Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/6/2017
-
Will Pruitt Be a Tough Cop or Let Enforcement Wither?
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Administrator Scott Pruitt will have wide leeway to shape enforcement policy at U.S. EPA, even as he slogs through bureaucracy and legal hurdles to stamp out Obama-era regulations. -
The One Trump Pick Leaving Greens Hopeful
Mar 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Conservation advocates see a rare bright spot in the Trump administration with the confirmation of Ryan Zinke as Interior secretary. -
How to Keep Toxic Substance Inventories EPA Compliant
Mar 6, 2017 | Industry Week
By James G. Votaw
Included in the 2016 amendments to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a one-time reporting requirement for industry, designed to bring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of chemicals in commerce—referred to as the “TSCA Inventory”—up to date. -
Push for Healthier Nail Salons in California Finding Success
Mar 5, 2017 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
It was the swag-bags that convinced community health organizer Julia Liou to redraw the battle plan in a fight to reduce the hazardous chemical exposures of nail-salon workers, most of them low-paid Asian immigrant women. -
U.S. Energy Industry Tries to Gauge Trump Impact
Mar 6, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre
When captains of the energy industry meet in Houston Monday for the year’s most important oil and gas industry conference, they will have for the first time in a decade Republican control of the White House and Congress. -
Executive Order Coming as Early as Tomorrow
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
An order aimed at killing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan is still in the pipeline for this week, a White House spokeswoman said today. -
'Institutional' Bias Leads to FERC Approvals — Enviros
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists made sweeping complaints Friday against the federal approval process for natural gas infrastructure. -
Company Accuses N.Y. Regulators of Slow-Walking Permits
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Backers of a natural gas pipeline in New York are urging a federal court to intervene in an approval process they say has dragged on too long. -
The Trouble with Underestimating Clean Energy
Mar 6, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Dan Cohan
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. And especially about clean energy, as wind and solar technologies and prices continually evolve. -
U.S. Energy Companies More Vulnerable Than Ever to Hackers
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
Oil and gas companies face a serious threat in the form of increasingly sophisticated hackers looking to steal trade secrets and manipulate operations, according to an investigation by the Houston Chronicle. -
Hackers Drawn to Energy Sector’s Lack of Sensors, Controls
Mar 5, 2017 | Washington Post
By Associated Press
Oil and gas companies, including some of the most celebrated industry names in the Houston area, are facing increasingly sophisticated hackers seeking to steal trade secrets and disrupt operations, according to a newspaper investigation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Ramp-Up Threatened
Mar 6, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Transportation logistics threaten to bedevil the U.S. chemical industry as petrochemical output generated because of the shale gas revolution ramps up. -
Column: Put Freight Rail to Work for Michigan
Mar 6, 2017 | The Detroit News
By Jim Byrum and John Dulmes
Michigan’s agriculture and manufacturing sectors are leading job creators in our state, and as they become even more productive, businesses need competitive options to move their products. -
Obama Made Big Promises to the World. Can Trump Spoil Them?
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Months ago, Obama administration officials told the global community not to worry when Donald Trump was elected president. They insisted that the markets — for things like clean power and electric cars — would continue to drive the United States toward its climate commitments.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Will Pruitt Be a Tough Cop or Let Enforcement Wither?
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Administrator Scott Pruitt will have wide leeway to shape enforcement policy at U.S. EPA, even as he slogs through bureaucracy and legal hurdles to stamp out Obama-era regulations.
But Pruitt's philosophy on environmental enforcement is mostly unknown. He doesn't have much of a record on the topic from his time as Oklahoma's Republican attorney general, and it didn't come up much during his confirmation process. No replacement has been chosen for Obama-era enforcement chief Cynthia Giles.
Giles says Pruitt's dedication to enforcement will be a key test of commitments by Pruitt and President Trump to keep air and water clean.
"That can't be done without making sure companies play by the rules that protect people's health," Giles told E&E News. "Enforcing the law is how we make sure those protections are real on the ground."
Environmental groups say they expect the worst. But some agency veterans say law enforcement is where GOP environmental officials can really shine. Former EPA enforcement attorney Rich Alonso said that could well include Pruitt.
"He comes from a 'rule of law' philosophy," said Alonso, a former air pollution enforcer at the agency. "That's good for enforcement."
But even Republicans allow that big budget cuts could fall especially hard on enforcement, one of the agency's most labor-intensive functions. And the Trump administration is talking about deep cuts in spending at the agency.
"I think he's going to be awful," said Environmental Integrity Project Executive Director Eric Schaeffer, who ran EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement from 1997 to 2002. "I hope I'm wrong."
The full 24 percent cut for EPA that has been floated by the administration would not likely make it through Congress (E&E News PM, Feb. 27). But any cuts would come after years of deep pruning at EPA's enforcement branch, called the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). The number of inspections by agency staff dropped by nearly one-third between 2012 and 2016, from nearly 20,000 to a little more than 13,500.
Any across-the-board cut for the agency would be even deeper for branches like OECA if Pruitt succeeds in protecting grants to state governments (Climatewire, March 3). A Heritage Foundation spending proposal seen as having influence with the Trump team recommends a 30 percent cut in the enforcement budget, declaring that "EPA engages in unnecessary and excessive legal actions" (Greenwire, Jan. 27).
Some former enforcement officials suggest paying particularly close attention to the travel budget, saying cuts there would keep inspectors from tracking down polluters in the field. Others say the travel budget isn't so important, because compliance is now often monitored by reviewing reams of data in EPA offices.
Another target for cuts is likely to be the Justice Department division that goes to court for EPA. The Heritage Foundation blueprint calls for sharp cuts to the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). The authors point blame at the office for pursuing "sue-and-settle" policies.
But that could backfire. ENRD also defends against suits brought by environmental groups.
"Do they think we're going to stop suing?" said Schaeffer, a careerist who quit EPA in frustration with the George W. Bush administration.
'Backdoor' attacks
Another trial balloon launched in the early weeks of the Trump era was a proposal to dismantle OECA and disperse staff to "program offices" such as air and water (E&E Daily, Feb. 9).
"It would be a way of stifling enforcement without saying you're abolishing enforcement," said Joel Mintz, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University and author of "Enforcement at the EPA: High Stakes and Hard Choices."
That was the avenue pursued by Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford during her brief, stormy tenure at EPA under President Reagan, said Mintz, who is also a former EPA attorney.
Giles said she doesn't think it would "politically acceptable" to openly reduce enforcement. So she said she's watching for "backdoor" attacks.
Ways to undermine enforcement, Mintz said, include requiring headquarters approval before any enforcement, ordering enforcement staff to defer to the states in all or most cases, or preventing staff from referring cases to the Justice Department.
Will states' rights guide Pruitt?
Though Pruitt is one of Trump's most controversial appointees, there has been limited discussion of his philosophy of environmental enforcement. And that's in some ways surprising, since enforcement may be where he has the most latitude to shape the agency.
"You can't sue the federal government for failure to enforce," Schaeffer said. "In theory, you could not enforce at all."
Environmental enforcement was not a big part of his job as attorney general. In six years, he didn't announce a single environmental enforcement action (Energywire, Jan. 18). His confirmation hearing focused on climate change, political contributions and his lawsuits against the Obama administration.
Given his emphasis on the role of states, some, like Schaeffer, look to Pruitt's attitude toward big national settlements by his fellow attorneys general. In 2011, Pruitt was the only attorney general in the country to opt out of a national settlement with mortgage lenders. Pruitt said he was concerned that the settlement was straying beyond fraud by the banks into requiring loan modifications.
But Schaeffer said sticking narrowly to the confines of the law means "you don't know how to negotiate a settlement."
A key goal of settling, Schaeffer said, is to waive some of the punishment allowed by the law in favor of pursuing a larger good for the public. EPA usually settles for pennies on the dollar, he said, and if Pruitt wants to stick narrowly to the statute, "then they should pay what the statute says they should pay."
Alonso said he does think that Pruitt might follow a "more traditional" enforcement strategy.
"Look at what's in the law and nothing more," explained Alonso, now a lawyer in private practice with the Bracewell LLP firm.
Politics aside
Early in the George W. Bush administration, Tom Sansonetti trooped over to EPA as the Justice Department's new ENRD chief. He delivered a message to the enforcement staff: Enforcement staff is neither Republican nor Democratic.
"I wanted to make sure people understood if there's something being dumped in the river, they understood we were going to chase bad people," Sansonetti recalled recently.
Schaeffer took heart.
"It was a good message," he said, "and it didn't have me thinking he was some closet liberal."
Sansonetti, who is now with Holland & Hart LLP, said there is a strong enforcement structure at EPA and Justice, which can soldier on under Republican or Democratic presidents. But its strength does depend on funding. Sansonetti said he focused on a few select areas in order to get the biggest "bang for the buck" in terms of deterrence. One such area was waste dumping by cruise ships.
"We fined them out the ying-yang, and the Coast Guard stopped seeing as many slicks on the water," he recalled.
Schaeffer said Republicans can do aggressive environmental enforcement without compromising conservative bona fides. For example, many local governments are allowing pollution because of failed sewer systems. Pruitt could pursue such cases.
"If he does that, we're gonna say, 'Good,'" Schaeffer said.
But the former EPA officials say that if Pruitt does choose to cut back on enforcement, he may find that reports of public anger at EPA are overrated.
"When you get outside the Beltway," Alonso said, "people realize they want clean air and clean water."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/06/stories/1060050937
-
The One Trump Pick Leaving Greens Hopeful
Mar 6, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Conservation advocates see a rare bright spot in the Trump administration with the confirmation of Ryan Zinke as Interior secretary.
Amid historic opposition by Democrats and liberal groups to President Trump’s Cabinet picks – many of whom have close ties to the oil and natural gas industry – Zinke’s record on conservation is giving some greens hope that they have a strong ally in the executive branch.
“Throughout his career, Secretary Zinke has demonstrated a commitment to making conservation a top priority of his service. It takes courage to stand up to the party on public lands,” said Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF).
“There’s going to be pressure on him for additional energy development, there’s going to be challenges in some of the regulatory programs,” he continued. “But it’s someone who we can talk to.”
Zinke frames himself as a Republican conservationist in the model of President Theodore Roosevelt, an early supporter of national parks and outdoor recreation who protected large swaths of land in the West.
That’s good news to conservation advocates, who have generally opposed GOP policies in recent years.
Zinke, who was Montana’s sole congressman from 2015 until his confirmation as Interior secretary on Wednesday, set himself apart from most of his party through his strong support for keeping federal lands under federal ownership, preserving land protections, funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund and similar policies.
He went so far as to step down from the GOP’s platform committee last year over the panel’s endorsement of transferring federal lands to states. That helped him draw the support of more than a dozen Democrats in the Senate, at a time when many Trump nominees saw their confirmation votes be nearly along party lines.
Now Zinke, a former Navy SEAL and long-time hunter, is taking those conservation credentials to Interior, which controls about one-fifth of the nation’s land. Its responsibilities also include wildlife conservation, American-Indian relations, offshore drilling and geology.
“Mr. Zinke was definitely the best choice out of who had been put forward,” said Land Tawney, president of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA).
Tawney contrasted Zinke with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), who had been the rumored frontrunner before Zinke secured the job.
“She’s been on the record wanting to sell public lands,” Tawney said. “Mr. Zinke I think separated himself from the other candidates on that. Keeping public lands in public hands is vitally important.”
Tawney and his group played a role in Trump’s choice of Zinke. Trump’s son Donald Jr. is an avid hunter and lifetime member of BHA, and reportedly pressed his father on the issue when the group sounded alarm bells over McMorris Rodgers.
Democratic senators who crossed the aisle to vote for Zinke have similar reasons for supporting him.
“We’re going to fight about a number of things, but not having someone in the secretary of Interior’s position who is actively trying to divest of our public lands, which I believe are one of the greatest birthrights of being an American citizen, is something that I value,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
“He really sees himself in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt,” said Sen. Ron Wyden(D-Ore.). “My sense is — I’ve had a number of conversations with him — that he understands what the challenge is.”
Zinke, who rode a horse to his first day of work Thursday in Washington, D.C., has entered office voicing his support for conservation.
He issued an order on his first day to seek to improve access to federal land, and he told employees and reporters that he plans to fight White House attempts to slash the department’s budget.
Zinke has his detractors in the conservation community, and even his supporters say that they’re willing to battle with him in areas like increasing fossil fuel production on federal land and endangered species.
“What troubles us is that in his short period of one congressional term, he voted for a wide range of anti-wildlife bills,” said Bob Dreher, senior vice president for conservation at Defenders of Wildlife, which opposed his nomination but has expressed a desire to work with the new secretary closely.
“We’re worried about how we get him to really live the full mantle of stewardship that he’s now taking on,” Dreher said.
Interior is a major piece of Trump’s agenda to reverse former President Barack Obama’s environmental policies and increase fossil fuel production.
Both Trump and Zinke want to remove barriers to coal, oil and natural gas production, where appropriate, on federal land. They want to increase offshore drilling and end Obama’s moratorium on new coal federal mining leases.
“Unlike his boss, Ryan Zinke can string a coherent sentence together, but don’t be fooled,” Diana Best, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace, said in a statement.
“As Interior secretary, Zinke will sell out the American people for corporate interests in no time, giving away more public lands to private development, undermining efforts to modernize the federal leasing program, and compromising the Interior’s charter to manage lands to serve the interests of all Americans.”
But the groups that have been more supportive of Zinke are betting that he will be willing to work with them, even when they disagree.
“We’ll support him on some things and applaud, and on some things, we’ll hold him accountable,” Tawney said.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/322319-the-one-trump-pick-leaving-greens-hopeful
-
How to Keep Toxic Substance Inventories EPA Compliant
Mar 6, 2017 | Industry Week
By James G. Votaw
Included in the 2016 amendments to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a one-time reporting requirement for industry, designed to bring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of chemicals in commerce—referred to as the “TSCA Inventory”—up to date. The EPA wants to remove any chemicals from the TSCA Inventory that are no longer made or imported into the U.S.
Shortening the current list of more than 85,000 chemicals will help the EPA to meet its principal new obligation under the TSCA amendments—to prioritize and review the safety of all remaining chemicals currently in commerce under their circumstances of use, and to impose risk management controls (anything from warnings to complete bans) where it finds unreasonable risks. The new chemical testing and risk evaluation process will proceed chemical-by-chemical over a long period of time, and many companies may not be affected for several years. But the chemical reporting obligation (TSCA Inventory Reset) will affect nearly every company, including many companies often exempt from other kinds of EPA reporting.
Beginning in the third quarter of 2017, companies of all sizes and in nearly all industries will have 180 days to investigate, identify and report to the EPA each chemical substance that it has manufactured or imported in the past ten years, regardless of the amount. Chemicals not reported as being made or imported during the look-back period will be designated "inactive" and it will be illegal thereafter to manufacture, import, process or use those chemicals in the U.S. unless they are first 'reactivated' by notice to the EPA (with a potential penalty of $37,500/day). Accordingly, all chemical processors and users have an interest in assuring that the chemicals they use are on the “active” list.
The EPA has proposed to give processors an additional six-month window to review the initial list and report any additional chemicals they use that may have been overlooked by suppliers. The EPA’s proposed reporting rules were issued on January 13, 2017 and are open for public comment until March 14. Final rules are expected by June 22.
Six Things to Know about Reporting for the TSCA Reset
As proposed, each manufacturer and importer has a legal duty to report its activities, even if affiliates or others have reported the same chemical. Special procedures will apply for toll manufacturing or co-importing circumstances. There is no minimum quantity.
Companies will be responsible for identifying all responsive information that is known or reasonably ascertainable. This includes information in a company's own records, known to its employees or, apparently, obtainable from a supplier.
Reporting is not required for pesticides, food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, R&D materials, impurities, byproducts that are disposed (and not used) and some naturally occurring substances. Substances incorporated into imported articles are exempt unless intended for release (e.g., ink in pens or fragrance in scented items). Non-confidential substances reported to the EPA in the 2012 or 2016 quadrennial chemical data reporting (CDR) events (principally those made or imported in quantities greater than 25,000 lbs./year) are also exempt from reporting.
Companies must separately report each chemical making up an imported mixture (e.g., commercial cleaning products or metal alloy ingots), as well as isolated intermediates, chemicals extracted from existing substances, and substances that are made unintentionally or coincidentally through secondary or recovery processes and reused in some way by the producing company or downstream recycler.
New confidentiality claims for the identity of a chemical will not be allowed. Existing chemical identity claims will be allowed to be renewed, subject to a future showing that disclosure would likely cause competitive harm (substantiation). Claims to keep other submitted information confidential (e.g., identity of the submitter) will have to be substantiated with the report.
If a company in the future wants to start or resume use of an chemical that was not reported and has been deemed “inactive,” it can be ‘reactivated’ by submitting an electronic notice with minimal information no more than 30 days prior to active commercial use.
How to Prepare for the TSCA Inventory Reset
Manufacturers and importers will have a relatively short time to investigate ten years of past chemical activities and prepare and submit reports after the reporting rule is finalized. Companies are advised to assess now what it will require for them to identify all reasonably ascertainable chemical identity and use period information, and to assemble the interdisciplinary team typically necessary, and begin to investigate and catalog materials to be reported.
The process may be relatively simple for companies with only a few static operations over the period. But the investigation may be much more complicated for firms that have worked with a more dynamic range of products over the period, have a diverse set of production and recovery operations, have acquired other companies with relevant historical operations and/or have imported a number of products manufactured by others.
All reporting companies will need a system to manage the investigations of the chemical identity of individual products (including documenting source information and extent of the search to meet recordkeeping requirements). Processors should identify with particularity the substances they currently use, then compare their findings to the initial list of active substances prepared by the EPA based on manufacturers’ reports.
Prepare to Discover and Respond to Compliance Issues
Any company reviewing ten years of past chemical manufacturing and importing is likely to discover some instances of inadvertent regulatory or contractual non-compliance, either wholly in the past, or continuing to the present day. These may include violations of TSCA pre-manufacture notice obligations, TSCA import compliance certifications, TSCA export notifications where required, flawed reliance on TSCA R&D or export-only exemptions, noncompliance with applicable significant use rules, failure to report particular chemicals subject to CDR reporting, inaccurate safety data sheets, non-compliance with applicable State product disclosure labeling (e.g., Prop 65) or State or private contractual restrictions on product chemical content. Planning should include procedures for responding to any such discoveries.
With possibility of such discoveries in mind, forward-looking companies may leverage the otherwise required investigations by coupling them with a voluntary chemical compliance audit. Under the EPA’s audit policy, the audit would give companies the opportunity to promptly disclose and correct any violations discovered without incurring gravity-based penalties. Companies might also use the investigations to better understand the particular chemicals present in and important to their products, and be better prepared to know when proposed state, federal or foreign chemical regulation threatens their interests.
James G. Votaw is an environmental law and product regulation partner in Manatt, Phelps & Phillips’ Washington, D.C. office.
http://www.industryweek.com/inventory-management/how-keep-toxic-substance-inventories-epa-compliant
-
Push for Healthier Nail Salons in California Finding Success
Mar 5, 2017 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
It was the swag-bags that convinced community health organizer Julia Liou to redraw the battle plan in a fight to reduce the hazardous chemical exposures of nail-salon workers, most of them low-paid Asian immigrant women.
In 2005, Liou watched at California's state Capitol as dozens of lobbyists gave away bags of lipsticks and other beauty goodies to excited legislative staffers. It was part of the beauty and chemical industries' effort to defeat a bill to ban one of the thousands of industrial compounds used to make manicure and pedicures prettier and longer lasting.
Liou and her colleagues lost on that bill. But the state Capitol cluster-swag emerged as a defining lesson for Liou, underscoring how hard it would always be to go lobbyist-for-lobbyist against the U.S. beauty industry, with its $62 billion in estimated revenue last year.
That episode has given rise to a San Francisco Bay Area grass-roots campaign of salon workers, health workers and local officials that has taken hold in California and is gaining increasing national support and recognition from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and others.
"I realized we need to bring the voices of the community there ... to really articulate what was really happening, what workers were experiencing on the health side," said Liou, development director of Asian Health Services, a clinic and outreach program in Oakland's Chinatown where staffers first took note more than a decade ago of how many nail-salon workers were dealing with cancer, headaches, miscarriages and other health problems.
Since then, the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative that Liou co-founded has spearheaded a California effort to reduce the toxicants that salon workers touch and breathe. Cities and counties taking part in the program certify salon owners who voluntarily ban suspect ingredients and nail products and who provide proper ventilation, gloves and masks for workers.
Last year, California lawmakers passed legislation supporting the certification program.
The health complaints voiced by the country's more than 400,000 nail-salon workers, mostly immigrants from Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea and other Asian countries and many with limited English or political experience, have gotten more attention over the last decade.
In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has mandated ventilation systems and other measures to reduce chemical exposure in nail salons. Some businesses and local groups around the U.S. have tried self-certifying healthy nail salons.
But California's voluntary program stands out for the local government certification and for giving salon owners and workers the say on what health measures salons could best afford, as well as the training and encouragement to speak out on their health concerns.
One morning this winter, TV crews, state and federal officials, and salon workers crowded inside a storefront nail salon in the San Francisco suburb of Alameda. The gathering celebrated the salon as one of the newest of 143 in the Bay Area and the Southern California city of Santa Monica to win local government certification as a healthy salon.
On the sidewalk outside, the owner of another salon, Van Nguyen, stood and cried.
In support of the program, Nguyen had told California policymakers of miscarriages she suffered and the debilitating skin ailments that plagued a son she carried to full term.
Having earlier won certification for her own San Francisco nail parlor, Nguyen, 46, was proud she had spoken out to protect other workers. But she mourned the harm she believes she did to her offspring through long days working with glues, removers and polishes.
"I had misfortune, but I did the best I can," Nguyen said. "I don't want anyone else to suffer like me."
Beauty product trade groups and chemical makers deny the ingredients targeted by healthy-salon programs, including formaldehyde and other chemicals known or believed to cause cancer or other harm, are dangerous at the levels used in products.
Regardless, leading manufacturers already have removed many chemicals most cited by critics, said Lisa Powers, spokeswoman for the Personal Care Products Council.
Overall, these ingredients provide a small and harmless part of what's in nail polish, said Linda Loretz, the council's chief toxicologist.
"A chemical gets a bad name in a very simplistic way," as opposed to risk-based science, Loretz said.
Critics counter that the country's scientific and medical communities have failed to study any long-term threat from the industrial compounds that salon workers may work with daily for years.
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control opened hearings this month to examine the safety of some of the most frequently questioned ingredients in nail polishes and other products. Karl Palmer, chief of the department's branch for safer consumer products, said the hearings could lead to recommendations for safer alternatives or other state action.
The EPA awarded the California program a $120,000 grant in part because it believes the model could expand nationally, said Matthew Tejada, director of the agency's office of environmental justice.
The involvement of salon-workers was critical to their success, he said.
"They're not looking to just make a policy critique on some intangible, philosophical point," Tejada said. "They're trying to make their lives better."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/05/us/ap-us-salon-workers-toxics-campaign.html
-
U.S. Energy Industry Tries to Gauge Trump Impact
Mar 6, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre
When captains of the energy industry meet in Houston Monday for the year’s most important oil and gas industry conference, they will have for the first time in a decade Republican control of the White House and Congress.
And they’re still trying to figure out what that means.
Many in the energy industry were as surprised as the political pundits that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in last year’s presidential election. More than one company that had prepared for a continuation of Obama-era rules and regulations instead found themselves like a kid in a candy store.
“People were really geared up for a different reality, and it’s not the reality that’s here now,” said Daniel Yergin, vice-chair of energy consulting firm of IHS Markit, the organizer of the CERAWeek conference kicking off in the nation's energy capital. “The industry had been bracing itself for a further wave of regulations of all kinds. Now that’s not going to happen.”
The industry has emerged from the worst of the selloff in the oil market, with current U.S. oil prices double the level from a year ago. And executives are generally encouraged by Trump’s calls to tap more oil and gas. But while publicly behind the president, oil and gas company executives are also wary as to what comes next.
Part of the problem is that there aren’t many details as to what Trump will actually do to help the industry.
The president devoted only 50 words to energy in his joint address to Congress last week, and even those merely recounted his executive orders for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. That was far less attention given to the subject by former President Obama in his joint chamber address eight years ago, when he spoke 300 words on the topic and asked Congress to invest $15 billion in renewable energy projects.
Trump’s “America First Energy Plan” web page doesn’t add much more detail. It says the administration will roll back regulations, spend revenues from oil energy production on infrastructure, and focus on so-called clean coal projects. Otherwise, it pledges to “embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans.”
But for energy executives, what had been a revolution 10 years ago is the new normal. Exxon Mobil and other U.S. drillers continue to crowd into oil fields in West Texas and North Dakota, but the heavy lifting of building rigs and laying down pipeline is mostly finished. Major oil companies are now trying to pay off the debt they racked up leasing land, buying equipment and acquiring other companies during the boom.
What many in the industry actually want is the same thing that most Republicans on the Hill want, said Frank Verrastro, energy and geopolitics analyst at the Center for Strategic & International Studies: a lower corporate tax rate. Until more information on Trump’s tax proposal comes to light, oil and gas companies might hold their tongues on other concerns, Verrastro said.
And there's some industry nervousness around the policy details. An industry that prides itself on its global reach may eventually have to wrangle with an administration that's embraced economic nationalism.
Trump’s emphasis on "America First" might prove problematic for crude oil imports. The White House has flirted with proposing a border adjustment tax that would drive up costs for the nearly 9.5 million barrels per day the U.S. imports, about half of which comes from Canada and Mexico.
And U.S. refiners import a lot of heavy crude from Venezuela, where the government is looking increasingly likely to collapse.
“What if we lost Venezuela today?” Verrastro said. “We’d have to get a lot more of that sort of crude from Canada and Mexico. Well, we don't have Keystone XL yet, we’re no longer in a good relationship with Mexico and God only knows what’s happening with the border tax.”
Then there’s the rollback of environmental regulations.
Although deep cuts at the EPA look more likely than ever, where and when the cuts may fall is not assured. New EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said on March 2 that he wants to protect state water grants and the agency’s brownfield cleanup program — a direct contrast to the White House’s stated plans to slash both.
Some regulatory rollbacks may not even happen. The Senate appears to have stalled on plans to kill the tighter methane emissions rule the Department of the Interior put in place during the final days of the Obama administration.
With all the uncertainty, the industry may wonder whether there will be any long-term benefits from the regulatory rollback, or if they should stop efforts to comply with rules that are on the chopping block, said Seth Cutler, a senior energy industry analyst at Frost & Sullivan. Some companies may not want to risk the bad publicity and inevitable litigation that would occur in the event of an accident that's linked to any relaxed rules. Others may just not be sure how long Trump's rules would last.
“Organizations very focused on near-term goals may see this as a big financial relief,” Cutler said of the potential rule changes. “But if this lasts for only four years, you could spend even more money to reinstate controls. It’s easier to keep up the status quo than to try to get back those controls in four or eight years time.”
Among others, this year's CERAWeek will feature CEOs from Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Total and BP as well as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, OPEC oil ministers, Trump adviser Peter Thiel and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/03/us-energy-industry-tries-to-gauge-trump-impact-150420
-
Executive Order Coming as Early as Tomorrow
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
An order aimed at killing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan is still in the pipeline for this week, a White House spokeswoman said today.
President Trump is expected soon to sign an executive order directing U.S. EPA to unravel the Obama administration's signature climate change rule and lifting the moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands.
The order won't be coming today but is slated to be signed this week, White House spokeswoman Kelly Love said today. The White House hasn't offered specifics about the content of the looming directive, but it's been expected after Trump promised repeatedly to undo the controversial Obama-era EPA regulation to cut power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump was thought to have been waiting for his EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, to take the helm of the agency before signing major directives for repealing EPA rules. Since Pruitt's confirmation last month, the Trump White House has already moved to repeal the so-called Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule.
Pruitt and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke — who took office last week — would be charged with implementing the Trump administration's plans to overhaul the climate rule and the federal coal leasing program.
During his tenure as Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt sued the Obama administration over both the WOTUS rule and the Clean Power Plan.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/06/stories/1060050988
-
'Institutional' Bias Leads to FERC Approvals — Enviros
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists made sweeping complaints Friday against the federal approval process for natural gas infrastructure.
In a hearing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, lawyers for the Delaware Riverkeeper Network argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's funding structure leaves the agency fundamentally biased toward approving pipelines.
The environmental group's lawsuit rests partially on one proposal, the PennEast pipeline project in Pennsylvania. But it features a broader argument that FERC faces a "structural bias" from the fact that the agency's budget is offset by fees and annual charges from natural gas companies.
According to DRN, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, which sets the funding mechanism for FERC's natural gas pipeline program, results in a violation of constitutional due process rights: depriving the plaintiffs of a neutral decisionmaking body. The argument encapsulates growing complaints from the environmental community that FERC merely rubber-stamps pipeline projects.
During Friday's hearing on a request from FERC to dismiss the case, Judge Tanya Chutkan appeared highly skeptical of the group's due process claim, asking DRN lawyers to explain how the plaintiffs' liberty and property interests were affected — especially considering the relatively early stages of the PennEast project, which has not yet received a certificate from FERC.
Curtin & Heefner LLP attorney Jordan Yeager, representing the group, responded that PennEast is just one illustration of a broader problem that FERC's extremely high pipeline approval rates do not reflect a "delicate balance" that weighs the public interest. That "institutional" problem, he said, stems from the agency budget's reliance on pipeline fees.
FERC lawyers rejected the allegation, noting that FERC's budget is set by Congress, and the agency uses fees from companies to reimburse the Treasury but does not "receive additional revenue when it approves a natural gas pipeline project."
FERC attorney Ross Fulton argued that the idea that commissioners approve projects to protect against future, speculative budget cuts is a "conspiracy, for lack of a better word."
Chutkan, an Obama appointee, said she would quickly decide on FERC's request to dismiss the case.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/06/stories/1060050968
-
Company Accuses N.Y. Regulators of Slow-Walking Permits
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Backers of a natural gas pipeline in New York are urging a federal court to intervene in an approval process they say has dragged on too long.
Lawyers for Millennium Pipeline Co. last week urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to accelerate a review process by New York state regulators for a section of pipeline that would connect an existing system to a state-approved generator station in southern New York.
Millennium submitted its application in November 2015 to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, which handles Clean Water Act permits for such projects. The agency has not taken a final action on it.
Pipeline backers for years have been pushing state regulators to meet strict Natural Gas Act deadlines for permit consideration, rather than a longer timeline allowed for under the Clean Water Act.
At oral arguments Friday, company lawyers said state regulators blasted through both schedules and asked the court to either require the state to speed up the process or declare that the state waived its opportunity to weigh in.
"The department has been quintessentially inconsistent here," Hogan Lovells attorney Cate Stetson, representing Millennium, told the court.
Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Obama appointee, pressed pipeline lawyers on whether the dispute should be handled by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission instead of the D.C. Circuit.
Stetson argued that while FERC could offer some recourse by declaring that New York regulators had waived their opportunity to decide on the permit, FERC review would be insufficient because the agency would have no obligation to act quickly.
Lawyers for DEC, meanwhile, maintained that state regulators are entitled to continued consideration of the Clean Water Act permits for the project. They say the review clock starts not when the application is received but when the application is deemed complete.
Regulators told Millennium they needed to wait for FERC's environmental assessment and additional information from the company before considering the application complete and would start the Clean Water Act's one-year review clock at that time.
Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, and Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, pressed state lawyers on their definition of a "complete" application, noting that state regulations stipulate that a complete application may still need to be supplemented.
"That's a perfect definition of what Millennium originally filed," Tatel said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/06/stories/1060050936
-
The Trouble with Underestimating Clean Energy
Mar 6, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Dan Cohan
This is the first in a two-part series.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. And especially about clean energy, as wind and solar technologies and prices continually evolve.
Outlooks for wind and solar deployments vary widely. Some predict slow growth, while others foresee an unstoppable trend.
Both under-predicting and over-predicting renewables can skew investment and policy decisions. Here, I'll discuss the trouble with overly pessimistic forecasts of clean electricity. A companion article discusses the risks of treating renewables as inevitable.
Pessimistic government forecasts of renewables resemble faulty predictions that telephones and computers would never catch on. Alex Gilbert and Benjamin Sovacool found systematic under-prediction of renewables in a dozen Energy Information Administration (EIA) outlooks. Those "Annual Energy Outlooks" underestimated wind and solar capacity by 55 percent to 93 percent over four- to 10-year periods.
Even over shorter periods, more recent "Outlooks" for renewables have been stunningly wrong. In 2015, the EIA predicted utility-scale solar would top 20 gigawatts (GW) in 2038. Instead, solar did so last year.
The EIA's latest "Outlook" estimates 10 GW of wind capacity will be added over the next three years. In fact, the American Wind Energy Association reports over 18 GW of wind is already under construction or in advanced development.
That same "Outlook" predicts 18 GW of new utility-scale solar will be added through 2019. Yet the Solar Energy Industries Association reports three times that much is already in the pipeline, even before considering new orders that may be placed.
Understated forecasts are driven by overestimated costs. For example, the EIA recently estimated solar would cost $2,480 per kW in 2017. In fact, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) reports utility solar costs had already fallen to around $1,200/kilowatt (kW) last year.
Over-predicted costs and under-predicted growth can bias policy and investment decisions in several ways.
First, bad predictions can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If residential and corporate buyers think wind and solar costs are too high, they may not explore opportunities that have now become profitable. Lazard reportsthat renewables are now cheaper than fossils for new electricity generation, with costs falling by 66 percent for wind and 85 percent for solar over the last seven years alone. Power purchasers unaware of those declines may neglect cleaner cheaper options.
Errant expectations of renewables costs may lead companies to overinvest in fossil fuels. Natural gas power plants built today may struggle to compete with cheap renewables. That could impair profits for pipelines to supply those plants. Money-losing coal plants may incur further losses if their owners misjudge the rising tide of renewables.
Excess investments in fossil fuel infrastructure could lead to "stranded assets," including unprofitable power plants and the pipelines, drilling operations and mines that supply them.
Taken more broadly, some foresee a bursting of a "carbon bubble" if falling demand deflates valuations of fossil assets. Futurists like Alex Steffen suggest a carbon bubble could pop even before demand peaks, if suppliers rush to sell fuels that could be kept in the ground.
Overestimating clean energy costs can skew policy as well. Power plant emissions are already declining faster than required by the yet-to-be-implemented Clean Power Plan. Cheap solar and wind could accelerate that decline. Lack of foresight on clean energy costs may have led to unnecessarily weak emission targets in the plan.
State policies could be affected, as well. Over-predicting clean energy costs may lead to weaker renewable portfolio standards than could be achieved affordably.
No one doubts that predicting the future is tough, especially for constantly evolving energy markets. We've seen here that overly pessimistic outlooks for wind and solar can skew investment and policy decisions. In my companion article, I'll argue that prematurely optimistic visions by clean energy advocates can have serious consequences as well.
Dan Cohan is associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/322442-the-trouble-with-underestimating-clean-energy
-
U.S. Energy Companies More Vulnerable Than Ever to Hackers
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Energywire
Oil and gas companies face a serious threat in the form of increasingly sophisticated hackers looking to steal trade secrets and manipulate operations, according to an investigation by the Houston Chronicle.
Between 2011 and 2015, the Department of Homeland Security identified nearly 900 security vulnerabilities within U.S. energy companies — more than any other industry.
The Coast Guard has also received several reports that foreign ships tried to probe the wireless networks of oil and gas facilities along U.S. waterways.
The threat is perhaps most consequential along a 79-mile stretch of the Gulf Coast near Houston, which has one of the highest concentrations of refineries, pipelines, chemical plants and natural gas terminals in the country.
Making the problem worse, many energy companies still employ outdated technology that can't detect when hackers have broken into operational systems using sophisticated malware.
"There are actors that are scanning for these vulnerable systems and taking advantage of those weaknesses when they find them," said Marty Edwards, director of Homeland Security's Cyber Emergency Response Team for industrial systems.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/06/stories/1060050934
-
Hackers Drawn to Energy Sector’s Lack of Sensors, Controls
Mar 5, 2017 | Washington Post
By Associated Press
Oil and gas companies, including some of the most celebrated industry names in the Houston area, are facing increasingly sophisticated hackers seeking to steal trade secrets and disrupt operations, according to a newspaper investigation.
A stretch of the Gulf Coast near Houston features one of the largest concentrations of refineries, pipelines and chemical plants in the country, and cybersecurity experts say it’s an alluring target for espionage and other cyberattacks.
“There are actors that are scanning for these vulnerable systems and taking advantage of those weaknesses when they find them,” said Marty Edwards, director of U.S. Homeland Security’s Cyber Emergency Response Team for industrial systems.
Homeland Security, which is responsible for protecting the nation from cybercrime, received reports of some 350 incidents at energy companies from 2011 to 2015, an investigation by the Houston Chronicle has found (http://bit.ly/2lOFJgz ). Over that period, the agency found nearly 900 security flaws within U.S. energy companies, more than any other industry.
Steps are being taken to thwart attacks. For instance, the Coast Guard in a joint operation with Houston police patrolled the waters southeast of Houston last year conducting sweeps for unprotected wireless signals that hackers could use to gain access to facilities. The operation was one of the first of its kind in the U.S. concentrating on cyberattacks by sea.
But the vast network of oil and gas operations makes it difficult to secure. Thousands of interconnected sensors and controls that run oil and gas facilities remain rife with weak spots.
Many companies the technology and personnel to detect hackers. Equipment was designed decades ago without security features, and efforts over the years to link computer networks to devices that monitor pressure or control valves have exposed operations to online threats.
“You could mess with a refinery or cause a vessel to explode,” Richard Garcia, a former FBI agent who became a cybersecurity specialist, told the Chronicle.
Power, chemical and nuclear facilities must adhere to strict cybersecurity measures, but federal law doesn’t impose such standards on the oil and gas sector. And when oil and gas companies have been infiltrated by a hacker, they’re not required to report the incident.
More than 20 of the nation’s largest oil companies — including Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips, refiner Phillips 66 and pipeline operator Kinder Morgan — declined to comment or did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The American Petroleum Institute, the national trade association for oil and gas, also declined to comment.
Charles McConnell, executive director of Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative, said oil companies tend to rush to deploy new computer technologies that make operations more productive, but only afterward considering ways to defuse online threats.
“The pace of change of the technology we’ve adopted is every step of the way more and more vulnerable to cyberattack,” McConnell said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/hackers-drawn-to-energy-sectors-lack-of-sensors-controls/2017/03/05/e838f944-0210-11e7-9d14-9724d48f5666_story.html?utm_term=.37efb8e31ac2
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Ramp-Up Threatened
Mar 6, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Transportation logistics threaten to bedevil the U.S. chemical industry as petrochemical output generated because of the shale gas revolution ramps up. According to a report just released by consultants PwC and the American Chemistry Council, bottlenecks in rail, ship, and truck chemical shipments could cost the industry more than $22 billion over a 10-year period ending in 2025. Challenges include a shortage of qualified truck drivers as baby boomers retire, congestion at marine ports, and . . .
Full Article Found: http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i10/Chemical-rampthreatened.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Column: Put Freight Rail to Work for Michigan
Mar 6, 2017 | The Detroit News
By Jim Byrum and John Dulmes
Michigan’s agriculture and manufacturing sectors are leading job creators in our state, and as they become even more productive, businesses need competitive options to move their products. Freight rail must continue to be a big part of the equation, and that’s why the Michigan Agri-Business Association and the Michigan Chemistry Council are calling for long-overdue changes to our nation’s archaic freight rail policies.
Regulatory changes are needed because Michigan’s economy is dependent on freight rail. Michigan agribusinesses and manufacturers alike send and receive nearly 50 million tons of products a year, according to the most recent data available from the Association of American Railroads. For Michigan, this includes not only our food and everyday manufactured goods, but also our energy supplies and the chemistry that helps provide our clean water.
And, while our state ships quite a bit by rail, there are far fewer rail options to move products to markets. Over time, the freight rail industry has seen tremendous consolidation; today, there are just four Class I railroads that dominate 90 percent of the market. Unfortunately, government policies have failed to keep pace with these drastic changes, leaving many rail customers to deal with problems of skyrocketing rates, unreliable service and little access to competition.
However, change is possible. The federal Surface Transportation Board, which has been tasked by Congress to resolve freight rail problems, recently announced reforms that would open up access to more rail-to-rail competition. Called “competitive switching,” this reform would simply allow certain rail customers to request that their freight be moved to another major railroad if another rail line is reasonably accessible. This is common sense and it has been a regular practice in Canada for more than a century.
In addition, the STB is beginning to cut red tape for resolving rate issues in markets that lack competitive transportation options. The current system is a nightmare for rail customers due to the time and cost required to appeal decisions. Often, once an STB ruling is made under current practice, the rail practice being appealed has already had a massive impact.
Like so many other rail customers, agribusinesses and manufacturers in Michigan must compete with producers in other states and overseas. This is especially important given Michigan’s unique challenges as a peninsula. Competition drives innovation and cost-savings throughout our economy — and we need the same principles to guide freight rail development in the U.S.
Our organizations, along with other members of the Rail Customer Coalition (a broad spectrum of farmers, energy producers, and manufacturers) support free-market freight rail reforms like competitive switching and streamlining the rate review process. We hope Congress and the administration will recognize the significant burdens on shippers, and help modernize America’s freight rail policies by supporting competitive switching and other pro-business reforms.
Jim Byrum is president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association and John Dulmes is executive director of the Michigan Chemistry Council.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2017/03/05/column-put-freight-rail-work-michigan/98783048/
-
Obama Made Big Promises to the World. Can Trump Spoil Them?
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Months ago, Obama administration officials told the global community not to worry when Donald Trump was elected president. They insisted that the markets — for things like clean power and electric cars — would continue to drive the United States toward its climate commitments.
But early indications suggest that the economy won't deliver on its own, even as analysts are poring over Trump's anti-regulatory plans and their potential impacts on the climate promises made by the United States in Paris two years ago.
"You need policy action to keep driving emissions reductions, not just in the power sector but in particular in transportation — which is the second-largest-emitting sector — and in industry," said John Larsen, a director at the Rhodium Group. "And at the moment, that doesn't look like it's in the cards."
The United States' nationally determined contribution to Paris pledges to cut emissions between 26 and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025. Analysts say that while nonfederal policies and the markets might deliver Obama's near-term promise to cut emissions 17 percent by 2020, the bigger goals included in Paris could be out of reach without the help of a dedicated president.
"I think that's an awfully rosy scenario to think we could get there just on the basis of market trends and state policies," said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
That's the scenario Obama officials seemed to be selling to worried international onlookers in the waning days of the administration.
"I can tell you with confidence that right now, today, we are on our way to meeting all of the international targets that we've set," former Secretary of State John Kerry told a packed briefing room at the U.N. conference in Marrakech, Morocco, in November, days after it was rocked by Trump's surprise win. "And because of the market decisions being made, I do not believe that that can or will be reversed."
If the United States fails to meet its promises, greens warn that it could undermine U.S. credibility on a host of international issues. It would also make the Paris goal to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius all but impossible, resulting in a dangerous future climate, they say.
Obama rules wouldn't be enough, anyway
Not that success under the Paris framework was assured even with Obama's policies. Former Obama officials routinely characterized the agreement as a starting point for future action.
Larsen's analysis of Obama's regulatory regime found that it would have delivered, at maximum, a 22 percent cut in emissions relative to a 2005 baseline. Critics of the Paris Agreement took an even dimmer view. Stephen Eule of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy estimated in 2015 that the United States would deliver only 45 to 49 percent of the goal.
David Bookbinder, of the consulting group Element VI, who is now with the libertarian Niskanen Center, also estimated in 2015 that Obama's policies would result in a 16 percent reduction relative to 2005 levels by the time the Paris pledge came due.
So it would have fallen to the next administration to tighten rules and perhaps bring more economic sectors under regulation, if the goals of Paris were to be met.
"The difference is not between Trump and Obama; the difference is the opportunity cost between Trump and Hillary Clinton," said Bookbinder, referring to last year's Democratic presidential nominee. "Obama's regulatory things were fairly minor."
Utilities in general had a muted response to the Clean Power Plan, which most projections showed they could comply with fairly easily. But Bookbinder said that his discussions with EPA personnel led him to believe the agency would release a tougher "Clean Power Plan 2.0" if the Supreme Court upheld the more lax Obama-era rule, which was frozen by the high court 13 months ago.
"The point of the Clean Power Plan was not the targets," Bookbinder said. "The point of the Clean Power Plan was to establish EPA's authority to do this kind of cap-and-trade system."
But the rule does affect the amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the air. The U.S. Energy Information Administration released a report in January showing that without the Obama-era power rule, the sector would stop delivering new emissions cuts.
Even critics see its potential for driving down carbon emissions. The U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy estimated in a 2016 blog post that eliminating the Clean Power Plan alone would cause the United States to fall 63 percent short of its Paris target.
Trump will make the Paris gap grow
Now, with Trump in office and Republicans in control of Congress, the Clean Power Plan's demise is all but certain. Restrictions on methane and other regulations are also on the chopping block, as the administration seeks ways to expand fossil fuel development.
"We are going to move further away from Paris, and there will be no regulatory programs, as opposed to modest ones under Obama and a whole lot more under Clinton," said Bookbinder.
Automakers, for example, now hope the Trump administration will soften fuel economy standards that were constructed with their agreement under a deal with Obama. And greenhouse gas rules for manufacturing and petroleum refining that remained on EPA's long-term list of priorities under Obama seem to be off the table.
With those current and future rulemakings gone, Larsen says markets and nonfederal policies could deliver a 16 percent cut, maximum, to 2005 levels of emissions by 2030.
Bookbinder points to EPA's latest greenhouse gas inventory released on Feb. 17, showing that natural carbon sequestration "sinks" are about half what was previously estimated.
Taking that into account, he predicts the United States under Trump will now be able to achieve an 8 percent cut by 2025. "Not pretty," he said. Eule puts it at 7 percent, or even lower.
Still, proponents of climate action remain bullish about what the market can deliver, especially if it's helped along by state policies and global trends.
Sue Reid, vice president of climate and energy programs at the investor group Ceres, said that global companies like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. see benefits in addressing emissions concerns in the United States, because it helps them do business in regions with steadier carbon regimes, like the European Union.
There is also a public relations upside for taking voluntary action. Mars Inc. and Google discovered that when they recently promised to find 100 percent of their operating power from renewable energy.
"What we've seen and heard in terms of the private sector stepping up creates great potential for keeping us largely on track in terms of emissions reductions, because companies and investors get the value proposition," Reid said.
She suggested that the rise of the Trump administration might spur some corporations and states to do more to combat climate change than they otherwise would, making up some of the deficit toward the Paris commitment.
"It's really hard to know that delta because of some of the collateral and silver lining effects of other entities stepping up in part because of the risks that have been put on the table," Reid said.
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) attended the Marrakech conference, pledging leadership and spurring rumors that California might try to join the Paris deal if the United States withdraws.
Last month, a bipartisan group of governors launched the Governors' Wind & Solar Energy Coalition to lobby for federal policies and investments to help renewables expand. States like Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan and Maryland are strengthening their renewable policies.
Vicki Arroyo of the Georgetown Climate Center said that states alone can't achieve federal-level climate action, but they could help drive progress in areas like renewable energy deployment.
"But because that's only a coaliton of the willing and it's not likely to expand beyond, say, half of the states at the moment, we have more to do — which is why we needed the Clean Power Plan," she said.
Dan Reicher, executive director at the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University, said Trump's team would find it politically difficult to take on green technology interests, given that sector's growth over the past five years — particularly in red-leaning states.
"We run a real risk of cutting it off at the knees if you're not careful about how we implement important pieces of clean energy policy at the federal and state level," he said.
State efforts to retain nuclear capacity will also play a major role in the U.S. carbon trajectory, he added — and one in which the federal government does not have a leading role.
Is the Paris gap a reflection on Obama?
Kerry was far from the only Democratic official to predict after the election that the United States would stay on track to meet its Paris commitments.
He and others say an extension of the tax credits for wind and solar power generation in December 2015 will contribute to decarbonization, along with consumer preference for efficient products and policy signals in states and around the world.
Brian Deese, then a senior adviser to Obama, also said at the Marrakech talks that the Obama team felt "quite confident in looking at the trajectory of emissions reductions in the near term and confident that that will persist going forward." Former Vice President Joe Biden told a Canadian audience in December that reductions were no longer dependent on government initiatives.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) concurred in a recent interview with E&E News. "Yes, we're going to have a federal government which is loaded with climate deniers, but at the same time, much of the progress that has been made has been at the state level," he said.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is thinking about doing away with the 26-to-28-percent goal altogether as one option for backing out of Paris.
That move would seem to validate the advice that opponents to Paris provided on the eve of the deal. Staffers for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and others warned some officials in foreign embassies to take Obama's promises with a grain of salt. They suggested that those promises weren't rooted firmly in politics or the law.
Robert Dillon, head of communications for the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, which participated in the embassy briefings, said the Obama administration was to blame for writing a check it couldn't cash when it submitted the nationally determined contribution in 2015.
"To argue that the United States must now make good on that bad check without changes to protect its competitiveness is simply irresponsible," said Dillon.
Still, it's unlikely that Obama's climate legacy will be tarnished by Trump's actions, some observers say.
"I don't think the Obama administration will be held accountable for the decisions of this administration," said Diringer of C2ES. "Falling well short of the target will affect U.S. credibility; I don't think it casts back on the credibility of the Obama administration."
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060050971
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested