vast majority of their constituents.
We were relentless in our efforts to protect and defend our air and water, and the health and safety of our children – long before Administrator Pruitt was confirmed – and we’ll remain relentless in those efforts in the days ahead.
There’s simply too much at stake to do anything less.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/02/17/pruitts-confirmation-was-just-one-battle-heres-why-well-win-war

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

EPA Delays TSCA CBI Policy for White House Review

Feb 17, 2017 | Inside EPA

EPA is delaying implementation of its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule requiring companies to provide “upfront” evidence when they seek to protect data as confidential business information (CBI), belatedly including the policy in the White House's broad delay of new rules to give the Trump administration time to consider revising them.
EPA is set to enact the delay in a Federal Register notice set for publication Feb. 21, moving the CBI rule's effective date back one day from its original target of March 20, to March 21 -- the date on which the administration's general stay on implementing rules issued in the Obama administration's final weeks will end.
Even though the rule is only being delayed by a day, it serves as a notice that the White House is open to revising the policy rather than allowing it to take effect as written, since the purpose of the overall freeze on implementing new rules is to give Trump administration officials a window to consider which of the last-minute Obama-era policies they will target for withdrawal or modification.
EPA previously halted implementation of 30 rules until March 21 through a Register notice published on Jan. 26, and has left the door open to further delays on a case-by-case basis -- an option that extends to the CBI delay.
“If deemed appropriate, EPA may consider delaying the effective date of this action beyond March 21, 2017,” the new notice says.
The CBI rule aims to resolve confusion over the reformed TSCA law's new requirements for asserting, substantiating and reviewing all CBI claims, which firms can submit in order to protect information on their products from disclosure during the regulatory process. Data on a product can qualify as CBI when it would reveal processes or formulaic mixture information that could be used in reverse engineering by competitors.
Responding to claims from industry that implementation of the CBI mandate was contradictory and burdensome, EPA said in the rule that regulated entities must assert a claim for protection from disclosure at the same time that they submit the information in question to regulators, and must substantiate that claim.
Industry groups in a Nov. 29 letter to then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy had expressed concern that EPA was asking companies to submit evidence for their CBI claims well after the fact, even if the original submissions included justification, which they described as “far more onerous, well beyond what Congress anticipated in making the amendments” to TSCA.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed

Return to headline | Return to top
Be Careful What You Wish For: Revised TSCA Process Slower Than Industry Hoped

Feb 15, 2017 | Lexology

By Timothy J. Coughlin and William J. Hubbard

Last year, former President Barack Obama signed a bipartisan bill that updated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 years after its original passage in an effort to meet the needs of the modern day chemical industry. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Act) is intended to provide more federal oversight of chemicals to protect consumers, while also providing a clearer picture for manufacturers as to the regulatory requirements for evaluating and approving chemicals.
Notably, the Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to:prioritize existing hazardous chemicals through a screening process that is supposed to take less than a year to complete;conduct risk evaluations of each chemical within three and a half years of the evaluation start date, including those chemicals for which EPA is paid by manufacturers to give preference; andpublish a final rule on each chemical’s regulation within two years of the published risk evaluation.
When TSCA reform was enacted, the EPA had over 85,000 existing chemicals currently in its inventory, although a number of those are no longer manufactured or used.
While the EPA goes through this new process for existing chemicals, prioritizing 10 at a time, new chemicals are being developed that also need evaluation and approval. When a manufacturer develops a new chemical, it submits a premanufacture notice (PMN) that, under the new law, must be reviewed by the EPA within 90 days. When the Act became law, the EPA had over 300 PMNs in the queue. Since the EPA failed to complete its reviews timely, it gave itself a reprieve by reassigning the submission date to the date of the law’s enactment. Thus, new chemicals that may have been waiting months or longer for approval have to wait even longer, while some stay in undetermined suspense. As of last month, approximately 200 new PMNs had been filed with the EPA since the Act went into effect. Since then, the EPA has approved fewer than 40.
Although the Act was thought to be promising for manufacturers looking to speed the regulatory process along, as the EPA actually rolls out this new process, optimism for efficient movement may be waning. While the backlog of new chemicals seems to be a major issue, the rollout of TSCA reform may face more obstacles in the coming year. Will the new Senate approve the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, requiring the EPA’s rulemaking under TSCA to be approved by Congress, further slowing the process for getting chemicals on the market? Will the new administration propose less stringent rules for whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk of harm under TSCA? We must wait and see how the new administration and the new head of the EPA rise to these challenges.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b93302bb-44e3-4ab1-9ad4-b2a0e470f7ac

Return to headline | Return to top
It’s Time to Shine a Light on Regulatory ‘Dark Matter’

Feb 20, 2017 | National Review

By Angela Logomasini and Henry I. Miller

President Donald Trump’s desire to shrink the regulatory state by significantly cutting the number of regulations and their impact is laudable. But it won’t be easy, and it won’t be sufficient, because the federal bureaucracy’s tentacles reach deep into private enterprise through a number of non-regulatory programs and actions that if left in place will continue to hinder economic growth.
Clyde Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute refers to this phenomenon as “regulatory dark matter.” Like the “dark matter” of the universe, which is difficult to detect and virtually invisible, regulatory dark matter consists of bureaucratic activities that fall outside the purview of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which specifies the formal process that must be followed to issue regulations. That process includes issuing public notice of a proposed rule, giving the public opportunity for input and comment before a final rule is published in the Federal Register, and observing a 30-day hiatus before the rule becomes effective.
However, those requirements do not apply to “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” And, as Crews puts it, “without Congress actually passing a law or an APA-compliant legislative rule or regulation being issued, the federal government increasingly injects itself into our states, our communities, and our personal lives” by exploiting these exceptions to the APA. In his 50-page 2015 report on the topic, Crews focuses on the impact of executive orders, agency-guidance documents, and regulatory notices. But the universe of agencies’ non-regulatory actions is even larger, including such things as government research programs or grants to favored researchers that may be tainted by political ideology.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is one example. IRIS assesses chemicals to determine whether they are carcinogenic or pose other health risks, and then it catalogs its findings in a database. IRIS was created by the agency itself in 1985, and though there is no law that defines standards for its risk assessments, myriad other EPA offices use those assessments to implement and enforce laws regulating water, air, and land.
Although IRIS does employ a public-comment process, the program has been mired in controversy because it often fails to produce scientifically robust findings. In a 2011 review of IRIS’s formaldehyde assessment, for example, the National Research Council rebuked the agency, citing “recurring methodologic problems,” “problems with clarity and transparency,” and inadequate documentation of evidence, and noting that other NRC committees have reported the same issues in the past.
The NRC then detailed a series of reforms that IRIS needed to implement, but reform has been slow in coming, and IRIS continues to produce highly questionable assessments. Unfortunately, these assessments often provide the basis for costly regulations that provide little or no public-health benefit. For example, excessively stringent drinking-water rules raise local-government costs and eventually lead to higher taxes and inflated water bills.
Trump’s EPA could solve this problem by simply eliminating IRIS and directing that all chemical-risk assessments be performed in accordance with the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Such a move ought to be uncontroversial, given that the TSCA gained overwhelming bipartisan approval in Congress and was signed by President Obama last spring.
Such regulatory dark matter is by no means confined to the EPA, of course. After more than 20 years of deliberation, in 2008 the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine issued guidance to industry that every “transgenic” animal (one that contains DNA from more than one species) crafted through modern genetic engineering would be subject to the procedures and requirements for approval of “new drugs” used to treat animal diseases, such as pain relievers or anti-flea medicines.
But the introduction of a gene is not the same as the administration of a drug, and the FDA’s approach represented a major shift in the regulation of biotechnology that has been hugely expensive to animal breeders and detrimental to consumers. In fact, the policy — promulgated as “guidance,” and thus exempt from the APA rulemaking process — has virtually wiped out an entire once-promising sector of the biotech industry.
What kinds of animals does the FDA’s guidance encompass? One is an Atlantic salmon that contains a newly introduced growth-hormone gene that remains turned on all year round, cutting the time to marketable adult weight from 30 months to 18. The extra gene confers no detectable differences in the salmon’s appearance, taste, or nutritional value; it just speeds up growth. Yet an application seeking approval of the new gene languished in the FDA’s hands for 13 years before the 2008 guidance, and in total it took more than two decades for the agency to process.
There are numerous other such genetic-engineering applications in various stages of research — genes that make the muscle mass of livestock leaner, enhance animals’ resistance to disease, improve the use of dietary phosphorous to lessen the environmental impacts of animal manure, and make dairy cows hornless. Few if any of these innovations are en route to commercialization, because of the daunting FDA approval process.
The “new drug” paradigm doesn’t fit transgenic animals well. A better model is the approach taken by an existing office within the FDA, the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (CFSN), which places the burden of ensuring the safety of foods and food ingredients on those who produce them. In short, the CFSN prohibits the adulteration (contamination) or misbranding (mislabeling) of food, but it does not inspect or evaluate food prior to its sale in shops, supermarkets, or restaurants. Instead, it relies on market surveillance, and, when necessary, enforcement actions.
The CFSN’s approach has worked quite well for many years. Yet the FDA continues to treat every new animal as though it contains a “new drug,” sometimes dragging out the evaluation process for years even if there is virtually no likelihood of harm. And on January 18 of this year, the FDA doubled down on its dubious policy by publishing “proposed guidance” to clarify that animals created with the newest gene-editing techniques — which might alter existing genes without even introducing new ones — would also be regulated as a “new animal drug.”
Why would the EPA, the FDA, and an alphabet-soup of other federal agencies adopt such dubious policies? The answer is that it’s in their DNA: Whenever they can, via formal rulemaking, guidance, or regulatory dark matter, bureaucrats exhibit a tendency to arrogate new responsibilities and expand their fiefdoms. “Dogs bark, cows moo, and regulators regulate,” FDA Commissioner Frank E. Young was fond of saying. We can only hope that in addition to getting rid of many regulations, Trump administration officials will work with the Republican Congress to shine a light on and extirpate the dark matter.
— Angela Logomasini is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, specializing in environmental risk, regulation, and consumer freedom. Henry I. Miller is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445059/federal-bureaucracy-regulatory-dark-matter-kills-innovation

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Picks Science Advisers for New Panel on Chemicals

Feb 20, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Glenn Hess

EPA has named the 18 members who will make up its new Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals. The panel is tasked with providing “independent advice and expert consultation” to the agency regarding the scientific and technical aspects of implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), according to the committee’s charter. The members, selected from about 100 nominees, include nine from academia, three from state and...
...The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which lobbies on behalf of the chemical industry, says the advisers picked by EPA have considerable expertise and represent a diverse set of interests relevant to chemical regulation...
Article Found Here: http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i8/EPA-picks-science-advisers-new.html?type=paidArticleContent

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Veneer Plywood Expert Kip Howlett Talks Lacey Rules on Endangered Woods April 12

Feb 17, 2017 | Woodworking Network

By Robert Dalheim

Kip Howlett, president of the Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association (HPVA) will lead a presentation at the upcoming Columbia Forest Products PureBond Fabricator Green Cabinet Conference at the upcoming Cabinets & Closets Expo April 12 near Chicago.
The Forbidden Woods presentation will address new tenets of the law protecting endangered species that will affect woodworkers, and your clients. The presentation will specifically cover liabilities on veneers and lumber recently outlawed by the Lacey Act. The HPVA represents North American manufacturers of hardwood plywood, veneer, and engineered flooring and their value chain including suppliers, distributors, and fabricators. HPVA develops national consensus standards for the industry, provides laboratory testing and certification services, promotes the products of its members, and represents the industry in public policy venues.
Kip Howlett served as vice president of the American Chemistry Council and executive director of its Chlorine Chemistry Council for 11 years. Before that responsibility, he was with Georgia‐Pacific for over 19 years – holding a variety of positions including vice president of Environment and Government Affairs. He is a lawyer with a Doctor of Jurisprudence from Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Oregon and a BA degree from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
He resides in McLean, Virginia with his 15-year-old son and has three adult children. The 2017 Cabinets & Closets Conference and Expo runs April 11-13 at the Schaumburg Renaissance Hotel & Conference Center near Chicago. About 20 minutes south of O'Hare International Airport, the conference and expo is in the heart of the 9.5 million population center of Chicagoland, and 90 minutes south of the 1.5 million population around Milwaukee. The two areas have nearly 4 million households - ripe for remodeling and interior design projects.
http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/cabinets-closets-conference-expo/cabinets-closets-conference-expo-news/plywood-veneer-master-kip

Return to headline | Return to top
Pruitt's EPA Will Lead to More Toxic Chemicals in Our Food and Farms

Feb 20, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog

By Danya Hakeem and Michael Shank

This year is set to witness one the greatest rollbacks of environmental protections in Republican history. Even if Scott Pruitt hadn't been confirmed this week as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) administrator, Republicans are already easing the restrictions on coal mining and rolling back regulations intended to keep our streams pristine and healthy.
The White House’s decision last week to fast track the Dakota Access Pipeline, threatening Native American tribes’ health and sovereignty, further shows just willing is the GOP to undo protections.
This is just the beginning. More is coming as President Donald Trumphas already intimated a withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and a desire to ramp up fossil fuel extraction on public lands.
This is in direct contrast to the standards set by previous conservative American presidents. No Nixon-era commitment to environmental quality happening here.
What isn’t being discussed in the mad dash to protect the EPA from further undermining – and keep in place the country’s Paris-related commitments to climate action and greenhouse gas emissions reductions – is the likely escalated application of toxic chemicals on our food, families and farms.
One clear indication that the EPA could increase chemical use is that the EPA transition team was led by Myron Bell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose known sponsors included Monsanto and Dow Chemical. It’s clear that this will be a pro-chemical EPA.
No U.S. state knows Monsanto toxins better than Hawaii, a state that’s already witnessed its fair share of pesticide testing. In fact, Hawaii hosts more field trials for new varieties of genetically engineered crops than any other state.
The multinational pesticide-seed industry, including corporations like Syngenta, Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer, has been using the Hawaiian Islands as an open air experimental test site for pesticide-promoting GE crops for years.
Here’s the particularly harmful hit to Hawaii’s health: because of the state’s dense population and limited space, people are often forced to live, work and go to school near these pesticide-laden fields.
There is significant scientific and medical literature linking pesticide exposure in utero and early childhood with neuro-development disabilities like autism and ADHD, as well as leukemia and asthma. Far from a vacation destination, Hawaii has become dangerous and even deadly because of this excessive and extensive pesticide testing.
Thankfully, the resistance against this pesticide testing is alive and well in Hawaii and will, no doubt, ramp up under the new Republican administration and GOP-controlled Congress. Thousands of people have taken to the streets on Maui, Kauaʻi and Hawaii Islands and passed county ordinances to regulate the agri-chemical operations.
Unsurprisingly, the pesticide-seed industry sued in response and the 9th circuit court of appeals ended up overruling local sovereignty in favor of state regulation of pesticides and commercialized GMO cultivation, noting that the federal government has the sole authority to regulate field trials of GMOs.
The EPA, to be clear, has never sufficiently protected the people in Hawaii, or any other state, from the harmful effects of toxic pesticide exposure. It has a long history of approving and releasing pesticides that are only taken off the market after harming thousands of people and the environment.
After phasing out the indoor residential use of the insecticide chlorpyrifos in 2000, for example, because of the known impacts on children’s health, the EPA only considered banning it for all agricultural use in 2015 after a federal court order demanded action. Until the final decision is made, this insecticide will continue to impact towns close to the agri-chemical company operations.
The EPA, furthermore, normally only tests the active ingredient of each pesticide, not the inert ingredients that could increase the product’s overall toxicity. And it tests only one pesticide at a time, even though in everyday life we are exposed to multiple pesticides (up to 90 different formulations on Kauaʻi alone) that can have cumulative or synergistic effects.
The EPA also fails to sufficiently regulate pesticide drift, which is especially concerning in windy, rainy climates like Hawaii, and they often base their analysis on short term studies conducted by the industry rather than an independent scientific body.
For the people of Hawaii, this laissez faire approach by federal government to human health is putting too many people at risk and the state is not stepping up. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture continually shifts the responsibility to the EPA, claiming that they follow federal mandates and no additional precautions need to be taken. Yet, this is clearly not the case. And now with a Trump administration and a GOP-controlled Congress that is so pro-industry and anti-regulation, this could be catastrophic for people who are exposed daily and directly to pesticides.
One ounce of hope for pro-health, anti-pesticide communities right now are the resistance movements rising up all across America. The solidarity is going viral and people are protesting and engaging like never before and on behalf of impacted populations getting shafted by the new administration.
Since Hawaii’s local counties were some of the first to pass ordinances to regulate chemicals companies, it will be the local activists who will rise again. But this time they’ll be armed by an America on fire and ready to help resist the Republican rollback of environmental regulations. This is about protecting people and our environment — from pesticides, from pollution, from Pruitt. And Hawaii will be ground zero for the pesticide fight. Get ready.
Danya Hakeem is the Program Director for Hawaii Center for Food Safety, based in Honolulu, Hawaii. Michael Shank Ph.D teaches sustainable development at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/320125-pruitts-epa-will-lead-to-more-toxic-chemicals-in-our

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Admin Mounts Defense of Obama's HFC Crackdown

Feb 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

By Amanda Reilly

The Trump Justice Department defended an Obama administration rule today for phasing out potent heat-trapping chemicals.
Two manufacturers of the chemicals, hydrofluorocarbons, have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to kill the rule.
President Obama's 2013 Climate Action Plan called for cutting HFC use at home and abroad. The 2015 U.S. EPA regulation at issue eliminated some uses for HFCs, which were previously accepted as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, and approved substitutes for the chemicals.
"This isn't a stretch of the statute," DOJ's Dustin Maghamfar told a three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh appeared to side with the companies at times, saying EPA's rule would force firms that switched from ozone-depleting substances to HFCs to "spend a lot more money."
EPA's regulation — and a similar rule last year phasing out other uses of HFCs — was issued in the runup to the October international agreement to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs globally.
The Trump administration has broadly pledged to undo Obama climate regulations. But while there are concerns with specific rules to eliminate HFCs, global efforts to phase down the chemicals have industry support.
Industry leaders want Congress to ratify the Montreal Protocol amendment and are worried the deal will get caught up in the politics of climate change (Greenwire, Jan. 12).
Two U.S.-headquartered companies that produce alternatives to HFCs are backing EPA in the lawsuit. The companies — DuPont spinoff Chemours Co. and Honeywell International Inc. — and the Natural Resources Defense Council intervened in the case on the agency's behalf.
Chemours and Honeywell have "invested hundreds of millions of dollars" in replacements, said Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former DOJ attorney who represents the companies. "This is significant to them, too."
The legal question in the lawsuit is whether EPA can use the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP), which is geared toward phasing out ozone-depleting substances, to replace HFCs.
EPA first issued its SNAP regulations in 1994, listing HFCs as acceptable replacements for ozone-depleting substances like chlorofluorocarbons. Since that rule took effect, HFC demand has increased dramatically, thanks in part to growing demand for refrigeration and air conditioning in developing countries.
With increased demand has come awareness of HFCs as potent greenhouse gases, leading to President Obama's inclusion of HFC cuts in his 2013 plan to address climate change.
The EPA rule in 2015 effectively banned 38 individual HFCs or HFC blends in 25 uses in four industrial sectors: aerosols, air conditioning for new cars, retail food refrigeration and foam blowing.
In their lawsuit, Mexico-based Mexichem Fluor Inc. and France-based Arkema SA argue EPA can't use SNAP to limit substances that themselves do not deplete ozone. The SNAP program, they argue, can only be used to replace ozone-depleting substances — not previously approved replacements for those substances.
Once industrial sectors have moved away from ozone-depleting substances, "the SNAP program no longer has any work to do," said Dan Himmelfarb, a partner at Mayer Brown who is representing Mexichem.
"EPA has turned a limited program into a limitless one," he told judges.
The Justice Department maintained that EPA has authority to revisit its list of replacements for ozone-depleting substances. The rule is lawful, the agency argues, because HFCs pose an overall risk to humans and the environment due to their effects on climate change.
And the Clean Air Act, DOJ's Maghamfar told the judges, says it's illegal for EPA to replace ozone-depleting substances with substitutes that may adversely affect human and environmental health.
"The statute requires EPA to compare alternatives to each other," Maghamfar said.
'I'm still stuck'
But Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee, said that while the statute does seem to give EPA authority to decide that "some substitutes are OK and some are not OK," the agency's 2015 rule "does seem to pull the rug out" from under companies that invested in HFCs.
"I guess I'm still stuck," he said. "Maybe I'm unique in seeing the problem that I'm seeing."
Like Kavanaugh, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, questioned what promises EPA made to companies in its 1994 regulations about potential updates to the list of accepted alternatives.
But Wilkins said a petition process that Congress established "wouldn't make sense" if lawmakers didn't expect EPA to update the list in the future.
Maghamfar argued the agency was clear in its 1994 regulations that it may make changes to the list of accepted substitutes in the future.
"We are not promising that once you're on the acceptable list, you get to stay there forever," he said.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a Bush appointee, heard the case with Kavanaugh and Wilkins. The judges will likely issue a decision in the coming months.
Mexichem is a member of the Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute, the major trade group for the heating and cooling industry. A spokesman said the group had its eye on the case.
"We are watching this case closely as it involves one of our member companies and an issue — refrigerants and the SNAP program — we care a lot about," said Francis Dietz, the spokesman. "We did not intervene in the case but are paying close attention to how it plays out."
The ruling will likely affect a pending lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit over EPA's 2016 HFC rule brought by the National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, Chemours and Honeywell are also seeking to intervene in that case on behalf of EPA.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/17/stories/1060050272

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Energy Value Fund – Interview with the Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Energy Fund [Part Three]

Feb 19, 2017 | Value Walk

By Rupert Hargreaves

Would you say the portfolio has more of a liquids or gas slant? Why is this so?
As mentioned earlier, we are focused on natural gas. We see it as a bridge fuel and believe that natural gas demand, unlike oil, will continue to grow over the next 25 years. In terms of our long term secular exposure, we are typically oriented toward natural gas, although we are currently invested a bit more in oil than we have been in the past, mainly because of our expectation that prices will continue to rise to the benefit of the companies that produce or transport that commodity.
We are also focused on natural gas liquids. These commodities, like propane and ethane, are used mainly to manufacture plastics. Our research suggests that the US is now the second lowest cost producer in the world of petrochemicals, the precursors to pretty much every plastic that we use in modern life. As a result of this low cost advantage, there’s a significant backlog of investment activity for plants that use natural gas to turn natural gas liquids, propane and ethane, into polyethylene and ethylene. According to the American Chemistry Council there are over 260 new chemical industry expansions worth over $160 billion being built to capture benefits of price advantaged US shale gas.
There have been some drastic changes in the North American oil industry over the past few years, with many smaller inefficient companies collapsing into bankruptcy. Do you see this trend continuing or do you think most of the pain is now behind the industry?
Following the November 2016 OPEC agreement to support prices by cutting production, we think that the likelihood of additional bankruptcies is lower. Obviously, there’s always a risk that the OPEC agreement could fail and commodity prices could fall again, but across the industry we have seen balance sheets improve from where they were several years ago. Individual member compliance with the OPEC deal is something that we will watch closely, but ultimately we are invested in high quality companies that do not face a strong possibility of insolvency should oil prices decline.
Now that we have a deal with OPEC on paper, do you think this is the start of a move higher in oil prices, or do investors still need to view the sector with a degree of caution?
We positioned the portfolio in anticipation of a modest cut by OPEC, which we believed made strategic sense for OPEC members. The market was surprised, as were we, by the magnitude of the cut. If implemented as planned, the cut will significantly tighten oil markets and, all else equal, support oil prices in the low $60-range in 2017. The critical risk, of course, is whether OPEC members will cheat and overproduce. Most analysts believe that the move in crude oil prices to the low $50-range reflects lingering market skepticism that OPEC members will implement little more than half of their planned reduction, and that non-OPEC members, including Russia, Kazakhstan, and Oman, which have tentatively reached their own agreement to curtail production, will also fail to implement cuts. Otherwise the market tightening impact would be even greater.
While the historical reliability of coordinated OPEC action has been spotty, we are guardedly optimistic that this time it may be successful. For one, satellite and ship tracking abilities are greater than in years past, and it will be more difficult for individual members to surreptitiously breach the agreement. Second, the 6-month term limit of the agreement should send the market into backwardation, a pricing pattern that increases current oil prices but reduces futures prices. This may partially blunt the expansion of US shale producer drilling activity in 2017, a major OPEC concern. Taken together, should the agreement be successful, oil markets should become tighter and prices should rise, which ultimately would spur production activity again in the US. By the second half of 2017, higher prices could usher an increase of upwards of 7% in US crude production, based on Miller/Howard’s assessment of companies’ planned capital expenditure increases.
Are you adjusting your strategy after the election results?
We continue to digest the ongoing formation of the new administration’s cabinet. What we believe is emerging is a mix of political outsiders who may have achieved significant past success in their respective fields, like the president-elect, but whose experience has often been quite different from the roles they’ll assume. With respect to energy policy, our initial impression is that policies will remain conducive to the expansion of the North American shale industry. What is more consequential for energy producers than potentially modest regulatory changes is a robust market for their products. To this end, it appears to us that the incoming administration may pursue an expansionary fiscal policy that promises lower taxes and perhaps increased government spending. Enthusiasm for these policies has helped to boost the stock market, which appears to be helping business and consumer optimism. For crude oil markets in particular, a stronger economy means stronger demand growth.
There are plenty of other energy funds out there. Where do you believe you can add value for investors?
As opposed to most energy funds that tend to be proxy bet on commodity prices, the Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Fund endeavors to generate alpha in two ways. One is through good bottom up stock selection of individual companies in the four investment buckets mentioned above; the second is by tactically allocating among the four buckets based on macroeconomic expectations. We think this creates a unique opportunity set. A few years ago, it seemed that investors forgot about the cyclicality of the energy market. We think they were given a very strong reminder over the last two years. Cyclicality will always be the case with respect to investing in energy. So far, we’ve been able to generally leverage our research based on fundamental and macroeconomic perspectives in an effort to deliver on the fund’s objectives for our investors.
Energy Value Fund interview over see disclaimer below
IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES AND RISKS
Before investing you should carefully consider the Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. The prospectus contains this and additional information regarding the Fund. To obtain a prospectus, please visit the Fund’s website at www.mhinvest.com or CALL TOLL-FREE 1-844-MHFUNDS. The prospectus should be read carefully before investing.
An investment in the Miller/Howard Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Fund is subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal. Fund risks include, but are not limited to, the following: The Fund’s focus on the securities that are the beneficiaries of the North American energy value chain presents more risk than if it were more broadly diversified over additional industries and sectors of the economy.
Depositary receipts may be less liquid than the underlying shares in their primary trading market. Companies that issue dividend yielding equity securities are not required to continue to pay dividends on such stock. The Fund may be exposed to liquidity risk when trading volume, lack of a market maker, or legal restrictions impair the Fund’s ability to sell particular securities or close call option positions at an advantageous price or in a timely manner. The Fund invests in small and medium size companies, which carry greater risk than is customarily associated with larger, more established companies.
The Fund may invest in energy companies and energy producers, including pipeline and gas distribution companies. General risks of energy companies include volatile fluctuations in price and supply of energy fuels, international politics, terrorist attacks, reserve and depletion risk and reduced demand.
The Fund may be subject to increased expenses and reduced performance as a result of its investments in other registered investment companies and MLPs. An investment in units of MLPs involves certain risks that differ from an investment in the securities of a corporation. MLP entities are typically focused in the energy, natural resources and real estate sectors of the economy. A downturn in the energy, natural resources or real estate sectors of the economy could have an adverse impact on the Fund. Changes to current tax law could affect the treatment of distributions, including (but limited to) ordinary income, capital gains or return of capital.
Distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC.
This article represents Miller/Howard Investments’ views. Opinions and estimates offered constitute Miller/Howard Investments’ judgment and are subject to change without notice, as are statements of financial market trends, which are based on current market conditions. The information provided should not be considered a recommendation and should not be considered legal or tax advice. The material may also contain forward-looking statements that involve risk and uncertainty, and there is no guarantee they will come to pass.
Some information is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy, completeness, and interpretation cannot be guaranteed.
All investments carry a certain degree of risk, including possible loss of principal. It is important to note that there are risks inherent in any investment and there can be no assurance that any asset class will provide positive performance over any period of time.
The securities identified and described do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold or recommended for client accounts. The reader should not assume that an investment in the securities identified was or will be profitable.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/02/drill-bit-burner-tip-energy-fund/?all=1

Return to headline | Return to top
Appalachian Pipeline Projects Get FERC Notice to Start Tree Clearing, Construction

Feb 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Jamison Cocklin

TransCanada Corp.'s Columbia Gas Transmission LLC (TCO) has received full notice to proceed with construction of its Leach Xpress project.
The project received its certificate in January. It now has FERC’s permission to begin clearing trees for more than three-quarters of the project right-of-way before environmental protection deadlines that begin in April. The company expects another notice soon to begin work on the rest of the project, which would move 1.5 million Dth/d of Marcellus and Utica shale gas to customers served by TCO in Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The project includes roughly 160 miles of new pipeline and 143,000 hp of new compression. TransCanada expects to finish clearing trees before the deadline. It's targeting a late 2017 in-service date.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also authorized Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. LLC to begin construction and tree clearing for its Broad Run Expansion project, which would add 200,000 Dth/d for transport of Marcellus gas from West Virginia to delivery points along the Gulf Coast for shipper Antero Resources Corp. Broad Run is targeting a June 2018 in-service date.
The Commission green lighted construction of Tennessee's Triad Expansion project, which would add 180 MMcf/d to the existing system and serve Invenergy LLC's 1,500 MW gas-fired Lackawanna Energy Center in Northeast Pennsylvania.
FERC was left without a quorum this month after Commissioner Norman Bay resigned. While it can't vote on important projects or rules until at least one of three vacant seats is filled, other business such as notices are left up to Commission staff. Before Bay’s resignation, FERC issued certificates for a series of Appalachian pipeline projects representing more than 5 Bcf/d of takeaway capacity.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109467-appalachian-pipeline-projects-get-ferc-notice-to-start-tree-clearing-construction

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) How U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith’s Agenda is Harming the Economy

Feb 19, 2017 | Rivard Report

By David Lake

San Antonio is responding to U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). As chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Smith has repeatedly spoken out against what he calls an overreach of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“The EPA consistently ignores the tremendous costs of rules and relies on hidden scientific data to justify its overreaching regulations,” Smith said in a statement, following the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that the EPA must factor cost into its decision on Mercury Air Toxins regulation.
Smith’s recent hearing, entitled “Making the EPA Great Again,” raised alarms in the scientific community.
According to the Washington Post, the list of witnesses at the hearing included “Jeffrey Holmstead, a former deputy EPA administrator who is now a lobbyist and lawyer representing fossil fuel energy companies; Kimberly White, senior director of chemical products and technology with the American Chemistry Council, a group representing chemical manufacturers; and Richard Belzer, an independent industry consultant who specializes in environmental and chemical risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. The fourth witness, called by the Democratic minority, was Rush Holt, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.”
“This is not a panel likely to produce an objective examination of EPA’s activities,” U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) said. Johnson is the ranking Democrat on the committee.
I recently penned the following letter in response to Smith’s hearing:
Dear Congressman Smith,
Today our world faces unprecedented challenges. The negative impact that we have had upon our global climate is affecting both our communities and our critical infrastructure. We need leaders such as yourself to put politics aside and work together to help solve these pressing issues.
Congressman Smith, respectfully, your continued refusal to acknowledge our role in impacting the climate is alarming and harmful to our nation’s security and economy. Your effort to “make the EPA great again” delegitimizes climate scientists around the globe, and adversely impacts the design and construction industry who have been vocal advocates to address the impacts of climate change. The real estate industry has worked closely with the federal government, state agencies, and the private sector to improve the built environment in a trillion-dollar sector – accounting for nearly 6% of our nation’s economy.
From 2011 to 2014, the Green Building construction market generated $167.4 billion in GDP, supported 2.1 million jobs, and provided $147 billion in labor earnings. This vocal and organized group [has] been a consistent advocate for policies that lead to energy-efficient carbon neutral buildings and infrastructure, more stringent building codes, and policies to make our communities more resilient. Global warming and man-made hazards pose an increasing threat to the safety of the public and the vitality of our nation. Resilient buildings and robust infrastructure are our nation’s first line of defense against disasters created by global climate change.
Buildings alone account for almost 40% of total U.S. energy use and 72% of U.S. electricity use. Architects, together with the breadth of the construction and real estate industry, comprise over 330,000 members in the American Institute of Architects, the United States Green Building Council, and the Urban Land Institute. Together, these organizations acknowledge the impact of man upon climate change and have all adopted similar sustainability goals and initiatives:
Reaffirm America’s commitment to addressing climate change through the participation of this historic Paris Climate Agreement.
Acknowledge the importance of the renewable energy industry by creating a level playing field where subsidies for renewable energy technology are equal to the many costly subsidies that support fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
We urge you to adopt stronger measures, grounded in science and innovation, helping to create a more secure future for our citizens, thereby making our nation truly great for generations to come.
Sincerely,
David Lake
https://therivardreport.com/how-u-s-rep-lamar-smiths-agenda-is-harming-the-economy/

Return to headline | Return to top
US EPA Faces Uncertain Future with New Administration

Feb 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By David Stegon

The Trump administration has made no secret of its desire to reduce the regulatory power of the US EPA, and just a few weeks into the new president's tenure that plan is already taking shape.
Through a number of high-profile appointments and executive actions, it appears the agency may change in size, focus and authority over the next four years.
During his election campaign, President Donald Trump said there is "tremendous cutting" to be done because the EPA "aren't doing their job, they are making it impossible for our country to compete". He also added that the agency "wastes" most of its $8bn budget.
And after less than a month in office, the president has already started to put his plan into action by:
selecting Scott Pruitt to serve as administrator of the EPA. Mr Pruitt has sued the EPA more than a dozen times as Oklahoma attorney general and said during his confirmation hearing he would aim to rein in the agency's regulatory authority;
appointing congressman Mick Mulvaney (R–South Carolina) to be the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr Mulvaney, who was confirmed on 16 February, was part of the Republican Tea Party Movement that wanted to greatly reduce government spending. With Mr Trump's promise to cut EPA spending, Mr Mulvaney could be a key part of that process; and
issuing an executive order calling for government to eliminate two regulations for every new regulation passed. While the order does not directly target the EPA, the agency issued approximately 500 regulations a year during the Obama administration.
And, according to a report from Reuters, with Mr Pruitt now officially confirmed, Mr Trump is expected to issue "two to five" executive orders this week that will begin to reshape the EPA.
Further changes will probably come when President Trump unveils his federal budget request to Congress, the first step in the annual federal budget-making process. Presidents traditionally submit these between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February, although that can be delayed with a new administration.
"It seems like Trump and Pruitt want a complete reversal of what EPA has done," Nicole Cantello, an EPA lawyer who heads the Chicago-branch of the EPA's employee union, told The New York Times. "I don’t know if there's any other agency that's been so reviled."
Myron Ebell, who oversaw the Trump administration's EPA transition, recently told The Washington Postthat the EPA should go on a "severe diet". For him, that means reducing the EPA workforce from more than 15,000 to just 5,000 over the next four years, while cutting the agency’s $8.1bn budget in half.
Although Mr Ebell said those numbers are his own and not those of Mr Trump, his comments are worth noting. His view seems in line with plans by President Trump and congressional Republicans to greatly reduce federal spending, along with the already in place federal hiring freeze.
Echoing the president's lead, a House committee recently held a "Making EPA Great Again" hearing, in which it criticised the agency's regulatory overreach and committed to put the agency "back on track".
Meanwhile, a Florida congressman has introduced a bill to abolish the agency entirely.
EPA employees upset
Nearly 800 EPA employees signed a petition put together by the NGO Environmental Integrity Project calling for Senators to reject Mr Pruitt's nomination.
And reports have surfaced that current employees are using the encrypted messaging app Simple to discuss "potential strategies against any attempts by newly-appointed political officials.” The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, requested on 14 February that the agency's inspector general look into the allegations.
Moving forward
While the future role and responsibility of the EPA is still up in the air, Steve Caldeira, president and CEO of the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), said although a thorough review of the agency will be positive, the Trump administration will find aspects of the agency that will prove to be very valuable.
"Embracing the successes at EPA – as well as rooting out its excesses – will bring certainty and predictability to industry, making it easier to create jobs while also bringing new, innovative, cleaner and healthier products to the marketplace," Mr Caldeira said. "Mr Pruitt will soon find that EPA actually gets it right sometimes."
https://chemicalwatch.com/53665/us-epa-faces-uncertain-future-with-new-administration

Return to headline | Return to top
Will Decline in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Survive Trump Presidency?

Feb 20, 2017 | BNA Daily

By David Schultz

Renewable-energy investments are on the rise as greenhouse gas emissions go down and the economy grows. And there's not much the Trump administration can do to derail that, energy experts said.
Emissions declined by more than 2 percent in 2015, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's draft greenhouse gas emissions inventory. They're down by almost 5 percent from 2010, while the post-recession economy has expanded by more than 10 percent during that time.
The EPA data show that the decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from economic expansion is largely the result of a shift away from coal fuels toward renewables and natural gas. And there's no sign that political upheaval at the federal level will change this, industry insiders say.
“I'm not aware of any utility executive who woke up the day after Election Day and said, ‘We're going to look at coal now,” Jonathan Weisgall, head of government relations at Berkshire Hathaway Energy, said. “We're moving along the decarbonization path.”

Economics Driving Behavior
Weisgall spoke at a utility industry conference in Washington this week along with Swami Venkataraman, a vice president at Moody's Investors Service who specializes in energy.
Venkataraman said Republican efforts to repeal the Obama administration's signature climate regulations will likely have no effect on emissions-reduction trends in the energy industry. After all, he said, the industry's progress thus far has come before many of the Obama-era rules on the power sector have gone into effect.
Total emissions from the electric power industry shrunk by more than 20 percent between 2005 and 2015, according to the EPA's emissions inventory. Venkataraman said this was the result of market forces, such as the plunging cost of renewable energy and the country's now-plentiful supply of natural gas, which has lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal.
“The economics of renewables are driving behavior,” he said.
Unilateral Action
There's almost no unilateral action the Trump administration can take that would impede the shift to renewable energy, according to Ethan Zindler, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Bloomberg BNA and BNEF are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bloomberg L.P.
The most significant federal policy toward renewables, a pair of tax credits for production and investment, would require an act of Congress to repeal, Zindler told Bloomberg BNA. And he said doing that would be a very heavy lift politically, because the wind and solar industries have become major economic players across the country—especially in western and Midwestern areas that typically vote Republican.
While the decarbonization of the energy industry may now be unstoppable, Zindler said the Trump administration could still take some actions that would halt or reverse the downward trend in overall greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, he said, it could relax federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, something that would not require congressional action.
Further Reductions
But even if Trump doesn't do this—and even if his policies, in aggregate, don't change the country's downward trajectory on overall emissions—the problem of climate change won't fix itself, according to Michael Burger, executive director of the University of Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
That's because, to avoid the worst impacts and to meet international climate agreements, the U.S. likely needs to achieve a negative-emissions scenario, one in which more gases are absorbed by plants than are emitted into the atmosphere, Burger said. As a result, he said, federal intervention, not just inaction, is needed.
“It's possible the market will work all this out ... [but] to make the bend in the curve that's really necessary, there needs to be radical transformation in how energy is supplied,” Burger told Bloomberg BNA. “If there's no federal policy, it's hard to see that happening.”

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105798486&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105798486&jd=105798486

Return to headline | Return to top
Appellate Judges Appear Skeptical of EPA Power to Limit HFCs Under SNAP

Feb 17, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Abby Smith

Federal appellate judges appeared skeptical during recent oral arguments that EPA has Clean Air Act authority to limit hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), refrigerants that are potent greenhouse gases, under a program targeting ozone-depleting substances, suggesting Obama-era climate rules issued under the program could be in danger.
Two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel that heard oral arguments Feb. 17 in the case, Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, asked tough questions of Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Dustin Maghamfar, suggesting they might ultimately find EPA overstepped the bounds of the statute.
The case challenges EPA's July 2015 rule removing several high global warming potential (GWP) HFCs from a list of acceptable chemicals under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The rule is the first of several such measures to limit production and use of the refrigerants due to their climate change impacts. The Obama administration issued another SNAP rule in October, delisting a second round of high-GWP HFCs.
The Trump DOJ defended the Obama-era rule in the case, which was the first climate case to move to oral arguments since President Donald Trump took office.
The chemical companies that brought the lawsuit, Mexichem Fluor and Arkema, Inc., argue that EPA lacks air act power to limit HFCs under the SNAP program, which was developed to limit ozone-depleting chemicals. Under SNAP, HFCs were approved as acceptable replacements for other refrigerants -- chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) -- that caused significantly more damage to the ozone layer.
The petitioners charge that EPA, by delisting HFCs, is now mandating the replacement of a replacement chemical -- an action that is not allowed under air act section 612, which authorizes the SNAP program. And they charge that EPA's interpretation of the statute could allow it to continue to replace substances even after ozone-depleting chemicals are largely phased out, which they say is inconsistent with Congress' intent for the program.
Related to that issue, the arguments focused on whether the agency can remove a substance from the list of alternatives that it had previously deemed an acceptable replacement. If the court sides with petitioners on the threshold challenge to EPA's authority, it would undercut not only the July 2015 rule but also the subsequent October HFC rulemaking.
'Limitless' Program
EPA has “turned a limited program into a limitless one,” argued petitioners' attorney Dan Himmelfarb. He argued that the SNAP program is meant to replace ozone-depleting chemicals like CFCs and HCFCs, and that after first-generation substitutes like HFCs are in use, the “SNAP program no longer has any work to do.”
Himmelfarb said EPA may have other mechanisms to limit HFCs, but “that authority does not come from SNAP.”
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a President George W. Bush appointee, appeared sympathetic to petitioners' argument. He focused on the issue of whether firms could rely on the agency's earlier listing decisions, suggesting it was unfair and potentially unlawful for EPA to place a substance on a list of acceptable alternatives but later delist that same substance after companies had invested in producing it.
In an exchange with DOJ's Maghamfar, Kavanaugh said the HFC rule seems to “pull the rug out from someone who relied on EPA's list” of acceptable substances.
Maghamfar, in response, argued that EPA never promised that once a chemical is on the acceptable list “you can stay there forever.” He charged that EPA was not “promising permanence,” adding that HFC producers were aware when the agency approved the substances that it was concerned about their high GWP.
Similarly, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, another Bush appointee, appeared to express concerns that, under EPA's interpretation, “there is no limit” to the agency's replacement authority.
But Maghamfar said that is not EPA's view and that it understands the program's limits. “EPA has never said the program would last for all of eternity,” Maghamfar said.
'Minor' Changes
Kavanaugh pointed several times to language from EPA's original 1994 rule establishing the SNAP program that he suggested could undercut the agency's recent HFC rules. That passage notes that EPA may “revise” its decisions in the future “as it reviews additional substitutes,” but it characterizes any future revisions as “minor.”
“EPA expects further changes to the SNAP lists to be minor, and thus not to represent an undue burden on the regulated community. The principal changes the Agency expects to make in the future are to add new substitutes or sectors to the lists, rather than to change a substitute's acceptability,” the 1994 rule reads.
That rule, however, also notes that EPA will undergo a notice-and-comment rulemaking to remove a substitute from the list of either acceptable or unacceptable substances. That language could be interpreted as EPA leaving the door open to later removing a chemical from the acceptable list.
Kavanaugh asked Maghamfar and Thomas Lorenzen, the attorney representing intervenor chemical firms Chemours and Honeywell in support of EPA, whether they consider EPA's rule delisting HFCs to be “minor.” He suggested that “generally speaking” EPA's changes under the SNAP program have been minor, but “not this case.”
In addition, Kavanaugh asked Maghamfar if EPA had other authorities under which it could limit HFCs. Maghamfar replied, “Perhaps.”
“If there are other authorities, then we don't need to stretch” the SNAP program to address these chemicals, Kavanaugh said, suggesting that Maghamfar's “perhaps” response could be “key” in the case.
However, Lorenzen noted a provision in section 612 that allows environmental groups and others to petition EPA to delist certain substances, arguing Congress would not include such a provision if it did not expect EPA to have the authority to revise the list.
And both Maghamfar and Lorenzen pushed back on petitioners' argument that EPA, by delisting HFCs, was replacing a replacement chemical -- or effectively requiring use of a “second-generation” substitute for ozone-depleting substances.
Lorenzen called that argument a “red herring,” noting that the substances considered replacements for HFCs -- known as hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) -- were originally approved by EPA as substitutes for CFCs.
And DOJ's Maghamfar noted that EPA, as part of the SNAP program, has the authority to compare alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and select the best available alternative based on a comparative risk framework, of which one consideration is human health and the environment. Thus, because EPA determined HFOs, which have a low GWP, are a safer alternative than HFCs, the agency can remove HFCs from the acceptable list.
Kavanaugh appeared skeptical of this argument, however. “That's a stretch,” he said, in response to Maghamfar's argument that when EPA approves a new substance and delists an alternative, the new chemical replaces ozone-depleting substances.
“'Replace' only seems like a one-time thing,” Kavanaugh added.
But Judge Robert Wilkins, an appointee of President Barack Obama, appeared skeptical of petitioners' interpretation of the limits of EPA's authority. In an exchange with Himmelfarb, Wilkins noted it seems like petitioners' interpretation would require “you to take the biggest bite out of the apple and you can't go back and take a second bite.”
Himmelfarb replied that “EPA can add and remove as much as it wants, so long as ozone-depleting substances are in use,” noting the example that HCFCs served as replacements of CFCs.
Because HFCs are now predominately in use, new alternative chemicals would effectively replace substances that do not deplete the ozone layer -- a step not authorized by the statute, he added.
Reliance Concerns
Lorenzen also pushed back on the suggestions that EPA had unfairly altered the lists to remove previously acceptable alternatives.
He noted that Chemours and Honeywell also relied on EPA's acceptable and unacceptable lists and invested large sums of money to develop and produce HFOs. “This is significant to them, too,” Lorenzen argued.
In addition, he rejected the idea that EPA revising its decisions to remove a chemical it had previously determined acceptable was “retroactive.” The agency does not require companies to retrofit old equipment to remove HFCs or other delisted substances from current products, Lorenzen argued. Rather, it is “prospective,” requiring companies to no longer use the chemicals in the production of new equipment.
Kavanaugh, however, noted that industry “reliance” on agency determinations is typically associated with “notice,” to which Lorenzen replied that EPA underwent a notice-and-comment rulemaking to delist HFCs and thus Mexichem and Arkema “had full opportunity” and notice to review the agency's action.
David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is also intervening in support of EPA, suggested the exchange between Kavanaugh and Lorenzen on reliance could be key to the case. Speaking to Inside EPA on the sidelines of the courtroom, Doniger highlighted Lorenzen's argument that Honeywell and Chemours had also invested in the production of substitutes, using the same knowledge as Mexichem and Arkema.
Doniger said he hopes Kavanaugh understands that such reliance arguments “cancel each other out.” He also noted that petitioners' reliance concerns “would not be solved” if EPA were to use another statute to limit HFCs.
And Lorenzen, speaking to Inside EPA said he thought the arguments went “very well,” arguing the “statute is clear” that it is unlawful to decline to replace a substance when there is a better alternative available.
“EPA's got the better of the argument on this one,” Lorenzen said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/appellate-judges-appear-skeptical-epa-power-limit-hfcs-under-snap

Return to headline | Return to top
Why Liberals Should Accept a Conservative Carbon Tax Plan

Feb 19, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog

By Dan Cohan

Earlier this month, conservative elder statesmen issued a "Let's Make a Deal" on climate: Nix Obama-era regulations in return for a carbon tax and dividend.
So far, the idea has gained little traction from unretired Republicans who could actually make a deal. But if that changes, should Democrats and pro-environment independents accept it?
The proposal was issued with great fanfare by the newly formed Climate Leadership Council. Conservative economists Martin Feldstein and Gregory Mankiw and former secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker III touted the plan in op-eds for the The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The council launched its effort at the National Press Club the same day.
A carbon tax appeals to free-market conservatives by empowering markets to find the cheapest ways to cut emissions. By returning the money through a dividend, the tax would not grow the size of government. The council estimatesthe dividend would start at $2,000 for a family of four, and rise with the carbon tax.
However, the council isn't offering something for nothing. Their proposalcalls for ending President Obama’s climate regulations. Specifically, they would nix the Clean Power Plan, tougher fuel economy standards for heavy-duty trucks and additional regulations yet to be specified. Fortunately, the council is not seeking to weaken light-duty fuel economy standards, appliance efficiency standards or the hydrofluorocarbon dealsigned in Kigali, Rwanda, last year.
Obama pledged under the Paris climate agreement that the United States would aim for 28 percent emission reductions by 2025 from 2005 levels. As I wrote last year, the U.S. had already cut emissions 9 percent by 2014. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just announced that emissions fell another 2.2 percent in 2015.
The council estimates that continuation of Obama-era policies would leave the U.S. about 12 percentage points shy of its Paris pledge. That's why 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had proposed an ambitious agenda for further progress.
With President Trump and congressional Republicans calling to reverse Obama’s policies without replacement, we'd likely fall further behind.
To meet our Paris pledge, the council proposes a carbon tax starting at $40/ton and rising with time. Unlike weaker taxes discussed before, the new proposal would likely be more than sufficient for that goal. A recent Treasury Department analysis estimates that a $49/ton tax would far surpass the emission cuts needed for Paris.
Meanwhile, Resources for the Future modeled various sets of carbon taxes that could achieve the Paris pledge. As co-author Marc Hafstead explained via email, their modeling shows a tax rising to $38/ton (in year 2013 dollars) by 2025 would meet the target. The council's proposal would exceed that level with its annual increases, and yield further benefits for decades to come.
Interestingly, Hafstead noted that their calculation of a $38/ton threshold for Paris compliance assumes the U.S. abandons efforts to control more potent greenhouse gases like methane. That may be the case, as the House voted this month to overturn rules on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling.
But if we don't abandon progress on other pollutants, Hafstead estimates a tax of just $22/ton would be sufficient.
Ditching methane controls is a bad deal for many reasons. Methane is the leading source of ozone smog worldwide. That's why researchers such as Jason West of the University of North Carolina and Arlene Fiore of Columbia University have shown that methane reductions can save tens of thousands of lives.
Leaking methane also means wasting a valuable fuel. Since methane is short-lived, it actually causes more warming near-term than traditional 100-year outlooks would suggest. Controlling methane while keeping the council's $40-plus/ton tax proposal would accelerate U.S. progress toward its ultimate goal of 80 percent emission reductions by 2050.
Environmentalists have little to lose trading the Clean Power Plan for a carbon tax. As I wrote with Leah Parks last year, the U.S. is well ahead of schedule to meet the plan's targets. That's because cheaper natural gas and renewables are already displacing coal, even as the Clean Power Plan remains tied up in court.
The main importance of the Clean Power Plan is preventing a swing back to coal if natural gas prices rise. But a carbon tax averts that scenario. A $40/ton tax would add 4.2 cents per kilowatt hour to the cost of coal electricity, but just 1.6 cents for natural gas combined cycle plants. Solar and wind would pay nothing.
With many coal plants already losing money, coal would quickly give way to cheaper and cleaner forms of electricity. Meanwhile, the tax on natural gas is comparable in size to existing tax credits for wind and solar. Even without those tax credits, wind and solar are already as cheap as new natural gas plants. Taxing natural gas would help renewables extend their recent dominance of new generation capacity without the need for subsidies.
For transportation, the effects of a carbon tax would be far milder. A $40/ton tax would add just 36 cents to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. That's not going to convince many people to drive less or buy an electric car, especially since electricity prices would rise a bit too. However, with fuel economy standards set to tighten, electric car sales would continue to rise.
Looking beyond the 2025 Paris target, swapping regulations for a carbon tax becomes an even more attractive deal. The Clean Power Plan ends in 2030. However, a steadily rising carbon tax would continue to drive down emissions for decades to come.
Carbon taxes have traditionally been criticized as regressive, since the poor spend a greater share of their income on energy. However, by rebating the tax through a per-person dividend, the Climate Leadership Council's proposal would leave many low-income families better off.
So should Democrats and independents welcome this deal?
In a word, yes. Writers in The Nation, the The New York Times and Mother Jones have reached similar conclusions. I'd bargain for tougher methane regulations, but could accept waiting to restore those later.
Trouble is, conservative economists and retired Republican statesmen are in no position to seal this deal. RepublicEn, Citizens Climate Lobby and the Climate Solutions Caucus are trying to rally Republican and bipartisan support for a carbon tax in Congress.
For now, such efforts have fallen on deaf ears from politicians who hear no evil on climate. If that changes, liberals and moderates shouldn't shy away from nixing Obama-era policies to accept a market-based solution to climate change.
Dan Cohan is an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/320303-why-liberals-should-accept-a-conservative-carbon-tax

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested