Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/28/2017
-
Capitol Connection: Drumroll, Please…Announcing the IPC Government IMPACT Awardees
Mar 28, 2017 | I-Connect007
By John Hasselmann
Government relations are essential to our industry as many of the policy debates taking place will have long-lasting impact on our industry. -
It's D-Day for Climate Regs. Bombs Fall at 2 p.m.
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Evan Lehmann
President Trump will try to land a knockout blow on his predecessor's sprawling climate agenda by issuing an executive order today targeting at least nine actions that form the foundation of U.S. efforts to cut emissions and prepare for rising perils. -
What to Know About Trump’s Order to Dismantle the Clean Power Plan
Mar 28, 2017 | The New York Times
By Tatiana Schlossberg
President Trump is expected to sign an executive order Tuesday that calls on Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to take steps to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, a set of rules regulating energy plants powered by fossil fuels. -
Was the Climate Rule Really Bad for the Economy?
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
As President Trump today pulls the first strings in unraveling President Obama's signature climate change regulation, he will claim he's saving Americans from skyrocketing electricity bills and putting coal miners back to work. -
Have Markets Rendered KXL, Clean Power Plan Irrelevant?
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The Keystone XL pipeline is alive and the Clean Power Plan is on death row, but President Trump's first attempts to make America more fossil-fuel-friendly share this: Energy markets have moved on. -
Early Reaction to Trump's Climate Executive Order
Mar 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
By World Resources Institute
As we reported last night, President Donald Trump is poised to sign a long-awaited executive order targeting a wide range of Obama-era climate change policies, including EPA's landmark greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan. -
Md. Senate Approves Statewide Ban
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Maryland Senate approved a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas yesterday, virtually guaranteeing it will become state law. -
Judge Upholds Watershed Authority's Prohibition on Fracking
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging an interstate commission's restrictions on natural gas production in northeastern Pennsylvania's Delaware River Basin. -
Dakota Access Puts Oil in Pipeline
Mar 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The company that built the Dakota Access pipeline has filled the pipe with oil and is making the final preparations to start moving the oil. -
SoCalGas Applies Advanced Methane Detection Technology
Mar 28, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Under criticism in some quarters for its efforts to curb methane emissions from its pipeline and storage system, Sempra Energy's Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) launched pipeline and storage mitigation and monitoring systems this past weekend that promise improvements in reducing leaks. -
Industry Asks EPA to Ditch 2015 Curbs on Power Plant Toxics
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
An industry group is asking U.S. EPA to reconsider a regulation aimed at reducing toxic metals in power plants' wastewater. -
Trump Takes Biggest Swing Yet at Obama Climate Legacy
Mar 28, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillén
President Donald Trump will direct the federal government on Tuesday to begin dismantling his predecessor’s most significant climate change policies, with a sweeping directive telling agencies to stop trying to reduce the carbon pollution of electric utilities, oil and gas drillers and coal miners. -
Trump Takes Aim at Obama's Efforts to Curb Global Warming
Mar 28, 2017 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
Moving forward with a campaign pledge to unravel former President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to curb global warming, President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Tuesday that will suspend, rescind or flag for review more than a half-dozen measures in an effort to boost domestic energy production in the form of fossil fuels. -
White House Outlines More Cuts for Energy, Environment
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink
The White House is asking Congress to slash billions of dollars from energy and environmental programs for the last six months of fiscal 2017, beyond the already deep cuts it previously proposed for next year.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Capitol Connection: Drumroll, Please…Announcing the IPC Government IMPACT Awardees
Mar 28, 2017 | I-Connect007
By John Hasselmann
Government relations are essential to our industry as many of the policy debates taking place will have long-lasting impact on our industry. Tax and regulations reform, immigration, and environmental regulations are up for debate and it is time for our industry to take a seat at the table.
IMPACT Washington, D.C. 2017 is our chance to be heard and we are eager to meet with key influencers in Washington D.C., May 1−3.
During this event, we will present the IPC Government IMPACT Award to Representatives John Shimkus (R-IL) and Kurt Schrader (D-OR).
Rep. Shimkus is a senior member of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee and was a leading figure in achieving enactment of the TSCA Modernization Act, which will bring the regulation of toxic substances into the 21st century.
Rep. Schrader was a key player on the Democratic side on the TSCA Modernization Act, and he also played an active role in organizing congressional opposition to the Obama administration’s ill-advised overtime rules.
IPC will present the IMPACT awards to these gentlemen during a VIP dinner on May 2, and we hope you will be there to help us underscore our appreciation.
If you are a C-level executive with an IPC member company, we suggest that you don’t miss this event. The more executives who sign up early, the stronger position we’ll be in to secure first-rate meetings.
IMPACT Washington, D.C. 2017 presents the chance to build lasting relationships with members of Congress, meet industry executives and present a unified voice for the manufacturing industry. Register here today!
We look forward to seeing you in D.C.
John Hasselmann is vice president, Government Relations, IPC—Association Connecting Electronics Industries.
http://milaero.iconnect007.com/index.php/article/103440/capitol-connection-drumroll-pleaseannouncing-the-ipc-government-impact-awardees/103443/?skin=milaero
-
It's D-Day for Climate Regs. Bombs Fall at 2 p.m.
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Evan Lehmann
President Trump will try to land a knockout blow on his predecessor's sprawling climate agenda by issuing an executive order today targeting at least nine actions that form the foundation of U.S. efforts to cut emissions and prepare for rising perils.
The "energy independence" order, to be signed at 2 p.m. today, underscores Trump's belief that the seriousness of climate change was overblown by the past administration and deserves to be set aside in order to revive a struggling coal industry and encourage an unbridled boom in the production of oil and gas.
A senior White House official, when asked yesterday if the president agrees with scientists who say that people are largely responsible for rising temperatures, told reporters, "Yeah, sure."
But the administration appears deeply skeptical about the extent of potential damage that climate change might cause, and the order to be signed today would leave the administration seemingly free of any policy to address the risks — both environmental and economic — that scientists have warned about for years.
"I mean, to the extent that the economy is strong and growing and you have prosperity, that's the best way to protect the environment," the White House official said in a briefing about the order. "But certainly, natural gas is important. Clean coal's important. Nuclear is important. Renewables are important."
Today's executive order sets EPA on the road to rescind the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era rule to reduce emissions at power plants 32 percent by 2030. The official said rescinding the rule could take up to three years and is bound to face legal challenges.
The order also eliminates Obama-era efforts to improve adaptation, embed climate risks in national security apparatuses, reduce agency emissions, expand the importance of climate impacts in the National Environmental Policy Act and freeze new coal leases on public land. It also begins a review of methane regulations by EPA and the Bureau of Land Management and a rule on hydraulic fracturing by BLM. And it will instruct agencies not to use the social cost of carbon when weighing the costs and benefits of environmental regulation.
The order also promotes fossil fuel production. It requires agencies to identify "all regulations, all rules, all policies [and] guidance documents that serve as obstacles or impediments to domestic energy production," the official said.
Then, in 180 days, the White House will use those agency plans to develop a "blueprint" for energy policy.
Does Trump believe in man-made warming? 'Sure, yeah'
The Clean Power Plan is the cornerstone of the United States' climate policy, and it is a key to meeting the nation's commitment under the global Paris Agreement, under which the United States has pledged to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025. Whether the United States will remain in the Paris accord is still being discussed in the White House, but the official suggested the nation's commitments stand to be weakened. Paris is not included in the order.
"I mean, we have a different view about how you should address climate policy in the United States, so we're gonna go in a different direction," the official said. "I can't get into what that ultimately means from an emissions standpoint. I have no idea."
The order also instructs the Department of Justice to essentially withdraw its defense of the Clean Power Plan in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Instead, it seeks to freeze the case, which is near completion, before the court issues an opinion expected this spring.
The official disputed the idea that the federal government is required to regulate greenhouse gases under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
"I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree on that, but that's not something we're thinking of right now," the official said, adding that the administration is focused on unspooling the "massive" Clean Power Plan and not devising new policies to address emissions.
Environmental groups are already threatening to sue the government if it fails to aggressively cut emissions. They contend that EPA is legally obligated to drive down climate pollutants. The official, meanwhile, described an EPA under Trump that focuses not on climate change but on the agency's "core mission" — conventional air and water pollution.
The official faced a string of questions from reporters about whether the president and his advisers believe that humans are causing climate change.
"I think the president understands there's a disagreement over the policy response, and we're gonna see that in the order tomorrow. We're taking a different path," the official said.
When pressed on whether Trump believes in man-made warming, the official said, "Sure, yeah."
A campaign promise checked off
Another reporter asked if the official believes that sea-level rise could cause economic damage to major cities like Miami, New York and New Orleans, as scientists are warning.
"I'd like to see the research. Sure, that would be good. Show it to me," the official said.
The reporter replied: "So are you saying there's not rising sea levels?"
The official answered: "I didn't say that all. I want to see the study."
The president has sent inconsistent signals about his views of human-caused climate in the past 18 months, saying in December 2015 that it's a "hoax," and a year later that there is some "connectivity" between people's actions and warming.
Today's order ushers a White House that is still reeling from last week's remarkable legislative loss on health care into the embracing arms of the coal industry. Trump vowed last May to revive jobs in the hard-hit towns of Appalachia by erasing the Clean Power Plan.
"We're going to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions," Trump said then. "OK, remember that. We're going to save the coal industry. We're going to save that coal industry, believe me. We're going to save it."
He promised to revoke the climate rules within 100 days of taking office. It's day 68.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/28/stories/1060052176
-
What to Know About Trump’s Order to Dismantle the Clean Power Plan
Mar 28, 2017 | The New York Times
By Tatiana Schlossberg
President Trump is expected to sign an executive order Tuesday that calls on Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to take steps to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, a set of rules regulating energy plants powered by fossil fuels.
What was happening with the Clean Power Plan until now?
The plan, which would have regulated carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-powered electricity plants, has been tied up in courts for more than a year, after more two dozen states, industry representatives and others sued the E.P.A. They claimed that the plan was unconstitutional, and it hadn’t yet taken effect because the Supreme Court had said the plan could not be carried out while it was being argued before a lower federal court.
Mr. Trump criticized the Clean Power Plan during the campaign and promised to bring back coal mining jobs and create new jobs in the fossil fuel industry; the rules would have made that more difficult. Mr. Pruitt, as Oklahoma’s attorney general, sued the E.P.A. 14 times over environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan.
What happens next?
The problem for Mr. Trump and Mr. Pruitt is that, if they get rid of this plan, they are legally required to come up with another one.
Plus, in order to repeal regulations, federal agencies have to follow the same rule-making system (requiring periods of public notice and comment) used to create regulations, which can take about a year.
Keep in mind that 18 state attorneys general and several environmental advocacy groups had previously moved to defend the rule, and they may challenge whatever alternative Mr. Pruitt might devise.
Would getting rid of the Clean Power Plan bring back coal and coal industry jobs?
Some of the arguments against the Clean Power Plan have come from the fossil fuel industries — specifically the coal industry, since coal-fired power plants are the main target of the rules. They have argued that the plan is overly punitive toward them.
However, the proliferation of cheap natural gas and a rise in renewable energy sources have made coal less financially sustainable.
Removing regulations on coal-fired power plants wouldn’t necessarily bring back a lot of coal jobs. Most coal mining, especially mountaintop removal mining, is done by machines, so it would be hard to bring back the thousands of jobs that have been lost as coal becomes less and less profitable.
And opening up more federal lands and waters to fossil fuel extraction might lead to a glut of coal in the market, which could make it even less financially viable than it is now.
How does this relate to the Paris agreement?
The Obama administration used the creation of the Clean Power Plan to show other countries that the United States was serious about taking meaningful action on climate change during the Paris climate talks in late 2015. The plan is the most significant part of the strategy to cut emissions by the amount specified in the Paris agreement.
Even with the Clean Power Plan in effect, it would have been tough for the United States to meet its Paris agreement targets. Without the plan or another one at least as stringent on greenhouse gases, it will be nearly impossible, experts say.
If the rule is completely abandoned and no comparable alternative is offered, it might signal to the rest of the world that the United States isn’t serious about its obligations under the Paris agreement (which Mr. Trump has also said he would “cancel,” though there is disagreement about that in his cabinet). That might make other countries feel less bound by the terms of the agreement, too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/science/what-to-know-about-trumps-order-to-dismantle-the-clean-power-plan.html
-
Was the Climate Rule Really Bad for the Economy?
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
As President Trump today pulls the first strings in unraveling President Obama's signature climate change regulation, he will claim he's saving Americans from skyrocketing electricity bills and putting coal miners back to work.
In truth, that's hard to show.
Experts say it's difficult to get more than a rough estimate of how the Clean Power Plan would influence power costs, since natural gas and renewable energy prices play a role, as do state choices about trading systems.
Canceling the first-ever standards to reduce emissions from power plants is also unlikely to revive the dying coal industry, although it may keep some jobs in western U.S. mines from disappearing, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
While economic studies on the rule have varied wildly, the Trump administration is relying on one paid for by the coal lobby and conducted by NERA Economic Consulting. NERA found that the Clean Power Plan could cause double-digit electricity price increases in many states. In a briefing yesterday, the White House cited that finding and argued that it couldn't pursue any policy that "puts the economy at risk."
Supporters of the Clean Power Plan, however, point to studies that show people would save money on electricity under the rule. They believe the Clean Power Plan would spur energy savings and result in lower bills. U.S. EPA and EIA came in somewhere in between, estimating that electricity prices would rise slightly at first but fall later. EPA thought they would be lower than without the rule by 2030.
The huge number of unknowns makes it "very easy for folks to cherry-pick desired results," said Noah Kaufman, a climate economist with the World Resources Institute who worked for the Obama administration. NERA assumed much higher costs for wind and solar power than did groups like MJ Bradley & Associates and Synapse Energy Economics, Kaufman noted in a recent analysis.
Despite the wide range of estimates, Kaufman said he hasn't seen any study that "makes a compelling and independent case to show that the economic effects are anything other than just noise in comparison to the economy as a whole."
Industry groups disagree, and they believe the costs of the rule would be higher than any possible benefits.
A recent study by NERA for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation found that meeting the Paris climate pledge would cost the average American household up to $160 a year and eliminate up to 440,000 jobs by 2025 (Greenwire, March 16). Environmental groups attacked those numbers as unreasonable, saying the researchers intentionally picked the most expensive ways to comply. The chamber says it was being realistic about how the United States might regulate different sectors based on legal confines.
As those types of debate rage on, Trump today will claim a victory for cash-strapped Americans and fossil fuel workers. But the actual economic impact of his actions will be hard to decipher.
When ideology mixes with economics
Observers might assume that the true cost of climate action would fall in the middle of the range of estimates. Researchers warn against that.
"Across all the years I've looked at it, it's not necessarily in the middle," said Tom Wilson, a senior program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute who has been studying climate policy analyses since the 1980s and has witnessed the unexpected natural gas boom and rapid declines in renewable power costs.
"The sort of key thing is that all types of strange things can happen," he said.
Wilson in his presentations explains how analysts in the 1980s estimated the level of global carbon emissions for 2000 and nailed it. They got all the inputs wrong, believing before the Chernobyl meltdown that nuclear power would expand quickly and thinking that Africa would use more power than China. But somehow all the figures balanced out.
There is similar uncertainty in the power sector now. Cheap natural gas has pushed coal and zero-carbon nuclear power offline. It's unclear whether people will really want to buy electric vehicles even when they cost the same as traditional ones. They might not like the way the cars accelerate or could cling to range anxiety, Wilson explained.
"Fundamental issues like that would dictate the cost of a climate policy," he said.
Environmental advocates will also note that many studies don't consider the economic benefits of reducing carbon emissions and spurring other countries to do so, as well. They say policymakers should consider lowered public health costs, avoided infrastructure expenses and savings from curbing the intensity of extreme weather events.
While the exact costs of the Clean Power Plan are hard to pin down, soldiers on both sides of the political debate insist they know how the rule would play out. That's an age-old strategy.
When the House passed cap-and-trade legislation in 2009, and the Senate was considering it, some models showed that the legislation would have been economically manageable, recalled Greg Dotson, who worked for former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a co-author of the bill. Dotson cited one government study that found the cap-and-trade plan would have slowed the growth of the gross domestic product, but only by a few months and not for decades.
Dotson said critics misused some modeling to make their arguments that the measure would be bad for the economy. He said models also almost never adequately assessed the cost of failing to address climate change and exaggerated the importance of small effects projected to occur years in the future. For example, during the debate in 2009, opponents posted stickers on gas pumps warning of immediate price spikes that weren't projected to occur until 2030.
"When you start thinking about it in those terms, models show that it's possible to craft climate change policies in which the costs are small but the benefits are huge," he said.
At the time, it was mainly pundits and those in conservative circles citing industry studies against cap and trade. Now, the president is using such assessments to back up his executive actions.
Dotson said that could be helpful, in giving people a chance to do some fact-checking.
"The problem with whisper campaigns that take place by industry outside of Washington, D.C., is sometimes they're quite hard to rebut," Dotson said. "When something comes from the president's mouth or Administrator Pruitt's mouth ... it gives experts something to really focus on."
Public Citizen yesterday was already taking aim at Pruitt's comments on ABC News on Sunday that climate policies cause electricity rates to increase.
'Coal still has a role to play'
Part of why Clean Power Plan assessments are so hard is because EPA would have given states wide latitude in how to meet their goals, including by using carbon trading.
Before the courts stalled the rule, most states were considering carbon trading, which would have lowered costs, according to various studies by regional grid organizations.
To be sure, costs of the rule would vary around the country, likely hitting coal-heavy states that have been slower to transition away from fossil fuels the hardest.
Market realities are hitting states in the West particularly hard as they try to navigate coal plant closures as companies no longer find the fossil fuel cost-competitive.
Scott Segal, an industry lawyer at Bracewell LLP, said that while it's "always difficult for the government to establish a program that can expand or save any specific industry," the government can "remove obstacles."
He argued that while natural gas is cheap and renewable power is growing cheaper, "coal still has a role to play."
No power company in the country is looking to invest in a new coal plant. But Segal said that "market demands and unforeseen circumstances could spell a resurgence for coal," if the government gets the regulatory approach right.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/28/stories/1060052178
-
Have Markets Rendered KXL, Clean Power Plan Irrelevant?
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
The Keystone XL pipeline is alive and the Clean Power Plan is on death row, but President Trump's first attempts to make America more fossil-fuel-friendly share this: Energy markets have moved on.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC has announced plans to sell its stake in the Canadian oil sands, which Keystone XL was designed to serve. Exxon Mobil Corp. has written off its investment in the region. And U.S. utilities continue to close coal plants at a rapid rate, with power companies in Arizona, Florida, New Mexico and Ohio announcing retirements in recent months.
The changes highlight the challenges facing President Trump, as he touts a pair of executive orders designed to create jobs by rolling back Obama-era environmental regulations. It also raises the question of whether the United States can continue to achieve carbon reductions in the absence of environmental regulations.
Pipeline and pollution plans touch different sectors of the energy economy. Keystone XL, formally approved Friday, is designed to deliver 800,000 barrels of heavy Canadian crude daily to refineries on the Gulf Coast and is more directly linked to the transportation sector. The Clean Power Plan, which Trump intends to repeal by executive order today, concerns carbon limits on America's power plants.
But both have been upended by advancements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in recent years.
Eight years ago, when Barack Obama ascended to the presidency, coal was the undisputed king of America's power market, crude was selling for almost $100 a barrel, and U.S. oil drillers were scrambling to book new reserves.
Today, natural gas has a claim on coal's throne, crude prices are bouncing around $50 a barrel, and oil majors like Exxon Mobil are turning their focus from large capital-intensive projects like the Canadian oil sands to America's shale plays.
Few analysts predict that Trump's orders, on their own, will create jobs. Keystone XL is expected to create 50 full-time jobs once it goes into operation, according to a 2014 State Department report. And low natural gas prices have achieved what the Clean Power Plan could not: a wave of coal plant closures. Those are unlikely to return soon, with utilities boasting scant plans for new coal plants.
"I don't think it saves coal mining jobs," Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, said of the Clean Power Plan's repeal.
Hans Daniels, CEO of Doyle Trading Consultants, a research firm, framed it this way: "I wouldn't say it creates new jobs so much as it slows the destruction of existing jobs."
'Overestimating' shale?
Less clear is the orders' impact on America's carbon emissions. Without regulations to drive reductions, it will now fall on the market to do so, analysts said.
Shale's rise has helped drive emissions lower in recent years, even as the economy grew. While the power sector favored natural gas over coal, the oil industry increasingly preferred fracking to carbon-intensive oil sands mining.
The exit of oil majors like Shell and Exxon from Alberta's high plains has cast new doubt over the oil sands and Keystone XL's viability. Oil sands producers have always needed high oil prices, low carbon prices and robust infrastructure to be profitable, Webber said.
Under Obama, the latter two proved problematic. Now, under Trump, the equation has flipped.
"In the end, Keystone won't be built if they can't get long-term contracts," Webber said. "It's not clear to me that the Canadian oil sands can compete with shale on price and speed of delivery."
Many oil analysts are more bullish on oil sands producers' prospects. Future demand growth means crude prices should rise over time. Shale producers have problems of their own, namely a light brand of crude that is ill-suited for American refineries and the sharp decline rates on their wells. And now, with Trump lifting the ban on Keystone XL, oil sands producers have a cure for their long-standing infrastructure ills.
"People in the past underestimated shale putting us on the road to energy independence. People said that would never happen," said Phil Flynn, an oil analyst at the Price Futures Group in Chicago. "Now, at least in the short term, people are overestimating shale. They are looking at shale to replace a lot of big projects being canceled. It is not going to be a panacea to all the trillions of dollars that got canceled."
Murky long-term predictions
Projections for future carbon reductions without the Clean Power Plan are similarly blurry.
Energy efficiency measures are responsible for emission reductions of roughly 2 percent annually, said James Sweeney, director of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford University. Those trends are likely to continue, absent a change to many of the country's current environmental laws.
The power sector's shift toward natural gas and renewables within the last five years has contributed another 1 percent annually, he said. But whether those reductions continue or not will likely depend on states, Sweeney said.
"The Clean Power Plan basically in California and a number of other states was not going to be governing what they do because they were taking internal stances well above the requirements of the Clean Air Act," he said. "Eliminating that will have no impact on them.
"There are a group of other states that are more reliant on coal and fossil fuels, and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan will take the pressure off of them," he said.
The plan's repeal also leaves the door open for a coal rebound should natural gas prices rise. Where the U.S. power sector was once gas's only market, rising industrial demand and exports put upward pressure on gas prices, Daniels said.
Even an incremental shift in gas prices can move coal demand. By Daniels' estimate, a penny increase in gas prices results in 1 million tons of additional coal demand.
Webber, the University of Texas professor, agreed. While few short-term projections see gas prices rising dramatically, the long-term picture is harder to predict.
"I think environmentalists are over-claiming what the Clean Power Plan will do. And I think the market enthusiasts are over-claiming what the market can do," Webber said. "I'd like to see a healthy dosage of both."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/28/stories/1060052174
-
Early Reaction to Trump's Climate Executive Order
Mar 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
By World Resources Institute
As we reported last night, President Donald Trump is poised to sign a long-awaited executive order targeting a wide range of Obama-era climate change policies, including EPA's landmark greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan.
The directive will prioritize domestic energy production and eliminate climate or environmental policies that “put the U.S. economy at risk,” according to a senior White House official.
Here is some of the initial reaction:
Today’s action by President Trump is an important step toward increasing American competitiveness and recognizing that our industry is part of the solution to advancing U.S. economic and national security goals. Smart, common sense and science-based guidance and regulations will help our nation’s energy renaissance continue to provide benefits for American consumers, workers and the environment.
American Petroleum Institute
Withdrawing the Clean Power Plan is a mistake that will cost consumers more in the long run, in the form of higher energy and health care bills. The Clean Power Plan offers states a flexible approach to reduce emissions, expand clean and renewable energy, and boost energy efficiency efforts. Meeting the goals of the Plan would save the average U.S. household nearly $161 a year on their energy bills in 2030, according to a recent Georgia Tech study. Overall consumer savings would total $250 billion in the 15 years that follow full implementation of the Plan.
Consumers Union
Rolling back the Clean Power Plan would roll right over 3 million Americans who earn paychecks every day in the clean energy economy. And it’s not just workers who would suffer -- it’s American competitiveness, too. The Trump administration needs to put forward a policy that reduces our emissions and also supports American jobs.
Environmental Entrepreneurs
They want us to travel back to when smokestacks damaged our health and polluted our air, instead of taking every opportunity to support clean jobs of the future. This is not just dangerous; it’s embarrassing to us and our businesses on a global scale to be dismissing opportunities for new technologies, economic growth, and US leadership. Our drinking water and the air we breathe will directly suffer in response to this executive order. It flies in the face of EPA’s mission and the whole basis for action on climate in the first place - protecting public health. Simply put, you cannot defer climate actions and say you are committed to clean air and water.
Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
Trump is holding America back, keeping us dependent upon an old technology that will mean fewer jobs, higher costs, and slower growth. This is the latest in a long line of bad business deals for him, but this time the American people will bear the costs to our health, our water, our air, our security and our prosperity.
NextGen Climate
Donald Trump’s executive order would let dirty power plants spew unlimited pollution into our air while ignoring the climate crisis, unraveling protections that are designed to save billions of dollars, and thousands of lives. In fact, Trump’s sweeping order is the single biggest attack on climate action in U.S. history, period.
Sierra Club
America got good news today when President Trump took bold steps to make regulatory relief and energy security a top priority. American energy resources give us a competitive advantage in the global economy, and the president’s effort to capitalize on those resources is vital to stimulating economic growth. These executive actions are a welcome departure from the previous administration’s strategy of making energy more expensive through costly, job-killing regulations that choked our economy.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Trump administration is failing a test of leadership to protect American’s health, the environment and economy. It’s been shown time and again that sustained economic growth and national security are intertwined with good environmental stewardship. In taking a sledgehammer to U.S. climate action, the administration will push the country backward, making it harder and more expensive to reduce emissions. Climate science is clear and unwavering: mounting greenhouse gas emissions are warming our planet, putting people and business in harm’s way.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
Md. Senate Approves Statewide Ban
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Maryland Senate approved a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas yesterday, virtually guaranteeing it will become state law.
The state House of Delegates approved the bill earlier this month, and Republican Gov. Larry Hogan said on March 17 that he approves of the idea, after previously saying he wanted to allow gas development under tight controls (Energywire, March 20).
The 35-10 vote will make Maryland the second state in the Marcellus Shale gas field to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the technique that made it possible to produce oil and gas that is trapped inside dense underground rock. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) used an executive order to block fracking in 2014 (Energywire, Dec. 17, 2014).
Environmentalists cheered the Maryland vote, while the oil industry said it was misguided and would hurt the state's economy.
"The grassroots movement to ban fracking overcame the high-powered lobbyists and deep pockets of the oil and gas industry," said Mitch Jones, a policy advocate for Food & Water Watch, in a statement.
Maryland has benefited from the big increase in production in neighboring Pennsylvania and other states. Its gas consumption has risen 16 percent since 2006, while the price for consumers has fallen 26 percent and emissions of carbon dioxide fell 39 percent between 2006 and 2014, according to the American Petroleum Institute.
"The increasing number of Maryland households powered by natural gas is a prime driver in this success, and we will continue to pay other states to achieve these milestones," Maryland Petroleum Council Executive Director Drew Cobbs said in a news release.
The bill passed the Senate with little debate during an evening session that was broadcast online.
State Sen. George Edwards, a Republican who represents the western part of the state, which lies over the Marcellus Shale, said local elected officials in "Mountain Maryland" support gas development because it would help the rural economy.
The state Senate rejected an amendment that Edwards offered to extend the existing temporary moratorium on fracking for another few years.
The Marcellus Shale has turned Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia into gas-producing powerhouses. But the states have been dogged by complaints of air and water pollution and other drawbacks.
Maryland spent years under Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley studying whether drilling and fracturing could be done safely. When Hogan took office in 2015, he promised to write tough regulations that would still permit some drilling.
Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, though, and they blocked Hogan with a temporary ban on fracking in 2015. The moratorium was scheduled to run out this year (Energywire, June 1, 2015).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/28/stories/1060052181
-
Judge Upholds Watershed Authority's Prohibition on Fracking
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging an interstate commission's restrictions on natural gas production in northeastern Pennsylvania's Delaware River Basin.
A group of landowners who want to drill on a parcel in Wayne County, Pa., said they'll appeal. But for now, the Delaware River Basin Commission's (DRBC) prohibition on gas drilling remains in place.
The commission, made up of federal agencies and representatives from Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Delaware, has blocked production of gas in parts of Pennsylvania since 2009, saying it wants to write regulations to protect the Delaware's watershed before allowing drilling.
Wayne Land and Mineral Group LLC, which owns 180 acres in Wayne County, sued the commission last year, saying the DRBC lacks authority over gas development because the company's plan to drill an exploratory well didn't involve impounding water or discharging any wastewater.
U.S. District Judge Robert Mariani sided with the DRBC's broad view of how the project could affect the watershed in an opinion issued Thursday.
"The allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' complaint clearly describe a facility undertaken for the utilization of 'water resources,' since the well pad and related drilling, fracturing and operation of natural gas wells admittedly involve 'water resources,'" Mariani wrote.
Only about 75 of the landowner group's acres are in the Delaware watershed, but they fall into a sensitive area, the DRBC argued in court filings. The commission determined in 2009 that any gas drilling in the area had to be approved in advance (Energywire, July 26, 2016).
The DRBC argued that the landowners group didn't exhaust its administrative remedies before it sued, because the group never asked for permission to drill on the land. The agency also said the landowners' claim isn't ripe for judicial review because the DRBC is still writing its drilling regulations.
David Overstreet, a Pittsburgh-based attorney for Wayne Land and Mineral Group, said in an email that the group plans to appeal.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/28/stories/1060052152
-
Dakota Access Puts Oil in Pipeline
Mar 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The company that built the Dakota Access pipeline has filled the pipe with oil and is making the final preparations to start moving the oil.
The development is a significant milestone in the life of the highly controversial project, which stalled last year amid intense protests by American Indians and their allies who opposed running the pipeline under Lake Oahe in North Dakota.
Energy Transfer Partners revealed the progress late Monday in a federal court filing.
“Oil has been placed in the Dakota Access Pipeline underneath Lake Oahe,” the company said. “Dakota Access is currently commissioning the full pipeline and is preparing to place the pipeline into service.”
The company did not say exactly when it expects to start making deliveries through the line. The update comes days after President Trump gave approval to the Keystone XL pipeline, another controversial pipeline planned to carry oil sands petroleum.
The 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline runs from North Dakota to Illinois, serving a route key to the growing oil industry in North Dakota and neighboring states, with a capacity of 570,000 barrels of oil a day.
Two American Indian tribes with reservations near Lake Oahe are still working in federal court to have the pipeline shut down, saying it could harm their water supplies and violate their religious freedom.
Those tribes, and thousands of their allies, protested for months in a camp near the lake last fall.
They succeeded in convincing the Obama administration in December to withhold the easement that Energy Transfer needed to build under the federally owned lake.
But Trump signed a memorandum days after taking office asking the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider. The Army Corps issued the easement last month.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326037-dakota-access-puts-oil-in-pipeline
-
SoCalGas Applies Advanced Methane Detection Technology
Mar 28, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Under criticism in some quarters for its efforts to curb methane emissions from its pipeline and storage system, Sempra Energy's Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) launched pipeline and storage mitigation and monitoring systems this past weekend that promise improvements in reducing leaks.
For a pipeline replacement project in west Los Angeles under a busy thoroughfare, SoCalGas said it is using an innovative system to capture methane that is normally released during pipeline replacement. The gas emptied from the pipeline, which is normally vented, is being saved for later use, eliminating noise and emissions at the worksite.
Separately, at SoCalGas' controversial and now-idled Aliso Canyon underground gas storage facility, a new interactive online tool was launched Saturday, allowing the public to view data from a network of eight methane monitors at the periphery of the 3,600-acre site. Methane levels near nearby homes are measured around-the-clock.
An interactive online tool displays a map indicating the locations of the fence-line monitors, a SoCalGas spokesperson said. "By clicking on any of those icons, users can view a chart with data showing methane levels recorded every five minutes over the past 24-hour period.
At the pipeline replacement project, which was set to be completed Monday, SoCalGas expects to capture about 190 Mcf of gas, or roughly equivalent to volumes used by 940 homes each day. The utility successfully tested the methane capture system last September during a pipeline replacement in the central California town of Atascadero, north of San Luis Obispo.
"This methane capture system reduces emissions and helps minimize the impact of our work on the community," said Rick Phillips, senior director for SoCalGas' multi-billion-dollar pipeline safety enhancement plan. Phillips reiterated the gas-only utility's five-year capital expenditure program calls for spending $6 billion, or about $1.2 billion this year for improvements in its distribution, transmission and storage infrastructure.
SoCalGas supports a new state law (SB 1383) mandating a 40% reduction in methane leaks from all sources and the recently adopted California Air Resources Board short-lived climate pollutant plan.
In a report earlier this month by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), SoCalGas was accusedof "dragging its feet" compared to other utility efforts in the state to identify and stop methane leaks. These are charges that SoCalGas officials have strongly disagreed with, contending that they are championing "many new technologies that allow the company to detect and repair non-hazardous leaks more quickly than ever."
At the Aliso Canyon storage facility, where critics allege leaks go on unchecked, SoCalGas is urging local residents and the general public to visit its website to check out the new methane monitoring data. Lisa Alexander, vice president for customer solutions/communications, said the tool offers real-time information and supplements the single-monitoring station maintained by residents of the nearby Porter Ranch community.
SoCalGas said that it has been supporting the development of various new methane detection/reduction technologies, such as fiber optic cable that detects leaks and third-party damages; infrared sensors; drones; and algorithms using the utility's advanced meter system.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109915-socalgas-applies-advanced-methane-detection-technology
-
Industry Asks EPA to Ditch 2015 Curbs on Power Plant Toxics
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
An industry group is asking U.S. EPA to reconsider a regulation aimed at reducing toxic metals in power plants' wastewater.
The Utility Water Act Group has filed a petition asking the agency to reconsider its wastewater guidelines in light of two executive orders signed by President Trump.
"The rule — which is the product of a settlement between environmental groups and EPA — is inconsistent with the President's regulatory reform agenda reflected in recent executive orders," the petition says.
Finalized in September 2015, the discharge guidelines are the first federal standards in over 30 years for curbing toxics and other pollutants in power plant discharges. The 1982 standards focused on solids rather than dissolved pollutants like mercury, lead, selenium and other heavy metals, which can remain in the environment for many years.
The Obama administration's regulation is expected to reduce toxic metals, nutrients and other pollutants from steam electric power plants by 1.4 billion pounds and reduce water withdrawn from streams by 57 billion gallons per year, according to EPA analysis. The agency has also estimated annual compliance costs at $480 million for annual benefits of between $451 million and $566 million.
Union Electric Co., Southwestern Electric Power Co. and the Utility Water Act Group, a nonprofit representing electric companies, sued EPA over the regulation in November 2015. The case is pending in the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The group is now placing a bet on the Trump administration reconsidering the regulation.
The organization notes that Trump signed an executive order last month directing agencies to establish regulatory reform task forces recommending rules to roll back that adversely affect jobs, impose costs exceeding benefits or rely on nontransparent methods.
The wastewater regulation "should be chief among the EPA Task Force's recommendations," the group petition says.
The petition also cites Trump's "two for one" executive order, which requires the cost of a new regulation to be offset by eliminating two existing regulations.
"By reconsidering the rule and taking its costs properly into account when promulgating a revised [effluent limit guideline] rule, EPA can discharge this obligation," the petition says.
Thomas Cmar, an attorney with EarthJustice representing the Sierra Club and other environmental groups in the lawsuit, said the regulation is on solid technical and legal ground.
"We will do everything in our power to keep the regulation in place," he said. "This regulation is based on sound science and sound policy and was a long-overdue update to these standards."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/28/stories/1060052204
-
Trump Takes Biggest Swing Yet at Obama Climate Legacy
Mar 28, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillén
President Donald Trump will direct the federal government on Tuesday to begin dismantling his predecessor’s most significant climate change policies, with a sweeping directive telling agencies to stop trying to reduce the carbon pollution of electric utilities, oil and gas drillers and coal miners.
The executive order Trump will sign represents his biggest blow yet to former President Barack Obama’s climate legacy. But it does not go as far as some conservatives would like to dismantle the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, nor will it begin to separate the U.S. from a landmark international climate accord — two areas of intense disagreement within the administration.
Democrats argue that Trump is ignoring the risks of climate change for the sake of rewarding supporters in the fossil fuel industry.
“My hope is that we’re at peak climate science denial in the Republican Party," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told POLITICO Monday. "They’re going to extraordinary lengths to deny this meteor that is global warming is catapulting toward the Earth. I’m scared stiff. My kids won’t be able to solve this problem if we don’t tackle it right now because it will be too late in 20 years."
After last week’s embarrassing failure of Trump’s attempt to repeal and replace Obama’s health care law, the energy executive order offers the president a chance to refocus on another key campaign-trail promise: unleashing the American energy industry. The order comes on the heels of Trump’s move to ease Obama’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency requirements and his order to reverse EPA’s controversial Waters of the U.S. rule. The president has also recently signed legislation undoing Obama-era rules on Appalachian coal mining and energy companies’ payments to foreign governments.
Trump plans to order the EPA to rewrite tough rules that make it virtually impossible to build a new coal-fired power plant, and he will tell the Interior Department to end Obama’s moratorium on new coal mines on federal lands, among other steps, White House officials said.
Additionally, the president’s “energy independence” executive order also will repeal several Obama-era environmental directives aimed at reducing the federal government’s own carbon footprint, and it will direct agencies to ferret out any additional policies that “result in impediments” to U.S. energy production, a likely reference to restrictions on fracking and offshore drilling. The president also will tell federal regulators to stop using the “social cost of carbon,” which attempts to quantify the effects of climate change, in economic analyses of future rules.
“There is every reason to believe that the federal government will no longer seek to punish American consumers and businesses for using the energy resources that fuel our economy," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a statement welcoming the order.
But Trump is not expected to tell EPA to reconsider the underlying policy that lets it regulate carbon emissions — the 2009 “endangerment finding” in which it declared that greenhouse gas pollution threatens human health and welfare. Nor will he address whether the U.S. will stay in the 2015 Paris climate accord.
“We’re happy with it so far and we look forward to the right decisions on Paris and endangerment, but I think those are still to be made and they’re a ways down the road,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the former leader of Trump’s EPA transition team.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt went on national TV earlier this month to declare that carbon dioxide is not “a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” a statement that is at odds with the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, including those at his own agency. But Pruitt has not followed up on that statement with any effort to reverse the Obama-era endangerment finding — a factor that sources say contributed to last week’s abrupt departure of a Trump appointee from the agency.
On Monday, a writer for Breitbart.com, the site previously run by White House strategist Steve Bannon, suggested that a failure to revoke the endangerment finding would be grounds for Pruitt to resign.
"If Scott Pruitt is not up to that task, then maybe it’s about time he did the decent thing and handed over the reins to someone who is," wrote James Delingpole, a prominent climate skeptic.
The White House did not rule out later revisiting the endangerment finding, which Trump promised on the campaign trail to review. But environmentalists hope the administration decides that would be too much trouble, given that the policy already survived judicial scrutiny, and that courts are unlikely to support revoking it given the overwhelming scientific data on climate change.
Trump has not nominated anyone to fill key leadership positions below Pruitt and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, leaving open the question of how quickly his order will yield any concrete results.
“It’s going to be harder if you don’t have those positions filled,” said David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Unless, actually, their intention is never to fill them and work through political operatives who are not accountable.”
Trump’s advisers are split over whether to withdraw from the Paris climate deal, which Obama joined with a pledge to reduce U.S. emissions at least 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. The U.S. would face no penalty for missing that target, but many conservatives nonetheless say Trump should abandon the agreement altogether, as he pledged to do during the campaign.
But more moderate advisers, including Trump’s daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, fear that pulling out would damage relations with key U.S. allies. Administration officials are now considering a middle-ground approach: Stay in the deal in exchange for more international support for technologies to reduce emissions from fossil fuels.
The order was also silent on a carbon tax, another issue that has become a flashpoint in disputes between moderates and hardliners in the White House.
Despite the lofty rhetoric coming out of the White House, Tuesday’s order will have relatively little immediate effect.
It will take EPA years to rewrite its Clean Power Plan and accompanying rules on future power plants — both of which courts already had frozen while lawsuits play out.
The Trump administration plans to ask federal courts to suspend lawsuits over the EPA climate regulations and send the rules back to the agency to be rewritten or withdrawn. But the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments on the Clean Power Plan six months ago, does not have to go along. The appeals court judges could rule any day on the Clean Power Plan, and a separate D.C. Circuit panel has scheduled oral arguments on the future plant rule for April 17.
If EPA will not defend the regulation, environmentalists and states like California and New York have indicated they will step up and do so. And the ultimate fate of EPA’s climate authority likely will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 that the agency had to regulate greenhouse gases if they endanger public health — but did not say how.
Trump’s plans for the social cost of carbon are less clear.
The Obama administration estimated of that each ton of carbon dioxide imposes $36 in costs to society to evaluate its climate rules. But Republicans and fossil energy supporters argued it arrived at that figure by counting global benefits while specifying only domestic costs — and they complain the metric was not subjected to a traditional notice-and-comment period before it was employed.
Critics also said the Obama administration used the social cost of carbon to impose stricter rules at EPA, the Energy Department and elsewhere that would be too costly to justify otherwise. Many environmentalists, meanwhile, complained that the amount was too low.
Whether Trump significantly lowers the cost of carbon or abolishes it altogether, the change could have a serious impact on energy regulations that will play out over a period of years. And it remains unclear how the courts might react. Federal judges have upheld agencies’ use of the metric before, but some may be inclined to give deference to the Trump administration over what amounts to a highly technical calculation.
Meanwhile, Trump’s order will also lead to the resumption of federal coal leasing. But major coal companies are hardly champing at the bit to sign new leases on federal land, although the Bureau of Land Management could make new tracts available relatively quickly. For example, a spokesman for Peabody Energy, which mines more U.S. coal than anyone else, told Bloomberg that the company will not need a new lease in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin for “approximately a decade.”
The Obama administration imposed a moratorium in February 2016 as part of a three-year review of the federal coal program. That followed reports from the Government Accountability Office, Interior’s inspector general and a coalition of environmentalists and government spending watchdogs that concluded Interior was undervaluing coal on public lands.
Zinke hinted earlier this month that he will continue the underlying review, despite lifting the moratorium, to ensure taxpayers get the full value of coal being sold off of federal lands.
It's not clear that the moratorium cost any jobs, particularly since most coal mining is happening on private rather than public lands. The National Mining Association has not calculated the costs of the moratorium so far, but the group noted that coal mines on federal lands employ 14,000 miners.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/03/trump-takes-biggest-swing-yet-at-obama-climate-legacy-154388
-
Trump Takes Aim at Obama's Efforts to Curb Global Warming
Mar 28, 2017 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
Moving forward with a campaign pledge to unravel former President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to curb global warming, President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Tuesday that will suspend, rescind or flag for review more than a half-dozen measures in an effort to boost domestic energy production in the form of fossil fuels.
As part of the roll-back, Trump will initiate a review of the Clean Power Plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants. The regulation, which was the former president's signature effort to curb carbon emissions, has been the subject of long-running legal challenges by Republican-led states and those who profit from burning oil, coal and gas.
Trump, who has called global warming a "hoax" invented by the Chinese, has repeatedly criticized the power-plant rule and others as an attack on American workers and the struggling U.S. coal industry. The contents of the order were outlined to reporters in a sometimes tense briefing with a senior White House official, whom aides insisted speak without attribution, despite President Trump's criticism of the use of unnamed sources.
The official at one point appeared to break with mainstream climate science, denying familiarity with widely publicized concerns about the potential adverse economic impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels and more extreme weather.
In addition to pulling back from the Clean Power Plan, the administration will also lift a 14-month-old moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands.
The Obama administration had imposed a three-year moratorium on new federal coal leases in January 2016, arguing that the $1 billion-a-year program must be modernized to ensure a fair financial return to taxpayers and address climate change.
Trump accused his predecessor of waging a "war on coal" and boasted in a speech to Congress that he has made "a historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations," including some that threaten "the future and livelihoods of our great coal miners."
The order will also chip away at other regulations, including scrapping language on the "social cost" of greenhouse gases. It will initiate a review of efforts to reduce the emission of methane in oil and natural gas production as well as a Bureau of Land Management hydraulic fracturing rule, to determine whether those reflect the president's policy priorities.
It will also rescind Obama-era executive orders and memoranda, including one that addressed climate change and national security and one that sought to prepare the country for the impacts of climate change.
The administration is still in discussion about whether it intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. But the moves to be announced Tuesday will undoubtedly make it more difficult for the U.S. to achieve its goals.
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt, alarmed environmental groups and scientists earlier this month when he said he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming. The statement is at odds with mainstream scientific consensus and Pruitt's own agency.
The overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed studies and climate scientists agree the planet is warming, mostly due to man-made sources, including carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons and nitrogen oxide.
The official who briefed reporters said the president does believe in man-made climate change.
The power-plant rule Trump is set to address in his order has been on hold since last year as a federal appeals court considers a challenge by coal-friendly states and more than 100 companies who call the plan an unconstitutional power grab.
Opponents say the plan will kill coal-mining jobs and drive up electricity costs. The Obama administration, some Democratic-led states and environmental groups countered that it will spur thousands of clean-energy jobs and help the U.S. meet ambitious goals to reduce carbon pollution set by the international agreement signed in Paris.
Trump's order on coal-fired power plants follows an executive order he signed last month mandating a review of an Obama-era rule aimed at protecting small streams and wetlands from development and pollution. The order instructs the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to review a rule that redefined "waters of the United States" protected under the Clean Water Act to include smaller creeks and wetlands.
While Republicans have blamed Obama-era environmental regulations for the loss of coal jobs, federal data shows that U.S. mines have been shedding jobs for decades under presidents from both parties as a result of increasing automation and competition from cheaper natural gas. Another factor is the plummeting cost of solar panels and wind turbines, which now can produce emissions-free electricity cheaper than burning coal.
According to an Energy Department analysis released in January, coal mining now accounts for fewer than 70,000 U.S. jobs. By contrast, renewable energy — including wind, solar and biofuels — now accounts for more than 650,000 U.S. jobs.
The Trump administration's plans drew praise from business groups and condemnation from environmental groups.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue praised the president for taking "bold steps to make regulatory relief and energy security a top priority."
"These executive actions are a welcome departure from the previous administration's strategy of making energy more expensive through costly, job-killing regulations that choked our economy," he said.
Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy accused the Trump administration of wanting "us to travel back to when smokestacks damaged our health and polluted our air, instead of taking every opportunity to support clean jobs of the future."
"This is not just dangerous; it's embarrassing to us and our businesses on a global scale to be dismissing opportunities for new technologies, economic growth, and US leadership," she said in a statement.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/27/us/politics/ap-us-trump-climate-plan.html?_r=0
-
White House Outlines More Cuts for Energy, Environment
Mar 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink
The White House is asking Congress to slash billions of dollars from energy and environmental programs for the last six months of fiscal 2017, beyond the already deep cuts it previously proposed for next year.
According to budget documents obtained by E&E News, the Trump administration is proposing that $1.75 billion be cut from the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill and $714 million be carved from the Interior and Environment spending measure.
Specifically, the administration would cut the Department of Energy by $1.43 billion, U.S. EPA by $247 million, the Interior Department by $371 million and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by $300 million.
The administration sent the proposals to Capitol Hill on Friday as lawmakers and the White House prepare for grinding talks over spending for the last half of fiscal 2017. A stopgap funding measure, known as a continuing resolution, expires April 28, and Congress will need to put a new spending plan in place by then or face a politically treacherous government shutdown.
The White House earlier this month said it wanted $18 billion in domestic spending cuts for fiscal 2017 to help fund a $33 billion hike in supplemental defense spending for the final six months of the year. Documents circulated this week mark the first time the administration has offered details on where those supplemental cuts would be taken, the bulk of them — about $7.25 billion — coming from the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education spending bill.
Lawmakers are unlikely to welcome the domestic cuts that many in both parties have said are not the way to pay for Pentagon increases. Several appropriators said they would prefer the defense hike be counted as emergency spending so it would not require offsetting cuts.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters today that proposing additional cuts to energy and environmental programs across government is a "non-starter" for the supplemental spending measure. He said Congress should stick to the two-year budget agreement passed in 2015 that sets spending caps for fiscal 2016 and 2017.
"The 'art of the deal' is keeping the deal," he said.
A Senate appropriations aide stressed the reductions were not being floated by Senate Republicans.
The proposed cuts to energy and environmental programs target efforts that President Trump has already said would be or are expected to be cut in fiscal 2018. The full budget proposal for next year is due in May.
Chopping block
Under the proposal for the rest of fiscal 2017, DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts would face the budget ax.
The administration wants to cut about 25 percent ($516 million) from the $2 billion energy efficiency and renewable energy program by decreasing grants and rescinding unobligated spending. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy budget, where the department has focused on commercializing clean energy technologies, would be reduced by more than 50 percent ($150 million) from $290 million.
Fossil fuel research programs would also take a more than 50 percent hit ($341 million) from current spending of $631 million for the rest of the year. The savings would come largely by cutting research grants.
At EPA, state environmental grant programs would be cut by about 10 percent ($115 million) from $1.079 billion. The White House notes that the reduction would help the agency ease into far larger reductions of about 44 percent for those grant programs it is seeking for fiscal 2018.
Also marked for cuts would be EPA research and development programs by about 10 percent ($48 million) from $483 million. Documents say the money would come out of climate research programs and grants.
At Interior, the single largest savings would come from tapping $230 million in proceeds in the department's Southern Nevada Public Land Management account, which collects fees from public lands sales around Las Vegas. Other reductions would hit the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program ($90 million) and the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program ($51 million).
For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the proposal would cut funding for the National Sea Grant College Program by $30 million, from its current budget of $73 million. The administration wants to completely eliminate it in fiscal 2018. The program supports research at 33 universities and is popular among both Republicans and Democrats, but the administration calls it a "lower priority research grant program that primarily benefits industry and state and local stakeholders."
Trump is also asking Congress to eliminate funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, noting that it has collected $1 billion since 2000. NOAA has repeatedly — and unsuccessfully — tried to decrease the program's funding. Congress reliably funds it anyway, at $65 million annually.
The Trump administration's proposed cuts would represent a double hit for the agencies.
The reductions would come from current, fiscal 2017 spending, which is mostly based on fiscal 2016 levels since the government has been operating under a CR. In many cases, the current spending is lower than what agencies had sought in their fiscal 2017 budget requests.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/28/stories/1060052208
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested