Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 4/12/2017
-
Trump Taps Carbon Tax Supporter for White House Team
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Benjamin Hulac
President Trump's choice to lead a White House economics group has supported carbon taxes and written extensively on the economics of climate change. -
Regulator Shuffles Staff
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is restructuring its staff to fill empty "critical positions," according to an email sent to agency staff. -
NGOs Blast Request to Delay TSCA Section 6 Rules
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Several NGOs have voiced strong opposition to an industry request to extend the consultations for two proposed bans under section 6 of TSCA by four months. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Adopts Maximum Dose Level for Ethylene Glycol
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has adopted a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) of 8,700 micrograms per day for oral exposure to ethylene glycol (ingested). -
Report on EU Authorisation Enforcement Pilot Due by June
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa's enforcement Forum expects to finalise its report on its second authorisation pilot project by its next meeting on 20-22 June. -
EU Science Committee Issues Final Opinions on PHMB, HEPB
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has published its final opinions on the preservatives polyaminopropyl biguanide (PHMB) and hydroxyethoxyphenyl butanone (HEPB) in cosmetics. -
Member States Question CLP Exemption for Cosmetics
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Cosmetics should not be exempted from the labelling requirements of environmental hazards and risks under the CLP Regulation, Germany's federal environment agency (UBA) has said. -
Animal Welfare Group Lobbies for South Korean, EU Data Sharing
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Sunny Lee
Animal protection NGO Humane Society International (HSI) has called for South Korea's environment ministry and Echa to intervene and support bilateral data-sharing negotiations between companies registering substances in the two jurisdictions. -
Industry Assails Trump’s ‘Buy America’ Steel Plan
Apr 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is facing criticism from oil companies, pipeline operators and foreign governments for his proposal to require that domestically produced steel be used in pipelines that are built in the United States. -
FERC Seeks More Information on Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Apr 12, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
FERC has asked Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC (ACP) to provide additional information on its proposed natural gas pipeline within 20 days, after taking note of more than 100 items or inconsistencies that raised concerns with federal regulators. -
Chicago Wants to Become a Renewable Energy Powerhouse
Apr 12, 2017 | CNBC (In Real Clear Energy)
By Anmar Frangoul
City buildings in Chicago are to be powered by 100 percent renewable energy by the year 2025, the city's Mayor Rahm Emanuel has announced. -
DOE Opts for Industry-Led Emergency Transformer Stockpiles
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
The Energy Department has told Congress it does not favor creation of a federally owned emergency stockpile of high-voltage grid transformers that could be dispatched around the country to speed recovery from natural disasters, cybersecurity attacks or violent space weather. -
Houston Fire Chief Wants Tougher Oversight on Stockpiles
Apr 12, 2017 | Houston Chronicle (In E&E Greenwire)
By Mark Collette and Matt Dempsey
Almost a year after a chemical warehouse fire in Houston, there has been little progress in finding out more about the thousands of buildings holding hazardous materials across the city. -
Freight Rail Enjoys Low 2016 Accident Rate
Apr 12, 2017 | Supply Chain Dive
By Jennifer McKevitt
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) notes that 2016 had the lowest number of rail accidents in history, according to numbers provided by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Go Rail reported. -
Federal Appeals Court Freezes Ozone Litigation
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appeals court threw a massive tangle of litigation over U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standard into limbo yesterday, agreeing to the agency's request to indefinitely delay oral arguments as Trump administration officials review their position on the 70-parts-per-billion... -
US EPA Taking Comments on Regulatory Reform Agenda
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is accepting public comments on its evaluation of existing regulations as part of its efforts to implement the Trump administration's regulatory reform agenda. -
EPA to Use 2 Rulemakings to Repeal and Replace WOTUS
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
U.S. EPA plans to repeal and replace the Clean Water Rule with two separate rulemaking processes, an EPA official told the Association of State Wetland Managers yesterday. -
Businesses Pressure Trump to Stay in Paris Climate Deal
Apr 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Businesses that support the Paris climate deal are pressuring President Trump to keep the United States in the accord. -
What Is the Trump Administration's Stance on Climate Change?
Apr 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
Nearly three months into its term, the Trump administration still does not appear to have a legal position on whether anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change. -
Latest Polls: Trump's Environmental Agenda on Collision Course With Voters
Apr 12, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jeremy Symons
Most presidents enjoy honeymoon periods of favorable public opinion ratings well past their first 100 days in office, which makes the historically bad disapproval ratings for Trump’s handling of the environment all the more remarkable.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Trump Taps Carbon Tax Supporter for White House Team
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Benjamin Hulac
President Trump's choice to lead a White House economics group has supported carbon taxes and written extensively on the economics of climate change.
Trump last week announced he will nominate Kevin Hassett, an expert on tax policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, to become chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
The chairman of the council serves as a chief economist to the president, though Trump downgraded its stature when he said in February that the CEA leadership post would be excluded from his Cabinet.
Hassett's views about taxing greenhouse gas emissions would place him, if confirmed by the Senate, within a small circle of administration officials who have publicly said they believe in climate change.
In a 2007 policy brief he helped write, Hassett and his co-authors criticized cap-and-trade markets as a method of addressing emissions, favoring carbon taxes instead.
"A program of carbon-centered tax reform, by contrast, lacks most of the negative attributes of cap-and-trade, and could convey significant benefits unrelated to GHG reductions or avoidance of potential climate harms," the paper reads. "A tax swap would create economy-wide incentives for energy efficiency and lower-carbon energy, and by raising the price of energy would also reduce energy use."
Hassett and his peers also said it would be tough for companies under the tax to skirt it, adding that such a policy could raise a lot of money, without losing revenue overseas.
"Carbon taxes would be more difficult to avoid, and existing institutions quite adept at tax collection could step up immediately," they wrote.
In a separate study, Hassett argued that a carbon tax would be less economically costly than is "generally assumed" when measured over decades.
Hassett did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Jason Furman, President Obama's final chairman of the council, recently praised Hassett in a statement on Twitter.
"Kevin Hassett is an excellent pick," he said. "He is serious about substance, committed to dialogue, & knows how to navigate DC."
Two former economic advisers to Obama expressed their support for the nominee, too.
Austan Goolsbee, the former president's second CEA chairman, tweeted: "Kevin Hassett is better than the admin deserves for CEA, given their actions." And Jared Bernstein, another adviser in the Obama administration, said Hassett would be a "Great choice!"
"He's a conservative economist who cares a lot about people (though too into corp tax cuts)," Bernstein said on Twitter.
Economic heavyweights of both parties have sat on the council during its existence, including Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen and former Fed chairmen Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/04/12/stories/1060052970
-
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is restructuring its staff to fill empty "critical positions," according to an email sent to agency staff.
Southwest Region Director Rodrick Seeley will become national safety coordinator, replacing Wayne Lemoi. Lemoi will move to be national drug and alcohol coordinator, according to the email from Alan Mayberry, associate administrator for pipeline safety, first reported by Politico.
Chris Hoidal will become a senior technical adviser for program development.
PHMSA also will rotate staff in and out of regional office director positions for 120 days at a time "until the positions may be filled."
A spokeswoman for the agency said PHMSA is "simply maximizing our efforts to ensure safety remains the hallmark of our mission and to further develop our employees."
PHMSA might have more leeway to hire for its open positions after the White House lifted the federal government hiring freeze yesterday (Climatewire, April 12).
The agency is also operating without a politically appointed administrator as it awaits a nominee from President Trump. Under former Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez, PHMSA finalized new safety regulations for oil pipelines days before Trump took office (E&E News PM, Jan. 13).
Reporter Hannah Northey contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/12/stories/1060053001
-
NGOs Blast Request to Delay TSCA Section 6 Rules
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Several NGOs have voiced strong opposition to an industry request to extend the consultations for two proposed bans under section 6 of TSCA by four months.
The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) wrote to the US EPA requesting a 120-day extension of the public comment periods for two proposed rules seeking to ban or restrict trichloroethylene (TCE) invapour degreasing and methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint stripping.
Like the trade group's earlier extension request on the same TCE rule, and another addressing the substance's use in aerosol degreasing, it said that the additional time was needed to allow it to submit "significant new scientific information". More specifically, it is seeking to replicate the cardiovascular effects seen in a 2003 study by Johnston et al upon which the risk management rule is partially based.
And with regard to methylene chloride, it said it is "aware that commenters are working with a number of outside technical experts" in "time-intensive" analyses that will address the EPA’s economic analysis, hazard and exposure assessments, and alternatives.
But several NGOs urged the EPA to reject the request.
The Environmental Defense Fund said further extending the TCE consultation beyond the 30 days it has already been extended is "both unnecessary and unreasonable". The Johnson study, it said:
· only addresses foetal cardiac malformations, whereas the EPA's risk assessment for TCE identified concern for multiple endpoints, such that the "data still overwhelmingly support EPA's determination of unreasonable risk";
· was one of several that has identified concerns for foetal cardiac malformations; and
· was published more than 13 years ago, providing parties "interested in reproducing or rebutting its results years and years to conduct such a study".
It also pointed out that despite HSIA's being granted an extension on the TCE spot cleaning proposal, it failed to submit comments.
Regarding the paint stripping rule, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) called the trade group's justification "vague and undocumented". It said it should be denied as "lacking any credible basis".
SCHF said HSIA failed to identify who will be weighing in on the proposal, nor give details on the analyses or their relevance to the rulemaking.
Furthermore, it said the request should be denied due to the HSIA's "foot-dragging in developing meaningful supporting information". SCHF pointed out that the EPA's IRIS assessment of methylene chloride was completed in 2011, and that it identified NMP in paint removal as a TSCA priority in 2013.
"To now grant an additional 120 days for expert analyses that could have been conducted months and even years earlier would be to reward industry for sitting on its hands."
Early test of new administration
The three proposed rules represent the EPA's first efforts to attempt to ban a substance under section 6 of TSCA in close to 30 years.
In a blog post, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said that if the EPA adopts the three rules it will "be the first glimmer of hope in the sad history of this impotent law".
But, it said, based on the early actions of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, it "seems unlikely that, left to its own devices", the Trump administration will adopt the rules. Instead, it will find a way to help industry by killing the rules, or at least take no action on them, it said.
"Given the current state of affairs, it looks like meaningful action under TSCA might be off the table for another four to eight years."
The NRDC has advocated for retailers and manufacturers to take action now on the solvents, in line with a recent Mind the Store campaign aimed at Home Depot.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55131/ngos-blast-request-to-delay-tsca-section-6-rules
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Adopts Maximum Dose Level for Ethylene Glycol
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has adopted a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) of 8,700 micrograms per day for oral exposure to ethylene glycol (ingested).
The substance was listed as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65 effective 19 June 2015. The MADL represents the safe harbour exposure limit below which a Prop 65 warning is not required.
The final MADL is consistent with one proposed in April 2016. It is largely based on a monograph published by the National Toxicology Program, Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP-CERHR).
Oehha added "(ingested)" after ethylene glycol and "(oral)" after 8,700 in the final regulatory text. It considers these to be non-substantive changes.
The only comment submitted in response to the proposal came from the Ethylene Glycols Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Oehha addressed the group's concerns in its final statement of reason (FSOR), but did not modify the MADL value in response.
Ethylene glycol is used as an intermediate in the synthesis of polyester compounds. It is also a constituent in antifreeze, deicing fluids, surface coatings, heat transfer fluids and industrial coolants, hydraulic fluids, surfactants and emulsifiers.
The MADL takes effect from 1 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55152/california-adopts-maximum-dose-level-for-ethylene-glycol
-
Report on EU Authorisation Enforcement Pilot Due by June
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa's enforcement Forum expects to finalise its report on its second authorisation pilot project by its next meeting on 20-22 June.
During this project – and the first one from 2015 – national enforcement authorities (NEAs) checked the marketing and/or use of substances subject to authorisation.
The second project marks the first time NEAs also reviewed, where relevant, compliance with conditions laid down in authorisation decisions, new chair Katja vom Hofe (pictured) said during an interview with Chemical Watch following the Forum meeting on 28-30 March.
Seventeen NEAs took part in the project, which ran from January to October 2016.
REACH projects
Ms vom Hofe also provided updates on the Forum's REACH En-Force projects. The reporting period for Ref-4, which focused on restrictions, has just started, with the report expected to be finalised in time for the Forum meeting on 7-9 November. Data is being collected from 29 EU and European Economic Area (EEA) NEAs.
"As an additional output from the Ref-4 working group, the Forum will create a best practice document on enforcement of restrictions for inspectors," Ms vom Hofe said.
Echa and the NEAs are "cooperating very well" on the Ref-5 project on extended safety data sheets (eSDSs), exposure scenarios, risk management measures and operational conditions, she said. It started in January and the report is slated for publication by the end of 2018. Twenty-eight national coordinators from the EU and EEA, in cooperation with Echa, are currently drawing up substance profiles.
Ref-6, which focuses on classification and labelling of mixtures, is being prepared, and inspections are due to start on 1 January 2018. The Forum's Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) subgroup has joined this Ref project, marking the first time such a project has addressed biocides.
"The subject is of shared interest and it is a good opportunity for the Forum and the BPR subgroup to start their cooperation," Ms vom Hofe said.
Other developments
In the last quarter of 2017, 13 NEAs will begin operations on a pilot project on substances in articles. It will run until the end of Q2 2018. Results are expected by late 2018 or early 2019. It will address enforcement of REACH provisions relating to the notification and communication of information within the supply chain on substances in articles.
A pilot project on the control of internet sales of hazardous chemicals started last December and will run until the end of August, with 15 NEAs taking part. First results are due in March next year.
The Forum is also considering taking joint action with its accredited stakeholder organisations (ASOs), such as trade bodies and NGOs, to improve the quality of SDSs. "This stems from our first Ref project, which revealed relatively high levels of non-compliance in this area. ASOs have good knowledge of industry's perspective and could help develop solutions to address SDS deficiencies."Customs collaboration
The Forum has set up a collaborative taskforce of chemical inspectors and experts from customs authorities to prepare for a potential European Commission workshop at the end of 2017. It will focus on customs and REACH.
Some EU and EEA states have separate enforcement bodies dealing with customs and chemicals legislation enforcement, which creates challenges for harmonised approaches. "Customs authorities and chemical inspectors need to collaborate on some areas of chemicals enforcement. It's a topic that will become more and more important," Ms vom Hofe said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55159/report-on-eu-authorisation-enforcement-pilot-due-by-june
-
EU Science Committee Issues Final Opinions on PHMB, HEPB
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has published its final opinions on the preservatives polyaminopropyl biguanide (PHMB) and hydroxyethoxyphenyl butanone (HEPB) in cosmetics.
It has concluded that PHMB is safe for use up to a concentration of 0.1%. This is its first opinion on the use of a carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substance in cosmetics since the European Commission confirmed they are not automatically banned under the cosmetics Regulation.
The issue remains controversial, with eight EU member states pressuring the Commission to reinstate the ban.
HEPB is not safe in rinse-off, oral care and leave-on products at levels above 2.0%, according to the SCCS. It says it could be considered safe if "more reliable and supporting data" on its in vitro dermal penetration was provided.
Draft versions of the two papers were published in January. Public consultations on them ended on 10 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55104/eu-science-committee-issues-final-opinions-on-phmb-hepb
-
Member States Question CLP Exemption for Cosmetics
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Cosmetics should not be exempted from the labelling requirements of environmental hazards and risks under the CLP Regulation, Germany's federal environment agency (UBA) has said.
Alongside other member states, industry bodies and NGOs, the UBA submitted its comments to the European Commission's consultation on the regulatory fitness of chemicals legislation, excluding REACH.
The UBA says cosmetics often contain environmentally hazardous chemicals, have widespread use patterns and end up in the environment or in wastewater.
But while the list of ingredients must be indicated on cosmetic products packaging, information on which chemicals are hazardous is not required.
Other mixtures, such as paints and varnishes, must bear precautionary statements to ensure appropriate handling by consumers. The UBA says the same should apply to cosmetics to help consumers make an informed choice when they buy the products. It also raises similar concerns for the labelling of detergents.
Comments by the Sweden's chemicals agency Kemi echo the UBA's concerns. It says the derogation for cosmetics under the CLP Regulation is not clear. And it warns of "a large gap" with regards to information on chemicals in cosmetics.
Cosmetics Europe also sent comments to the Commission, but does not mention the CLP derogation. It says hazard and risk communication measures to consumers are "risk-based and this works well".
Instead the trade body and its Italian counterpart, Cosmetica Italia, question the conflicting requirements for carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances under CLP and the cosmetic products Regulation.
Overlaps with BPR
Meanwhile, the regulation of cosmetics also suffers from overlaps with the biocidal products Regulation (BPR), says the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS).
In its comments to the consultation it says many products have to fit in both legal frameworks at the same time, which can lead to inconsistencies.
A possible problem is that the ban on animal testing under the cosmetics Regulation conflicts with the specific requirement for animal testing under the BPR, the ministry says.
It also says the assessment of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances is inconsistent within different parts of the legislation. And there are differences in the classification of substances between transport and supply and use.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55103/member-states-question-clp-exemption-for-cosmetics
-
Animal Welfare Group Lobbies for South Korean, EU Data Sharing
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Sunny Lee
Animal protection NGO Humane Society International (HSI) has called for South Korea's environment ministry and Echa to intervene and support bilateral data-sharing negotiations between companies registering substances in the two jurisdictions.
HSI wants roundtable negotiations between key players, with government backing, to help increase confidence that negotiations will lead to fair and equitable results. It has also asked Korean authorities for extra time, where necessary, to complete complex negotiations.
The NGO is frustrated at the current lack of progress on data-sharing agreements between EU and South Korean consortia, and the reluctance of authorities to try to move the process along. HSI told Chemical Watch that it considers any unnecessary animal testing "disgraceful" given it could so easily be prevented if the industry "would only get its act together".Contact with consortia and authorities
The group has also been attempting to have clauses against unnecessary animal testing in the REACH Regulation either applied or inserted into K-REACH. It notes that Article 26(3) of EU REACH stipulates that "studies involving vertebrate animals should not be repeated", and argues this should be a priority for Echa in its approach to supporting negotiations. HSI is in discussions with South Korean politicians to have a similar clause made part of K-REACH legislation.
HSI has also been lobbying the substance consortia who represent companies registering the same substance. It has been approached in South Korea by a Korean consortium looking for its support. Consequently HSI/Europe personnel have contacted the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), the consultant REACHCentrum and other relevant EU groups to try to understand the difficulties from the EU perspective.However, HSI says it "as yet has found little clarity". More positively, it notes that Echa's recent stakeholder conference, Cefic indicated that it was reviewing data-sharing agreement templates to consider international data sharing, and that K-REACH is explicitly mentioned.
Unnecessary testing
HSI is planning a publicity campaign should negotiations fail. It notes that it is relatively easy to track duplicate testing, and it plans to publicly highlighted such cases.
It is concerned, for example, that some unnecessary tests are already planned. A South Korean MoE subsidiary has commissioned additional animal testing of nearly 90 substances, such as lead, formaldehyde, methanol and benzene, despite these having been extensively tested and classified as hazardous. The ministry subsidiary is doing this as part of its initiative to help SMEs, but the NGO has questioned whether the help should rather be to subsidise data-sharing agreements.
HSI has identified the following challenges: :
· difficulty in identifying the appropriate data owner/contact for certain substances;
· lack of responsiveness and/or cooperative spirit by parties in both regions;
· disagreement in relation to what data must be purchased, for example the requirement to purchase chemical safety reports (CSR) in addition to study reports for specific toxicity endpoints;
· disagreement over what constitutes fair compensation for requested data, and belief that re-testing in South Korea could be less expensive than the cost of purchasing existing test data;
· perceived loss of control of proprietary test data and confidentiality concerns; and
· concern regarding potential regulatory consequences on EU management of substances if South Korean authorities interpret or use test data differently under K-REACH (for example, different classifications).
https://chemicalwatch.com/55115/animal-welfare-group-lobbies-for-south-korean-eu-data-sharing
-
Industry Assails Trump’s ‘Buy America’ Steel Plan
Apr 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is facing criticism from oil companies, pipeline operators and foreign governments for his proposal to require that domestically produced steel be used in pipelines that are built in the United States.
The oil and pipeline sectors say Trump’s “Buy America” idea would increase costs, add to uncertainty and threaten his goal of boosting the domestic fossil fuel industry.
“A number of hurdles unique to pipeline-grade steel and pipe manufacturing must be overcome to expand domestic pipeline production and manufacturing,” a coalition of oil, natural gas and pipeline associations wrote to the Commerce Department, which took preliminary public comments on the matter up until last week.
“If these hurdles are not overcome, government action to increase domestic steel and pipe production could have the unintended result of reducing or significantly delaying new pipeline projects and limiting U.S. pipeline job growth,” they wrote.
“Fewer new pipeline projects would run counter to the Trump administration’s goal of expanding U.S. energy production and infrastructure to support the economy, job growth, and national security.”
The coalition includes the American Petroleum Institute and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
The United States Chamber of Commerce said in its comments that while the federal government has a long history of sourcing requirements for projects that use federal funds, “imposing similar mandates upon privately funded commercial projects would be unprecedented.”
Moreover, each time the government has added a domestic sourcing rule, “the resulting experience has been higher overall construction costs, increased compliance burdens, reduced competition, and disruption of supply chains without significant American job creation,” the Chamber wrote.
Trump first outlined his proposal four days after he was inaugurated, as part of a package of executive actions that worked toward approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, among other infrastructure priorities.
“From now on, we’re going to be making pipeline in the United States. We build the pipelines, we want to build the pipe,” Trump said at the time.
In speeches since then, Trump has frequently gone back to that presidential memorandum as an example of his commitment to domestic manufacturing and energy production, though he often incorrectly states that the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines were required to use U.S. steel.
The White House said those pipeline projects and others that are currently being developed would be exempt from the “Buy America” rule.
“I was signing the order, and I said, where did they buy this steel? I didn’t like the answer. I said, who fabricated the steel? I didn’t like the answer,” Trump said at a recent union event. “I said, from now on we’re going to put a clause — got to be made in America. We want American steel, made in America.”
Trump asked the Commerce Department to develop a plan in which all new and reconstructed pipelines would have to use steel, iron and other products manufactured completely in the United States, to the extent allowable by law.
Not every comment to Commerce was negative. Steel producers, for example, said they are ready and able to meet the demand for their product that the order would create.
“It is in the economic and national security interest of the United States to promote and defend the broad capability of domestic steel producers to supply the energy sector, and to not allow American energy independence to be undercut and undermined by a reliance on foreign sources and suppliers,” wrote U.S. Steel Corp., one of the nation’s largest steel producers.
But pipeline companies expressed skepticism that they could get the materials they need domestically.
“If the US pipeline industry were constrained to only domestic steel and pipe mills, we do not believe the domestic producers have sufficient capacity,” said Energy Transfer Partners, which operates numerous pipelines, including Dakota Access.
“The impacts of such a restriction are expected to severely delay project schedules, drive up costs, decrease availability, and lower quality.”
Some companies said that Trump’s January memorandum is already wreaking havoc on markets, even though there’s no final action yet.
“The specter of ‘Buy America’ being possibly implemented for pipeline projects has already created a negative impact on the pipeline market, and our business specifically,” said Evraz, a multinational steel products company.
“Evraz operates a carefully integrated North American steel supply chain that depends on the free flow of goods between the U.S. and Canada to serve customers in both markets and preserve the viability of well-paying middle-class jobs in both countries.”
Foreign governments and their embassies also raised objections, warning that domestic sourcing requirements could run afoul of trade pacts.
Canada’s government wrote that it “has serious concerns regarding the plan that the Department has been asked to develop given the negative impact the envisioned restrictions would have on our shared supply chains and the Canada-U.S. trade relationship.”
It warned that the restriction would create a “negative precedent, increase the regulatory burden and be contrary to fundamental World Trade Organization and North American Free Trade Agreement obligations.”
Mexico, Australia and the European Union were among the other foreign interests to raise objections.
Under Trump’s memorandum, Commerce is due to submit a plan to Trump by late July on the “Buy America” policy. If the department decides it wants to impose a new regulation to implement its plan, it would need to go through an extensive regulatory process, including opportunities for public comment.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/328392-industry-assails-trumps-buy-america-steel-plan
-
FERC Seeks More Information on Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Apr 12, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
FERC has asked Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC (ACP) to provide additional information on its proposed natural gas pipeline within 20 days, after taking note of more than 100 items or inconsistencies that raised concerns with federal regulators.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is preparing a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project [CP15-554], which would transport 1.5 Bcf/d of natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shales to satisfy heating and electric generation demand in the Southeast.
In a 36-page letter to the pipeline's backers -- Dominion, Duke Energy and Southern Company Gas -- FERC said it had identified seven geological areas of concern. Among them, it found numerous locations along the pipeline's route that contain known and suspect closed depressions within the project's current workspace. The locations were listed in an updated karst survey report filed last February.
"It appears that many of these features could be avoided by small route variations and/or potential workspace reductions," FERC said, adding that ACP and Dominion should clarify whether they "propose to incorporate route and/or workspace design revisions to avoid or minimize impacts to these features."
FERC’s letter came after the Commission received hundreds of comments regarding its draft EIS on the pipeline.
FERC also asked ACP and Dominion to describe the methods they used to identify orphan oil and natural gas wells along the pipeline route that are not incorporated into state databases in North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. The agency also asked how impacts to wells that may be encountered during construction would be minimized.
Among its concerns regarding water resources, federal regulators said a rare species report covering the George Washington National Forest (GWNF), filed last February, had identified 27 waterbodies that would be crossed by the pipeline -- 25 of which would be affected by pipeline construction, and two by new permanent access roads.
But two subsequent reports contained different numbers. The first, a biological evaluation filed on March 10, said 30 waterbodies within the GWNF would be affected. A revised master waterbody table filed two weeks later listed 25 pipeline crossings and 12 access road crossings in the forest.
"Provide an updated waterbody crossing table that accurately addresses the inconsistencies," FERC said. "Note that we will assume any updated waterbody table that is filed would replace waterbody crossing information presented in previously filed documents..."
Other concerns include temporary workspaces and impacts to vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, special status species, land use, special interest areas, and visual and cultural resources.
Last week, the U.S. Forest Servicetold FERC that a proposal to use horizontal directional drilling to bore the pipeline under the Appalachian Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway was feasible. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior recommended that FERC conduct further analysis before releasing its final EIS.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110095-ferc-seeks-more-information-on-atlantic-coast-pipeline
-
Chicago Wants to Become a Renewable Energy Powerhouse
Apr 12, 2017 | CNBC (In Real Clear Energy)
By Anmar Frangoul
City buildings in Chicago are to be powered by 100 percent renewable energy by the year 2025, the city's Mayor Rahm Emanuel has announced.
In a release over the weekend Emanuel – along with figureheads from Chicago Public Schools, Chicago Housing Authority, Chicago Park District and City Colleges of Chicago – said that when implemented, the commitment would make Chicago the "largest major city" in the U.S. to supply its public buildings with 100 percent renewable energy.
"By committing the energy used to power our public buildings to wind and solar energy, we are sending a clear signal that we remain committed to building a 21st century economy here in Chicago," Emanuel, who previously served as White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama, said.
The Mayor's Office said that the commitment would be met in a number of ways, including on site generation and the acquisition of renewable energy credits.Jack Darin, president of the Illinois Sierra Club, welcomed the move. "By moving boldly to re-power its public buildings with renewable energy like wind and solar, Chicago is leading by example at a time when local leadership is more important than ever," he said.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/chicago-wants-to-become-a-renewable-energy-powerhouse.html
-
DOE Opts for Industry-Led Emergency Transformer Stockpiles
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
This story was updated at 9:03 a.m. EDT.
The Energy Department has told Congress it does not favor creation of a federally owned emergency stockpile of high-voltage grid transformers that could be dispatched around the country to speed recovery from natural disasters, cybersecurity attacks or violent space weather.
Instead, DOE proposes in a report to put the federal government in a support role, backing up current industry-led programs to make spare transformers available to restore power before extended power blackouts would force large-scale evacuations.
The report says "the most efficient and effective approach is one which builds on industry-based approaches," including collaboration between utilities and transformer manufacturers. This was the strong preference of industry representatives who met with DOE officials over last summer and fall, the report indicated.
It states that the industry would not disclose to DOE where spare transformers are located "due to concerns about the proprietary and sensitive nature of this information."
Whether the lack of that information could handicap DOE's effort to coordinate power grid restoration in a catastrophic earthquake or state-backed cyberattack was not discussed in the report. When Congress called for the transformer report at the end of 2015, it also directed DOE to prepare a plan for overseeing the protection and restoration of power delivery in a presidentially declared grid emergency, which has not yet been made public.
DOE did not respond to an interview request about the report or how DOE Secretary Rick Perry's new top staff views any of the many-sided transformer challenges (Energywire, Feb. 2).
The DOE report, sent to members of Congress last month, notes expanding efforts in the utility industry to procure replacement high-voltage grid transformers for emergency use, as well as other critical equipment. A technical review led by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory determined that there appears to be more available spare transformers than earlier studies had identified.
The Oak Ridge research began by identifying the transformer substations most critical to the operation of the three North American synchronized power networks, and the number of transformers they contain, to establish a baseline of how many spares might be needed.
"We picked a scenario where we would catastrophically eliminate all the transformers in a critical substation of question," study participant Rich Lordan, senior technical executive at the Electric Power Research Institute, explained in an interview. "Then moving that scenario around, we tried to determine what the impact was on the grid and on society. Then we looked for available spares and the time to deliver them."
Lordan continued, "There are any number of generic recovery plans that exist for potential threats. I do not know if specific plans for these substations exist, per se, and I am not sure the plans should be communicated widely should they exist."
There are trade-offs with confidentiality and risks if such plans became public, he said.
Scenario planning is important, but each event is unique, and the event rarely if ever matches the scenario. When the actual event occurs, the industry responds accordingly.
"I think industry's approach was really prudent," Lordan said.
The DOE study concluded that utilities' purchases of spare transformers were increasing. Where no undamaged spares were available, "most utilities have catastrophic emergency procedures in place to replace [large power transformers] in crucial substations with operational LPTs taken from less crucial substations." No overall conclusion was stated about the adequacy of transformer reserves given different emergencies.
Preparing for 'once-in-a-century' events
The vulnerability of large transformers, which are essential to moving power across long-distance transmission lines, has been on Washington's policy agenda for more than a decade.
Government studies have warned that a "once-in-a-century" solar storm would trigger rogue currents that could cause unprotected transformers to overheat, potentially destroying them, although the extent of that vulnerability is debated.
A wartime nuclear explosion in the atmosphere above North America would release a powerful electromagnetic pulse that could also damage exposed transformers as well as many kinds of electronic devices. Then there is the threat of a coordinated, sophisticated cyber campaign such as the Stuxnet attack worm that struck centrifuges used in Iran's nuclear program.
"If the electric grid sustained substantial damage, the process of replacing equipment such as LPTs would be costly and could take months, if not years," the study said.
DOE said that creating a federally owned and managed reserve would be expensive. If as many as 100 transformers were required for the stockpile, the minimum purchase cost could reach $450 million just for the units, with another $50 million or more required for transport, storage, maintenance and security, the report concluded. A federal stockpile would need five or more sites nationwide, DOE said.
But cost was not the only issue identified.
"Industry engagement and information-sharing also would be critical to design the [federal] reserve" with the right mix of sizes and designs of transformers, the report said.
"To date, industry has been reticent to provide the level of detailed information that would be needed to design an effective federal reserve," the report said. It noted that DOE has the authority to compel disclosure of such information, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a Commerce Department security bureau also have some ability to demand information. But the report did not point to any conclusions about federal demands for data.
The study said data were "unavailable" for seven of eight potential options for replacing damaged large transformers, including availability of on-site spares, emergency spares provided by neighboring utilities and prearranged early delivery contracts with manufacturers.
Beyond transformers
Led by the Edison Electric Institute, the grid industry has moved beyond a spare transformer registry to game-planning transportation strategies for moving the massive transformers, many of which weigh 400,000 pounds and would have to be disassembled, moved on special equipment, reassembled and activated. One utility, MidAmerican Energy Co. in Des Moines, Iowa, said an accelerated campaign to relocate an existing transformer still took 45 days (Energywire, Nov. 23, 2015).
A group of power companies led by American Electric Power Co. Inc. has formed a consortium, Grid Assurance, which plans to create an inventory of at least 100 transformers, funded by subscribers, which could be rapidly deployed. The report notes other industry initiatives on the issue. Meanwhile, DOE has committed $5 million in 2016 to a research initiative called Transformer Resilience and Advanced Components, with five programs involving manufacturers, utilities, DOE national labs and other researchers focused on advanced transformer technologies.
If members of Congress were looking for a comprehensive solution to the transformer issue in its directive to DOE, they will have to look further, the report suggests.
Next steps that DOE proposed include more work to independently assess the resilience of critical transformers; more research on regional threats and impacts and regional equipment-sharing programs; and possible incentives for smaller utilities, cooperatives and municipal power companies that lack funds to participate in top-level transformer-sharing efforts.
Also unresolved is how transformer stockpile programs might dovetail with FERC's ongoing regulation of solar geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) threats to the high-voltage grid. The current North American Electric Reliability Corp. timeline requires grid companies covered by the regulation to complete an assessment of transformer vulnerabilities to GMD impacts by July 2022. If utilities conclude their equipment doesn't pass vulnerability screens, they must submit corrective plans.
FERC directed NERC to develop plans for non-hardware remedies with a two-year deadline and for hardware fixes, if needed, on a four-year timetable. Those plans are not final, and the compliance clock has not yet started.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/12/stories/1060052967
-
Houston Fire Chief Wants Tougher Oversight on Stockpiles
Apr 12, 2017 | Houston Chronicle (In E&E Greenwire)
By Mark Collette and Matt Dempsey
Almost a year after a chemical warehouse fire in Houston, there has been little progress in finding out more about the thousands of buildings holding hazardous materials across the city.
Fire Chief Samuel Peña told a City Council committee that Houston can't police these chemical stockpiles without first assessing the risks involved.
To do that, he said, a comprehensive record management system between all city departments is needed.
Peña's solution would be expensive. But outside auditors looking at city data found 36,000 duplicate entries in the building department database and 7,000 entries the department wasn't aware of.
He said that as many as 20 percent of businesses aren't reporting hazardous stockpiles because it could cost them money.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/12/stories/1060052986
-
Freight Rail Enjoys Low 2016 Accident Rate
Apr 12, 2017 | Supply Chain Dive
By Jennifer McKevitt
Dive Brief: The Association of American Railroads (AAR) notes that 2016 had the lowest number of rail accidents in history, according to numbers provided by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Go Rail reported. Since 2000, train accidents are down 44% percent, while equipment-provoked accident rates have fallen 34%. Accidents caused by faulty tracks are down 53%, while derailments are 44% lower. The lowered accident rates are attributed to private investment and Positive Train Control (PTC), among other factors. Dive Insight:The 2017 ASCE Report rewarded America's railroads with the highest infrastructure grade in this year's analysis: a solid B.
Railroads can be said to lead the transportation pack, and yet, given that the grade for the infrastructure at large was a D, rail achievements should be assessed accordingly and with proper context. One aspect of rail's effort to implement safety changes is the aforementioned PTC, which is progressing slowly (but surely).
Any delay could cost significant losses in lives or property damage, such as those that occurred between 2009 and 2011, when property damage to vehicles struck by trains averaged over $7,500 dollars while damage to the train totaled more than $8,000. Further damage to the railroad infrastructure, which we are now struggling to maintain, neared $1,000 per incident.
However, the AAR insists technology like PTC is the "largest and most complex safety system in the history of the railroad industry," which promises severe declines in accidents once fully implemented. Continued private investment is pivotal, however, and the railroad industry prides itself in its private nature, pointing to its public counterparts' slower progress on similar technologies.
http://www.supplychaindive.com/news/freight-rail-low-2016-accident-rate/440290/
-
Federal Appeals Court Freezes Ozone Litigation
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appeals court threw a massive tangle of litigation over U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standard into limbo yesterday, agreeing to the agency's request to indefinitely delay oral arguments as Trump administration officials review their position on the 70-parts-per-billion air quality benchmark.
In an unsigned order issued late in the day, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit called off the arguments previously scheduled for April 19 and held the case in abeyance, with EPA required to report back on the status of its review every 90 days.
The panel, which includes two members appointed by President Obama and one by President George W. Bush, gave no reason for the ruling.
The judges may, however, have been reluctant to proceed without the assurance that EPA will continue to defend the standard, several observers said.
Agency attorneys sought the delay Friday, saying the administration is looking closely at whether EPA should "reconsider the rule or some part of it" (Greenwire, April 10).
In a statement today, EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman voiced gratitude to the court for granting the delay. "In light of President Trump's pro-growth agenda, EPA continues to carefully review the broad implications of the 2015 ozone standard and ensure that we are supporting American jobs and protecting human health and the environment," Bowman said.
She did not reply to a follow-up question on whether EPA has a timetable for completion of the review or intends to continue implementation of the 2015 standard.
States submitted their nonattainment recommendations last fall. Under the Obama administration, EPA officials had tentatively planned to make the final determinations by this October.
Also up in the air is the final version of a proposed framework for guiding long-term implementation of the 70 ppb standard.
'Bad first step'
For environmental and public health groups that had argued against any delay, yesterday's ruling — and the possibility that EPA could ultimately seek to weaken or scrap the 70 ppb standard — was a major disappointment.
"This is a really bad first step for the administration, and we're going to fight like hell to keep them from doing damage to people's health," Seth Johnson, a staff attorney for Earthjustice, said in an interview this morning.
The organization is representing public health and environmental groups that are both defending the 70 ppb standard and arguing that it should be made stronger still.
Craig Oren, a Rutgers Law School professor, said he could think of no exact precedent for the appellate court's action. "I think it's a disaster," he said.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rejected a separate administration request to pause litigation over EPA's Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule (Greenwire, April 3). ). In yesterday's ruling, the appellate court judges hinted that they weren't happy with EPA's request, saying the court "disfavors" motions to postpone oral arguments.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the prime ingredient in smog, is created by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. It can help trigger asthma attacks and worsen breathing problems for people with emphysema.
Then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set the 70 ppb in October 2015 on the grounds that a tighter limit was needed to meet the Clean Air Act's requirement to protect public health "with an adequate margin of safety." The previous standard, put in place in 2008 under the George W. Bush administration, had been 75 pp.
Murray 'pleased'
As is true for almost any major EPA rulemaking, McCarthy's decision was quickly challenged in court. First to sue was Murray Energy Corp., the Ohio-based coal mining giant, which launched its lawsuit the same day the new standard was published in the Federal Register.
The company is "pleased with the court order," a spokesman said today.
The American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers and other industry trade groups also filed suit, along with Texas and nine other states. Among them is Oklahoma, where current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a Republican, previously served as attorney general.
On the other side are organizations like the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council and the states of New York and California. "Because the court order leaves safer health standards for smog pollution in effect, EPA must continue to enforce those protections," John Walke, the council's clean air director, said in a news release. "Any honest review by EPA will make clear that there is no legal or scientific basis to worsen clean air safeguards for Americans."
Industry and state opponents to the tighter standard argue that naturally occurring background ozone will make compliance impossible in some areas. They also contend that EPA ought to hold off on implementation of the tighter limit until states fully comply with the 2008 standard.
H.R. 806, a bill introduced in February by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), would push back nonattainment designations for the 2015 standard until the middle of the next decade.
The Obama administration had threatened to veto a similar bill sponsored by Olson in the 114th Congress that passed the House but then died in the Senate.
At a hearing last month on the legislation, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, said he expected EPA to submit written comments on the bill (E&E Daily, March 23). A committee spokesman did not immediately reply to an email this morning asking whether the agency has already done so.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/12/stories/1060053004
-
US EPA Taking Comments on Regulatory Reform Agenda
Apr 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is accepting public comments on its evaluation of existing regulations as part of its efforts to implement the Trump administration's regulatory reform agenda.
The move comes in response to a February executive order directing agencies to repeal, replace or modify current regulations deemed to be unnecessary, inhibit job creation or impose costs that exceed benefits.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency will be conducting "extensive reviews of the misaligned regulatory actions from the past administration". The Obama administration, he claimed, "abused" the regulatory process to advance an agenda that expanded the reach of the federal government.
"Moving forward, EPA will be listening to those directly impacted by regulations, and learning ways we can work together with our state and local partners" to protect the environment, he added.
President Trump issued the regulatory reform executive order in February, just a few weeks after he issued another requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one issued.
Pursuant to the order, the EPA has created a task force to gather recommendations for regulations that could be eliminated.
The EPA also has launched a webpage outlining its regulatory reform efforts. It includes a list of upcoming meetings being held by the agency.
EPA regional offices, programme offices and other agency officials must report their findings to the task force by 15 May. Public comments will be accepted in the same timeframe.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55164/us-epa-taking-comments-on-regulatory-reform-agenda
-
EPA to Use 2 Rulemakings to Repeal and Replace WOTUS
Apr 12, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
U.S. EPA plans to repeal and replace the Clean Water Rule with two separate rulemaking processes, an EPA official told the Association of State Wetland Managers yesterday.
In a talk to the association's annual winter meeting, Mindy Eisenberg, acting director of the EPA wetlands division, said that the agency plans to first rescind the Obama administration's contentious regulation and then work on a new definition for "waters of the United States," according to multiple people who attended the meeting.
"This is an attempt to repeal and replace, but in this case the EPA has decided that it can repeal the regulation now and replace it later," said Stephen Samuels, a former Department of Justice attorney who spoke to the association's meeting right before Eisenberg did.
The Clean Water Rule, also known as the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS, aims to clarify the reach of federal regulations over wetlands and waterways under the Clean Water Act. The act itself uses vague language to assert its jurisdiction over "traditionally navigable waters of the United States" without providing any further detail, and various administrations have struggled to define the term in the past.
Current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sued the Obama administration over the regulation when he was the Oklahoma attorney general, saying along with industry interests that it amounted to government overreach.
The Trump administration will first look to rescind WOTUS before taking on the heavier lift of replacing the regulation with a new definition of which waters are covered by the Clean Water Act, Eisenberg reportedly told the meeting.
In repealing WOTUS, the agency would revert to a 1986 definition and would also rely on 2008 guidance from the George W. Bush administration about how to apply that definition.
The repeal would essentially maintain the current status quo, as the administration is already using the 1986 rule and Bush guidance because the Obama administration regulation has been stayed by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pending litigation. The Supreme Court is also currently considering whether the case should proceed in district or circuit court (Greenwire, April 3).
EPA did not respond to requests for comment. Spokeswoman Tricia Lynn said she could not say when EPA would respond or why she could not comment directly on Eisenberg's statements.
Those at the meeting said Eisenberg did not explain the administration's reasoning for separately repealing and replacing WOTUS.
"She was clearly sticking to her talking points," National Wildlife Federation Wetlands and Water Resources Director Jan Goldman-Carter wrote in an email.
But there are a few reasons why the administration might want to split up the process.
One is that the administration could be racing against time to repeal the regulation before the Supreme Court rules on which jurisdiction should hear the legal challenge to the Obama rule.
The Supreme Court could reach a decision on jurisdiction by the end of 2017. If the high court decides that the 6th Circuit does not have jurisdiction, it could endanger the validity of the stay that the circuit court issued for WOTUS, Samuels said.
If the Supreme Court decides that the 6th Circuit can proceed with the case, he said, EPA would likely have an easier time of dismissing the litigation if it has already taken steps to repeal WOTUS.
Rescinding the regulation would be a lot easier, and faster, without EPA also having to come up with a plan to replace it at the same time.
"That Supreme Court decision will determine a lot, not just for the Clean Water Rule, if it is still in existence, but also for any future challenges on this issue," Samuels said.
Former EPA Office of Water head Ken Kopocis has a different theory about the agency's plan.
Kopocis, who did not hear Eisenberg speak to the association but has heard both about the talk and EPA's plans from former colleagues still working at the agency, said he believes EPA may not actually be planning to replace the regulation.
"I am not convinced that they will do a new rule," he said.
EPA has previously said it intends to rewrite WOTUS using an opinion written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the famously messy 2006 Rapanos v. United States 4-1-4 split decision.
In that case, Michigan landowner John Rapanos wanted to develop a property that was designated a wetland. Because he hadn't applied for a permit, EPA sought to bring civil and criminal enforcement actions.
Scalia, who died last year, argued that the Clean Water Act only applied to "navigable waters" connected by a surface flow at least part of the year. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a concurring opinion, stating that waters must have a "significant nexus" to navigable rivers and seas, including through biological or chemical connections.
Until now, EPA has followed Kennedy's "significant nexus" test in regulating clean water.
"Every lawyer who is going to be consulted on this is going to say that defending a rule based on Scalia's opinion will be very, very difficult," Kopocis said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/12/stories/1060053007
-
Businesses Pressure Trump to Stay in Paris Climate Deal
Apr 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Businesses that support the Paris climate deal are pressuring President Trump to keep the United States in the accord.
They argue that by staying involved in the international talks, the U.S. can discourage policies that could hurt the oil, gas and coal industries.
Coal companies, oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips, renewable energy groups, and major American manufacturers such as General Electric are among those arguing that the United States should stay in the deal.
The White House has promised that Trump will decide on the United States’ involvement in the Paris deal before next month, a high-stakes decision with major diplomatic and economic implications.
Trump vigorously opposed the Paris agreement during his presidential campaign, calling it an unfair deal for the U.S. because other high-polluting countries were not scaling back their emissions quickly enough.
But he has softened his position on the deal since, and there is a debate inside the administration about the value of staying in it.
Many expect Trump to at least set aside former President Obama’s commitments to the Paris deal and block future funding for international climate change adaptation work.
Some opponents of the climate accord say he should go further and leave the underlying United Nations climate treaty altogether.
Robert Murray, the head of Murray Energy, one of the country’s largest coal companies, has called the Paris deal “illegal” and said it should come off the books.
The longtime Trump supporter hosted a fundraiser during the campaign and attended a bill signing in February. Trump is reportedly considering Murray Energy lobbyist Andrew Wheeler for the No. 2 position at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“Those coal companies advocating to remain in the Paris climate accord are doing so for reasons other than the welfare of the American coal industry and our miners,” the company said in a statement. “Further, they are squandering the one opportunity we have to ensure reliable low-cost electricity in America and the world.”
Officials with several U.S. energy firms have met with the White House in recent weeks to discuss their backing for the Paris deal, and some are speaking out publicly to make their case.
“U.S. leadership could take the world into a new era of global economic prosperity that also addresses concerns about climate and emissions,” Colin Marshall, the president of coal firm Cloud Peak Energy, wrote in a letter to Trump last week.
“By remaining in the Paris agreement, albeit with a much different pledge on emissions, you can help shape a more rational international approach to climate policy.”
ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said last month, “It would be good for the U.S. to stay in the climate agreement.”
Exxon argues that cleaner-burning natural gas can help countries reach their emissions goals, including the U.S.
“We believe that the United States is well positioned to compete within the framework of the Paris agreement, with abundant low-carbon resources such as natural gas and innovative private industries, including the oil, gas and petrochemical chemical sectors,” Peter Trelenberg, the company’s environmental policy and planning manager, wrote in a March letter to the White House.
The World Coal Association has endorsed the deal as one that gives countries the chance to prioritize technology that could make coal-fired power less environmentally damaging.
The Business Council For Sustainable Energy, which represents sustainability, natural gas and green energy trade groups, is sending a letter to the State Department on Wednesday calling for Trump to stay in the agreement.
Firms outside of the energy sector have put pressure on Trump as well, including a group of more than 360 companies that wrote him an open letter in November saying they support the agreement and “want the US economy to be energy efficient and powered by low-carbon energy.”
Signatories included tech giants such as eBay, Lyft and HP Inc., food suppliers General Mills and Kellogg, and clean-energy manufactures SolarCity and Tesla, whose CEO, Elon Musk, has served as an informal economic adviser for Trump.
Trump’s recent energy executive order aimed to undo so much of the previous administration's climate agenda that it will be hard for the U.S. to meet Obama’s Paris goal of a 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.
But energy industry observers and lobbyists say that order alone doesn’t diminish the U.S.’s ability to be involved in international climate change discussions going forward.
There are divisions within the administration over how to proceed with the agreement.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said he doesn't want the U.S. to give up its “seat at the table” in climate negotiations, while EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt calls the accord a “bad deal.”
Major trade associations have often seen climate policies divide their memberships.
The Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), an oil industry-funded group, put out a report last month detailing the economic impact of Obama’s goals under the deal, saying it could dramatically cut American gross domestic product and reduce employment in industrial sectors.
Neither group is lobbying to leave or stay in the accord. But they said the administration needs to consider the costs of climate change efforts before deciding on the pact’s long-term status.
“What we do see from the data is that there is going to be an economic cost to covering that gap and it’s going to come from the manufacturing and industrial sectors,” Robert Dillon, the ACCF’s vice president for communications, said. “Those are the things that we want policymakers to consider.”
Climate diplomacy experts say business support for Paris provides Trump with cover if he decides to stay in the deal.
It’s also an acknowledgement that the rest of the world is moving ahead with Paris regardless of what he decides.
“There is a clear recognition that the Paris agreement is here to stay, and they’re going to have to figure out a way to situate their reputations within it,” said Paul Bledsoe, a lecturer at American University and former climate official in the Clinton White House.
“That’s true for the coal, oil and gas industries, and that’s true for the Trump administration as well.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/328356-businesses-pressure-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-deal
-
What Is the Trump Administration's Stance on Climate Change?
Apr 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
Nearly three months into its term, the Trump administration still does not appear to have a legal position on whether anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change.
A Justice Department attorney earlier this month told a federal judge hearing claims from 21 youth plaintiffs that the government has failed to adequately protect them from climate risks earlier this week that he could not affirm claims about climate science in briefs filed by the Obama administration because of a lack of political leadership.
Julia Olson, an attorney representing the youth, said in a statement following the hearing that, “the defendants remain unclear about their own facts. I've never gone to trial against defendants who didn't know where they stood on the facts. This might be a first.”
The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken over defense of the case, Juliana, et al. v. United States of American, et al., from the Obama administration. The case is proceeding in U.S. District Court in Oregon after Judge Ann Aiken last fall rejected the Obama DOJ's procedural requests to dismiss the claims, finding the suit could move to the merits.
The Obama DOJ opted not to seek interlocutory appeal of Aiken's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, but the Trump DOJ opted to do so March 9, four months after Aiken's Nov. 10 ruling.
At an April 7 conference with Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who is handling pre-trial work, Coffin asked DOJ attorney Sean Duffy to explain the administration's position on climate science, based on an answer to the complaint that Obama administration lawyers filed just before leaving office.
In that filing, they admitted many key aspects of the youth's claims, including that climate change is damaging human health and the environment; and that global temperatures are projected to increase substantially depending on future emissions and climate responses. However, they did not admit to the underlying claims that they were violating the Constitution or the public trust doctrine, and Obama did not respond to youth requests to settle the case before leaving office.
Coffin said he had reviewed the documents and then asked if the government “retreated from any of these admissions? Or are they still binding?” according to a statement from the youth's attorneys.
Duffy said that the administration could still move to amend the government's position in the answer. When asked specifically what it would do, Duffy said, “We don't have direction from leadership, so I can't answer.”
Coffin then pointed out steps that the Trump EPA has taken to roll back climate rules, along with steep proposed budget cuts at the agency, to ask whether the administration was “going in a different direction.”
Coffin also refused request from DOJ and industry intervenors to delay discovery while the new administration pursues the appeal.
The court posted a notice in the case docket about the status conference which noted that it denied the request for stay of discovery, but it also extended the deadline for production of documents until the parties meet to discuss discovery and must file a status report by May 11. The next conference is slated for May 18.
The youth attorneys say they hope to go to trial before the end of the year.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/what-trump-administrations-stance-climate-change
-
Latest Polls: Trump's Environmental Agenda on Collision Course With Voters
Apr 12, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jeremy Symons
Most presidents enjoy honeymoon periods of favorable public opinion ratings well past their first 100 days in office, which makes the historically bad disapproval ratings for Trump’s handling of the environment all the more remarkable.
A Quinnipiac University poll conducted just 73 days into his presidency shows that 61 percent of voters nationwide disapprove of Trump’s handling of the environment – more than twice as many voters who approve.
Even more notable is the fact that this disapproval rate ranks higher than for all other issues, including health care and immigration.
Trump’s high disapproval numbers on the environment are far higher than Presidents Bush’s 38 percent, and Obama’s 14 percent, on the same topic during their first months in office, according to a separate poll by Gallup.
79% of young Americans disapprove
The Quinnipiac poll, conducted between March 31 and April 3, shows there’s broad public concern with Trump’s attacks against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and his rollback of clean water, clean air and climate regulations.
Majorities of all age groups disapprove, but the divide among younger voters is seismic. Seventy-nine percent of Americans under the age of 35 disapprove of Trump’s environmental stance.
The Quinnipiac poll is just the latest indication of growing public backlash against Trump’s environmental agenda. Indeed, the early March poll from Gallup found little resonance with Trump’s message that the EPA has gone too far in regulating businesses.
Only 11 percent of the public believe the United States government is doing “too much” to protect the environment, while 59 percent believe they are doing “too little.”
These polls are the first environmental surveys to come out following a steady stream of alarming news from the Trump administration for anyone concerned about clean air, clean water and climate change. Trump proposed a crippling budget cut to the EPA that would:
· slash EPA’s ability to enforce clean air and clean water standards against offenders by 60 percent
· eliminate programs that protect kids from lead paint
· cut funding by more than 90 percent for programs to clean up toxic pollution and revive wetland habitats in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
· eliminate EPA’s climate change science reports and research in a government-wide effort to staunch the flow of information on climate science and impacts, including deep funding cuts at NOAA and NASA
· shut down the Energy Star program that have saved consumers $430 billion dollars on energy bills while reducing carbon pollution by two billion tons
The Quinnipiacpoll was conducted just days after Trump’s high-profile visit to EPA headquarters to sign an executive order aimed at rolling back the agency’s Clean Power Plan.
And it follows reports that the EPA will reverse a scientifically driven ban on Chlorpyrifos, a pesticide sold under the name of Dursban that can lead to brain damage in children and is found on fruits and vegetables.
Climate change “personal” issue for voters
Gallup Analyst Andrew Dugan called Trump’s staged roll-back of the Clean Power Plan “an instance of Trump implementing or pursuing a policy that is out of sync with broad trends in American public opinion.”
Gallup’s polling shows that 69 percent of Americans favor stronger enforcement of environmental regulations – an uptick of 5 percent from when they last asked the question in 2014. And more people, 62 percent, now believe that global warming has “already begun,” a higher number than at any time in the 20 years that Gallup has asked the question.
Indeed, two-thirds of voters are concerned that climate change will affect them or a family member personally, the Quinnipiac poll similarly found.
“It’s personal. Climate change is an existential threat, many voters feel”, concluded Tim Malloy, the poll’s assistant director. “They are concerned, and some are very concerned, about the looming menace of climate change.”
The gap between voters’ environmental values and Trump’s extreme agenda appears to be too big to overcome with soundbites and tweets. The big question now is whether Congress will go along with Trump’s dangerous cuts to the EPA and other agencies – or whether lawmakers will stand up for their constituents and keep America’s bipartisan environmental legacy intact.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/04/12/latest-polls-trumps-environmental-agenda-collision-course-voters
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested