Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/17/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) WSJ Survey of Economists Sees Growth Climbing in 2017 and 2018, Then Dissipating
Mar 16, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Josh Zumbrun
Since the election of President Donald Trump, the stock market has soared, bond yields have risen, and economists have raised their forecasts for economic growth and inflation. -
(ACC Mentioned) ATA Announces First Economic Summit
Mar 17, 2017 | Heavy Duty Trucking
American Trucking Associations is launching an Economic Summit that will bring together chief economists from several trade associations for an outlook on each speaker's industry and how it could impact trucking. -
Sources: Trump Expected to Tap Wheeler as EPA Deputy
Mar 16, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia, Alex Guillén and Anthony Adragna
President Donald Trump is expected to tap Andrew Wheeler, a coal lobbyist and former aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe, to be the deputy administrator of the EPA, sources familiar with the hiring process told POLITICO. -
Trump Appointee Steps Down at EPA
Mar 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A member of the temporary political team leading the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Trump administration is resigning. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Erroneously Extends TSCA Inventory Comment Deadline
Mar 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has reversed its March 15 announcement that it was extending the public comment deadline for its draft rule to update the agency's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory, which is slated to help EPA decide when chemicals are “new”... -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Budget May Kill Programs Chemical, Pesticide Industry Back
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The White House budget blueprint to shrink the EPA proposes cuts to chemical, pesticide and research programs—such as a screening program for hormonally active chemicals—that companies may want to support, an attorney told Bloomberg BNA. -
Flame Retardant Makers Off the Hook—for Now—on Safety Testing
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A bid by environmentalists’ to have the EPA require more industry-sponsored safety testing of a flame retardant used in electronics has been denied by the agency. -
Plastics Additive Maker Loses on ‘Biodegradability’ Assertion
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Julie A. Steinberg
ECM Biofilms, Inc., a maker of additives for plastics, lost its appeal March 16 of a Federal Trade Commission ruling that its assertions about biodegradability were deceptive (ECM Biofilms, Inc. v. FTC, 6th Cir., No. 15-4339, 3/16/17). -
Energy Development Boosted in Trump Interior Budget
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski and Stephen Lee
Federal funding for onshore and offshore energy development would increase under the Trump administration's budget request for the Interior Department in fiscal year 2018. -
GOP Lawmakers Dismiss Trump Budget Proposals
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall and Geof Koss
A key Republican appropriator pushed back yesterday against President Trump's budget plan, saying, "We will not balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending." -
Trump Weighs Eni Bid to Drill in Arctic Waters After Obama Ban
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Interior Department is weighing Eni SpA's request to explore for oil in waters north of Alaska, giving the Trump administration a chance to reverse course from former President Barack Obama's attempt to curtail Arctic drilling. -
Bill Would Allow for More Oil and Gas Lease Sales
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Emily Yehle
The Interior Department would be able to add oil and gas lease sales to its existing five-year plan under a new bill from Louisiana senators. -
BLM Says It Plans to Rescind Frack Rule, Asks Court For Abeyance
Mar 16, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Attorneys for the Department of Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have asked an appellate court to vacate oral arguments and abate a case over a rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands because the agency intends to rescind the rule. -
(ACC Mentioned) 'Death and Destruction' Expected as Trump Moves to Gut Chemical Safety Board
Mar 16, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Mark Collette and Matt Dempsey
A White House proposal to eliminate funding for the U.S. Chemical Safety Board signals a full retreat from two decades of progress against chemical disasters and would, if enacted, put American lives in jeopardy, health and safety experts said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump's Proposal to Scrap Chemical Safety Board Draws Criticism
Mar 17, 2017 | Reuters
By Gary McWilliams
President Donald Trump's proposal to do away with the federal agency that investigates chemical accidents drew sharp criticism from environmental, labor and safety advocates, who said that eliminating the watchdog would put American lives at risk. -
(ACC Mentioned) States Seek Further Delay of EPA Industrial Safety Regs
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Elected leaders from Louisiana and 10 other states are asking U.S. EPA to further delay implementation of new industrial safety regulations until late next year and rethink whether the added requirements are needed at all. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Cites Texas Arson as Reason for Reconsidering Facility Safety Rule
Mar 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's decision to reconsider the Obama administration's final rule overhauling the agency's facility accident prevention program hinged on federal investigators' ruling that arson caused the West, TX, fire driving the rulemaking... -
Cutting Chemical Safety Board Would Impact Red States Most
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A White House proposal to abolish the U.S. Chemical Safety Board is a signal to the agency to operate more efficiently—but goes beyond what major industries want, say industry officials familiar with the agency. -
FRA Publishes Quarterly PTC Status Update
Mar 16, 2017 | Railway Track & Structures
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
The Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released a status update today on railroads' progress implementing positive train control (PTC) systems in the fourth quarter of 2016. -
California County Denies Refinery's Rail Project Permit, Again
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Phillips 66 Co.'s proposed rail project at its Santa Maria Refinery in Central California hasn't reached the end of the line—yet. -
(ACC Mentioned) Reaction to White House Plans to Cut EPA's Budget
Mar 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
As we reported earlier today, President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget outline proposes a massive $2.4 billion cut to EPA's existing $8.1 billion budget, a level that would bring the agency's funding down to $5.7 billion and end more than 50 programs. -
Climate Spending 'A Waste of Your Money' — OMB Chief
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
President Trump sees spending on climate change programs as money down the drain. -
With E.P.A. Cuts, States Would Lose Help in Emergencies
Mar 16, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Late one Friday night in 2014, Ohio’s environmental agency received word of a frightening test result from Toledo’s water supply: A toxic greenish substance had rendered the drinking water of half a million Toledo residents unsafe to drink. -
Germany Treads Carefully Toward Climate Confrontation With Trump
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan and Brian Parkin
The German government will release next week a plan for the Group of 20 economies to address climate change, taking a cautious step toward confronting U.S. President Donald Trump on an issue that puts him at odds with most world leaders. -
Judges Doubt States' Case Against EPA's SO2 Deal with Environmentalists
Mar 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
Federal appellate judges appeared deeply skeptical of a suit brought by six states seeking to vacate environmentalists' consent decree with EPA that gave the agency years beyond its statutory deadline to designate areas in attainment of sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards... -
POLITICO Pro Q&A: Sen. Jim Inhofe
Mar 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
He may no longer chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but Sen. Jim Inhofe has arguably never been more influential on environmental and energy policy than now. N
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) WSJ Survey of Economists Sees Growth Climbing in 2017 and 2018, Then Dissipating
Mar 16, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Josh Zumbrun
Since the election of President Donald Trump, the stock market has soared, bond yields have risen, and economists have raised their forecasts for economic growth and inflation.
Here’s the catch: Most forecasters in The Wall Street Journal’s monthly survey of economists believe the boost will be temporary, and not a permanent reset of the U.S. economy’s ability to grow.
“We have finally hit a sweet spot where economic gains are self-sustaining,” said Diane Swonk of DS Economics, but when it comes to the economy’s longer-term prospects, “potential growth is slowing.”
In the early months of Mr. Trump’s presidency, the forecasters in the WSJ’s survey have expressed optimism about the economy’s prospects. Mr. Trump’s goals of reducing regulation, reforming the corporate tax code, and implementing a major infrastructure package are policies many economists have long favored.
On average, forecasters expect 2.4% growth in 2017, compared with 2.2% prior to the election. Their increase for 2018 was more significant. They now expect 2.5% growth that year, compared with 2% in pre-election forecasts.
Those improved prospects help explain the increase in the stock market and in consumer confidence in recent months. And this positive cycle could continue if “financial market and economic optimism rises further and fuels more tangible economic activity,” said Michael Gregory of BMO Capital Markets.
But in the long run? Economists expect growth to slow back down to 2.1% in 2019 and beyond, precisely the same as before the election.
The discrepancy owes to the different factors that can drive growth in the short term versus the long term. A temporary infrastructure push could pull hundreds of thousands into the workforce. A boost in the deficit can give the economy a stimulative jolt.
But in the long run, economic growth ultimately boils down to two basic factors: growth in the working population, and the productivity of those workers.
There are certainly factors that many economists believe would boost long-run growth: “Meaningful tax reform would raise my long-run GDP forecast,” said Robert Fry, former senior economist at DuPont Co. In theory, simplifying regulations and well-targeted infrastructure could allow companies to operate more efficiently, too.
Policies such as these would ultimately require action from Congress, and could also be undermined in part by tax and regulatory policies of state and local governments.
Despite an ambitious agenda, many have doubts about what exactly will get implemented. That is the reason that policy makers at the Federal Reserve haven’t altered their economic forecasts much in recent months.
“Of course, it is still too early to know how these policies will unfold,” Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said in a news conference Wednesday.
Other economists cited risks that restricted immigration could reduce the working population, or that trade disputes could harm the U.S. economy’s global standing.
Most remain optimistic for now. The Wall Street Journal’s survey of 61 academic, financial and business economists was conducted from March 10 to March 13, and found that 62% believe it is more likely growth will outperform than underperform.
By contrast, just 23% see risks to the downside. The odds of a recession in the next 12 months are placed at just 14%, down from 20% during the same month last year.
According to Thomas Swift, chief economist of the American Chemistry Council, there is a chance for “business investment surging” on stronger global growth, as well as tax and regulatory reform. But the biggest risk to the economy is if “business investment collapses based on loss of confidence from delays in tax and regulatory reform.”
So while economists see better growth this year and next, the policies that could lead to enduring stronger growth across the horizon remain unclear.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-survey-of-economists-sees-growth-climbing-in-2017-and-2018-then-dissipating-1489672873
-
(ACC Mentioned) ATA Announces First Economic Summit
Mar 17, 2017 | Heavy Duty Trucking
American Trucking Associations is launching an Economic Summit that will bring together chief economists from several trade associations for an outlook on each speaker's industry and how it could impact trucking.
The first annual ATA Economic Summit is scheduled for July 20 in Arlington. Va., at the Westin Arlington Gateway and is aimed at the association’s motor carrier and private fleet members. The event will feature experts spanning several industries from manufacturing to construction to retail.
“We know trucking is the backbone of the supply chain,” said Bob Costello, ATA chief economist, “With this summit, we want to bring together experts from other adjacent industries to explore the state of the economy and trends that impact trucking and the U.S. economy at large.”
Among the organizations expected to be represented at the Summit are ACT Research, the American Chemistry Council, the Associated General Contractors, the Beer Institute, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Restaurant Association, and more to be announced later. The ATA’s Costello will also give an outlook for the carrier industry.
“Knowledge is power,” said Chris Spear ATA president and CEO, “This Summit will offer the opportunity for fleet executives to gain the insights and knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.”
For more information about the Summit and limited sponsorship opportunities, click here.
http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/story/2017/03/ata-announces-first-economic-summit.aspx
-
Sources: Trump Expected to Tap Wheeler as EPA Deputy
Mar 16, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia, Alex Guillén and Anthony Adragna
President Donald Trump is expected to tap Andrew Wheeler, a coal lobbyist and former aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe, to be the deputy administrator of the EPA, sources familiar with the hiring process told POLITICO.
Sources cautioned that the decision has not yet been finalized, but they said Wheeler is expected to get the job. It's unclear when Trump will make the announcement, but one source said it could be weeks before Wheeler is official tapped.
Wheeler worked as an EPA staffer earlier in his career. He later joined Inhofe's Senate office and then spent more than a decade as a Republican staffer on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where he worked on several major pieces of legislation, including the 2005 and 2007 energy bills.
He has worked at the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels since 2009. He now co-leads the firm's energy and natural resources practice.
Wheeler is a registered lobbyist for Murray Energy, the nation’s largest privately owned coal company, which regularly sued the Obama administration over its environmental regulations.
As a lobbyist, Wheeler may need to obtain a waiver to serve at the EPA.
Trump signed an executive order in January that bars registered lobbyists from participating in “any particular matter” on which they lobbied in the past two years. Those lobbying restrictions last for two years from the time the person joins the administration.
But the executive order says the administration can grant "any person a waiver of any restrictions" in its ethics and lobbyist requirements. Unlike an order signed by former President Barack Obama in 2009, Trump's executive order doesn't require public disclosure of the waivers.
Aside from Murray, Wheeler also lobbies on unspecified energy and energy efficiency issues for Underwriters Laboratories, an Illinois-based lab company, and on agricultural issues for cheesemaker Sargento. His former clients include Xcel Energy and Bear Head LNG, as well as a cooking oil-recycling company, an auto auctioner and a medical isotope coalition.
Wheeler won't be the only energy lobbyist to join the Trump administration. Mike Catanzaro, a lobbyist at the firm CGCN Group whose clients included several fossil fuel companies, took a job at the White House last month as an energy and environmental adviser at the National Economic Council. Catanzaro is a former EPW staffer to Inhofe.
Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a fellow Oklahoman, has also brought former Inhofe aide Ryan Jackson on as chief of staff. Byron Brown, a former Inhofe aide, is EPA's deputy chief of staff and Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPW counsel, is now a senior policy adviser to Pruitt.
More aides with ties to Inhofe are expected to join the EPA in the coming weeks. Susan Bodine and Brittany Bolen, two EPW staffers, are widely expected to be offered jobs at EPA.
Wheeler, a White House spokeswoman and an EPA spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/03/sources-trump-expected-to-tap-wheeler-as-epa-deputy-153128
-
Trump Appointee Steps Down at EPA
Mar 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A member of the temporary political team leading the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Trump administration is resigning.
David Schnare, an outspoken climate change doubter who was a frequent adversary of the EPA during the Obama administration, told colleagues in a Wednesday email that he has “been honored to have had the opportunity to serve the Trump administration, but I have completed as much as I am able.”
He told The Hill on Thursday that a number of factors led to his resignation, including that some agency employees want to undermine President Trump’s agenda.
“I wasn’t forced out, and it wasn’t in a tiff,” he said. “I just wasn’t in a position to achieve much anymore.”
Schnare said the vast majority of career staff at the EPA, where he previously worked for decades, are dedicated public servants, but there are a small handful “who were definitely were antagonistic” to Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt.
“They’re here for some other reason. They’re here for a cause,” he said.
But Schnare emphasized that there were other reasons for him to leave less than two months after Inauguration Day, including that he has been working 10- to 12-hour days and felt it was time to retire.
He said his decision to leave is “complex,” and he would write about it in detail soon.
Greenwire first reported on Schnare’s resignation Thursday.
Some EPA staffers have made no secret of their opposition to Trump’s and Pruitt’s aggressive deregulatory agenda. Among other actions, workers organized an unprecedented effort to lobby the Senate against Pruitt’s confirmation.
The new administration is seeking to undo a host of controversial Obama rules on climate change, water pollution and more, in an effort to help regulated industries. Pruitt rejects the mainstream science behind climate change and Trump has called it a “hoax.”
Schnare had been named in December to Trump’s transition team for the EPA. After the inauguration, he stayed on as part of the “beachhead team,” a group of political appointees who are serving on a temporary basis while positions are filled.
He worked most recently at the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, a free-market group.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/324381-trump-appointee-steps-down-at-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Erroneously Extends TSCA Inventory Comment Deadline
Mar 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has reversed its March 15 announcement that it was extending the public comment deadline for its draft rule to update the agency's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory, which is slated to help EPA decide when chemicals are “new” and must undergo pre-market review, saying that the email announcing the move was sent in error.
“EPA received a request from a trade association . . . to extend the comment period; however, a formal extension of the comment period was not feasible in the short time that remained until the comment period closed,” the agency's March 16 announcement says.
The agency adds that it “will make every effort to consider comments received outside of the formal comment period, if provided by March 24,” the deadline given in the erroneous announcement, but “cannot consider comments received beyond March 24 due to the time constraints in meeting the June 22, 2017 statutory deadline for finalizing the rule.”
EPA originally set a March 14 comment deadline for the draft rule resetting the TSCA inventory, an important aspect of EPA's implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which Congress passed last June to overhaul TSCA.
EPA in a Jan. 13 Federal Register notice proposed requiring a retrospective electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA inventory that were manufactured or imported for non-exempt commercial purposes during the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, the day before the new TSCA law took effect, as that law requires.
The “reset” proposal is aimed at giving the agency a better sense of how many thousands of chemicals are already in the marketplace and considered “grandfathered” from risk review under the previous version of TSCA passed in 1976.
The new reform law gives EPA more robust authority to evaluate risks for those “existing” chemicals, but industry has long said the agency must have an updated inventory so it is drawing from a universe of chemicals currently active in commerce rather than those that have been phased out.
The proposed rule is winning early, measured praise from the chemical sector, with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) in a January statement saying it is a “foundational sorting step” of the new law that will make related proposals to establish procedures for EPA -- to prioritize chemicals and evaluate risks under the new law -- work better.
In a March 15 email, EPA's toxics office announced that it was extending the comment deadline through March 24, with no explanation.
But in a March 16 announcement, the toxics office said the March 15 extension statement was “in error,” and confirming that it closed the electronic docket for public comments March 14.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-erroneously-extends-tsca-inventory-comment-deadline
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Budget May Kill Programs Chemical, Pesticide Industry Back
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The White House budget blueprint to shrink the EPA proposes cuts to chemical, pesticide and research programs—such as a screening program for hormonally active chemicals—that companies may want to support, an attorney told Bloomberg BNA.
The blueprint would cut the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by $2.4 billion to a total of $5.7 billion for the agency and cull 3,200 jobs. The document says it would eliminate more than 50 EPA programs but identifies only a few.
Among the few identified cuts would be the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, which stems from mandates in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking Water Acts amendments.
The program aims to identify chemicals that have the potential to mimic, block or alter the behavior of estrogen, the female reproductive hormone; androgen, the male reproductive hormone; and the thyroid hormone.
That program received $7.5 million in fiscal year 2016 and relies on basic science conducted by the agency's Office of Research and Development.
The EPA will release more specifics—including its Congressional Justification of the President's budget request—in mid-May, an agency spokesman told Bloomberg BNA.
U.S. Program as Global Model
Eliminating that program could be a problem for pesticide and chemical manufacturers, Daniella Taveau, a former trade negotiator with the EPA who now serves as a regulatory and trade specialist for King & Spalding LLP in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA.
The EPA's tiered program, which begins with quick screens before proceeding to more detailed—and costly—tests, offers the most credible approach internationally, she said.
Without the U.S.’ risk-based model, the hazard-based approach advocated by some European governments, could dominate internationally, Taveau said. Risk approaches are informed by exposure considerations whereas hazard-based approaches just determine if a chemical may be harmful.
The European Union has been deadlocked for years on how to address concerns about endocrine disruptors and the criteria it should use to identify endocrine-disrupting substances.
Denmark, France and Sweden have said pesticide, chemical and other regulations should only take into account a chemical's potential to affect hormones, and that it should not be necessary to prove a link to harmful effects. Other countries, including Ireland, Poland and the U.K., have said it should be possible to allow the use of endocrine disruptors that present negligible risks.
Research Funding Nearly Halved
The budget blueprint would fund EPA's Office of Research and Development at about $250 million, a reduction of nearly $233 million from its estimated fiscal year 2017 allocation. That means research that supports EPA's air, chemicals, waste, water and other programs would be cut by nearly half.
Jack Pratt, chemicals campaign director for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg BNA “as part of the cartoonishly large cuts to the entire EPA, President Trump's budget would gut the science underpinning much of the Agency's work, including the toxics program.”
Cutting the EPA's research office by half would damage the agency's effort to implement the bipartisan-backed Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which overhauled the Toxic Substances Control Act, last year, Pratt said.
For example, he said the cuts could cripple the Tox21 initiative, a robotic testing program to evaluate the early biological impacts of thousands of chemicals. That program is designed to develop new chemical testing and assessment methods that are faster and cheaper and can reduce animal testing—a goal of the Lautenberg Act that had strong support across all stakeholders, Pratt said.
Second, the cuts could reduce the capacity of the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS program, “which would directly and significantly harm the TSCA office's ability to conduct timely, robust chemical assessments,” he said.
Trade Groups Want EPA to Function
Trade associations working with chemicals and pesticides were circumspect in comments on the budget blueprint.
“We are committed to working with the administration and Congress to ensure EPA has funding to carry out essential responsibilities, including the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, in the most cost-effective manner,” the American Chemistry Council said.
“Ensuring the safe development, use and disposal of chemicals in commerce is a top priority for our industry. We encourage Congress and the Administration to implement a national budget that ensures that the best available science and transparency are at the heart of Agency decision making,” the council said.
And the pesticide industry backs funding for the EPA program as well.
“CropLife America continues to communicate to the new administration and decision makers on the Hill about the importance of sufficiently funding EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs,” that organization said in its statement.
“Our goal is to support the effective regulation of pesticides to protect human health and the environment, and provide a predictable regulatory pathway to bring new and proven chemistries to market,” CropLife said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107378726&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499779000&searchid=29564936&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
Flame Retardant Makers Off the Hook—for Now—on Safety Testing
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A bid by environmentalists’ to have the EPA require more industry-sponsored safety testing of a flame retardant used in electronics has been denied by the agency.
In a Federal Register notice set for March 17 publication, the agency said it has sufficient data to conduct an initial evaluation for now and thus denied a petition filed by Earthjustice and five other environmental advocacy organizations for more safety testing.
But the EPA did not rule out the possibility that it may seek industry data in the future. It said the manufacturing, distribution, processing, use or disposal of the flame retardant, tetrabromobisphenol A (CAS No. 79-94-7), may pose an unreasonable risk to people or the environment.
The chemical, which is widely used in electronics, may pose a risk to workers at manufacturing and processing facilities and may harm aquatic, sediment-dwelling or soil-dwelling organisms, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a 2015 work plan. Despite that possibility, however, the EPA did not select TBBPA to be among the first 10 chemicals it is evaluating under the 2016 amendments Congress made to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The groups asked the EPA to require manufacturers and processors of the compound to conduct a variety of health- and ecological-effects tests, including studies to determine dermal and inhalation effects and exposures.
Eve Gartner, an attorney with Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA March 16 that “we are still reviewing EPA's denial, but the agency's detailed response highlights the importance of comprehensively assessing the risks of this toxic flame retardant chemical.”
Widely Used in Electronics
Five U.S. facilities owned by at least four companies made or imported 119,837,559 pounds of the compound in 2011, the most recent year for which production volume is available from the EPA. The four companies that reported production were Albemarle Corp., ICL-IP America Inc., LG International America Inc. and Saudi Basic Industries Corp. Innovative Plastics U.S. (SABIC). The fifth facility said its name was protected by confidential business information policies, meaning the EPA knows its identity but cannot release it to the public.
None of the manufacturers and importers of the flame retardant contacted by Bloomberg BNA replied to a request for comment.
More Bids to Spur EPA Action
Earthjustice plans to file further petitions urging the EPA to use its expanded authority to order testing of chemicals, Gartner said by email. Such petitions are authorized by Section 21 of TSCA. The amendments Congress made to TSCA last year expanded the agency's authority to obtain chemical data.
Earthjustice is awaiting the EPA's decision on another petition it filed Jan. 6 asking the agency to require manufacturers and processors to test a separate group of three flame retardants. Those are three chlorinated phosphate esters: tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate, orTCEP, (CAS 115-96-8); 2-propanol, 1-chloro-, phosphate, or TCPP, (CAS 13674-84-5); and 2-propanol, 1,3- dichloro-, phosphate, or TDCPP, (CAS 13674-87-8). The chemicals are used to slow or prevent fires in furniture foams and textiles.
The EPA has until April 6 to decide on the Jan. 6 petition.
“One of the key drivers of TSCA reform was the understanding that there are large and concerning gaps in data for many commonly used chemicals. With the amendments to TSCA, Congress clearly signaled its view that EPA should more aggressively use TSCA to fill those gaps. We intend to continue pressing EPA to ask chemical manufacturers to conduct more studies of the hazards and risks posed by their products,” Gartner said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107378716&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107378716&jd=107378716
-
Plastics Additive Maker Loses on ‘Biodegradability’ Assertion
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Julie A. Steinberg
ECM Biofilms, Inc., a maker of additives for plastics, lost its appeal March 16 of a Federal Trade Commission ruling that its assertions about biodegradability were deceptive (ECM Biofilms, Inc. v. FTC, 6th Cir., No. 15-4339, 3/16/17).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said the FTC had substantial evidence for its finding that the assertions were false and misleading in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The FTC regulates over product advertising. Private litigation often follows an agency action.
At issue was the FTC's finding with respect to the company's “unqualified biodegradability claim,” the general representation that ECM plastic is “biodegradable” without reference to a time frame.
The commission found this claim implied to consumers that ECM plastic completely breaks down in landfills within five years.
The court addressed only whether the FTC had support for its finding.
The Sixth Circuit said reviewing courts should give great deference to the FTC's judgment, as the agency deals continually with deception cases.
Here, the court upheld the FTC's reliance on consumer surveys, one of which found that between 31 percent and 36 percent of respondents believed a “biodegradable” water bottle would fully decompose within five years.
Emord & Associates, P.C. represented ECM BioFilms.
Theordore Metzler of the Federal Trade Commission represented the agency.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107378719&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107378719&jd=107378719
-
Energy Development Boosted in Trump Interior Budget
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski and Stephen Lee
Federal funding for onshore and offshore energy development would increase under the Trump administration's budget request for the Interior Department in fiscal year 2018.
The proposed spending plus “administrative reforms already in progress” would allow Interior “to streamline permitting processes and provide industry with access to the energy resources America needs,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said March 16 in its budget outline.
The 2018 budget would provide $11.6 billion for Interior, a cut of $1.7 billion or 12.8 percent from the 2016 enacted level.
The proposal did not break down many of the cuts by agency, nor did it specify the dollar increases in work related to energy development, or distinguish between fossil and renewable energy. A few cuts were singled out, such as a $120 million cut in public land acquisition. The fiscal 2016 enacted level for land acquisition was $227 million.
It said “over $1 billion” would be provided for water management in the West. The Bureau of Reclamation, Interior's water manager in the West, received more than $1.1 billion in fiscal 2016.
Criticism, Praise for Proposals
Reaction by environmental advocates was swift and negative. The budget was “a sellout of our nation's wildlife heritage,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, president of Defenders of Wildlife.
“Instead of investing in conservation, this budget eliminates important funding and paves the way for dirty energy development,” said Sharon Buccino, director of the Land and Wildlife Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The view from the oil and gas industry was different. The boost for energy development was a “step in the right direction” given the importance of timely permitting to oil and gas development on public lands, said Neal Kirby, a spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Under President Barack Obama, oil and gas permitting “came to a crawl toward the end of the administration,” Kirby said.
The Obama administration shifted personnel from oil and gas permitting to work on wind and solar energy projects, said Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, an industry group.
The new administration can shift personnel in the opposite direction, partly in recognition of the far greater revenue potential of oil and gas compared to wind and solar, Sgamma told Bloomberg BNA.
Fewer Grants for Mine Cleanups
The proposed budget would cancel “discretionary Abandoned Mine Land grants that overlap with existing mandatory grants.”
The AML program, run by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, collects fees from present-day coal production and distributes the money to states and tribes to clean up old mines.
The proposed budget also would wipe out funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, which is not a part of the Interior Department but is a contributor to the cleanup of abandoned mine sites in Appalachia.
The independent agency also seeks to provide training and jobs for workers dislocated from the coal and coal-fired power plant industries.
“The Heritage Foundation released their budget again today, but this time with a White House logo on it,” Thom Kay, senior legislative representative at the environmental advocacy group Appalachian Voices, told Bloomberg BNA. “Clearly, not a single member of the Appalachian congressional delegation was consulted about it. They honestly could not have written a worse budget for Appalachia.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107378705&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107378705&jd=107378705
-
GOP Lawmakers Dismiss Trump Budget Proposals
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall and Geof Koss
A key Republican appropriator pushed back yesterday against President Trump's budget plan, saying, "We will not balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending."
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee with Department of Energy jurisdiction, said in an emailed statement that discretionary spending only accounts for 31 percent of federal outlays and is already under control because of earlier cuts.
Alexander also is a longtime supporter of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which the Trump administration proposed eliminating in its blueprint.
"The president has suggested a budget, but, under the Constitution, Congress passes appropriations bills. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, my priorities are national defense, national laboratories, the National Institutes of Health and national parks," said Alexander.
Runaway entitlement spending is the real cause of the $20 trillion federal debt, he said.
The budget calls for large cuts in renewable and efficiency programs, fossil energy research, and the Office of Science, which oversees the majority of the national labs.
It would eliminate the weatherization program, the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program and the State Energy Program (Greenwire, March 16).
Like Alexander, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), chairman of the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, emphasized congressional authority when asked about the proposed 5.6 percent cut for DOE.
Whether a program is wasteful or not necessary "is something that is Congress' responsibility," Simpson said during an interview.
"We may agree with [Trump] on some of the cuts. Some of them we may not," Simpson said about the proposed 20 percent cut to the Office of Science.
The budget would "substantially" cut the energy portion of DOE spending, considering the proposal would boost the defense portions, said Simpson.
As for ARPA-E, Simpson said it "does some good things." He added: "Is it something we can do without? Let's have a debate."
The agency, formed during the Obama administration, is modeled after a Department of Defense program and funds early stage technologies with breakthrough potential (Greenwire, Feb. 3).
Comments from GOP lawmakers highlight the tricky path for the Trump administration as it tries to advance its priorities in the coming months.
Many Republicans represent districts or states that house national labs or receive funding from DOE applied research programs.
Grants from the weatherization program — which funds efficiency improvements in low-income households — flow across the country, too.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the overall plan "turns the page from the last eight years." Democrats, and many environmentalists, called it dead on arrival.
"You can't roll back science," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), ranking member on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee.
"The president is emphasizing the nuclear weapons portion of the [DOE] budget," she said. "That doesn't really get at the imperative for energy independence for our country."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Senate Appropriations panel with DOE jurisdiction, said the budget proposal would raise energy costs, decimate the national labs and harm U.S. competitiveness.
"I won't stand by and let the president destroy America's scientific leadership by gutting the Department of Energy's funding," Feinstein said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/17/stories/1060051610
-
Trump Weighs Eni Bid to Drill in Arctic Waters After Obama Ban
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Interior Department is weighing Eni SpA's request to explore for oil in waters north of Alaska, giving the Trump administration a chance to reverse course from former President Barack Obama's attempt to curtail Arctic drilling.
Eni's exploration well would be in an area it previously leased from the federal government, and so it isn't covered by the executive order Obama issued in December to block the sale of new drilling rights within huge swaths of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. As the Trump administration considers ways it could reverse Obama's directive, approving this plan could encourage more oil companies to consider Arctic exploration.
Although some oil companies have abandoned plans to launch expensive quests for crude off Alaska's coast, recent discoveries have fanned interest in waters near the shoreline that can be drilled at a lower cost.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is conducting an initial, 15-day review of the broad drilling blueprint filed by Italy's Eni, which is aiming to sink a well in the federal waters of the Beaufort Sea before its leases expire at the end of the year.
If the bureau deems Eni's broad exploration blueprint complete, it would publish the document online and subject it to public comment while scrutinizing the plan's details in a 30-day review.
“By the end of the 30-day period BOEM will either approve the exploration plan, require modifications to the exploration plan or disapprove the exploration plan,” bureau spokeswoman Connie Gillette said in an email. Before it could launch operations on its proposed Nikaitchuq North well, Eni also would have to win a drilling permit from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and secure other government approvals.
Man-Made Island
Eni already uses a man-made gravel island to extract oil from leases in state waters hugging Alaska's coast. Under its plan, the company would would use that same site—known as Spy Island—as a launching pad for extended-reach drilling that would target a potential oil reservoir in nearby federal waters.
Eni, the lead operator on the project, owns 40 percent of the 13 leases set to be affected by the plan. Its partners are Royal Dutch Shell Plc, which also has a 40 percent share, and Spain's Repsol SA, which claims the remaining 20 percent.
In an emailed statement, Eni said it was planning to begin drilling by the end of the year. Eni could cite its proposed oil exploration in trying to persuade federal regulators to issue a “suspension of operations” that would effectively extend its leases there.
In February, the safety bureau approved Eni's bid to consolidate 13 of its federal leases in a single unit—a decision that could make it easier to prolong the life of all of them if drilling began in any one of those tracts.
Still, U.S. law is designed to push oil companies to diligently develop their holdings—and it sets a relatively high bar for granting time-outs. Eni's targeted leases have already been suspended before—some for roughly four years. Federal law does not give the Interior Department authority to issue blanket extensions and requires companies to lay out a specific plan for developing leased acreage in order to get more time.
Environmental Opposition
“Eni and the federal government must be cautious and responsible,” said Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for the conservation group Oceana, which closely monitors Arctic development. “The leases Eni owns have sat dormant for more than a decade and have already had their expiration dates extended in the past. There is no compelling reason to extend the leases again or to rush to grant last minute approvals.“
Under Obama, the Interior Department rejected bids by Shell and ConocoPhillips to extend the life of other Arctic leases. Shell initially appealed the decision but later dropped the effort after a challenge from environmentalists.
Environmentalists argue the risks of Arctic drilling are too high—potentially imperiling the seals, whales and walruses that live in the region as well as the Alaska Natives who live off those resources. Government auditors have warned that icy conditions, dark days and sparse infrastructure could make it impossible to adequately sop up a spill in the region.
27 Billion Barrels
Obama cut Arctic tracts from a five-year leasing plan issued last year and issued a sweeping order that withdrew almost all U.S. Arctic waters from future sales. Neither action affects existing leases, such as that held by Eni. Trump is weighing how to reverse both of Obama's moves, according to Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski.
The U.S. Arctic is estimated to hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but energy companies have struggled to tap resources buried below the remote, icy waters at the top of the globe. Shell spent more than seven years and roughly $8 billion trying to find a large stash of crude in the Chukchi Sea, but it abandoned that quest in 2015 after a series of embarrassing mishaps and a test well yielded disappointing results.
A different scenario is playing out closer to the coast, where recent discoveries—and the prospect of far lower development costs—may be luring oil companies. Caelus Energy Corp. claimed to have found at least 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil far beneath northwestern Alaska's Smith Bay in 2016. And Repsol just announced a 1.2 billion-barrel discovery on Alaska's North Slope.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107378701&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107378701&jd=107378701
-
Bill Would Allow for More Oil and Gas Lease Sales
Mar 17, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Emily Yehle
The Interior Department would be able to add oil and gas lease sales to its existing five-year plan under a new bill from Louisiana senators.
Sens. Bill Cassidy (R) and John Kennedy (R) joined North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis (R) in introducing the "Unleashing American Energy Act." S. 665 would hand Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke a shortcut to change a leasing plan that took years for the Obama administration to finalize.
The current plan does not include Arctic and Atlantic leases, limiting new sales to the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska's Cook Inlet until 2022 (Greenwire, Nov. 18, 2016). Under the new bill, Zinke could reverse that, according to the senators.
"The restrictions that have been placed on our energy sector from the previous administration have stunted our economy and cost us thousands of good paying jobs," Kennedy said in a statement. "This bill will provide more job opportunities for hardworking Americans and will help our country realize our goal of energy independence."
The bill would not reverse withdrawals President Obama made under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Those withdrawals — comprising most Arctic waters and some areas in the Atlantic Ocean — were made under an obscure provision in an attempt to permanently remove them from oil and gas leasing (E&E News PM, Dec. 20, 2016).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/17/stories/1060051613
-
BLM Says It Plans to Rescind Frack Rule, Asks Court For Abeyance
Mar 16, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Attorneys for the Department of Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have asked an appellate court to vacate oral arguments and abate a case over a rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands because the agency intends to rescind the rule.
But environmental groups, which support the rule, filed a separate motion urging the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to deny BLM's request, arguing that the issue of whether the agency has the authority to regulate fracking on public lands has far-reaching consequences and should be decided by the court now.
Oral arguments in the case are currently scheduled for next Wednesday, March 22.
In a motion filed Wednesday, BLM said an initial review of the rule, which was first unveiled by the Obama administration in March 2015, "does not reflect [the] policies and priorities" of the Trump administration. "Accordingly, the DOI through the BLM has begun the process to prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking for publication in the Federal Registerto rescind the 2015 rule."
BLM said it expects to issue the notice within 90 days. "To conserve the court's and the parties' resources, and in light of the proposed rulemaking process...BLM respectfully requests that the court continue the oral argument and hold these appeals in abeyance pending the outcome of the proposed rulemaking process," the agency said.
In a separate motion, also filed Wednesday, attorneys for the Sierra Club and other environmental groups said a reversal by BLM "does not eliminate the need for appellate review.
"The abeyance requested by BLM would unfairly prejudice [the appellants] by indefinitely shielding from appellate review the district court's far-reaching ruling stripping the agency of its well-established authority. An indefinite abeyance also would allow BLM to effectively rescind the rule without the notice-and-comment rulemaking and reasoned decision-making required under the Administrative Procedure Act.
"In addition, the requested abeyance will harm the public interest by allowing thousands of new oil and gas wells to be drilled indefinitely under outdated 30-year-old standards that fail to adequately protect public health and the environment."
Last week, the appellate court gave the Trump administrationone week to decide whether it wanted to continue defending the rule in court.
In January, the court granted a request made in December by appellees in the case for more time to make their arguments. But in an unusual twist, the court also delayed the proceedings until March 22. The appellees include Colorado, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming; the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and the Western Energy Alliance (WEA).
The rule would require oil and gas operators to use the FracFocus registry to disclose the chemicals used in fracking and use above-ground tanks to temporarily store produced water, among other things. But U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled in June 2016 that BLM does not have the authority to regulate fracking. The government filed an appeal.
Officially, the legal dispute involves two companion cases: State of Wyoming et al v. Zinke et al[No. 16-8068] and State of Wyoming et al v. DOI[No. 16-8069].
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109790-blm-says-it-plans-to-rescind-frack-rule-asks-court-for-abeyance
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Death and Destruction' Expected as Trump Moves to Gut Chemical Safety Board
Mar 16, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Mark Collette and Matt Dempsey
A White House proposal to eliminate funding for the U.S. Chemical Safety Board signals a full retreat from two decades of progress against chemical disasters and would, if enacted, put American lives in jeopardy, health and safety experts said.
While little known to the masses, the CSB is to chemical disasters what the much better-funded National Transportation Safety Board is to airline crashes, train derailments and bridge collapses. Without the recommendations that come from these boards, preventable accidents repeat themselves.
Gutting the CSB is "standing up for death and destruction," said chemical safety consultant Paul Orum. "It's disrespectful to those killed in such incidents."
A Houston Chronicle investigation last year found that federal agencies, including the CSB, don't have enough resources to provide adequate oversight to facilities that handle dangerous chemicals.
Three of the most far-reaching investigations in the history of chemical safety resulted from the CSB.
Enhancing safety
In 2005, a unit at BP's Texas City refinery overfilled with hydrocarbons, releasing a massive cloud of liquid and gas that exploded, killing 15 and injuring more than 180.
Just as important as the agency's causal findings was its recommendation that BP launch an independent examination of its corporate safety culture. Together, these two reports rippled through an industry that had long harped on worker safety, like preventing falls and wearing the right equipment, to the detriment of process safety - designing and monitoring chemical and refining units to prevent releases and explosions.
"It's a seminal investigation," said CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland. "The lessons ... are frequently cited and discussed, and it was 10 years ago."
They've been incorporated into academic curriculums, industry technical standards and corporate behavior, and triggered a massive emphasis on refinery safety by the Labor Department.
No specifics given
Then in 2010, BP's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out, leading to an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that killed 11 people, injured 17 and caused the worst oil spill in U.S. history. CSB findings in 2016 showed gaping holes in offshore safety and regulatory oversight that hadn't been addressed despite numerous earlier investigations and lawsuits.
The disaster cost BP more than $60 billion - some of which could be subsidized by taxpayers. By contrast, the CSB budget is about $12 million annually, or one thousandth of 1 percent of the $1.1 trillion that President Trump proposes spending.
So while it's difficult to prove any one disaster has been prevented by the agency, stopping just one could justify the cost of the CSB since its inception in 1998, said Mike Wright, director of safety for the United Steelworkers union.
"We think it's a remarkably stupid move" to kill the agency, Wright said. "The CSB is probably one of the best deals in Washington in terms of spending the taxpayer's money."
It's also the only agency that investigates chemical accidents without companies having to worry about fines or indictments. That's because its focus is finding root causes and lessons that can be shared across industries. And it examines the failings of regulators.
The CSB was given no specific indication why it was targeted, Sutherland said, though it falls in line with the president's pledge to cut broadly to pay for a beefed-up military and border protection.
The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
It was unclear where industry stands. The two major trade associations, the American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute, offered statements that didn't directly address the merits of eliminating the CSB.
Shakeel Kadri, president of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, said his group supports the CSB and says the agency's independent investigations are critical.
"We can't do that. I don't see anyone else being able to do that, either," he said.
It's widely believed the overall budget proposal was dead on arrival at the Capitol, as even Republicans blanched at what was and wasn't being cut.
"I think the Trump budget is a fantasy," said Rep. Gene Green, a Democrat whose district includes much of Houston's heavy industry. "I don't think so much of it will ever be considered."
That doesn't mean the CSB will survive unscathed. Among its 40 employees, some were already privately assuming that Congress would significantly scale back the agency this year. And, as a measure of the administration's priorities, Thursday's proposal was an exclamation point on a flurry of activity aimed at rolling back worker and chemical safety regulations.
A 'really sad matter'
On Monday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt acceded to industry demands by agreeing to delay and reconsider implementation of Obama-era rules that came as a direct result of the 2013 West Fertilizer disaster. It killed 15 people, including 12 first-responders who rushed to a fire at the plant before it exploded.
Sutherland said the resulting CSB investigation was another of the agency's most important, exposing major gaps in emergency planning and response across the nation.
In agreeing to delay the rules, and perhaps scrap them altogether, Pruitt accepted the industry's argument that, because investigators last year ruled the West fire an arson, it renders them moot.
But the arson ruling has no bearing on other factors in the explosion, Sutherland said. Had the fertilizer been stored differently, had first-responders received training on the well-known explosion hazards of ammonium nitrate, had the town not grown perilously close to the plant over the years, much of the death and destruction would have been averted.
Republican lawmakers already have introduced a bill that could roll back the Obama regulations, should the EPA not take up the task.
At least 46 people have died in U.S. chemical plants since West.
Sam Mannan, director of the Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center at Texas A&M University, called elimination of the CSB a "really sad matter."
"Everyone uses the CSB's videos and reports," he said.
Orum, the consultant, noted the gap between congressional authorization of the CSB in 1990, and its actual funding in 1998. The budget argument was that OSHA and EPA could handle chemical accident investigations. But they weren't as thorough, and industry preferred the CSB, because it didn't come in looking for violations, Orum said.
He expects "cooler heads" in Congress.
"Chemical incidents are highly visible when they happen," he said. "There's smoke, flames and news cameras. If it looks like they've undermined safety, it could come back to bite them."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Death-and-destruction-expected-as-Trump-moves-11008393.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump's Proposal to Scrap Chemical Safety Board Draws Criticism
Mar 17, 2017 | Reuters
By Gary McWilliams
President Donald Trump's proposal to do away with the federal agency that investigates chemical accidents drew sharp criticism from environmental, labor and safety advocates, who said that eliminating the watchdog would put American lives at risk.
Christine Todd Whitman, the former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency head, on Thursday called the proposal to get rid of Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and cut EPA funding short-sighted, saying both have long been an industry target for advocating greater public information on chemicals.
"If you want to put the American people in danger this is the way to do it," she said of the president's proposal to cut the CSB's funding entirely from the 2018 federal budget. "The chemical industry has fought back from the beginning."
The CSB investigates major chemicals accidents to search for their causes and makes recommendations that could prevent a recurrence. It has no regulatory power, but is influential because its recommendations are often adopted by industry, labor, government officials, the EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The president on Thursday outlined a plan for fiscal 2018 discretionary spending, which exclude programs like Social Security, that removes allocations for 19 independent bodies, including the CSB and Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The CSB, which has an annual budget of about $12 million, defended its work, saying its work has broadly improved safety. "As this process moves forward, we hope that the important mission of this agency will be preserved," the agency said in a statement.
Chemical and energy industry officials offered limited comment on the proposal. Petroleum and refining industry groups, Exxon Mobil Corp, BP plc and Tesoro Corp did not respond or declined to comment directly on the potential phase out.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents major chemicals producers, said in a statement it would work with the administration and Congress to "ensure EPA has funding to carry out essential responsibilities." It did not comment directly on the CSB.
The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group, said it looked "forward to working with the administration and Congress as all of these issues work their way through the budget process."
Michael Wright, director of health, safety and environment at the United Steelworkers union, said the CSB's recommendations generally have been welcome by labor and industry. One such recommendation that stemmed from a fatal 2005 refinery incident included barring portable trailers that cannot withstand an explosion.
The board's reviews of major accidents have proved significant. Its probes have led to industry standards on worker fatigue, greater reporting of hazardous chemicals to first responders, and have prompted companies to keep workers not directly involved in projects out of harm's way.
In California, many of the board’s safety recommendations have been drafted into law. For example, the state worker safety agency, known as Cal/OSHA, has doubled its investigative staff based on CSB recommendations.
"This is one of the best bargains in Washington," said the USW's Wright. "If it has prevented even one accident, it has saved far more money than its budget over its entire history."
Its probe of the fatal Deepwater Horizon rig explosion was controversial because of its two-year length and extensive need for outside help. The work led to new standards for safety in the offshore oil industry and in well equipment.
But some recommendations have not been yet been implemented. After a fatal 2013 explosion in West, Texas, that killed 12 first responders the CSB proposed facilities that store large amounts of fertilizer be covered by emergency planning laws that give first responders more information. That remains open.
Beth Rosenberg, a former CSB board member and now an assistant professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, said the CSB "does excellent work; other countries admire this agency." She said opponents "don't know what they're doing here or how useful this board is."
(Additional reporting by Liz Hampton and Erwin Seba; Editing by Ernest Scheyder and Diane Craft)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-csb-idUSKBN16O0FK?il=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) States Seek Further Delay of EPA Industrial Safety Regs
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Elected leaders from Louisiana and 10 other states are asking U.S. EPA to further delay implementation of new industrial safety regulations until late next year and rethink whether the added requirements are needed at all.
"The states believe that the existing RMP [risk management plan] regulations are adequate to ensure the protection of the public from accidental releases from covered facilities and encourage EPA to carefully reconsider the necessity of the rule," they wrote in a reconsideration petition made public today.
The regulations, published in January, had been scheduled to take effect next Tuesday and would apply to up to 12,500 chemical plants, refineries and other facilities.
Issued in response to an Obama administration directive to beef up safety after a 2013 explosion at a Texas fertilizer storage and distribution facility killed 15 people, they are intended to strengthen accident prevention requirements, better protect firefighters and other first responders from chemical exposure, and do more to keep the public informed of potential plant hazards.
The added requirements have met intense pushback, however, from industry groups charging that they will yield no discernible benefits in return for higher costs and added security risks. On Monday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt rolled back the regulations' effective date until June 19 as agency officials consider a separate petition by the American Chemistry Council and a half-dozen other industry trade groups that want to see new rules scrapped (Greenwire, March 14). Many of the same organizations have also filed a joint legal challenge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In their petition, dated Tuesday, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) and other state officials said new public disclosure requirements could allow sensitive information to fall into the wrong hands. Other coordination and emergency response provisions, they added, constituted "unfunded mandates that impose unjustified burdens" on state and local governments.
They asked EPA for an 18-month postponement, which would push back the regulations' effective date until September 2018, and urged the agency to meanwhile consider substantial revisions or outright repeal.
The proposed delay would prevent "needless expenditures by states and localities in order to meet their obligations under provisions of the rule that are potentially subject to change," the petition said.
Signing on to the reconsideration request are the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin and West Virginia. All are Republicans; joining them is Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R), whose state has a Democratic attorney general.
Last summer, most of the same officials — joined by Pruitt, who was then the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma — voiced objections during the public comment period to what was then EPA's proposed rule.
The 90-day postponement has already drawn fire from labor and safety advocates who back the RMP regulations. Pruitt's decision "puts workers, first responders and communities at risk at the behest of corporate interests that have repeatedly shown that they are willing to roll the dice on the safety of workers and local communities," Leo Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers union, said in a news release earlier this week.
On Capitol Hill, the regulations have also prompted two Oklahoma Republicans, Sen. Jim Inhofe and Rep. Markwayne Mullin, to introduce companion bills seeking legislative repeal under the authority provided by the Congressional Review Act.
The act allows simple majorities in both chambers to overturn recently promulgated regulations. In an interview yesterday, Inhofe did not rule out pursuing action on his bill before the three-month stay expires if Senate leadership will allow it. Repeal "needs to be done," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/16/stories/1060051593
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Cites Texas Arson as Reason for Reconsidering Facility Safety Rule
Mar 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's decision to reconsider the Obama administration's final rule overhauling the agency's facility accident prevention program hinged on federal investigators' ruling that arson caused the West, TX, fire driving the rulemaking, backing industry assertions that the finding is a threshold issue that undermines the need for the rule.
“Prior to this finding, many parties had assumed that the cause of the incident was accidental,” Pruitt says in a March 13 letter to Hogan Lovells US LLP, the law firm that petitioned EPA late last month on behalf of several industry groups to reconsider and rescind the Obama EPA's Jan. 13 Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule.
“Additionally, the prominence of the incident in the policy decisions underlying the rule makes the [Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)] finding regarding the cause of the incident of central relevance to the Risk Management Program Amendments,” Pruitt says.
Pruitt's response appears to back industries' assertion in a Feb. 28 petition for reconsideration of the rule that the ATF arson finding is a threshold question that raises doubts about the need for the rule.
The industry petition noted that ATF issued the finding two days before the Obama EPA's deadline for public input on its proposed rule, precluding meaningful public input on the question of whether an arson case should drive changes to an accident-prevention rule.
EPA echoes this too, noting in a pre-publication version of a March 16 Federal Register notice that the Clean Air Act provides that EPA reconsider and stay, for three-months, a rule if the administrator finds petitioners raised issues that were impracticable to cite during a public comment period.
EPA says in the notice that it will release in the near future a notice of proposed rulemaking to allow public comment on issues raised in the industry petition that meet the Clean Air Act standard for reconsideration and stay, as well as on other issues that the agency deems relevant.
In the letter, Pruitt tells industry that EPA will convene a process for reconsidering the Obama-EPA's RMP update and will delay the rule's effective date three months, from March 21 to June 19, to allow time for reconsideration.
Pruitt also says that industry petitioners raised other procedural flaws that hampered public input on the rule, though he does not specify the provisions for which additional public input may be necessary.
EPA's plan to reconsider the RMP rule comes as industry groups are pursuing multiple avenues of pushback against the final rule, including pressing Pruitt to revise the regulation, backing Congressional Review Act resolutions pending in the House and Senate that would rescind the rule, and filing a legal challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
A source who attended a closed March 13 Energy Bar Association meeting “The Future of Environmental Law under the Trump Administration” says speakers at the event suggested industry would do everything in their power to nullify the RMP update.
But the source says there appears to be some uncertainty at EPA about how far the agency can go in blocking the rule. There is “a lot of discussion at the agency to figure out what is legally defensible” for pushing back against the rule that was issued in the waning days of the Obama administration, the source says.
'Impracticable' Issues
EPA issued the RMP rule in response to President Obama's August 2013 Executive Order issued in the wake of an explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 15 people, including first responders. The rule requires certain facilities to conduct independent audits, weigh safer technologies, and disclose data to local officials and the public.
The RMP Coalition, which includes the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Utility Air Regulatory Group and the American Petroleum Institute, Feb. 28 petitioned EPA to reconsider or rescind the RMP rule arguing in part that the Obama EPA failed to adequately notice changes to the scope of the rule's auditing and disclosure requirements.
Petitioners also faulted the Obama-EPA for using an explosion sparked by an intentionally-set fire as a primary driver for stricter accident-prevention regulations.
But environmentalists and other supporters say that hundreds of other incidents that have occurred since the West explosion continue to justify the need for the rule. They have argued that EPA should require facilities to use alternative substances or processes that pose less risk, though the RMP rule requires only that certain facilities consider those technologies.
Most members of the coalition that petitioned EPA also filed a March 13 petition for review challenging the rule in the D.C. Circuit. Many of the arguments industry detailed in their petition to EPA will also likely be echoed in any court briefs.
In the letter, Pruitt calls the ATF's finding of arson at West an issue of central relevance to the final RMP rule that petitioners and the public could not address in comments on the proposed version.
“We find the petition has raised one or more objections to Risk Management Program Amendments that arose after the comment period or were impracticable to raise during the comment period and that are of central relevance to the rule,” Pruitt says. “[W]e believe the timing of the [ATF] finding on the West, Texas incident, which was announced just before the close of the public comment period, made it impracticable for many commenters to meaningfully address the significance of this finding in their comments on this multi-faceted rule.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-cites-texas-arson-reason-reconsidering-facility-safety-rule
-
Cutting Chemical Safety Board Would Impact Red States Most
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A White House proposal to abolish the U.S. Chemical Safety Board is a signal to the agency to operate more efficiently—but goes beyond what major industries want, say industry officials familiar with the agency.
“The industry does not support the abolition of the agency,” Stephen Brown, vice president of federal government affairs at Tesoro Corp., told Bloomberg BNA March 16. Rather, the industry wants a competent, professional body that will work with companies more collaboratively.
After years of criticism from groups on all sides under former Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, who resigned in 2015, industry and labor figures credit current Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland for adding stronger procedures for conducting investigations and reducing a backlog of cases, among other changes. Under the Trump budget plan, CSB would shut down when its funding expires on Sept. 30.
CSB spokeswoman Hillary Cohen first referred questions from Bloomberg BNA to the White House Office of Management and Budget. But Cohen later released a statement saying the agency—which received $12 million in fiscal 2016 and has about 40 employees—was “disappointed” in the proposal.
“Our investigations and recommendations have had an enormous effect on improving public safety,” Cohen said. “Our recommendations have resulted in banned natural gas blows in Connecticut, an improved fire code in New York City, and increased public safety at oil and gas sites across the state of Mississippi. The CSB has been able to accomplish all of this with a small and limited budget.”
Limited Role, Miniscule Funding
Unlike the Environmental Protection Agency, which President Donald Trump has called a “disgrace,” the CSB cannot issue regulations but merely safety recommendations, akin to how the National Transportation Safety Board investigates transportation accidents.
CSB's absence could be felt in the industry-heavy states that largely supported Trump last year. CSB has investigated more than twice as many incidents in states that went for Trump in the election, including 26 probes in Trump-voting states Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Ohio, agency data show.
Michael Wright, director of health and safety at the United Steelworkers union, told Bloomberg BNA March 16 the CSB could be more useful to industry if it received more federal funding to allow it to investigate more of the incidents within its jurisdiction.
CSB has “certainly made the industry safer, and helped prevent major chemical accidents,” Wright said. “The cost of even one such accident would be more than the CSB's budget over its entire history.”
Brown said industry can learn from CSB by understanding the root cause of a process safety incident—"where things went awry, and why.” It's also important CSB investigators not have “a sort of hostile, gotcha attitude” with companies, Brown said.
Cuts, Not Elimination, More Likely
The budget proposal suggests the CSB could have difficult relations with the White House, Brown said.
While the budget appears to have little support in Congress, Brown said the CSB “would be lucky to get back to where they were last fiscal year,” when it received $12 million.
Mark Farley, a partner at the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in Houston, who has represented companies involved in CSB probes, told Bloomberg BNA March 16 the intent of the cuts to CSB is unclear.
“They simply are trying to come up with the dollars to pay for increased spending elsewhere,” Farley said.
Trump's budget proposal would eliminate the CSB along with 18 other independent agencies—the African Development Foundation, Appalachian Regional Commission, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Inter-American Foundation, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, Legal Services Corporation, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, Northern Border Regional Commission, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, United States Institute of Peace, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107378703&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107378703&jd=107378703
-
FRA Publishes Quarterly PTC Status Update
Mar 16, 2017 | Railway Track & Structures
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
The Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released a status update today on railroads' progress implementing positive train control (PTC) systems in the fourth quarter of 2016.
The status update, based on railroad-submitted quarterly data, shows freight railroads continue to make consistent progress while passenger industry progress in installing and activating the life-saving technology only slightly increased.
The latest data, current as of December 31, 2016, confirms freight railroads now have PTC active on just 16 percent of tracks required to be equipped with PTC systems—up from 12 percent last quarter. Passenger railroads made less progress—with a slight increase to 24 percent from 23 percent.
FRA says that due in large part to Amtrak's significant progress on PTC, 41 percent of passenger railroads' locomotives are now fully equipped with PTC technology, compared to 29 percent the previous quarter. Freight railroads' percentage of locomotives fully equipped with PTC technology rose to 42 percent, up from 38 percent.
"We continue to closely monitor railroads' progress implementing Positive Train Control," said Patrick Warren, FRA executive director. "With less than two years remaining to complete the implementation process, it is imperative that railroads continue to meet implementation milestones."
Congress requires Class 1 railroads and entities providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation to implement PTC systems by December 31, 2018. Only if some key implementation and installation milestones are met may railroads be eligible to obtain a limited extension to complete certain non-hardware, operational aspects of PTC system implementation no later than December 31, 2020, subject to the Secretary of Transportation's approval.
Union Pacific released its own quarterly report on its progress implementing PTC and noted it closed the fourth quarter of 2016 with two milestones: More than a quarter (26 percent) of track segments are PTC-ready and training efforts continue with more than 7,000 employees (18 percent) educated on PTC operations.
Union Pacific also pointed out that there are nuances to the FRA data. For example, while FRA only notes that two percent of UP locomotives are PTC equipped, the railroad says 64 percent are fully PTC equipped with the exception of a single component, the PTC-compatible, crash-hardened memory (aka, black box). The black box installation has been held up by a supplier-related issue and UP expects to make significant locomotive installation progress in 2017 once it is resolved.
http://www.rtands.com/index.php/cs/fra-publishes-quarterly-ptc-status-update.html
-
California County Denies Refinery's Rail Project Permit, Again
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Phillips 66 Co.'s proposed rail project at its Santa Maria Refinery in Central California hasn't reached the end of the line—yet.
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors upheld the Planning Commission's denial of a permit. The company may appeal the decision to the California Coastal Commission, Assistant County Counsel Timothy McNulty told Bloomberg BNA March 15.
When local authorities in coastal zones deny a permit to a major energy facility such as this refinery, applicants often appeal to the Coastal Commission, McNulty said. The commission has the authority to consider such appeals.
Another option would be for the company to sue, McNulty said. The county, however, would argue that the company should first exhaust all administrative options, he said.
Following a two-day hearing, the Board of Supervisors March 14, voted 3-1 to reject appeals filed by Phillips and one individual, Jeff Edwards, seeking to overturn the county Planning Commission's Oct. 5 decision denying the permit.
Phillips will “consider all of our options,” company spokesman Shelby Todd told Bloomberg BNA in a March 15 email.
“We presented a strong proposal and will review the concerns raised in the hearing,’” Todd said.
The refinery wants to build a 1.3 mile extension to a main rail line and make other improvements, including an unloading facility to import out-of-state crude oil to the refinery. As proposed, the project would allow three rail trains a week, each carrying 2.2 million gallons of crude oil.
More than 150 individuals spoke at the hearing, most opposing the project due to safety, public health and environmental concerns.“I'm so glad to see the supervisors stand with the people of this community and beyond by denying this dangerous and detrimental project,” San Luis Obispo City Mayor Heidi Harmon said in a written statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107378692&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107378692&jd=107378692
-
(ACC Mentioned) Reaction to White House Plans to Cut EPA's Budget
Mar 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
As we reported earlier today, President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget outline proposes a massive $2.4 billion cut to EPA's existing $8.1 billion budget, a level that would bring the agency's funding down to $5.7 billion and end more than 50 programs.
Here is some of the initial reaction:
This is a destructive proposal that walks away from decades of bipartisan support for energy efficiency going back to the Reagan administration and beyond...We oppose these cuts in the strongest possible terms and will do everything we can to fight them in Congress. This budget ignores the fact that energy efficiency creates jobs and economic growth. Every time we successfully encourage an efficiency project or product, we are supporting jobs -- whether it's a factory job manufacturing high-efficiency windows and appliances or a construction worker weatherizing homes.
Alliance to Save EnergyWe are committed to working with the Administration and Congress to ensure EPA has funding to carry out essential responsibilities, including the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, in the most cost effective manner. Ensuring the safe development, use and disposal of chemicals in commerce is a top priority for our industry. We encourage Congress and the Administration to implement a national budget that ensures that the best available science and transparency are at the heart of Agency decision making.
American Chemistry CouncilWasting energy and killing jobs is not the change Americans were seeking in the last election. We hope Congress will continue to help Americans save money and will reject cuts that would harm the economy, the environment, and help their pocketbooks.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient EconomyPresident Trump's budget cannot be taken seriously. He claims to want to help strengthen our economy and create jobs while simultaneously wanting to eliminate critical federal investments that allow Chesapeake Bay states like Maryland to prosper. The president needs to understand that a healthy Bay means a healthy economy and this cannot be accomplished without a strong federal partner. . . . The drastic cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers and many other programs will quickly cost the American people as we sacrifice clean air and clean water, public health and our national water infrastructure. Universally, Congress must quickly reject the president's budget before the absurdity of his proposed cuts -- including outright elimination of the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program -- causes ripples of uncertainty and fear across the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed economy.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), senior member, Senate Committee on Environment & Public WorksLiterally and figuratively, this is a scorched earth budget that represents an all out assault on clean air, water, and land. You can’t put “America First” when you put the health of its people and its country last. The American people overwhelmingly support public health protections that EPA and the states have been providing for the past 47 years. And they want actions taken to protect them from the devastating consequences of climate change. Yet, this budget, as we have seen time and again from this Administration, ignores the will and health of our people, especially those most vulnerable to the health impacts of pollution, in favor of fringe politics and special interests.
Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthyBased upon what we knew of the President’s plan to plus up defense spending at the expense of all of our non-defense discretionary spending and leaks in the press regarding slashing EPA and NOAA, I knew that this budget was going to be very bad for science, environmental protection, R&D, and clean energy. It is worse than I thought possible. The President cuts EPA by more than 30%; attacks climate change research across agencies; cuts clean energy programs at DOE, and totally eliminates ARPA-E; eliminates NASA’s education program.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), ranking Democrat, House Committee on Science, Space and TechnologyWe appreciate that the important state revolving loan funds are proposed for a less than one percent increase, and not a decrease. . . . However, the cuts to the core state programmatic grants are untenable. States welcome renewed confidence in our work and ability to protect human health and the environment. However, as ECOS' report shows, the federal government supports this function at an average of 27 percent. A cut of nearly 45 percent -- while state legislatures are in session -- is frankly unworkable.
John Linc Stine. president, Environmental Council of States (ECOS)President Trump's budget proposal is reckless. Its funding cuts would put the health and safety of all Americans at risk, and hobble our efforts to build a vibrant clean energy economy and take action against the threat of climate change. We will do everything we can to protect the valuable programs that keep us safe. . . .All Americans expect and deserve clean air and water. EPA's job is by no means done. Even today, up to ten million homes across the country [sic] still get their drinking water through lead pipes -- in Flint, Michigan and across the nation. Half of all Americans live in counties with unhealthy air quality. We need to be moving forward, not backward -- especially when it comes to protecting children, the elderly, and others who are vulnerable to lung and heart disease.
Fred Krupp, president, Environmental Defense FundNACWA has been a strong proponent of water infrastructure funding with the Trump Administration, both during the transition period and since taking office, and we are pleased to see that the Association's requests for continued SRF support is reflected in the President's budget proposal. NACWA will continue to aggressively advocate for infrastructure funding as the budget development process moves to Congress, including opposition to any efforts to lower infrastructure funding amounts. However, the EPA budget proposal does make significant cuts to other programs of importance to NACWA members. Most concerningly, the budget would totally eliminate funding for critical geographic programs such as the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake bay, and others; significantly cuts grant funding to states; and slashes EPA's research budget. These are all cuts to programs that benefit municipal clean water utilities, and NACWA will be working with other partners in the water sector to oppose these funding reductions.
National Association of Clean Water AgenciesThis is only the first step in the budget process that will include the input of America's electric cooperatives. We will continue to work with the White House and Congress to reduce the burden of federal regulations and promoting research, investment and valuable ongoing partnerships between electric co-ops and government agencies. As this administration tackles the difficult work of assessing and shaping its priorities for the budget, we look forward to providing a window into the communities we serve. Infrastructure investments, energy reliability, and innovative partnerships are important areas of the budget to our members.
Jim Matheson, CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative AssociationWhile I support the President's emphasis on strong national defense, I cannot support many of the proposed cuts in this “skinny” budget. Programs like Essential Air Service, Low Income Heating Assistance, and water and wastewater programs are critical to the health, welfare, and safety of Alaskans, especially those in our remote, rural communities. We need to remember that these programs are not the primary drivers of our debt, and to look at the full budget to find the best ways to reduce federal spending. Over the past several years we have already made significant progress streamlining agencies like the EPA while retaining funding for its core mission and functions -- particularly basic infrastructure. I expect that to continue. And as an appropriator, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the Administration, and Alaskans throughout the budget process.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), chairman of the Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations SubcommitteeThe so-called 'skinny budget' proposed by President Trump puts health protection and other human needs on a starvation diet, while feeding unnecessary dollars to our already bloated military spending. Meanwhile, the deep cuts the administration is proposing to non-defense programs do terrific harm to both the economy and the health and safety of American families. The cuts to the EPA do next to nothing to reduce the deficit, but will severely damage programs that keep our air and water clean...These proposed cuts have nothing to do with deficit reduction. The Trump administration is simply using the budget and appropriations process as another tool to gut environmental protections, by starving the agencies of resources to the point where they won't be able to do the critical work they are charged to do.
Physicians for Social ResponsibilityThis slim budget reprioritizes defense spending and reverses eight years of Obama-era shifts in spending from a core constitutional priority toward the president's domestic pet projects. Federal agencies, beware: The era of fiscal prolifacy may be coming to an end, and quickly. This skinny budget is only part one. It focuses on the one-third of the budget for which Congress appropriates funding every year, called “discretionary spending. Cuts to discretionary spending are critical to reducing the size and scope of the government and enhancing individual and economic freedom.
Romina Boccia, deputy director of Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Grover M. Hermann, fellow in federal budgetary affairs, at The Heritage FoundationTrump's budget proposal to eviscerate the EPA is a direct assault on our future. It would return us to smog-choked cities, oil-soaked rivers, and toxic drinking water, threatening our health from every quarter. No American wants that. This ridiculous proposal deserves to be, and will be, dead on arrival in Congress.
Scott Slesinger, legislative director, Natural Resources Defense CouncilThe president’s unconscionable budget proposal would be devastating for New Mexicans and communities across America, and for that reason I predict it is dead on arrival. Instead of 'making America great,' it will drastically weaken our economy and New Mexicans' health and well-being in order to spend billions of dollars on an unnecessary border wall that New Mexicans reject. Fortunately, this is just a proposal that has no force of law. While President Trump's blueprint would keep work at the labs going and provide further increases for defense spending, it's full of misguided cuts at the expense of middle class families and rural communities.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), lead Democrat on Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommitteehttps://insideepa.com/daily-feed/reaction-white-house-plans-cut-epas-budget
-
Climate Spending 'A Waste of Your Money' — OMB Chief
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
President Trump sees spending on climate change programs as money down the drain.
So said his budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, as he offered that today as the simple reason for proposing big cuts in federal climate spending for fiscal 2018.
"As to climate change, I think the president was fairly straightforward: We're not spending money on that anymore," the Office of Management and Budget director said in a White House news briefing. "We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that, so that is a specific tie to his campaign."
The White House spending blueprint released this morning would eliminate major climate change programs at U.S. EPA and the State Department.
Congress is expected to push back against the White House proposal, and Mulvaney said the administration is ready for that fight.
"I've been on the Hill enough to know that some of these will be very unpopular," said the former South Carolina congressman.
"I've been a member of Congress. ... I had my constituency, it was a district. Senators represent an entire state," he said. "We're always dealing with special interests from back home, we're dealing with lobbyists back home."
But, Mulvaney said, Trump "is beholden to none of that. The president has drafted a budget for the entire nation because that's who he sees himself as representing."
The administration's message to Capitol Hill, he said: "We want more money for the things the president talked about, defense being the top one, national security, and we don't want to add to the budget deficit. If Congress has another way to do that, we're happy to talk to them about it."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/16/stories/1060051594
-
With E.P.A. Cuts, States Would Lose Help in Emergencies
Mar 16, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Late one Friday night in 2014, Ohio’s environmental agency received word of a frightening test result from Toledo’s water supply: A toxic greenish substance had rendered the drinking water of half a million Toledo residents unsafe to drink.
“Immediately we reached out to the Environmental Protection Agency,” said Craig Butler, the director of Ohio’s environmental agency. “Because of the scale of the problem, and the technical knowledge required, we needed their expertise.”
State officials flew water samples from Toledo to an E.P.A. laboratory in Cincinnati, where staff scientists identified the substance as microcystin, a rare but toxic substance that is produced by algae blooms in water and causes liver damage in humans.
The resources to respond to those emergencies, along with much of the other state-level work performed by the agency, would be eliminated or sharply reduced by President Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal 2018, which cuts the E.P.A. by 31 percent, more than any other agency.
While the agency may be known for sweeping regulations to curb climate change, increase auto fuel efficiency or mandate smokestack controls, the agency’s bread and butter is more prosaic. The staff and scientists at its regional offices and laboratories across the country regularly respond to emergency calls from city and state officials: a December 2016 chemical leak from an asphalt plant into the water supply of Corpus Christi, Tex.; airborne drifts last summer in southern Missouri of dicamba, an herbicide that damages non-genetically modified crops; a 2014 fire at a perfume factory in Bridgeport, Conn., that spewed dangerous chemicals into the surrounding neighborhood.
Funds to respond to many of those calls would no longer be available under Mr. Trump’s budget. He proposed lowering the agency’s $8.1 billion budget to $5.7 billion, and cutting 3,200 jobs from the its staff of 15,000.
The proposal appears to be a realization of the federalist philosophy of the agency’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, who has ardently championed states’ rights. He has said repeatedly that he wants to pare down the agency’s overreaching federal authority and return the work of environmental regulation to states.
But former E.P.A. officials say that in the case of responding to emergencies like the one that polluted Toledo’s water supply, states often lack the expertise and resources of the federal government.
“What he fails to understand is that states do not have the technical capability to do some of this work,” said Gina McCarthy, who led the agency under the Obama administration.
Even in states like Ohio, which voted for Mr. Trump, officials like Mr. Davis say they are deeply concerned by the president’s proposed cuts to the agency.
Nearly half of its current funding is passed directly to state environmental agencies. Over all, about a third of all state funding for environmental regulation is supplied by the E.P.A., according to an analysis by the Environmental Council of the States, a nonpartisan group that represents state environmental agencies.
That funding is used to enforce federal environmental laws at the state level. If that federal funding is cut, “it is extremely unlikely that states would be able to make up the funding,” said Alexandra Dunn, the executive director of that group.
If federal funding for states to enact regulations and respond to emergencies is cut, experts say, it may be hard for states to make up the difference.
“I’m a huge fan of cooperative federalism,” Mr. Davis said. “This process of reviewing the federal budget and removing programs that are duplicative is completely appropriate.”
But he added, “Where that message conflicts with the president’s budget is where they say, ‘Hey, states, we want you to do this work, but we’re going to cut your budget to do it.’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-environmental-protection-agency-budget-cuts.html?_r=0
-
Germany Treads Carefully Toward Climate Confrontation With Trump
Mar 17, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Ryan and Brian Parkin
The German government will release next week a plan for the Group of 20 economies to address climate change, taking a cautious step toward confronting U.S. President Donald Trump on an issue that puts him at odds with most world leaders.
The 23-page draft, obtained by Bloomberg News, outlines how the most prosperous nations can lead by example, cutting their own greenhouse-gas emissions, financing efforts to curb pollution in poorer countries and take other steps to support the landmark Paris climate accord.
The plan appears to tread carefully. It makes no mention of cutting coal production, which Trump has vowed to increase, nor does it address automotive fuel standards, which he plans to review. And while the plan is expected to be distributed to all G-20 nations, Germany hasn't scheduled formal meetings for environment ministers, avoiding the risk of a clash over global warming.
“The Germans are trying to find a way to move their climate change and energy agenda, and at the same time not raise red flags for President Trump,” John Kirton, co-director of the University of Toronto's G-20 Research Group, said in an interview.
‘Core Issue’
With Angela Merkel scheduled to meet Trump in Washington on March 17, Nina Wettern, a spokeswoman for the Federal Environment Ministry, said Germany's chancellor remains committed to using the summit meeting to promote efforts to combat global warming. “Climate protection is a core issue of Germany's G-20 presidency,” Wettern said by email.
Germany will present the climate plan next week as energy and environment officials gather in Berlin for the G-20 Sustainability Working Group meeting, laying the groundwork for when Trump and other heads of state gather in July for the summit. Two German officials confirmed the authenticity of the document obtained by Bloomberg but declined to comment further.
The plan calls for transitioning to low-emission energy systems by mid-century. It acknowledges that the 2015 Paris Agreement is unlikely to succeed in limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above temperatures at the outset of the industrial revolution—even if every nation meets their emissions targets. And it endorses a push for public companies to disclose climate-related risks to shareholders.
Peter Bakker, chief executive officer of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, which counts dozens of corporate giants as members, said he welcomed the G-20 support for the Paris accord. The key step for the world's biggest economies is to back efforts that would compel companies to disclose the risks posed by rising seas, violent weather and other impacts of global warming.
That support “will transform corporate governance, and will shift trillions in investment toward the low carbon economy,” Bakker said in an emailed statement.
Fine Line
The G-20 climate plan comes as Trump follows through on his promises to roll back environmental regulations. On March 15, the Republican called for relaxing fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, which along with other vehicles are the U.S.’s largest source of greenhouse gases. And on March 16, Trump released a budget with sweeping cuts to climate change research and grants for clean energy development.
Trump vowed during his campaign to “cancel” the Paris agreement but has said little about the deal since taking office. Germany and other nations that have been at the forefront of combating global warming have been reluctant to force the president's hand.
A statement drafted for this week's G-20 finance ministers meeting made little mention of the Paris accord, marking a significant departure from the past. And in breaking with G-20 tradition, Germany scuttled formal environment and energy meetings—where global warming might have been a flash point—and instead invited ministers to a separate climate conference in Berlin.
Patrick Graichen, director of the Berlin-based energy and climate policy researcher Agora Energiewende, said the moves underscore the fine line Merkel is walking through the G-20 as she carefully pushes climate while seeking to avoid discord.
Prime Time
“Climate policy is not a battlefield of choice for Germany's G-20 presidency,” Graichen said. “Merkel doesn't want that battle with Trump. Her priority is simple: to maintain the general readiness of the group to cooperate, avoid division. That doesn't mean Germany doesn't have a G-20 climate agenda. It does.”
The G-20 may not be Merkel's first choice to debate climate. But the plan Germany is preparing to propose is bound to work its way through ministerial meetings and ultimately come to the fore when Trump, Merkel and other heads of state gather in July, Kirton said.
“This is destined to go prime time at the summit in Hamburg,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107378708&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107378708&jd=107378708
-
Judges Doubt States' Case Against EPA's SO2 Deal with Environmentalists
Mar 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
Federal appellate judges appeared deeply skeptical of a suit brought by six states seeking to vacate environmentalists' consent decree with EPA that gave the agency years beyond its statutory deadline to designate areas in attainment of sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards, with two judges suggesting the court lacked jurisdiction and the states could get relief elsewhere.
“The State of North Dakota can go back to district court and get some relief” with respect to EPA's missed deadlines, Judge Jay Bybee, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, said at March 16 oral arguments in San Francisco.
In State of North Dakota, et al. v. Regina McCarthy, et al., Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas are asking the 9th Circuit to vacate a consent decree reached by the Obama EPA and environmentalists that dramatically extends the timetable for designating areas as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for the 2010 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for SO2, set at 75 parts per billion.
EPA introduced a novel one-hour averaging time for the NAAQS that requires either computer modeling -- opposed by the petitioning states as likely to overestimate pollution -- or the time-consuming establishment of a new monitoring network to determine attainment.
While the deal allows EPA until the end of 2020 to complete designations, the states say this unlawfully extends a Clean Air Act deadline of a maximum of three years after promulgation of a new NAAQS for EPA to complete designations.
The states are seeking swift designation of many areas of the country still unclassified, and insist EPA must, under the air law, label areas “unclassifiable” if the agency lacks information to determine their status. Unclassifiable status and attainment status both avoid the possibility of a nonattainment designation that carries with it the obligation for states to impose expensive pollution controls on industry or face the risk of losing federal highway funds.
EPA may subsequently re-designate an unclassifiable area as either attainment or nonattainment, but requires additional data and consultation with states to do so.
The consent decree, reached in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, settled litigation brought by Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council over EPA's severe lateness in designating areas for the SO2 standard.
The states object, however, arguing that it is an example of “sue-and-settle” rulemaking by the previous administration -- a phenomenon that new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has pledged to end -- in which environmentalists sue EPA to force discharge of a non-discretionary duty, and settle with the agency on a timetable for action.
As such, the case could be a target for Pruitt to address given his stated objection to such settlements.
'Non-Sue Agreement'
But during arguments, Bybee and Judge M. Margaret McKeown did not appear convinced that venue was proper in the 9th Circuit, repeatedly pressing attorney Paul Seby, representing the six states, on why they could not address grievances specific to their states in local district courts -- such as a federal court in North Dakota.
Bybee suggested that the consent decree was a “non-sue” agreement to which the states were not a party, and as such, they should challenge it in other jurisdictions relevant to them. Under the agreement, environmentalists will not pursue litigation further so long as EPA sticks to the deadlines.
Seby countered that the consent decree is “by its own terms of nationwide applicability” and so the states have the right to challenge it in the applicable court of appeals. “This court has authority” to vacate the decree and remand the case back to the Northern District of California, Seby said. He said states seek a one-month deadline for EPA to designate areas it considers “unclassifiable,” and two months to designate areas either attainment or nonattainment.
McKeown asked him if states want a “do-over” of the consent decree. Bybee replied that, “no, we don't need a consent decree,” and a court order will suffice.
Seby, when pressed by Bybee and McKeown, conceded that EPA has the right to reach an agreement with litigants after missing a statutory deadline, but argued that the terms of the deal are unreasonable.
However, Judge J. Clifford Wallace appeared more interested in the merits of the case and sympathetic to the states' cause. He pressed Department of Justice lawyer David Gunter, representing EPA, on why the agency did not simply designate remaining areas of the country unclassifiable once its three-year deadline elapsed. “I don't see why we shouldn't tip it over” and force EPA to issue the remaining designations, Wallace said.
Gunter conceded that “the administrator was wrong” to instead issue designations in phases over a longer timeframe -- and indeed that was the basis of the consent decree, because there is no dispute that EPA missed its deadline. However, he resisted suggestions that the agency could issue remaining designations immediately when questioned by the judges, arguing that a consultation process with states is required by the air law where EPA disagrees with states' recommendations on what status areas should receive.
Gunter also conceded that should other parties pursue suits in district court in other jurisdictions, those courts might issue shorter deadlines for EPA to act. “I think EPA runs that risk,” he said.
Attorney Zachary Fabish, arguing for environmentalists, took issue with Gunter's assertion that there is no practical difference between an “unclassifiable” designation and no designation at all. An unclassifiable designation is a formal, substantive agency determination that may be challenged in a court of appeals -- a key difference, Fabish noted.
Should EPA be forced to make remaining determinations immediately, without sufficient time to consider the evidence, the result would be an “arbitrary and capricious” decision that is therefore unlawful under the Clean Air Act, Fabish said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/judges-doubt-states-case-against-epas-so2-deal-environmentalists
-
POLITICO Pro Q&A: Sen. Jim Inhofe
Mar 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
He may no longer chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but Sen. Jim Inhofe has arguably never been more influential on environmental and energy policy than now. Nearly half a dozen of his former staffers are already scattered throughout the federal agencies and White House, driving President Donald Trump's environmental policy agenda.
In an interview Thursday with POLITICO in his Senate office, Inhofe hailed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's "courage" for saying carbon dioxide is not a primary driver of climate change on television, and the Oklahoma Republican suggested that fossil fuel companies calling for action on climate change didn't actually believe that. Inhofe also welcomed Trump's proposed 31 percent cut in the agency's funding, saying that target was "about right."
Inhofe said he suspects a major infrastructure package won't happen this year. And he has no regrets over his infamous 2015 snowball stunt on the Senate floor.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Trump's budget blueprint calls for a 31 percent cut to EPA. Does that go far enough in your mind?
I think that’s about right because we have certain core functions that we have to do — we have brownfields, we have all these things that we are doing. But the thing that has happened aggressively — now it happened before during the Clinton Administration, too, but not to the extent it did for the eight years under Obama — it’s turned into just an ideological bank that’s being used to project their extreme views. And so, if you’re really looking at them as what they’re supposed to be doing as opposed to what they are doing. Just take these regulations, one by one. They're targeting people. The over-regulation is what I hear most. I hear more about that than I do the military back in Oklahoma.
It doesn’t seem likely, though, that the president will get the entire 31 percent through given you need 60 votes in the Senate. If that’s the case, where would you like to see the president press for cuts at EPA in particular?
Don’t be surprised if we don’t pick up this year quite a few Democrats. I think we’ll be able to get some votes there. It could be that they are looking at the budget to go ahead and start in one position that might be considered to be a little extreme in order to start to compromise. Let’s keep in mind this president’s reputation is he’s the great deal-maker.
I have to say this: In spite of what a lot of people think, he knows what he’s doing.
Why do you say that?
Everything he’s said that has sounded extreme or not well-founded at all ends up to be right. And, look at him. All during the campaign he said all these things, but there he is in the White House. I’m just more and more convinced that the guy really knows what he’s doing.
The people who are advising him are the right people — and I’m talking about the right people in healthcare, the right people in energy, certainly in military. And I'm one of his quasi-advisers in that area.
Let’s talk about the Department of Transportation. They’re also in line for 13 percent cut. Cuts for Essential Air Service, TIGER Grants. Would cuts like that be concerning for you?
That does only because I was the prime mover of the legislation on their reauthorization. And I’ve also seen the value of some of these programs. So I think that’s a starting place.
Have you spoken the president directly about the infrastructure bill he’d like to move? What’s your sense for timing on that?
The answer is no. Although, I did one time. When I went up to Trump Tower — I think that was Oct. 7. Well, the only time before that I met the guy was when he was down at the NRSC and he was addressing all the Republicans. So I listened to him and afterwards I went up to him and said, “Mr. Trump you don’t know me, but …” And as soon as I say that, “Oh, yes I do. You’re the one who’s really leading the concern about what’s happened to our military during the Obama administration and you also are one with a business background and remembers what over-regulation can do. And you’re interested in transportation.” Well, I was just one of 50 guys down there but he knew all that stuff.
So, when I went to Trump Tower, those are the areas that I was kind of in the conversation. We didn’t talk that much about transportation other than the fact that we just passed the largest [surface transportation bill] since 1998 and that may not be at the front end of his reforms.
So you think an infrastructure package is going to come after Obamacare and tax reform?
I do. I do.
So it may not happen this year?
I suspect it won’t happen this year.
Jumping back to EPA, how often are you speaking to Administrator Pruitt? And you have a number of your own people over there now…
See, I know those guys. I know how they perform. You could try to put something together to be really negative about that, but on the other hand if you stop and think about the people in my personal office and primarily in the committee, the stuff that we did — I’m talking about the transportation bill, the chemical bill, the water bill — we did more than all the other committees put together. These are talented people. I think that’s just the kind of people he needs to have there.
Now to answer your question: I really haven’t had more than a couple of conversations and they’re really more social conversations with Scott Pruitt. But with others, including [chief of staff] Ryan Jackson and the others, I’ve had a conversation with them on their area of expertise.
What advice have you given the administrator and what stamp would you like to have him leave on the agency?
He’s not the type that will cave in under the pressure of a bureaucracy. He won’t do that. So, I would like to have him — and I know he’s doing this — sit down and put in writing all the things that he wants to get done and then prioritize them and go do it. And I think a lot of that will be credited to Ryan Jackson, because that’s kind of the way we’ve always done things.
Do you think the talk of eliminating a fifth of the employees is appropriate?
Whoever came up with that part of that recommendation, they looked at the number of people and what they’re doing. I have not done that. I just know that the concentration of effort within the Obama administration was to see how many of these regulations they could get through and it seemed like the regulations they got through have one thing in common: They were things that were so unpopular you couldn’t get [them] through with legislation. We now have an administrator who's going to be listening to people who are accountable to the public.
Liberals, primarily Democrats, are ones who want more regulation and they want regulation to come from Washington. The reason they like regulations is because they know that the over-regulated population out there does not like the regulations. So when they go back to their districts, they can say, “Don’t blame me. That’s an unelected bureaucrat that made those regulations.” Well, with the [Congressional Review Act challenges], we can force them to be on record where they don’t have that excuse anymore. That’s what I believe is going to dramatically affect the outcome of these regulations.
The executive order that’s coming out on the Clean Power Plan and other things. What’s it like to see some of these ideas you’ve been championing come into force?
I just think it’s great because it’s clearly what the majority of people want. These are things you couldn’t do through legislation. It’s this bureaucratic attitude that we know more about what we need in America than you do. I’ve been living with that now for eight years.
Having lived with that and experienced the great frustration of going back to Oklahoma and people saying, “Well now look, you’re chairman of the committee that has oversight of the EPA. Why can’t you do something about these regulations that are killing the economy in my state of Oklahoma?” And my response is: “I don’t have that much control.”
Were you surprised to see the administrator last week on television talking about carbon dioxide not being a primary driver of global warming?
Well, it’s not a primary driver.
But he took a lot of heat for that.
Sure, but what’s wrong with being honest? See he knows that that isn’t true. This whole thing about 97 percent of the scientists — that is just a complete lie and they know it.
I’m glad he had the courage to stand up and tell the truth. The science isn’t there. There are a lot of people wishing it were. There are a lot of these Democrat members who really, they’ll die on their sword because they want people to believe something’s true that isn’t true. So, I admire him for having the courage to tell the truth.
What do you make of these major fossil fuel companies, like Exxon and Shell, make these public statements calling for action on climate change? Why do you think they’re doing that?
Oh sure. They do that because they want to be on the inside. When [agencies] start promulgating rules, they want [to say], “Remember us? We’re the ones who said we’re on your side.” Sure, they do that. A lot of people in what I call the big corporate world, they don’t consider it selling their souls. They know that they are working for a board of directors, that board of directors pays their salary and they have to come up with things that they know better. I’ve seen this in corporate world for a long time. I used to be in the corporate world.
So you think they don’t actually believe it?
Oh yeah. I think that’s true. But they’re under pressure. They are people who say, “You have to be nice to these people because Al Gore is important.” Now we know Al Gore is not so important.
We just passed the two-year anniversary of your infamous snowball on the Senate floor. You took a lot of hits and were the butt of a few jokes.
Oh, I did but that doesn’t bother me. You guys are going to have to not take all this stuff so seriously. Sit back and enjoy life. And I thought that was great.
Would you do it again if you could?
No, I’ve already done it. I don’t do things twice. I like the element of surprise. But what’s neat about that was, that was all put together by me with the pages. And it happened when I said, “Which one of you is the most athletic?” And they all pointed to one guy and it happened he was from Oklahoma. So I said, “I’m going to do this, I’m going to throw this snowball and, if you miss it, it’s going to hit the presiding officer.” Course he was pretty nervous. But my throw was good. His catch was good. It was perfect.
On the Paris climate accord, you’re obviously know a lot about international agreements: Do you have concern were the Trump administration to pull out?
There’s nothing to pull out of. See, what Obama said, he said, “We will reduce our CO2 emissions between 26 to 28 percent by 2025.” Immediately, our committee — and I was chairman of the committee — we had the EPA come over: Everybody says, “No, that can’t be done.” So it was never anything we agreed to.
But what some people say is that would hurt America’s diplomatic relations. Even if it’s the Obama administration, it’s promised the rest of the world we’ll do something. But then we say, “No, we’re not going to do that anymore.”
No, because, right after that, we said, “We have a president saying something he knows we can’t do.” That president’s gone, now let’s negotiate in honesty.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/03/politico-pro-q-a-sen-jim-inhofe-153136
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested