Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/18/2017
-
EPA Union Launches Campaign To Preserve Region 5 After Closure Report
Apr 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA union representatives in Region 5 are launching a campaign to build support for their work from lawmakers and the public to push back against reported efforts by the Trump administration to close their Chicago-based office, which has 1,075 employees and oversees work in six heavily industrialized -- and polluted -- Midwestern states that cover much of the Great Lakes. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical BPA Found In Plastics Sparks Concern
Apr 17, 2017 | Northeast Valley News
By Kaylynn Wohl
Since the 1960s, the industrial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) has been a component in the manufacturing of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. It’s profoundly durable and acts as a sealant for metal products such as canned food to prevent spoiling. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Consider Banning Some Flame Retardants From Furniture, Kids’ Products
Apr 17, 2017 | WPRI 12 Eyewitness News
By Susan Campbell
Rhode Island lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban certain flame-retardant chemicals from furniture, bedding, and children’s products. -
Bad Break for Chemistry Teacher in Asbestos Parts Suit
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A chemistry teacher alleging exposure to asbestos while working in Indonesia can't pursue federal claims in Hawaii against an asbestos parts supplier, the Ninth Circuit ruled April 14 (Herbert v. VWR Int'l, LLC, 2017 BL 123206, 9th Cir., 14-15760, unpublished 4/14/17). -
Manufacturers Urge DOE's Perry to Enact Moratorium on LNG Export Approvals
Apr 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
An organization representing manufacturers has asked Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Rick Perry to enact a moratorium on approvals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, and has accused a pro-export group of providing "misleading and incorrect" information. -
First Battery-Natural Gas Power Plant Unveiled in California
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak
Edison International's utility unit said it has completed the first-of-its kind battery storage and natural gas power systems in Southern California that will help the region backstop increasing amounts of renewable energy and cope with potential shortages after a historic gas leak. -
Perry Orders Energy Department Study Of Electric Grid
Apr 18, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has ordered a departmental review of the electricity grid, targeting federal regulations and support for renewable energy that he says could imperil baseload power in the future. -
How Not to Transform a Power Grid: Lessons From Australia
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Murray Griffin
Is your country aiming for a reliable, low-emissions electrical grid? If so, then Australia offers valuable lessons in what not to do. -
NARUC Launches Pipeline Task Force
Apr 17, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
A coalition of state regulators launched a new task force today to study the permitting of natural gas pipelines to energy-starved rural communities. -
With Trump Rolling Back On Climate, Energy Executives Meet To Discuss What’s Next
Apr 17, 2017 | Fuelfix
By David Hunn
Royal Dutch Shell isn’t the only organization calling quasi-secret meetings to talk about a low-carbon future in the oil and gas industry. -
Industry Backs EPA Abeyance Request In Methane NSPS Case
Apr 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
Industry groups are backing the Trump EPA's request to pause litigation over the agency's first-time methane standards for new oil and gas sources, arguing that abeyance in the case is “warranted” while the agency reviews the rule consistent with President Donald Trump's energy executive order. -
BP Kills Alaska Wells After Capping Oil, Natural Gas Leaks
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Summers
A BP Plc well located on Alaska's North Slope is no longer leaking crude oil or natural gas, a company spokeswoman said April 17. -
Potential EPA Request To Delay Utility MACT Lawsuit Faces Legal Barriers
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is said to be considering asking a federal appeals court to halt litigation over the Obama administration's revised cost review justifying the agency's utility air toxics rule, but an industry attorney says such a request faces legal barriers, including the timing of such a request one month before oral argument and the fact EPA recently filed a brief in support of the cost finding. -
Pruitt's Link Between Carbon Rule And Paris Deal Draws Scrutiny
Apr 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff and Alex Guillén
PA Administrator Scott Pruitt's effort to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate pact is part of his strategy to ensure the administration has a clear path to killing the Clean Power Plan — but experts say there is no clear legal link between the two climate change actions. -
Exxon and Shell Join Ivanka Trump to Defend Paris Climate Accord
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
As President Donald Trump contemplates whether to make good on his campaign promise to yank the United States out of the Paris climate accord, an unlikely lobbying force is hoping to talk him out of it: oil and coal producers. -
Critics Hone Arguments Ahead Of Major White House Meeting On Paris Pact
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
As top officials prepare to hash out the Trump administration's position on the Paris climate agreement, opponents of continued U.S. participation are honing their arguments for why the pact harms American economic competitiveness and how staying in would undercut a key campaign pledge from President Donald Trump. -
Trump EPA Urged To Reconsider Obama Revisions To Regional Haze Rule
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Alaska and electric utilities are petitioning the Trump EPA to reconsider an Obama-era rule that bolsters federal land managers' role in overseeing states' plans for reducing haze-forming emissions, with critics of the regulation -- which also faces a host of legal challenges -- arguing it would result in unnecessary and onerous obligations.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
EPA Union Launches Campaign To Preserve Region 5 After Closure Report
Apr 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA union representatives in Region 5 are launching a campaign to build support for their work from lawmakers and the public to push back against reported efforts by the Trump administration to close their Chicago-based office, which has 1,075 employees and oversees work in six heavily industrialized -- and polluted -- Midwestern states that cover much of the Great Lakes.
“We're going to have to lean on the lawmakers in our region” more than ever, and hope they reject the plan, if it comes to fruition, Nicole Cantello, a long-time agency attorney and chief steward for the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 704 representing Region 5, tells Inside EPA April 17.
AFGE Local 704 is seeking to educate the public on what region's employees do so they will stand behind the agency and is looking to convince members of the House and Senate from those five states to reject the cuts.
The union has “built a war chest” and is spending money to get its message out, she says.
Her comments come after the Chicago Sun-Times reported April 15 that EPA Region 5 would be consolidated with Region 7, which is based in Kansas City.
If true, the new EPA region would be the agency's largest, comprising the six states currently included in Region 5 -- Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin -- as well as the four states in Region 7 -- Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri.
But an EPA official sought to tamp down the report, telling Inside EPA April 17 that there are no firm plans to move forward with closing any particular office. Region 5 employees “are fanning a flame because they are worried about something” but they “have not been given anything [from headquarters] to really believe this is happening,” the official said.
While the official did not rule out the possibility that such a plan is under consideration, as the union local has sought, the White House has directed EPA to propose consolidating two of its 10 regions by June 15.
Such a plan is unlikely to make it through the Congress, where many lawmakers are expected to strongly oppose consolidation. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), who represents Flint, MI, which has been struggling to deal with lead-contaminated drinking water, issued an April 17 statement strongly opposing any effort to close the region.
“Closing the EPA's regional office is misguided and would jeopardize federal resources to help Flint recover from the water crisis and protect the Great Lakes from harm,” he said.
Despite the EPA official's comments, Cantello says she and other EPA employees are concerned and believe the rumored closing of the region “is true, even though it is only a rumor. We are hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.”
'Eviscerate EPA'
She says Region 5 is one of the most crucial to remain, given its role in implementing the Great Lakes cleanup program -- which the administration is also proposing to eliminate along with its 71 full-time employees (FTEs)-- and in enforcing pollution limits in the industrial region, which has hundreds of Superfund sites and scores of permitted facilities.
It has also gained attention recently due to a series of high-profile incidents, including Flint's ongoing lead contamination; a U.S. Steel chromium spill in Indiana last week that contaminated Lake Michigan; and cleanup concerns at the USS Lead Superfund Site in East Chicago, IN, parts of which include public housing, where EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is slated to visit April 19.
The news that the region is now being considered for closure means there would be “no one there at all,” to represent the six states represented by the region, Cantello says. And she adds that if Region 7 staff levels are not increased, it would have only 500 FTEs available to deal with a new 10-state region.
“We see that as not being able to function as a regional office,” Cantello says. “We've been here for 40 years developing expertise in these lands and these states, and there is no one there with that level of expertise” elsewhere.
She adds that closing Region 5 makes “no sense from the standpoint of efficiency or practicality” or “doing EPA's business.” But, “It makes every sense if you don't want EPA to do any business any more. It's the one you would take out if you wanted to eviscerate EPA.”
Cantello also questions what effect the region's closure would have on core heartland supporters of President Donald Trump. “What kind of payback is this to those states that voted for him? . . . It's a gift to polluters in these states, not to the people.”
Cantello adds that it is unclear whether EPA has formally decided to close the region or whether the information is being floated as a way to gauge the level of pushback.
“We believe this [rumor is true] because of our internal contacts, and it was either a plea for help from someone who knows and leaked it, or it is a floating situation where they decided to see how much pushback they're going to get. . . . It is our job as the union and the representative of these 1,000 employees to explain to their states why we are needed.”
As part of its outreach, the union has been issuing statements and conducting public meetings. For example, in an April 15 statement, the local's president called on Pruitt and Trump to deny the report that the region is slated for closure.
“EPA Administrator Pruitt and President Trump, if you care about the health and well-being of millions of Americans in the Midwest, please confirm to the public that this story is just that -- a baseless rumor,” AFGE Local 704 President Michael Mikulka said.
“Make no mistake -- any effort to close EPA Region 5 would put lives directly at risk, and we would oppose it fiercely. Any representative or senator in either party who represents any of the Region 5 states . . . should fight this effort with all their might.”
In its formal statement, EPA responded saying the agency is “stepping up its coordination with state and local authorities to safeguard human health and the environment” and is “not announcing closures” but instead is “focused on getting results and improving conditions by communities affected by Superfund sites like East Chicago.”
The agency official adds that Superfund sites “will play a large part” in how it demonstrates results.
'Dire Message'
Yet AFGE Local 704 Cantello says it “is odd” that Pruitt is scheduled to visit the East Chicago Superfund site but is not planning to come to the regional office 25 miles away. “Usually, when an administrator comes to a region, they come to visit and see the employees,” she said.
Agency employees do not plan to protest Pruitt's visit, though environmental groups are intending to do so, Cantello adds. “He is our boss, so we would like to meet with him.”
In the meantime, AFGE 704 continues to seek to get its “dire message” out about the proposed budget cuts, which, even if the region is not consolidated, would result in 310 fewer employees in the region. “Putting aside the issue of how it affects those people . . . EPA would not be able to do what it does if the cuts go through. Our region would not be able to protect the environment of the Midwest that we are required to by law.”
She says the region is “already cut to the bone” and that the proposed 31 percent budget cut is “a license to pollute.” And she calls it “ludicrous” that the agency could respond to emergencies such as the U.S. Steel spill or the Flint water crisis under the proposed budget level.
Cantello says there is “no point” in lobbying the administration because “they are the ones that are proposing this budget.”
Finally, Cantello notes that she has worked at the agency since 1990 and, “This level of attack is not something we've experienced before."
She describes herself as a mild-mannered bureaucrat who did not need to talk to the press for 25 years and prefers not to, and would rather “be doing my prosecutorial job, bringing cases against polluters” but instead has been “thrust” into this role. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-union-launches-campaign-preserve-region-5-after-closure-report
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical BPA Found In Plastics Sparks Concern
Apr 17, 2017 | Northeast Valley News
By Kaylynn Wohl
Since the 1960s, the industrial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) has been a component in the manufacturing of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. It’s profoundly durable and acts as a sealant for metal products such as canned food to prevent spoiling. The benefits of this chemical and why it’s used is outlined by Steve Hentges, Ph.D of American Chemistry Council (ACC); “plastics made with BPA are shatter-resistant, lightweight, high-performance with toughness, optical clarity, high heat resistance and excellent electrical resistance.” However, despite this economical benefit and durability component, the problem is directed at the consumer’s lack of knowledge on what is actually entering their body on a daily basis.
According to Wendee Nicole of Environmental Health Perspectives, “BPA has been implicated as an obesogen, a compound that alters lipid metabolism, promoting development of adipocytes (fat cells) and accumulation of fat,” as determined in a study conducted on mice. Researchers found “a significant increase in fat accumulation and stimulated protein expression of three adipogenic markers—lipoprotein lipase.” This could quite possibly be due to the high exposure rates in contrast to the low-dose consumption consumers have in their everyday life. The “Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to review the available information and studies on BPA and will update its assessment to take additional action if warranted,” according to fda.gov.
Furthermore, the FDA states that “small, measurable amounts of the packaging materials may migrate into food and can be consumed.” The chemical that leaks into food from packaging can be consumed but only in small doses to be considered not harmful.
However, in 2012, the FDA passed a law stating all baby bottles and children’s cups can no longer be produced with BPA, which was initiated by the ACC. This was not due to the notion that the chemical is harmful, but because consumers were demanding manufacturers remove BPA from baby products. The ACC requested the regulation change in September 2011 to “reflect the state of the consumer marketplace and to eliminate confusion for parents, and the FDA agreed,” as debriefed on factsaboutbpa.org.
Katie Gray is an environmentalist, activist and socialist residing in downtown Phoenix. She is also pregnant with her first child. Even long before her pregnancy she avoided products with BPA due to its effects on the developing brain and attributing cause to cancer. In regards to baby products, she states, “As a parent, you want to protect your children as much as you can. That’s why baby stuff comes with a ton of safety precautions. It’s okay for kids to bump their heads, trip over stuff and have some independence. I think too many parents are too concerned with babies getting physically hurt that they forget the most important thing: what you put IN their bodies. I believe in feeding a clean diet to my kids. That includes no foods off of plastic plates or drinks out of plastic sippy cups. Any risk of any brain or heart issues is just too scary to not spend the extra couple bucks on a BPA free product.”
The Mayo Clinic website suggests to use BPA-free products; “if a product isn’t labeled, keep in mind that some, but not all, plastics marked with recycle codes three or seven may be made with BPA.” Some companies are even saying no to BPA all together primarily due to public safety concern. Some of these companies are: Trader Joe’s grocery, Amy’s (the company with the bunny logo), Eden Foods (organic food company that has a large cannery line), and even Winco, which supplies plastic water bottles free of this chemical.
Additionally, it is recommended to cut back on cans and avoid microwaving polycarbonate plastics and putting them into dishwashers. Leftover food is frequently put into plastic containers and Tupperware to later be microwaved and eaten. Overtime as the plastic breakdowns, high levels of BPA seeps into the food. You might also want to avoid drinking out of those plastic bottles you leave in your car during Phoenix’s brutal summers.
http://nevalleynews.org/8299/showcase/chemical-bpa-found-in-plastics-sparks-concern/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Consider Banning Some Flame Retardants From Furniture, Kids’ Products
Apr 17, 2017 | WPRI 12 Eyewitness News
By Susan Campbell
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) – Rhode Island lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban certain flame-retardant chemicals from furniture, bedding, and children’s products.
The bill was introduced by state Rep. Michael Morin, who is also a fire captain in Woonsocket.
“It’s mostly the foam that’s the big problem, and it’s breaking down,” Morin explained. “When they break down, they’re combining themselves with dust molecules that people are inhaling every single day.”
The legislation would prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of residential upholstered furniture, upholstered bedding, and children’s products that contain one hundred parts per million (100 ppm) or more of any organohalogen flame retardant chemical.
“These chemicals are producing more smoke and more toxic gasses,” Morin added. “When a firefighter’s temperature raises five degrees, the pores dilate, which allows absorption into the skin. And firefighters have some of the highest cancer rates in the country.”
According to the National Institutes of Health, many flame retardants may be associated with adverse health effects in humans and animals including child development, reproductive toxicity, cancer, and neurological function.
But in a recent hearing in the Health, Education, and Welfare committee, Dr. Tom Osimitz, a toxicologist representing the American Chemistry Council, argued the proposed law is too broad.
“I think it’s important to consider flame retardants as individual chemicals, not as a group,” he said. “Some of them do cause cancer in animals, but not all brominated or chlorinated flame retardants do so. I think it would be unfortunate to ban or strictly limit many of those when they are actually quite, quite different.”
Thirteen states have enacted similar legislation.
http://wpri.com/2017/04/17/lawmakers-consider-banning-some-flame-retardants-from-furniture-kids-products/
-
Bad Break for Chemistry Teacher in Asbestos Parts Suit
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A chemistry teacher alleging exposure to asbestos while working in Indonesia can't pursue federal claims in Hawaii against an asbestos parts supplier, the Ninth Circuit ruled April 14 (Herbert v. VWR Int'l, LLC, 2017 BL 123206, 9th Cir., 14-15760, unpublished 4/14/17).
The case should be filed in Indonesia, where witnesses and evidence are more accessible, the court affirmed.
James Herbert alleged he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to several asbestos-containing products supplied by VWR International LLC, including asbestos gloves, asbestos squares and mats, asbestos-containing wire gauze, and asbestos wool and fibers in bottles.
Herbert asserted that the exposures occurred when he worked in Indonesia from 1983 to 1998.
Judges Alex Kozinski and Carlos T. Bea issued the memorandum opinion. Judge Michael Daly Hawkins dissented, saying VWR offered no proof that any witnesses or evidence exist in Indonesia.
Galiher DeRobertis Waxman in Honolulu, Hawaii represented Herbert.
Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP in San Francisco and Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan, in Honolulu, Hawaii represented VWR.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109620472&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109620472&jd=109620472
-
Manufacturers Urge DOE's Perry to Enact Moratorium on LNG Export Approvals
Apr 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
An organization representing manufacturers has asked Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Rick Perry to enact a moratorium on approvals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, and has accused a pro-export group of providing "misleading and incorrect" information.
In a letter to Perry last Thursday, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) said it worries that unchecked LNG exports could drive up domestic prices for natural gas, which would in turn devastate manufacturing jobs.
IECA said its letter was in response to a separate letter the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG) sent to Perry in March. According to IECA, CLNG advocated for expedited approval of pending LNG export permits before the DOE, to countries with and without a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States.
DOE has approved 52.9 Bcf/d of LNG exports to FTA countries, IECA said, and has approved or conditionally approved an additional 17 Bcf/d to non-FTA countries, which equates to nearly 93% of domestic natural gas demand in 2016. The organization added that FERC reported 10.4 Bcf/d of LNG export capacity is currently under construction.
"This is a stunningly significant amount of natural gas exports, which raises enormous concerns of future price risk upon trillions of dollars of existing and future U.S. manufacturing facilities," IECA President Paul Cicio said. "There is absolutely no need to expedite approval of further applications to export. In fact, we urge the DOE to halt further approvals until the DOE or Congress defines public interest and with that determination, reconsider the status of applications to export."
Besides a moratorium on export approvals, IECA also asked Perry to have DOE establish a process for monitoring LNG exports and to make adjustments to authorized export volumes when necessary. Regulatory authority has been granted to DOE under the Natural Gas Act, IECA said. It also asked the Trump administration to establish a national LNG export policy consistent with its vocal support for fair trade.
"Shipping LNG to countries that do not have free trade agreements with the U.S. is inconsistent with fair trade and reduces the administration's negotiating leverage and rewards these countries," Cicio said. He later added that "countries should not be rewarded with U.S. LNG before providing fair trade for our manufactured products."
IECA also took issue with CLNG's assertion that the U.S. "has an abundance of natural gas," and that data from the DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) supported its assertion, with domestic natural gas production exceeded demand by about 1.4 Tcf in 2015. IECA said CLNG also erred when it claimed EIA predicts domestic production will exceed demand for at least the next 20 years.
"CLNG's use of EIA data is not correct," Cicio said, adding that the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2017 showed a surplus of just 0.7 Tcf in 2015. "More importantly, CLNG's claim that EIA predicts that production will outpace consumption is misleading and incorrect. CLNG is only comparing production versus domestic consumption. The correct way to address whether the U.S. has a surplus or not, is to include EIA's prediction of net exports..."
"If LNG exports reach the level of already approved applications, the U.S. will be in a deficit of natural gas. In summary, the EIA is not predicting a surplus of supply that would be available for additional LNG exports. In fact, if any additional export capacity comes online that is not included in the EIA AEO 2017, the U.S. annual surplus changes to a deficit."
According to IECA, a study performed by Charles River Associates concluded that the use of natural gas in manufacturing jobs creates eight times more jobs than LNG exports. Manufacturing jobs would be destroyed, IECA contends, if LNG exports were to raise domestic natural gas prices in the long-term.
Last month, CLNG and the Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) issued a joint statement praising an executive order (EO) from President Trump that called for sweeping changes in the energy sector. Among the EO's directives was an order rescinding guidance from the White House Council on Environmental Quality, unveiled during the Obama administration, designed to help federal agencies quantify the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. NGSA and CLNG interpreted the move as the removal of an impediment to LNG exports.
Responding to IECA's letter to Perry, NGSA spokesman Hinson Peters told NGI on Monday that Cicio's position "relies on information that pre-dates the shale revolution and is outdated. In fact, EIA's data also shows that the U.S. has significant [natural gas] reserves, 324 Tcf.
"Numerous independent academic papers have shown that LNG exports will be advantageous for the United States, including the DOE's own study which concluded that 'in all of the scenarios analyzed in this study...the U.S. would experience net economic benefits from increased LNG exports.'
"This is not a 'zero sum game,'" Peters said. "The U.S. has more than enough natural gas to benefit from exports and provide affordable natural gas to consumers and manufacturers at home."
Late last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in its annual State of the Markets Report, said LNG exports contributed to demand for the first time in 2016, after Cheniere Energy Inc. placed the first train at its Sabine Pass terminal into service last February and added a second train last fall.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110146-manufacturers-urge-does-perry-to-enact-moratorium-on-lng-export-approvals
-
First Battery-Natural Gas Power Plant Unveiled in California
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak
Edison International's utility unit said it has completed the first-of-its kind battery storage and natural gas power systems in Southern California that will help the region backstop increasing amounts of renewable energy and cope with potential shortages after a historic gas leak.
Southern California Edison, General Electric Co. and Wellhead Power Solutions partnered to install 10-megawatt lithium-ion batteries at two of the utility's gas generators, Rosemead, California-based Edison said April 17 in a statement. The plants are designed to fire up during periods of peak demand. The batteries, which can provide instant power while gas turbines ramp up, are expected to reduce fuel use and lead to emission reductions of at least 60 percent, Edison said.
“The new system will help SCE better utilize the resources on the grid, provide enhanced reliability, reduce environmental impact, and reduce cost for our operations and for our customers,” Southern California Edison President Ron Nichols said in an emailed statement.
The installation comes after a months-long leak crippled the state's largest natural gas storage field near Los Angeles, raising concerns about potential energy shortages. In addition, the state has mandated that utilities get half of their power from renewable sources by 2030. Batteries have been viewed as helping accommodate more green energy by helping utilities manage the unpredictable output from wind and solar farms.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109620454&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109620454&jd=109620454
-
Perry Orders Energy Department Study Of Electric Grid
Apr 18, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has ordered a departmental review of the electricity grid, targeting federal regulations and support for renewable energy that he says could imperil baseload power in the future.
The review, according to a memo from Perry released on Monday, aims to assess whether federal policies have hurt the electric grid’s supply of baseload power, or the reliable electricity supply generated by large-scale power plants generally fueled by coal, natural gas or nuclear sources.
Critics of renewable energy — particularly wind and solar, which don’t provide electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining — say increased reliance on those sources puts baseload power at risk.
Perry’s memo orders his chief of staff to consider the role federal policies play in expanding renewable energy and whether that has hurt the reliability of the electric grid.
The order, he wrote, should consider “the extent to which continued regulatory burdens, as well as mandates and tax and subsidy policies, are responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants,” among other things.
“The result of this analysis will help the federal government formulate sound policies to protect the nation’s electric grid,” Perry wrote in his memo, penned on Friday.
The review is a sign that the Trump administration will expand its assault on Obama-era energy policies designed to expand the use of renewable energy and green the American electric sector.
Trump has ready begun the process of dismantling energy regulations to cut power sector greenhouse gas emissions. In his memo, Perry said those rules “have destroyed jobs and economic growth and they threaten to undercut the performance of the grid well into the future.”
Perry also criticized tax subsidies that have lead utilities to expand their use of renewable energy. Perry called those policies “market-distorting.”
Congress last extended energy production tax credits for wind and solar power in 2015.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329142-perry-orders-energy-department-study-of-electric-grid
-
How Not to Transform a Power Grid: Lessons From Australia
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Murray Griffin
Is your country aiming for a reliable, low-emissions electrical grid? If so, then Australia offers valuable lessons in what not to do.
Instead of making a smooth transition, the country is stumbling its way toward a cleaner electricity system in a manner that is hurting companies and households alike, according to business leaders and environmental groups interviewed by Bloomberg BNA.
“The Australian grid is now in a process of much more advanced degradation than people realize,” said Matthew Warren, head of the Australian Energy Council, which represents 21 major electricity and gas businesses. “The world gets to sit back and watch how not to do it.”
Said Olivia Kember, acting CEO at the Sydney-based Climate Institute: “We are ending up in the worst of all worlds, where our electricity is neither affordable, nor secure, nor low-emissions.”
So What Happened?
A few years ago, it seemed a national carbon tax and a renewable energy target would by themselves transform Australia's energy sector—one managing-out coal and the other managing-in new renewables to provide electricity for the continent.
But it didn't pan out that way. The Australian Industry Group, which represents most of the country's manufacturers, now complains of “staggering” increases in power prices. And grid reliability itself has become a major concern in some parts of the country.
The culprit? Most point to years of bitter political disagreement.
“Everyone has been warning of these problems for ages, but the polarized nature of energy and climate politics in Australia has contributed to this basic impasse where either side of the political debate in Australia talk up their specific agenda but nothing gets done,” said Warren.
Australia's Labor government introduced a national carbon price in 2012, making it among the first non-European nations to make companies pay a price for their greenhouse gas emissions. But just two years later, Australia became the first developed nation to rescind a price on carbon when the tax was repealed by a Liberal-National Party Coalition government led by Tony Abbott.
As prime minister, Abbott then watered down a federal renewable energy program.
“Everyone has been warning of these problems for ages, but the polarized nature of energy and climate politics in Australia has contributed to this basic impasse where either side of the political debate in Australia talks up their specific agenda but nothing gets done,” said Warren.
During Australia's brief flirtation with carbon pricing, electricity emissions did fall, and in 2013 were 9 percent below the five-year average before the carbon tax was introduced.
But the backtracking forced electricity generators to rethink—and in many cases suspend—their involvement in new clean energy generation projects.
‘Enduring Dysfunction’
The country's across-the-board exasperation with political feuding was made clear earlier this year in a statement remarkable for the diversity of its influential signatories—and for its bluntness.
“More than a decade of [political fighting] has made most energy investments impossibly risky,” said an alliance of associations representing Australia's aluminum, energy, steel, cement and chemicals companies—as well as the country's major environment and community groups. “This has pushed prices higher while hindering transformational change of our energy system. The result is enduring dysfunction in the electricity sector.”
Australia's grid is also significantly reliant on one of the dirtiest forms of electricity generation: coal.Nationally, 65 percent of Australia's electrical generation in 2013 came from coal, among the highest rates of coal-fired electricity in the world for a developed country, according to World Bank statistics.
And the lack of a unified national electrical plan has meant that clean energy projects are not necessarily built in locations best-suited to grid needs.
Political Lessons
Last year it seemed politicians were ready, perhaps, to leave years of poisonous feuding on climate and energy behind.
Ahead of the federal election, Labor opposition climate spokesman Mark Butler said dealing with greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation was the issue on which consensus between the two major parties was likely to be “easiest” after the election.
And when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull led his Liberal-National Party Coalition to a narrow victory, he appointed Josh Frydenberg to lead a new combined energy and environment portfolio.
The move was widely praised as recognition of the connection between the electrical system and greenhouse gas emissions. Frydenberg then called for “hand-shaking and deal-making” across the political divide.
The prospect of an end to political discord was a relief to the Australian Energy Council, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia—which represents the country's largest companies—which have all acknowledged it is time for Australia to head toward net-zero emissions by minimizing and offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions.
But to widespread dismay the briefly opened window for political collaboration appears to have closed again due to divisions in the Turnbull government, skyrocketing power prices, blackouts in South Australia—global mining company BHP Billiton said a statewide blackout in South Australia last September cost it more than $92.3 million in lost production at its Olympic Dam uranium and metals mine and processing facility—blackout fears elsewhere, and several state governments going it alone on renewable energy policy.
‘Battle Lines’
“The battle lines have been drawn,” Turnbull said in February.
His government has ditched its support for a carbon emissions intensity-based trading scheme for electricity generators, which was widely seen as the landing zone for political consensus.
To some extent, Turnbull's statements are viewed as political theater designed to placate climate skeptics within his party—even while he continues to direct some money to renewable energy, energy efficiency and battery storage.
But the statements will make it harder to build support for complex solutions and has created space for a resurgence of climate change doubters and deniers.
Complex Problem
“The challenge is much greater than people first thought to transform this type of grid,” Australian Energy Council's Warren told Bloomberg BNA.
If and when a carbon price is reintroduced in some form, it will need augmentation with other measures, such as managed phaseout of coal-fired power plants, the Climate Institute says.
No Natural Gas Bridge
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, an independent federally funded agency that provides loans to clean energy projects, said Australia needs to develop a grid that relies on diverse generation technologies spread across a wide range of locations.
It also needs more interconnectors between the electricity submarkets, greater deployment of large-scale energy storage and changes to outdated electricity market rules.
The irony is that energy should be the least of Australia's worries.
“Any kind of energy that you can think of, except maybe wet geothermal, we have stonking great quantities of,” said Australian Industry Group national public policy adviser Tennant Reed. “And intuitively, it seems like we should be able to turn that abundance into advantage.”
But Australia hasn't succeeded in using natural gas as a transition fuel as it moves from coal to renewables, because the gas industry is now export-focused and environmentalists oppose on-shore gas exploration. Both factors have constrained domestic supply.
Looming Review
Electricity providers are now largely pinning their hopes on a review of the future security of the national electricity market, jointly commissioned by the federal government and states and territories.
The review is led by the country's chief scientist, Alan Finkel, and its panel members include Chloe Munro, the highly respected former chief executive and chairwoman of the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent federal agency.
The Finkel Review is due by mid-year, and is comparing numerous ways to cut electricity industry emissions that can put Australia on course to achieve “net zero” sometime after 2050, while maintaining system stability and energy affordability.
“The Finkel Review is a really smart response,” the Climate Institute's Kember said, adding that she hopes federal and state governments “take the process seriously enough to follow through.”
The federal government March 31 also agreed to a separate review, to be jointly conducted by its advisory Climate Change Authority and the Australian Energy Market Commission, to examine potential policies to improve power system security and reduce energy prices—but in manners consistent with meeting the country's commitments under the international Paris Agreement on climate change.
Politicization
Reed said one bright spot is that energy is a somewhat less politicized issue than climate change.
“We have not yet reached such an intensity of politicization and culture war over the detail of energy as we have over responses to climate change,” he noted.
That could bode well for the kind of technical-focused changes that are likely to emerge in the Finkel Review report, he says.
“There is still good potential for agreement on a whole raft of changes that could make energy more affordable and keep it reliable as we journey towards our Paris Agreement goals and ultimately net-zero emissions,” he said.
Quick Completion of Renewable Projects
Despite Australia's absence of a coherent, long-term strategy, there have been important achievements.
After several years in the doldrums due to the political brawl over a renewable energy target, Australia's large-scale renewable energy industry is on the rebound, with a strong development pipeline of new wind farms and utility-scale solar projects.
And the Clean Energy Finance Corporation points out that wind and solar farms typically are completed quickly—within one to two years of financial close.
Clean energy projects also are benefiting from support delivered by the federal government through its renewable energy target, and from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Australian Renewable Energy Agency, each of which uses different tactics to ensure the viability of large-scale renewable energy projects.
Buyers Clubs
State government assistance is also playing a role.
That can be a mixed blessing, as it leads to a less nationally consistent approach. But states and territories have bolstered and augmented federal action in significant ways, and they have been important policy innovators.
Meanwhile, renewable energy buyers clubs of medium-scale energy users, such as one led by Melbourne City Council and another in Sydney led by property company JLL, are starting to emerge.
Energy companies are themselves keen to innovate.
‘Virtual Power Plant’
Kember singled out a project by AGL Energy to create a “virtual power plant” in the form of 1,000 batteries installed at homes in Adelaide.
The project will allow homeowners to store excess solar energy and also allow the company to feed stored power from the batteries into the grid at peak times.
“We've spent a decade chasing our tail, and catching it, and biting it very hard,” Reed said, but noted that new technologies are leading to efforts to create “new kinds of value in the electricity system.”
“Everybody is trying to find ways to take those technological possibilities and create a market around them that actually works,” he said.
Most importantly, the plummeting costs of renewables and distributed technologies such as energy storage means Australia's shift to clean energy—haphazard, uncoordinated and a victim of endless political vacillation—also is inevitable, said former Climate Institute chief executive John Connor.
“After a decade of squabbling and university-grade politics, a perverse outcome might be that because we've stuffed around for so long on what might have been a smoother transition that we actually have a swifter jump to a much more distributed and cleaner and smarter energy system,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109620452&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109620452&jd=109620452
-
NARUC Launches Pipeline Task Force
Apr 17, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
A coalition of state regulators launched a new task force today to study the permitting of natural gas pipelines to energy-starved rural communities.
Co-chairing the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' "Presidential Natural Gas Access and Expansion Task Force" will be Pennsylvania Commissioner John Coleman and Mississippi Commissioner Brandon Presley. North Dakota Commissioner Julie Fedorchak will serve as vice chairwoman.
NARUC in a press release said many rural communities — including residential, industrial and commercial customers — lack access to cheap natural gas because of infrastructure issues like unavailable distribution lines and utility services. Those communities must rely on bottled propane, heating oil and other more expensive fuels.
Whereas the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the rates set for transportation and storage, as well as the operating terms and conditions of interstate pipelines, states are tasked with overseeing gas distribution through pipeline systems owned by distribution companies.
NARUC said the task force would last eight months and result in a report that studies the current access, expansion and service extension policies for underserved and unserved areas, as well as the need for new infrastructure and barriers to it.
The panel will also generate a list of best practices on accessing natural gas and expanding infrastructure to reach underserved and unserved areas, said NARUC.
Nine commissioners from Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon and Texas have been invited to sit on the panel, and the president of NARUC can fill three additional vacancies.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/17/stories/1060053184
-
With Trump Rolling Back On Climate, Energy Executives Meet To Discuss What’s Next
Apr 17, 2017 | Fuelfix
By David Hunn
Royal Dutch Shell isn’t the only organization calling quasi-secret meetings to talk about a low-carbon future in the oil and gas industry.
Last month, even as President Donald Trump was announcing plans to dismantle the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, multinational oil giant Royal Dutch Shell convened a meeting with other energy companies, including Houston’s Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Apache Corp., to talk about a “cleaner energy” future.
Turns out the University of Houston had done the same.
Attendees at the UH workshop, hosted by the Bauer College of Business, talked about the value of the Paris climate accords, about pipeline permitting obstacles, and about working with environmentalists rather than against them.
“The decision to dismantle environmental regulations tends to stir up grassroots activism without significant benefit in terms of returns for the oil and gas industry,” wrote Professor Chris Ross and interim Vice Chancellor Ramanan Krishnamoorti as part of a summary of the day’s discussion.
The companies have already factored regulations into their budgets and projects, they explained at the meeting. The results of environmental activism, on the other hand, are less certain.
The UH participants also talked about the rise of natural gas and the fall of coal, as well as the public outcry against carbon pollution — as did attendees at the Shell meeting.
“The similarity between the outcomes of the events are striking,” Krishnamoorti said in an email to the Chronicle.
He said UH will have white papers on each energy sector publishing soon.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/04/17/energy-leaders-hold-more-meetings-on-low-carbon-future/
-
Industry Backs EPA Abeyance Request In Methane NSPS Case
Apr 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
Industry groups are backing the Trump EPA's request to pause litigation over the agency's first-time methane standards for new oil and gas sources, arguing that abeyance in the case is “warranted” while the agency reviews the rule consistent with President Donald Trump's energy executive order.
Even so, the industry groups also say in their April 17 filing that it is “important for the case to remain on the docket during EPA's review.” The industry groups note they have also petitioned EPA “to administratively stay or extend near-term compliance deadlines” and if EPA does not grant such relief, they “want to reserve the option of seeking appropriate relief from this Court.”
The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of EPA, called on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to halt litigation over EPA's oil and gas new source performance standards (NSPS) -- first-time limits on the potent greenhouse gas -- while the agency reviews the rule.
The litigation over the rule, American Petroleum Institute (API), et al. v. EPA, et al., challenges the NSPS rule, as well as aspects of a related NSPS for conventional pollutants, finalized in 2012, and a third regulation issued in 2014 that reconsidered aspects of the second rule. Under the current schedule, parties must submit a briefing schedule and proposed briefing format by May 19.
EPA in its April 7 abeyance request, however, only cites the agency's nascent review of the methane NSPS as its reasoning.
Industry groups opposing the rule strongly support EPA's review of the methane NSPS and its motion to pause the litigation. They argue in an April 17 filing that Trump's executive order “plainly shows that the Trump administration has a significantly different perspective than the prior administration on the policy issues that underlie” the NSPS. “It is easily conceivable that EPA will decide to make significant changes to the rule that address the challenges that Industry Petitioners are planning to bring in this case.”
And the industry groups cite the D.C. Circuit's recent granting of a similar motion to hold litigation challenging EPA's 2015 ozone standards in abeyance. That case, they argue, had already been briefed and was slated for oral argument just eight days before EPA asked for its stay, while the litigation over the methane NSPS has not.
“If abeyance is warranted” in the ozone litigation, “it surely is warranted here,” the industry groups write.
The industry groups in their filing note that states opposing the methane NSPS intend to file a similar brief backing EPA's abeyance request.
Environmental groups on April 14 opposed halting the litigation, saying EPA is wrong to claim that its administrative review of the rules “of unknown length and uncertain outcome” warrants indefinitely pausing the suit. The environmentalists did say, however, that they would not oppose a 90-day extension of the deadline to submit proposed briefing schedules “to provide a reasonable period for EPA to determine its course of conduct.”
The 90-day deadline extension would be appropriate because the methane NSPS litigation is “in its early stages,” environmentalist wrote, as opposed to challenges to EPA's power sector GHG rules. DOJ filed just hours after Trump signed his executive order March 28 to hold those cases in abeyance, but the D.C. Circuit has yet to rule on the motions.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/industry-backs-epa-abeyance-request-methane-nsps-case
-
BP Kills Alaska Wells After Capping Oil, Natural Gas Leaks
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Summers
A BP Plc well located on Alaska's North Slope is no longer leaking crude oil or natural gas, a company spokeswoman said April 17.
The crude spray was discovered early April 14 and capped early April 16. A second leak at the well that was emitting gas at a reduced rate was closed off overnight on April 16, according to spokeswoman Dawn Patience in an email April 17.
The leak came as the remote North Slope, once home to America's biggest oilfields, has seen signs of a resurgence as producers work to boost output from aging wells and extend their reach to new supplies. Production there rose to 565,000 barrels a day in March, its highest level since December 2013. That is still down by almost three-quarters from the peak of more than 2 million barrels in the late 1980s.
“The well is no longer leaking any gas or oil,” Patience wrote. “Overnight, the Unified Command achieved source control and killed the well. ”
In 2010, a BP well became the site of the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The deadly Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico forced BP to sell billions of dollars in assets and set aside more than $50 billion to pay for damages.
No Injuries, Harm to Wildlife
The volume of the North Slope leak hasn't been determined and the cause of the release is unknown, the state's Department of Environmental Conservation said. There have been no injuries and no reports of harm to wildlife. The nearest local community, Nuiqsut, located about 50 miles west, has been notified
“It's tough to determine collateral impacts at this point, but some incident-related slowdown at Prudhoe Bay seems at least a reasonable risk to consider,” Tudor Pickering Holt & Co., a Houston-based energy investment bank, wrote in a note April 17.
Based on aerial pictures, the release appeared to be contained to the gravel pad surrounding the well head and never reached the surrounding tundra, BP said in an earlier statement. The well has been shut in since April 14.
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.’s Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which runs from Prudhoe Bay south to Valdez, isn't affected by this incident and is operating normally, Michelle Egan, a company spokeswoman, said by telephone April 16. Alyeska is a joint partnership led by the North Slope's top producers, BP Plc, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109620465&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109620465&jd=109620465
-
Potential EPA Request To Delay Utility MACT Lawsuit Faces Legal Barriers
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is said to be considering asking a federal appeals court to halt litigation over the Obama administration's revised cost review justifying the agency's utility air toxics rule, but an industry attorney says such a request faces legal barriers, including the timing of such a request one month before oral argument and the fact EPA recently filed a brief in support of the cost finding.
“It's much harder to ask for the abeyance if it is the second thing you have done after filing a brief,” the source says. “It's much easier if you file for abeyance as the first thing you do once you get to the agency.”
The industry source says new administrations routinely ask courts to grant abeyance in suits over regulations issued by prior administrations, in order to reconsider the rules. But the source says the utility air toxics rule case is “unusual” because EPA will have to explain why it wants abeyance so soon after filing a brief defending it.
EPA has not yet asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hold the utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) cost review case, Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, et al., in abeyance.
Oral argument is currently scheduled for May 18.
But environmentalists are concerned the administration may try to delay the litigation. “The Administration may be planning to ask the [court] to postpone hearing the case -- after it has been fully briefed, and only a few weeks before oral argument was scheduled,” Environmental Defense Fund said in an April 17 note to reporters.
Their concerns may not be unfounded. Since Administrator Scott Pruitt was sworn in on Feb. 17, EPA has won requests from the court to postpone arguments in cases over major Obama EPA air rules including the greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for new power plants and the tightening of the ozone air standard.
The D.C. Circuit granted the administration's request to delay the ozone litigation just eight business days before scheduled oral argument, timing that drew a rebuke from the three-judge panel slated to hear the case.
In an April 11 order, the panel said that although it was granting EPA's request to delay argument in the ozone case, also known as Murray Energy v. EPA, it “disfavors motions to postpone oral argument and reminds respondent it is imperative that the court be notified promptly when a potential issue arises that affects the date of oral argument.”
The agency is also seeking to delay litigation over first-time methane limits for new oil and gas drilling and to delay issuance of a ruling in litigation over the Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants.
However, in each case EPA did not file any substantial briefs in defense of those rules after Pruitt took office, whereas Pruitt's agency offered a strong defense of the utility MACT cost review in a March 22 filing.
If the Pruitt EPA does decide to try and seek abeyance in the D.C. Circuit suit over the utility MACT cost review as environmentalists fear, the industry source says “there's going to have be some explaining, especially if they say it's to reconsider or change the rule. It begs for some sort of reconciling of positions.”
Environmentalists who have intervened in the case to defend EPA's cost finding and utility MACT from industry attacks could also site the reversal in position to fight the abeyance request, the source says.
“The environmentalists could say, 'This is ridiculous, look at the inconsistency with what they just filed,'” the source says, referring to the Pruitt EPA's March 22 brief offering a solid defense of the cost analysis -- although the final brief is largely a re-submission of an earlier respondent brief the Obama EPA filed on Jan. 18.
The source adds that the D.C. Circuit might also reject an abeyance request in the Murray Energy case because oral argument on May 18 is roughly only a month away -- though the D.C. Circuit granted the administration's request in the ozone case on a much shorter deadline.
Related Litigation
If EPA asks to put the utility MACT case on hold, it is unclear whether the agency would also seek to delay a related case, ARIPPA v. EPA, that consolidates environmentalist and power industry challenges to the Obama EPA's decision to reject petitions asking it to reconsider various provisions of the utility MACT.
The source says EPA is in the same unusual position as Murray Energy if it asks for abeyance, given that the agency filed an April 3 final brief saying the lawsuits should all be rejected. In the final brief, filed more than a month after Pruitt joined the agency, EPA outlines its legal defense of the petition denials.
While ARIPPA deals with the petition denials, Murray Energy focuses on the merits of a supplemental cost analysis EPA performed for the utility MACT in response to a Supreme Court ruling. The court in its 5-4 ruling from 2015 in Michigan v. EPA said the agency erred by not undertaking the cost review of the MACT before issuing its declaration that the rule was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act, and remanded litigation over the rule to EPA. The agency then issued the cost finding and said the rule was still justified.
Meanwhile, EPA is asking the D.C. Circuit to hold litigation over its first-time methane rule for new oil and gas drilling in abeyance while it weighs possible changes to the rule in line with President Donald Trump's executive order directing agencies to reduce regulatory burdens on the energy sector.
The agency filed its abeyance request on April 7 and environmentalists and public health groups file their response in opposition on April 14, but the court at press time had not issued a decision.
EPA succeeded with its request to delay argument in the case over the Obama-era decision to tighten the ozone NAAQS from the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb. But the agency had not filed anything in the case since Pruitt became administrator other than a March 15 letter offering its take on the format for oral argument. It waited almost a month before then filing the April 7 request to postpone argument.
In the CPP litigation, EPA on March 13 under Pruitt filed to say it did not oppose consolidating various cases over the rule, followed by its March 28 request to hold the litigation in abeyance. Oral argument in that case took place last year, but briefing continued after groups sued over EPA's denial of petitions to reconsider the CPP.
For the climate new source performance standards for power plants, EPA filed its final brief on Feb. 6 offering a strong defense of the rule -- days after Trump took office, but before Pruitt joined the agency. On March 28, the agency then asked to put argument in the litigation on hold while it weighed whether to reconsider the rule. The court granted the request on March 30, removing the litigation from the scheduled April 17 oral argument calendar.
In other air cases, the Pruitt EPA has continued the Obama EPA's position -- such as an April 14 filing continuing a 4th Circuit appeal of a federal district court ruling setting a tight deadline for the agency to conduct a review of the impact its Clean Air Act rules have had on jobs in the coal sector.
The agency, for now, appears to be continuing the previous administration's defense of D.C. Circuit litigation scheduled for May 8 oral argument over a rule that forces 36 states to remove language from their Clean Air Act compliance plans allowing some facilities to exceed federal air pollution limits during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, filing an April 4 letter on its preferred oral argument format.
Trump administration lawyers also defended EPA at Feb. 10 oral argument in a case where environmentalists challenged an Obama-era declaration that the agency had met a mandate to regulate 90 percent of sources of specific air toxics, although that occurred before Pruitt took office.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/potential-epa-request-delay-utility-mact-lawsuit-faces-legal-barriers
-
Pruitt's Link Between Carbon Rule And Paris Deal Draws Scrutiny
Apr 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff and Alex Guillén
PA Administrator Scott Pruitt's effort to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate pact is part of his strategy to ensure the administration has a clear path to killing the Clean Power Plan — but experts say there is no clear legal link between the two climate change actions.
President Donald Trump's top advisers, including Pruitt, are expected to convene on Tuesday to decide whether to recommend that Trump withdraw from the agreement struck by nearly 200 countries in December 2015. Trump is expected to announce a position on the Paris deal before the G-7 meeting in late May.
While some Trump advisers are pushing to remain in the deal but to weaken the U.S. commitment to reduce carbon emissions, Pruitt has emerged as a force for exiting the Paris agreement, calling it "a bad deal for America" in an interview last week. White House sources have said that, privately, Pruitt has cited another reason for wanting to pull out of Paris: So that it cannot interfere with his effort to halt litigation over the Clean Power Plan and repeal the regulation.
The idea that the Paris agreement and the Obama administration's carbon rule — or the Endangerment Finding underpinning EPA's climate regulation — are legally connected appears to be novel even among conservatives who opposed the international pact.
"Nothing in the Paris Agreement is dependent on either the Endangerment Finding by U.S. EPA or on the Clean Power Plan," wrote Sheila Harvey, Jeff Merrifield, and Meghan Claire Hammond, all attorneys in the energy practice at the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, wrote in a memo published last week.
Scott Segal, who leads the policy division of Bracewell, said in a memo released on April 7 that the Paris agreement "is silent on what mechanisms" countries can use to reduce their emissions, and therefore neither the Clean Power Plan nor the endangerment finding are mandated by the agreement.
"In short, the Paris Agreement imposes no enforceable obligations on the United States that would require particular regulatory outcomes or strategies," he writes.
Pruitt's legal argument surprised legal experts when POLITICO reported it on Friday.
Nick Loris, an energy and environment fellow for the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has called for Trump to pull the U.S. out of Paris, said he hasn’t seen anyone else raise that concern. Even environmental groups have not cited a link between the power plant regulation and the Paris deal in their attempts in recent weeks to keep the CPP lawsuit alive, essentially guaranteeing the court won’t factor it into their decision.
Some experts said Pruitt's argument appears to have significant flaws.
For starters, the Clean Power Plan was conceived well before the Paris deal was struck, and has a legal justification based on Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which requires EPA to take action on pollutants not addressed elsewhere in the act — including carbon dioxide.
In addition, the carbon reduction commitments in the Paris deal are not legally binding in large part because international negotiators knew any binding treaty would be blocked in the Senate by Republicans.
The agreement also falls under the "non-self-executing treaty doctrine," meaning Congress or the president have to take action to put it into effect. Without such action, courts are unlikely to take the deal into account, said Dan Bodansky, law professor and expert in international climate law at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.
Sean Donahue, an attorney who is helping greens to defend the Clean Power Plan, agreed while it was not directly tied to the Paris deal, repealing the carbon rule would affect the U.S. pledge to lower emissions under the Paris framework, he added.
“There's not a formal legal link between Paris and CPP, but the CPP is an important part of the United States' Paris commitment, the emissions reductions,” Donahue said. “So if you are going to abandon the CPP, you would need to find those big emissions reductions somewhere else.”
Trump made withdrawal from the international agreement to combat climate change one of his campaign promises, but White House aides have been divided on the issue, with chief Trump adviser Steve Bannon and Pruitt at odds with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Jared Kushner, who are said to favor remaining in the pact.
Still, Pruitt's position has a few allies. Mike McKenna, a former member of Trump's transition team, released a lengthy statement over the weekend pressing the case for withdrawal.
"Remaining in Paris poses a significant and ongoing legal risk," he said. "The Agreement requires signatories to routinely increase the level of greenhouse gas reductions. There is little doubt that if left in place, the Agreement will be used both in litigation (immediately) and by the next Democratic Administration (at some point) to argue for and justify expanding new and aggressive regulatory regimes."
This isn’t the first time that the Paris deal and the Clean Power Plan have been connected.
In December 2015, just as the Paris talks kicked into high gear, the Obama administration urged the court not to freeze the regulation. It included a statement from Todd Stern, then the State Department’s climate negotiator, saying the Clean Power Plan was helping the global pact come together by demonstrating America's resolve.
A group of utilities that support the regulation briefly cited the Paris talks in urging the Supreme Court not to stay the rule.
Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright later brought up the climate deal in April 2016 when she filed a brief arguing that the rule’s "successful implementation will support U.S. efforts to ensure that others follow through on those commitments” made under the Paris deal.
It remains unclear to what extent, if any, the judiciary was persuaded by those arguments. The D.C. Circuit did not explain its decision not to stay the rule, nor did the Supreme Court when it did stay the rule, which has left experts in the dark about precisely what legal justifications the justices relied upon.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/04/pruitts-link-between-carbon-rule-and-paris-deal-draws-scrutiny-155368
-
Exxon and Shell Join Ivanka Trump to Defend Paris Climate Accord
Apr 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
As President Donald Trump contemplates whether to make good on his campaign promise to yank the United States out of the Paris climate accord, an unlikely lobbying force is hoping to talk him out of it: oil and coal producers.
A pro-Paris bloc within the administration has recruited energy companies to lend their support ahead of a high-level White House meeting April 18 to discuss the global pact to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions, according to two people familiar with the effort who asked not to be identified.
Exxon Mobil Corp., previously led by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, reiterated its support in a letter to the White House solicited by White House energy adviser G. David Banks. The oil and natural gas giant argued the U.S. slashed its carbon emissions to 20-year lows because of greater use of natural gas, and “this success can be replicated globally” as part of the Paris deal. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc also have endorsed the pact.
“BP welcomed the Paris Agreement when it was signed, and we continue to support it,” said Geoff Morrell, a company spokesman. “It's possible to provide the energy the world needs while also addressing the climate challenge.” Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said the company remains “strongly in favor” of the agreement.
Coal producers Cloud Peak Energy Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp. also are lobbying in favor of the accord, even though the miners could be disadvantaged by a global shift toward cleaner sources of electricity. Cloud Peak pitches the Paris agreement as a platform for the U.S. to advocate using carbon capture and other high-efficiency, low-emissions technology to generate electricity from coal.
The industry campaign to stick with the Paris accord comes amid deep divisions in the Trump administration over the carbon-cutting agreement. Both the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, a White House special adviser, have urged the president to stay in the deal, along with Tillerson.
On the other side are senior adviser Stephen Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who on April 14 said “we need to exit” the pact.
Trump is nearing a decision on whether he will fulfill repeated pledges to withdraw the U.S. from the carbon-cutting pact he previously derided as “bad for U.S. business.” At the White House on April 18, senior administration officials, including Pruitt, Tillerson, Kushner and Bannon, will be going over the pros and cons of staying in Paris.
The administration will decide what to do before late next month, when world leaders gather for the Group of Seven summit in Italy, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.
Not every energy executive is on board. Coal baron Robert E. Murray has been outspoken in criticizing the deal, arguing it's “just a way for other countries to get American money.“
Chevron Corp. Chief Executive Officer John Watson said in a Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy podcast that more needs to be known about how the Paris accord will translate into policy under Trump.
And some independent oil companies—those without significant gas production that could benefit from greater international demand—have quietly opposed the pact.
Perhaps for that reason, the leading oil industry trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, has not taken a formal position on the Paris agreement. Instead, API spokesman Michael Tadeo casts the accord as a missed opportunity to talk about U.S. leadership “in reducing carbon emissions which are near 30-year lows in electricity generation due to increased use of natural gas brought by hydraulic fracturing.“
Supporters have argued that remaining in the pact would maintain goodwill with international trading partners, facilitating U.S. energy exports, including expanded sales of liquefied natural gas abroad. The International Renewable Energy Agency predicted that investments in renewable power and efficiency designed to help meet Paris targets will boost the world economy by $19 trillion.
Trump has already moved to dismantle a raft of Obama-era climate policies that would help the U.S. satisfy the commitment it made with more than 190 other nations to slash greenhouse gas emissions. His budget director, Mick Mulvaney, described plans to cut government spending on climate change as stopping a “waste” of taxpayer money. And energy ministers from G7 nations earlier this month took the unusual step of declining to issue a joint statement endorsing the Paris agreement after the U.S. balked.
The Paris agreement itself is really an array of individual, country-specific pledges, such as the U.S. promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. It is not legally binding and there are no formal sanctions in place for failure to comply.
White House officials who support Paris highlight the lack of repercussions. A key argument is that the U.S. can stay in the agreement without satisfying its pledge or maintaining regulations designed to help achieve the target, said one administration official.
Trump can't pull the U.S. out of the worldwide pact immediately, though he could begin a four-year process of withdrawing. And the president has several possible techniques for formally extricating the U.S.: He can make the change unilaterally or punt the decision to the Senate, by interpreting the accord as a treaty that requires the support of two-thirds of the chamber's members to be ratified. That's currently an insurmountable political hurdle.
Trump has effectively defanged the Paris deal by rescinding domestic greenhouse gas regulations, said Richard Reavey, Cloud Peak's vice president of government affairs, so there's little to gain from the U.S. forfeiting its formal status at the United Nations climate fund after giving $1 billion to it.
“We own the seat, and we're not going to incur the economic harm that the U.S. pledge would have imposed,” Reavey said by phone. “Why would the U.S. give up the opportunity to stay at the table, even if it's just to tell everybody they're wrong?“
Campaign Promise
Conservatives alarmed by the corporate advocacy are stepping up their opposition, arguing that the potential international political benefits the U.S. may gain on the world stage by staying in the deal are outmatched by the political fallout Trump would experience at home.
“This is a campaign promise—a specific promise the president made repeatedly,” said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist. “He's not just going to be able to walk away from it.“
The U.S. has a unique opportunity to disentangle itself from the accord now—while Trump is a new president and the deal itself is in its infancy. Any diplomatic blowback from international allies would be short-lived, argues Chris Horner, a senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
By contrast, he said, remaining in the deal would ensure a constant cycle of international criticism because countries have committed to a new round of carbon-cutting commitments every five years. “The Paris agreement pressure machine will trigger blowback every time the president, Congress or future administrations deviate from Obama's emission-reduction promises, hesitate to subsidize green-energy ventures abroad” or fail to adopt more stringent targets, Horner said.
Critics of the deal also warn that the U.S. commitment could extend from Paris to the courtroom, seized by environmentalists as evidence the EPA is bound to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Paris opponents plan a deep analysis on those potential legal risks to bolster their case against staying.
“The Paris agreement is designed to undermine American self government over the long term because the whole point of it is to put the United States inside a political pressure cooker” and influence domestic energy policy, said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “The coal companies and oil and gas companies that are flirting with the Paris agreement don't understand the existential threat that they're buying into.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109620464&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109620464&jd=109620464
-
Critics Hone Arguments Ahead Of Major White House Meeting On Paris Pact
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
As top officials prepare to hash out the Trump administration's position on the Paris climate agreement, opponents of continued U.S. participation are honing their arguments for why the pact harms American economic competitiveness and how staying in would undercut a key campaign pledge from President Donald Trump.
Those calling to stay in the deal “want the President to violate his campaign promise” to leave the agreement, according to an April 15 memo from Mike McKenna, an energy lobbyist and former Trump transition official who is urging officials to leave the agreement.
McKenna claims that the agreement's terms preclude Trump from offering a softer GHG target, as some have suggested, and that a future Democratic administration would use the deal to “justify expanding new and aggressive regulatory regimes.” Broadly, he charges the deal would harm American industry at the expense of large developing countries like China and India.
Such views are likely to get a receptive hearing from at least a few of the participants at the planned April 18 meeting at the White House, which was first reported by Politico. Of note, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently escalated his Paris rhetoric, calling it a “bad deal for America” and underscoring earlier remarks that “we should exit the Paris accord, in my view.”
Also at the meeting with a similar position will be White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who has long opposed global climate mitigation efforts and other multilateral economic deals.
But Paris critics like Pruitt, Bannon and McKenna must contend with a more moderate bloc of administration officials who are said to be ascendant within the White House and are believed to be open to staying in the agreement.
An April 17 analysis from ClearView Energy Partners argues that recent media attention to the White House meeting might have been spurred by “losers” of the debate who have unsuccessfully pushed to leave the deal. “We might suggest that news of tomorrow’s meeting may have broken because the White House has already resolved, or largely resolved, to remain within Paris, and opponents of that stance may have been using the media to send up a flare to their allies.”
ClearView adds that the administration might want to keep the possibility of a Paris departure “in its pocket,” because leaving the deal could earn it “political support closer to the 2020 re-election race.”
Officials more inclined to remain in Paris include National Economic Council (NEC) Director Gary Cohn, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and senior Trump adviser Jared Kushner.
For example, Tillerson has said the U.S. should keep a “seat at the table” in global climate discussions, and Kushner was reported to successfully lobby against language critical of the Paris deal in Trump's recent energy executive order.
Further, several news reports point to a growing influence of Cohn and other “moderate” advisers who are closely attuned to business interests that, broadly speaking, support remaining in the Paris pact.
That dynamic is reflected by Trump's decision not to label China a “currency manipulator,” as well as his support of the Export-Import Bank and NATO -- all reversals from campaign positions. He also recently offered critical remarks about Bannon, saying in one interview that he is merely “a guy that works for me.”
'Certainly Helps'
“It certainly helps that, so far as we know, the NEC and the [National Security Council] have signaled that they are receptive to the idea of staying in Paris,” said Andrew Light, a former Obama State Department official now with the World Resources Institute (WRI).
Light added that Cohn often offers a “more mainstream, conservative business” perspective, and there is “a good, solid cluster of different interested parties, including fossil fuel companies, that seem to be in favor of us staying in Paris.”
Some supporters of staying in the deal suggest that Trump can remain in while submitting a weaker national greenhouse gas target, if only to avoid sharp diplomatic blowback that would result from a departure.
One White House adviser on international energy issues, George David Banks, has floated a scenario in which the U.S. stays in Paris, weakens its national GHG target and secures additional support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology that could provide a “long-term” future for coal and other fossil fuels.
Supporters of the stance say that staying in the deal will help address climate change and preserve competitive advantages for clean technologies. They also say it avoids imposition of trade sanctions, diplomatic conflict and lawsuits from countries harmed by climate change against historic emitters.
And several brand name energy firms -- including oil and gas giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, as well as major coal producer Cloud Peak -- have recently called on Trump to stay in the deal.
McKenna's memo charges that the entire debate about whether to remain in Paris “has been the construct of a single White House staffer. He has done a great job ginning up letters from companies and what not, but his desire to have dinners in Brussels should not be enough to make the President walk away from an explicit, oft-repeated, campaign promise.”
Further, he says that Kushner -- Trump's son-in-law -- “must know that an obviously broken campaign pledge will impair the President's ability to be reelected.”
Steven Eule of the Chamber of Commerce -- which does not have an official position on whether to remain in Paris -- noted that the administration faces a slew of inter-connected issues related to the deal. “I don't think this is simply a question of, 'Do we stay in Paris or do we get out?'”
For example, officials must decide if they want to retain or change the Obama administration's pledge to reduce economy-wide GHGs by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. They must also decide how they will approach the Green Climate Fund to help poor countries address climate change, and they must begin to develop a new target that would be submitted in 2020.
Regarding Trump's recent moves on international economic issues, Eule said “the president is a dealmaker. I would not be surprised if he doesn't try to use any sort of announcement . . . as a way to gain leverage” on one of several other issues.
Revised Target
If Trump does stay in the deal, most observers expect him to scrap Obama's GHG target. According to a recent Axios report, the rhetoric from one aggressive Paris critic, Myron Ebell of the Conservative Enterprise Institute, “is softening oh so slightly, and he's saying now that no matter what decision is made, it'll be portrayed as withdrawal.”
Ebell tells Axios: “I'm pretty sure whatever they do they're going to say it's withdrawal. There are different ways to withdraw.”
McKenna in his memo argues submitting a weaker goal “is inconsistent with the plain language” of the agreement itself. He cites language in the December 2015 deal that a participating country “may at any time adjust its existing [target] with a view to enhancing its level of ambition.”
But other sources say Trump could submit a new, weaker target. WRI's Light -- who helped negotiate aspects of the deal -- said “there is nothing technically in the agreement that would prohibit” the administration from doing so, in part because the clause cited by McKenna does not say enhancing ambition is the only factor a country must weigh when revising its target.
However, Light said that offering a softer GHG target would be “completely at odds with the spirit of the agreement,” and that no other country is signaling that it plans to submit a softer goal. The administration would be “isolating itself” by taking that step, he said.
One possible revised target -- outlined by Tom Lawler of the International Emissions Trading Association -- would align with a “current measures” GHG projection contained in an Obama administration report to the United Nations. That would presume a 12-16 percent emission cut from 2005 levels by 2025, and the previous administration had stressed that “should not be interpreted” as a business as usual projection.
Also, former Obama climate official Paul Bodnar, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, recently floated a “deeper target” over a longer period of time, perhaps to 2035, while assuming more CCS availability. --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/critics-hone-arguments-ahead-major-white-house-meeting-paris-pact
-
Trump EPA Urged To Reconsider Obama Revisions To Regional Haze Rule
Apr 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Alaska and electric utilities are petitioning the Trump EPA to reconsider an Obama-era rule that bolsters federal land managers' role in overseeing states' plans for reducing haze-forming emissions, with critics of the regulation -- which also faces a host of legal challenges -- arguing it would result in unnecessary and onerous obligations.
EPA finalized its revised rule on curbing regional haze Jan. 10, and made the rule immediately effective, producing accusations from industry that the outgoing Obama EPA flouted normal procedures which would have made the rule effective at some later date, in order to avoid review of the regulation under President Donald Trump. Although the new administration halted some 11th-hour Obama EPA rules, it did not affect the haze rule update.
The rule bolstered the role of federal land managers for weighing in on the adequacy of state implementation plans (SIPs) for reducing haze-forming emissions and delayed submission dates for SIPs for complying with the haze program, which aims to cut air pollution to improve visibility in "Class I" national parks and wilderness areas.
States are now crafting SIPs for the second implementation period, from 2018-2028, where they will focus on long-term strategy (LTS) and reasonable progress goals (RPG), rather than best available retrofit technology (BART), a one-time control technology requirement mandated under the program's first phase from 2008-2018.
Alaska and power sector members including the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), Southwestern Public Service Company, Entergy Services, Inc., and Cleco Power LLC have all filed petitions for the Trump EPA to administratively reconsider the rule.
UARG in its petition criticizes the unusual immediate effective date of the rule, saying, "the only plausible reason for the effective-date change in the published Rule was to evade the current Administration's normal regulatory review," noting differences between the version initially signed by Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and the Federal Register version, which included the immediate effective date based on a rationale that EPA can take such steps where they result in immediate relief.
But UARG says, "Here, the relief provided by the Rule would not have been affected in the least by retaining the 30-day effective date that the as-signed Rule established because, in the absence of the Rule's SIP-submittal deadline extension, the SIP submittal deadline still would not occur until July 31, 2018."
Alaska in its petition says that EPA "failed to respond to Alaska's specific and unique concerns raised in its comments on the Proposed Rule" that the administration floated May 4, 2016. Instead, "EPA adopted a 'one-size-fits-all' rule that may address international sources of haze in the lower 48 contiguous states bordering Mexico or southern Canada but ignores Alaska's unique geography as an Arctic state impacted by Asian dust from Russia and China and Arctic Haze from Asia and Europe," Alaska says.
Southwestern Public Service Company, Entergy Services, Inc., and Cleco Power LLC in their petition for reconsideration say EPA must reconsider the rule "in light of recent executive orders directing federal agencies to reduce regulatory costs and/or eliminate or modify regulations that impose unnecessary costs or burdens."
Portions of the rule impose "costs with no benefits," the utilities say. For example, "EPA's new interpretation of 'reasonable progress' requires states to impose controls on sources, even when such controls are unnecessary to achieve reasonable progress during the planning period covered by the SIP."
Pending Litigation
The rule is also subject to pending consolidated litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case State of Texas v. EPA, facing challenges by multiple states and industry groups.
In a March 31 statement of issues, Texas says the rule "is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law because it converts the statutory discretion States have in considering the conclusions of a federal land manager into a mandatory requirement that States must respond through costly formal revision of their regional haze state implementation plan."
The state says that the rule creates a new and unlawful mandate for states to alter their state implementation plans (SIPs) for compliance with EPA's regional haze program in accordance with decisions made by federal land managers under the reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) program. RAVI is an older program predating the haze rule allowing federal land managers to weigh in on haze-forming emissions they believe are impacting visibility at specific Class I areas, but industry and some states believe the program is now redundant.
Texas in its statement of issues further says the final haze rule "fails to properly address the impacts of international emissions of pollutants on visibility in Class 1 areas in the United States, especially those areas along or near an international border." Also, EPA is imposing unreasonable implementation costs for a program with purely aesthetic goals, rather than public health objectives, the state says.
UARG addressed the RAVI issue in its petition for reconsideration, saying that changes to the rule are warranted because of concerns over RAVI and international emissions, but also because of a key policy change EPA makes in the rule. "Under EPA's interpretation, states must first determine the measures to be included in an LTS based on an assessment of the reasonable progress factors and only then calculate the RPGs that would result from implementing those measures," reversing the order in which states previously went about these tasks, UARG says.
The three utilities in their reconsideration petition make a similar point, and call for the abolition of RAVI, which they call "unnecessary" and they say unlawfully impedes state authority to craft haze plans.
Other litigants suing over the rule include the states of Alabama, Arkansas, North Dakota, and electric utilities Big Brown Power, Entergy, Northwestern Corp., Southwestern Public Service Co., UARG, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with the environmental group Appalachian Mountain Club. The National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club are intervening on EPA's behalf to defend the rule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-epa-urged-reconsider-obama-revisions-regional-haze-rule
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested