Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/18/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) NACD President Byer Optimistic on US Regulatory Reform
Apr 18, 2017 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
Amid continuing dialogue with US government officials, the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) is hopeful on changes in US policies that would benefit members, especially involving regulatory reform. -
(ACC Mentioned) Marcellus Conference Set for May
Apr 18, 2017 | Herald Dispatch
By Associated Press
The Marcellus and Manufacturing Development Conference will be held next month at the Waterfront Place Hotel in Morgantown. hosted by the West Virginia Manufacturers Association. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Urges EPA to Put the Brakes on TCE Ban
Apr 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have urged the EPA to delay regulatory action on the solvent trichloroethylene until the agency has completed its evaluation of the substance under the new TSCA. -
Agencies to Begin Implementing Trump ‘Budget Blueprint’
Apr 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has instructed agencies to take immediate action to begin implementing President Trump’s 'budget blueprint' as part of an effort to reform the federal government and reduce its civilian workforce. -
French and US Environmental Bodies Renew Partnership
Apr 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) have renewed their collaboration on scientific and technical projects. -
Does Methane Rule Review Shut Out Public Input?
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Don Nelson estimates he can spot 60 or 70 natural gas flares from his North Dakota ranch — even now that the state has raised its gas capture rate to nearly 90 percent. -
Upholding the BLM Methane Rule is a No-Brainer for Our Energy Security and a Stronger America
Apr 18, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Stephen A. Cheney
In the last decade, our country has secured greater energy security by diversifying our energy portfolio into renewables and energy efficiency as we continue to develop our domestic natural resources, including our oil and gas reserves, across our public lands. -
States, Industry Debate Litigation's Fate as EPA Reviews Rule
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Supporters and opponents of an Obama-era effort to slash methane emissions from the oil and gas industry made their pitches last night for whether litigation over U.S. EPA's rule should continue. -
Alaska Sends LNG Megaproject Plans to FERC
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska yesterday filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to build an ambitious multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline and export project. -
Cities Will Gain from Open Competition in Water Infrastructure
Apr 18, 2017 | Washington Examiner
By Bonner R. Cohen
In the wake of the severe water-contamination crisis that put Flint, Michigan's 100,000 residents at risk of lead poisoning, fixing the nation's decaying underground water infrastructure is a task that can no longer be ignored. -
Hazardous Material Spills at Tesla's Gigafactory
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Emergency officials are investigating a hazardous material spill at Tesla Inc.'s Gigafactory battery plant in Nevada that occurred yesterday. -
BP Says North Slope Well Leak Under Control
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
A leaking North Slope oil and gas production well was shut down late Sunday, three days after a BP subsidiary first reported that the facility was spewing natural gas and oil into the air. -
Natural Gas is Leaking from City Pipes, but Spotting Leaks is Getting Easier.
Apr 18, 2017 | Ars Technica (in Real Clear Energy)
By Megan Geuss
Researchers from Colorado State University have been working with Google Street View to map pervasive natural-gas leaks. -
PHMSA Increases Penalties for Hazmat Violations
Apr 18, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
U.S. pipeline regulators are increasing penalties for improperly transporting hazardous materials, according to a final rule to be published in Wednesday's Federal Register. -
Your Guide to Who's Who in the Paris Agreement Showdown
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Evan Lehmann
President Trump's top advisers will meet in the White House today to resolve a monthslong conflict about whether the United States should quit or continue with the Paris climate agreement. -
Trump Officials Postpone Meeting on Paris Climate Pact
Apr 18, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Trump administration officials have postponed a meeting scheduled for Tuesday to discuss the U.S. government’s position on the Paris climate change agreement.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) NACD President Byer Optimistic on US Regulatory Reform
Apr 18, 2017 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
Amid continuing dialogue with US government officials, the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) is hopeful on changes in US policies that would benefit members, especially involving regulatory reform.
“We definitely want to see regulatory reform as government agencies have been using guidance documents as rule of law – an end-around to the regulatory process,” said Byer.
“Rulemaking is there for a reason, and all stakeholders should have a chance to comment on it, so it can be reconciled and put forward in its final form,” he added.
In 2015, the NACD joined the American Chemistry Council (ACC) in a lawsuit against the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) for issuing new and immediate Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements through a memo that would significantly expand the number of facilities covered by the PSM standard. The suit was settled in July 2016.
Byer sees the change in US political leadership as being more business friendly and seeks to ensure agencies are following proper rulemaking procedures.
“It sounds crazy to have a law codifying that you need to follow the law. But we want to see something in law that stipulates that if you want to change something, you have to go through the rulemaking process,” said Byer.
To this effect, the NACD supports the House-introduced Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. Introduced on 3 January 2017, this bill would require federal agencies to “make all preliminary and final factual determinations [on rules] based on evidence” and to consider several factors, including the legal authority under which a rule may be proposed, whether other rules that may have created a problem addressed by the new rule can be changed or scrapped, alternatives to the new rule, and the potential costs and benefits associated with the new rule.
He is also encouraged by US President Trump’s executive order stating that for every new regulation created by a government agency, two must be removed.
“Our number one priority is safety and security, but we have to make sure regulations are justifiable in cost and effectiveness,” said Byer.
CONGRESSIONAL CHEMISTRY CAUCUS
Byer applauds the growth of the bipartisan Congressional Chemistry Caucus to advance the industry’s cause. The House of Representatives launched its caucus in April 2016, and on 28 March 2017, the Senate created its caucus.
Among the Senate caucus’ goals are “to underscore the importance of employing sound science to create effective public policy and to promote initiatives that encourage the development of chemical manufacturing and a new generation of chemists in the US through world-class education and research programs”.
As of mid-April, the Congressional Chemistry Caucus had 36 members in the House (11 Democrats, 25 Republicans) and nine in the Senate (five Democrats, four Republicans).
“We are getting like-minded members of Congress to join us in advancing regulatory reform,” said Byer.
While Byer is largely encouraged by the new administration’s initial efforts, the proposed elimination of the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is another matter.
“This is disconcerting. The new leadership is doing a great job. You might not agree with the CSB, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have an agency to evaluate accidents and make recommendations,” said Byer.
“It provides a substantial benefit, and it’s not good optics to eliminate it. The CSB is very much our NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board),” he added.
US BORDER TAX IMPACT
A US border adjustment tax (BAT) would hit US chemical distributors particularly hard, if implemented.
“We have concerns about the BAT – this could be challenging for members that import,” said Byer. “Many of our members import from China, Mexico and Europe, and sell primarily domestically [in the US].”
While Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed a tax plan that includes a BAT, its viability is in doubt amid opposition among Senate Republicans and Democrats, along with major business groups such as retailers and refiners.
A BAT in its purest form would exempt all export sales from tax, while not allowing imported raw materials and cost of goods sold to be deducted as an expense. This would give companies huge incentive to manufacture in the US to export, as well as discourage imports.
The NACD would clearly prefer tax reform without a BAT. Lower taxes would free up more capital for small businesses to invest, Byer said.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/04/18/10098292/nacd-president-byer-optimistic-on-us-regulatory-reform/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Marcellus Conference Set for May
Apr 18, 2017 | Herald Dispatch
By Associated Press
The Marcellus and Manufacturing Development Conference will be held next month at the Waterfront Place Hotel in Morgantown. hosted by the West Virginia Manufacturers Association.
The conference, which brings together representatives of the oil and gas industry, runs TuesdayMay 2, through Wednesday, May 3. This year's session also will feature a Natural Gas Expo, sponsored by the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia and the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association, according to a news release.
The MMDC programs will address many issues affecting the Appalachian, including infrastructure, taxes, environmental concerns, capital investments, training initiatives, and cracker and downstream site selection opportunities.
Speakers scheduled include West Virginia Secretary of Commerce H. Wood "Woody" Thrasher; Martha Moore, senior director of Policy Analysis and Economics at the American Chemistry Council; Karen Fletcher, CEO of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, RAPID Manufacturing Institute; and Rachel Jones, director of Energy and Resources Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.
"We are so excited to be able to present such a dynamic program for the sixth year in a row," said WVMA President Rebecca McPhail. "This event has become a wonderful learning experience and networking opportunity for the manufacturing industry in West Virginia and the entire Appalachian region."
For registration information, visit https://mmdc.wvma.com by April 30.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/business/marcellus-conference-set-for-may/article_fcc83ccf-2103-5ca4-98fa-17bdc6a19143.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Urges EPA to Put the Brakes on TCE Ban
Apr 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have urged the EPA to delay regulatory action on the solvent trichloroethylene until the agency has completed its evaluation of the substance under the new TSCA.
This is according to comments submitted to the agency, last month, on its proposed TSCA section 6 rule that would ban the substance’s use as an aerosol degreaser and for spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities.
NGOs say the science strongly supports that the uses of TCE subject to the rule present unreasonable risks and that the agency’s proposed bans are necessary to meet its statutory obligations to impose requirements to limit these.
But broader comments submitted by industry say the EPA failed to meet statutory requirements of the recently reformed TSCA, in its first attempt to ban a substance under section 6 in close to thirty years. These comments were largely echoed in others more specific to the TCE rulemaking.
Risk assessment validity
The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) urged the EPA to withdraw the proposed rule on the grounds that it is based on a "very deficient risk assessment".
Central to the lobby group's position is that the TCE workplan risk assessment does not comport with ‘best science’ requirements under section 26 of the new law. It says that the assessment "expressly relied" on a non-cancer risk study that has been "heavily criticised in the published literature".
Other studies have failed to reproduce the effects seen in the study, it said, and separate regulatory agencies — including the California EPA — have rejected the study as "deficient".
While the agency is permitted to propose a section 6 rule for a substance, based on an assessment conducted under the old TSCA, the HSIA said, it would be a "better course" for it to assess the risks from these applications in its upcoming evaluation of TCE under the new law.
The American Chemistry Council also cited "significant concerns" with the validity of the Johnson et al study that demonstrated non-cancer foetal heart malformations. Given that these have not yet been resolved, it said, the results of the study should not be incorporated into the rulemaking.
But the Environmental Defense Fund said that the science issues associated with the study have been "amply vetted, peer reviewed and should be considered resolved".
It also noted that while the Johnson study was used to derive the reference concentration, "many studies — including human, animal and mechanistic — indicate foetal cardiac effects resulting from TCE exposure."
The HSIA submitted multiple requests to the EPA to delay the comment deadlines for two proposed bans on TCE in order to reproduce this study. Its requests came under fire from NGOs, which noted the study in question was completed over a decade earlier and that industry has had sufficient time to replicate it.
The agency extended both deadlines by 30 days. In more recent comments, the trade group has told the EPA that due to laboratory errors the study has not been completed in time.
Comments for a rule governing TCE’s use in vapour degreasing are due later this week.
Alternatives and costs questioned
The new TSCA requires the EPA to consider when prohibiting or restricting specific uses of a chemical, whether "technically and economically feasible alternatives" will be reasonably available, when the proposed restriction takes effect.
The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) said many TCE uses have shifted to other solvents, and "the few products that remain are niche, critical uses for which alternative viable solvents simply do not exist." Water-based cleaners, as mentioned by the EPA in the proposed rule, are "ineffective and unsafe" for many of the uses of TCE-containing aerosol degreasers.
The lobby group said there are several industrial and commercial applications that "deserve serious consideration for ‘critical use’ exemptions".
The Drycleaning & Laundry Institute (DLI) asked the agency to "correct" a statement in the proposed rule that "many other alternatives are available and equally effective" by removing reference to the alternatives being "equally effective".
The National Cleaners Association, a retail dry cleaning trade group, agreed that alternatives to TCE are not as effective, may harm the garment, and are more time consuming to achieve similar results.
It said that banning TCE in these applications would result in an increased cost, equal to 4-5% of gross sales. This is in contrast to the EPA's economic analysis, which said the agency "assumes that the users of TCE aerosol degreasers and TCE dry cleaning spot removers are not expected to incur any costs associated with any requirements that discourage or prohibit the use of TCE."
The Association of Global Automakers – which was offering general comments on section 6 rules – said calculating costs and benefits off such an "unfounded assumption ... lacks transparency and fails to follow sound economic analysis principles".
It urged the agency to collect "reasonably ascertainable information from the regulated community".
But the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law said that the EPA’s economic analysis is "overwhelmingly cost-benefit justified", as it generates an estimated $9.3m to $25m in annualised benefits while imposing only $170k in costs – based on cancer risks alone.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55210/industry-urges-epa-to-put-the-brakes-on-tce-ban
-
Agencies to Begin Implementing Trump ‘Budget Blueprint’
Apr 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has instructed agencies to take immediate action to begin implementing President Trump’s 'budget blueprint' as part of an effort to reform the federal government and reduce its civilian workforce.
In a memo sent on 12 April, the OMB told agencies to plan for the funding levels in President Trump’s March proposed budget outline and to develop a plan to maximise employee performance by 30 June. Agencies must also submit an 'Agency Reform Plan' to OMB in September as part of their 2019 budget submissions.
"Too often the [government’s] focus has been on creating new programmes instead of eliminating or reforming programmes which are no longer operating effectively," the memo said. "The result has been too many overlapping and outdated programmes, rules and processes."
Congress must still approve Mr Trump’s proposed budget before it becomes official, and, traditionally, it makes substantial changes before doing so. But the memo, nonetheless, has instructed agencies to begin planning their funding in line with the president’s plan.
‘Core statutory mission’
The budget blueprint takes direct aim at the US EPA, consistent with the administration’s effort to roll back its regulatory authority. The agency must now begin to implement a proposed 31% reduction in spending and elimination of approximately 3,200 agency jobs.
Scott Pruitt, EPA’s administrator, said this would return the EPA to "its core statutory mission".
In a 21 March internal memo, David Bloom, EPA’s acting chief information officer, provided agency leaders with a budget based on Mr Trump’s blueprint that shows how these changes would look on the ground.
A number of offices associated with the agency’s chemical management duties and implementation of the revised TSCA would be affected, as follows:
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) would be eliminated;
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) would see its funding cut from nearly $483m to $250m, hitting the full spectrum of agency research including on chemical safety; and
the Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) Research programme would face a 44% reduction in budget and 22% cut in staffing. The programme works to develop new prediction techniques and chemical toxicity tests, and to design tools to advance the management of chemical risks. Its research areas include computational toxicology, nanotechnology, endocrine disrupting chemicals, human health and pesticides.
As for TSCA implementation, the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is expected to see an increase of nearly $14m in funding over previous levels to support the law. However, as Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) points out, the increased budget for this appears to come from the new fees collected from industry under the programme.
And he said that while it may appear positive for TSCA that the OCSPP base funding is expected to remain intact, the programme is "highly dependent" on other agency functions, including several facing cuts or elimination.
It would be "preposterous" to imagine that the EPA could "somehow neatly carve out one programme area and keep it functioning well, when the carving knives are rampantly slashing everything around it", he added.https://chemicalwatch.com/55231/agencies-to-begin-implementing-trump-budget-blueprint
-
French and US Environmental Bodies Renew Partnership
Apr 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) have renewed their collaboration on scientific and technical projects. The two previously worked together on endocrine disruptors – with a focus on bisphenol A.
The ten-year agreement aims to improve their understanding of the effects of the environment on human health and to help lessen their impact, through research and development of knowledge.
The NIEHS oversees the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a key objective of which includes assessing chemical agents that may affect public health, by developing and implementing innovative tools in toxicology and molecular biology.
According to a press release, Anses said it is interested in the federal programme for which there is no equivalent in France or Europe. It also said it has recommended creating an inter-agency fund to finance large-scale studies and research to consolidate knowledge on health and environmental risks.
"This is a field where knowledge gaps exist and for which there is a particularly acute social demand for independent public research," the release said. "The agency will continue to advocate the implementation of such a programme at European level."
https://chemicalwatch.com/55244/french-and-us-environmental-bodies-renew-partnership
-
Does Methane Rule Review Shut Out Public Input?
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Don Nelson estimates he can spot 60 or 70 natural gas flares from his North Dakota ranch — even now that the state has raised its gas capture rate to nearly 90 percent.
Ahead of the release of the Bureau of Land Management's final Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, Nelson attended two hearings to testify in support of the regulation to curb gas flaring, venting and leaking from oil extraction operations on federally controlled lands.
"I think it's the biggest waste I've ever seen in my life," he said.
Nelson joins a chorus of Westerners and environmentalists calling on President Trump's Interior Department not to shut out public input on its reconsideration of the BLM rule (Greenwire, April 12). Following the release of Trump's "energy independence" executive order, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke called for a 21-day review to determine whether the rule — and at least two other department regulations — was fully consistent with the new administration's policies.
Zinke handed down his order March 29.
The review process isn't unlike efforts by previous administrations to look back at rules introduced by their predecessors, according to an Interior spokeswoman. The executive and secretarial orders simply offer a more formal process, the agency says.
Putting a 21-day deadline on the process is not typical, said Alexandra Teitz, who previously served as counselor to former BLM Director Neil Kornze.
"Although new administrations commonly review previous administration policies, this deadline-driven rule review process is not usual," she said.
Interior's review of an Office of Natural Resources Revenue regulation is an example of the course it could ultimately take on the BLM methane rule. Earlier this month, Interior proposed to repeal recent amendments to ONRR's oil, gas and coal valuation rule. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for public comment appeared in the Federal Register (Energywire, April 4).
"If Interior wants to do this in a legally defensible way, it will of course have to go through public notice and comment, and it has to address any substantive comments made from any party, whether it's industry or an environmental group," said Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma.
The alliance has been a vocal critic of the BLM methane rule. It has supported repeal of the regulation under the Congressional Review Act, which would — with the support of a simple majority in Congress — remove the rule and preclude BLM from reissuing a rule in "substantially the same form" as the disapproved regulation.
"It's troubling that all this work that an agency that we put in charge to manage these areas could be undermined by a simple vote," said Garett Reppenhagen, Rocky Mountain director of the veterans' advocacy group Vet Voice Foundation. He attended two public forums on the methane rule.
Efforts to repeal the BLM methane rule under the CRA have stalled in the Senate. The deadline for voting on CRA resolutions is May 10 — 12 business days after Congress returns from April recess, according to the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Agencies, on the other hand, are beholden to the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires opportunity for public comment.
"If Interior doesn't follow the process, they leave themselves open to litigation," Sgamma said. "It just doesn't make sense not to go through the regular Administrative Procedures Act process."
Hearings reveal 'passion' on flaring
Scant details around the 21-day review process and moves by the Trump administration to rescind Obama-era rules using blunt instruments like the CRA have raised concerns for some proponents of the BLM methane rule.
Kristin Winn, a member of Citizens for Clean Air in Grand Junction, Colo., said she backed the regulation because it ends states' patchwork approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. While Colorado has strong regulations on methane releases from oil and gas operations, neighboring states like Utah do not, she said.
"When the wind blows from the west, all of that stuff blows into our valley," Winn said. "Air quality knows no boundaries."
Last year, Winn traveled to Denver to speak in support of the BLM rule. What would normally be a four-hour trip turned into a seven-hour drive after a rock fall in Glen Canyon forced her group to take a detour.
Turning back wasn't an option, Winn said.
"When BLM talks about holding these public meetings, it's incredibly important to people to be able to go," she said. "It's a little troubling to me when, after three years of soliciting public input, the Interior Department thinks it's going to take them three weeks to review this rule."
Don Schreiber drove an hour and a half each way to a Feb. 16, 2016, public listening session in Farmington, N.M. He says flaring on public lands near his New Mexico ranch threatens not only his property, but also his health.
He believes that — even if Interior considers comments from him and other proponents of the rule in its 21-day review — the process is inherently biased toward industry perspectives.
"It reduces the passion and the personal experience that can be conveyed to a panel of decision-makers during a public forum," Schreiber said.
Those passions were on display at last year's hearing, he said. The format allowed for an open and respectful exchange of ideas, he added. Schreiber counts many of the BLM rule's opponents as his friends.
"We have strong and sometimes heated discussions about the rule, but that doesn't mean we're not friends," he said. "I have a unique sympathy for those who are defending the rule. I don't want to lose the family history we have by disrespecting those people. I have a lot of sympathy for why they hold their point of view."
Over the weekend, Schreiber attended a farm bill listening session in Durango, Colo. He said he looks forward to the day the dust settles on the Trump administration's multipronged effort to dismantle the BLM methane rule.
Only then will he be able to fully turn his attention to his true passion — his ranch.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/18/stories/1060053185
-
Upholding the BLM Methane Rule is a No-Brainer for Our Energy Security and a Stronger America
Apr 18, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Stephen A. Cheney
In the last decade, our country has secured greater energy security by diversifying our energy portfolio into renewables and energy efficiency as we continue to develop our domestic natural resources, including our oil and gas reserves, across our public lands.
These publicly-owned resources help power our day to day lives, including fueling our cars and heating our homes. But for years, oil and gas companies have been wasting finite natural gas to the tune of $330 million dollars each year; with every bit that’s vented, flared and leaked, our energy security is slowly weakened and our standing on the world stage diminishes.
When that natural gas is wasted, taxpayers lose out on tens of millions of dollars in royalty revenue every single year.
And methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 80 times more powerful that carbon dioxide as a climate change pollutant. Wasting energy and threatening our climate when there are alternatives makes no sense.
Much like we send our troops overseas, often to energy producing countries in the Middle East, we send our representatives and senators to Washington, D.C. to defend their constituents and safeguard valuable natural resources.
Unfortunately, some in Congress are shirking this responsibility to voters and seem prepared to allow our valuable public energy resources to continue to go up in flames, at the behest of the oil and gas industry.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management finalized the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, which aims to curb methane waste from of venting, flaring, and leaking across our public lands. The House, just a few weeks ago, passed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would not only block the BLM methane rule, but it would prevent any substantially similar rule limiting methane waste from being put in place ever—without an act of Congress.
The Senate is next to consider the CRA. There was bipartisan opposition to the rollback in the House, and the Senate vote is very close where one or two senators will make all the difference.
And in a recent Secretarial Order, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke issued a 21-day review of the BLM methane waste rule. The BLM spent three years engaging communities across the country, to understand how methane waste has impacted their communities. Zinke and the Department of Interior should not ignore the scope and breadth of that support as they conduct that review.
Recently, four Generals, an Admiral, and more than 2,000 U.S. veterans signed a letter addressed to the Senate—urging them to defend the BLM's waste rule. In their letter, they underscored how our nation’s energy security and the development of our natural resources are inextricably linked.
Wasting methane is not only irresponsible, it has serious national security implications that could impact America’s role as a leader in fostering energy security. Today, Russia has a stranglehold on natural gas markets from Italy to Germany to the Ukraine. Our domestic energy resources should be put on the open market and not go up in flames while our friends are too dependent on Russian energy resources.
Thankfully, we have the tools in place to cut natural gas waste. In fact, the methane mitigation industry has continued to grow as states and the federal government have taken action to cut methane. Now, more than 75 companies at over 500 locations across the U.S. are putting Americans to work manufacturing equipment and finding and fixing leaks in the field.
The BLM rule will help to grow that burgeoning industry and as we ensure American-owned resources don’t go to waste and taxpayers receive their fair share when natural gas is developed on public and tribal lands.
Our senators need to defend these resources and their constituents by opposing the CRA resolution that threatens America’s energy security, and the Department of Interior should work to make sure the rule is strongly and swiftly implemented.
Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.) is Chief Executive Officer, American Security Project
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/329188-upholding-the-blm-methane-rule-is-a-no-brainer-for-our
-
States, Industry Debate Litigation's Fate as EPA Reviews Rule
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Supporters and opponents of an Obama-era effort to slash methane emissions from the oil and gas industry made their pitches last night for whether litigation over U.S. EPA's rule should continue.
As expected, industry and state critics of the methane standards argued to freeze a legal battle while the Trump administration reviews New Source Performance Standards that crack down on methane from new oil and gas operations.
State supporters of the regulation, meanwhile, made their case for keeping the litigation moving.
The legal scuffle stems from a Trump administration request that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hold the case in abeyance while EPA rethinks the standards. The president's recent "energy independence" executive order directs EPA and other agencies to review any regulation that could burden domestic energy development.
More than a dozen states and a large coalition of oil and gas industry groups — who challenged the standards after EPA finalized them last summer — now argue that the court should put the litigation on hold to conserve judicial resources.
"Such abeyance would conserve judicial and party resources by deferring and perhaps eliminating the need for the parties to brief the many complex issues presented in these cases, and the need for the Court thereafter to consider the lawfulness of the 2016 NSPS Rule ... during the pendency of EPA's review," state challengers told the court.
Supporters of the methane standards pushed to keep the case in motion. In a filing last night, 11 states and the city of Chicago argued that the legal controversy is still very much alive because the standards are in effect, and Trump's executive order "does not alter EPA's obligation to regulate methane and VOC emissions under the Clean Air Act."
They argue that the methane standards are actually in line with the executive order because they cut down on waste at oil and gas sites, where methane often leaks or is burned off.
"Every ton of methane leaked to the atmosphere is a ton of methane that cannot be sold, and for producing states, may result in lost tax and royalty benefits," the filing said. "The 2016 Rule will therefore deliver significant climate protection and public health benefits at a favorable benefit-cost ratio."
The states noted, however, that they would not oppose a 90-day extension to proceedings in the case, which has not yet been briefed. Environmental groups made a similar proposal in a filing last week (Energywire, April 17).
Similar debates over whether to continue litigation are playing out in cases dealing with other EPA rules that are facing Trump administration review — most notably the Clean Power Plan.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/18/stories/1060053194
-
Alaska Sends LNG Megaproject Plans to FERC
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska yesterday filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to build an ambitious multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline and export project.
The Alaska Gasline Development Corp., which is handling the venture for the state, also submitted construction applications to four other federal agencies that will oversee parts of the endeavor — the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
AGDC President Keith Meyer described the applications as "a major milestone in moving the Alaska LNG project forward."
"This is the culmination of over one million man hours invested in project engineering and design, more than 193,000 acres mapped, over 300 streams surveyed, thousands of boreholes drilled along the proposed route, and approximately 50,000 pages of material submitted to FERC," Meyer said in a statement.
The state plan, which has an estimated price tag of $40 billion to $45 billion, includes construction of a North Slope gas treatment plant, an 800-mile natural gas pipeline, a liquefaction plant and an LNG export terminal on Alaska's southern shores.
The AGDC board voted to file the construction applications last week, although the state still hasn't provided all the information that federal regulators requested last year about AGDC's preliminary project reports (Energywire, April 17).
Meyer predicted that FERC could complete an environmental impact statement for the project within a year and a final environmental assessment six months later. However, energy analysts say that timeline is overly ambitious because of the size and complexity of the project.
AGDC submitted the FERC permit application three years after the Alaska Legislature first authorized then-Gov. Sean Parnell (R) to partner with the state's three major oil companies to commercialize Alaska's 35 trillion cubic feet of North Slope natural gas (Energywire, April 22, 2014).
Under the original plan, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Alaska and ConocoPhillips Alaska agreed to work with the state on preliminary engineering and environmental studies for the massive project.
Once those reports were in, however, the public-private partnership dissolved. The three oil companies withdrew, citing low natural gas prices and an overabundance of LNG on the world market.
Instead, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) opted to have the state move forward with the project on its own. Walker and Meyer plan to change the way the gas export project is financed in hopes of getting the facility online by the mid-2020s.
They're also looking for potential customers, investors and equity partners in a number of Asian countries that are expecting increased energy demand over the next seven years.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/18/stories/1060053187
-
Cities Will Gain from Open Competition in Water Infrastructure
Apr 18, 2017 | Washington Examiner
By Bonner R. Cohen
In the wake of the severe water-contamination crisis that put Flint, Michigan's 100,000 residents at risk of lead poisoning, fixing the nation's decaying underground water infrastructure is a task that can no longer be ignored. Addressing the problem will require a serious discussion about how to spend water systems' limited resources so as to make the best use of the innovative products and technologies that are available today.
In his April 4 article in the Washington Examiner, "Cheap Pipes Will Cost Communities Over Time," Darren Bearson paints an inaccurate picture of efforts underway in state legislatures aimed at removing barriers to competitive bidding in underground water infrastructure projects. For example, the claim that bills pending in Ohio and Michigan would "force municipalities to solely consider cost on the front-end of the decision making…" is false.
They do nothing of the sort. Legislation introduced in Michigan, for example, simply requires that any public drinking water system receiving state funding not adopt or adhere to any existing ordinances that restrict or prohibit the use of pipe or pipe materials that meet the engineering specification for the project. It is then up to the project engineer to select the pipe and pipe material that best meet local needs. Thus, municipalities are not "forced" solely to consider cost, either at the beginning or at the end of the decision-making process.
Procurement specifications that date from the age of rotary phones and black and white TVs – if not earlier – cannot be relied upon to take advantage of the dramatic advancements in technology offered by modern piping materials. All PVC pipes serving American water systems are made domestically by one of the 100 PVC manufacturers in the U.S. And all piping used in water systems in the United States, including PVC pipe, must meet the strict specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials and the American Water Works Association.
Open competition for piping in water infrastructure projects expands the choices from which engineers can choose and lowers costs. That's what's driving procurement-reform legislation in Michigan and Ohio, as well as similar efforts in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Arkansas.
Showing that lessons have been learned from the Flint disaster, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder ordered a comprehensive review of state and local water infrastructure practices. His 21st Century Infrastructure Report recommended that Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality, municipalities, and utilities "put in place a process to periodically review and update new technologies, procurement manuals or standard operating practices to allow for open competition for technology and materials meeting relevant standards."
Costs, of course, are a huge concern for cash-strapped municipalities, and upgrading the nation's water, sewer, and storm-water systems at an affordable price to ratepayers and taxpayers strengthens the argument for open competition. A recent report by Massachusetts-based BCC Research compared the cost of pipe replacement in four Michigan cities: two with open competition (Monroe and Livonia) and two without (Port Huron and Grand Rapids). The study found that communities with open competition enjoyed lower pipe costs, on average, for water main installation or replacement projects, reaching average savings of 27 percent for 8-inch pipe and 34 percent for 12-inch pipe, or up to $114,000 per mile of pipe, compared with municipalities with closed competition. Significantly, the researchers found that competitive bidding lowers the cost of both PVC and ductile-iron pipes.
The American Society of Civil Engineers recently released its 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, which gave the nation's drinking water infrastructure a grade of "D." This was not a vote of confidence in the status quo.
Small wonder that a 2013 U.S. Conference of Mayors report on underground water infrastructure concluded, "Closed procurement processes lead to unnecessary costs, and may diminish the public's confidence in a local government's ability to provide cost-effective services."
So what's wrong with a little competition?
Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is the author of "Fixing America's Crumbling Underground Water Infrastructure," published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cities-will-gain-from-open-competition-in-water-infrastructure/article/2620491?custom_click=rss
-
Hazardous Material Spills at Tesla's Gigafactory
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Emergency officials are investigating a hazardous material spill at Tesla Inc.'s Gigafactory battery plant in Nevada that occurred yesterday.
No serious injuries have been reported, according to the company.
A drum of "standard construction cleaning solvent" spilled on a loading dock, according to Tesla spokesman Dave Arnold. A small area of the building was evacuated.
"Out of an abundance of caution, a couple of employees who may have been exposed are being transferred to the local hospital," Arnold said.
Production will not be disrupted, according to Arnold.
The fire department has been on the scene to identify the spilled hazardous material.
"There was no threat to the public, no plumes or anything," said Joe Curtis, director of emergency management for Nevada's Storey County.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/18/stories/1060053210
-
BP Says North Slope Well Leak Under Control
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
A leaking North Slope oil and gas production well was shut down late Sunday, three days after a BP subsidiary first reported that the facility was spewing natural gas and oil into the air.
Late Sunday, BP and government officials handling the leak "achieved source control and killed the well," BP spokeswoman Dawn Patience said yesterday.
BP brought in well-control experts Boots & Coots, a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., to help manage the accident. Those workers entered the well house and placed a plug in the damaged aboveground piping coming off the well head.
After plugging the pipe, responders were able to pump a solution of methanol and salt water into the well, which killed it. State regulators said, however, that the well won't be officially secured until a mechanical plug is installed.
BP said it is developing a cleanup plan for the site.
Employees of BP Exploration Alaska first reported the leak early Friday morning at a well located 5 miles west of the small oil industry town of Deadhorse, Alaska. The accident occurred as frigid winds on the North Slope were gusting to 40 mph, with blowing snow and limited visibility.
Many details of the accident remain uncertain, including when the hydrocarbon release began and how much oil and gas was emitted into the environment.
Overflights of the area indicated that the oil spray did not affect tundra lands beyond the well pad. Those findings have not been confirmed by on-the-ground responders, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Alaska regulators said the accident occurred when the 40-year-old well "jacked up," or rose 3 to 4 feet vertically, causing the pressure gauge to break off. The well leaked in two places, one near the top and one farther down the well assembly.
The North Slope oil incident occurred as Hilcorp successfully shut down a natural gas leak at the company's 52-year-old offshore pipeline in the Cook Inlet.
Late last week, dive crews installed a steel and rubber clamp on the breached gas line in the Middle Ground Shoal area, which was resting on a boulder embedded in the seafloor. The leak was reported in February, and company officials said it probably started in December (Greenwire, April 10).
Hilcorp said it now plans to inspect and stabilize the natural gas line, as well as a nearby oil pipeline that was installed at the same time.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/18/stories/1060053195
-
Natural Gas is Leaking from City Pipes, but Spotting Leaks is Getting Easier.
Apr 18, 2017 | Ars Technica (in Real Clear Energy)
By Megan Geuss
Researchers from Colorado State University have been working with Google Street View to map pervasive natural-gas leaks. These leaks come from pipes that can be buried three-to-four feet below city streets. Many of the millions of miles of piping that deliver natural gas locally to urban and suburban homes are decades old—in some cases piping can be more than a century old. Older pipes can be made of cast-iron or bare steel, and they are often corroded or broken in places. But because they’re buried and because natural gas is invisible, it’s hard to tell when a pipe is leaking underneath a sidewalk. Sometimes, digging up and replacing a pipe isn’t worthwhile for the utility that owns it if the leaks isn’t an immediate risk to life and limb.
Besides the occasional explosion, there’s not much of a health risk associated with small natural-gas leaks. But natural gas is mostly comprised of methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas. Although carbon dioxide sticks around in the atmosphere longer than methane does, it’s much more potent at warming the Earth in the short term than carbon dioxide.
That should make fixing the aging, leaking pipes under our cities a municipal priority. Although utilities will sometimes send employees out to neighborhoods to measure gas leaks from their pipes, they’re not always keen to share that data with citizens or even researchers. Even if utility workers are willing to share, making a complete census of all the leaks can be challenging.
But the CSU researchers wanted to see if they could make getting that information to the public easier, and last month they published a paper in Environmental Science and Technology. Recent years have seen the advent of cheaper, more portable gas analyzers from companies like Picarro, Los Gatos Research, and LI-COR. The lead author of the paper, Joe von Fischer, told Ars in a phone call that his team's aim was to attach these kinds of analyzers to cars and find a statistical method for weeding out leaks from non-leaks. Google Street View cars were perfect because they had a primary job (mapping), and adding high-precision methane sensors to them required no extra work on the part of Google's driver—and that cuts down on necessary resources.
Google and CSU have been running this project for several years now. They’ve shared some of the data from the first cities they surveyed with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which made all of their results accessible via interactive maps. Boston, Staten Island, and Syracuse show some of the most leak-prone piping due to corroded distribution lines. Those cities leaked 25 times more methane than cities like Burlington, Vermont, and Indianapolis, Indiana, where natural gas pipes have been upgraded more recently.
The researchers’ paper mentions that, although they had the cooperation of many utilities in their mapping project, better data is needed for this critical part of city infrastructure. “[T]here is no mandate for leak surveys to quantify leak rates [or] make such spatially explicit data available to the public,” the paper notes. But if mapping the largest natural-gas leaks in your neighborhood is easy, you can push your local representatives to help utilities fix them.
How they did it
The CSU team outfitted three 2012 Subaru Outback Imprezas from Google’s fleet with methane analyzers in the front bumper. The sensor information was sent to a system in the car that also gathered GPS data to match the methane readings with vehicle location and speed. A sensor to gather wind speed and direction was also included.
Then the researchers did a series of test runs and determined that their system could estimate leaks accurately at distances less than 20m (or 65 ft) away. Leaks 10m (33 ft) away were estimated with greatest accuracy.
Measuring leaks also means coming up with an accurate way to measure background CH4 emissions levels, which are present in every city. In previous surveys of methane leaks, 2.5 parts per million (ppm) of CH4 was considered a good threshold for finding a leak in an urban area, but the CSU researchers found a fixed threshold to be inadequate.
“CH4 levels were highly variable within and among cities and in time,” they wrote, which made comparing leaks difficult. Instead, the researchers opted to define local baseline methane emissions as an average over a two-minute window driving at approximately 40kph (25 mph). Leaks were identified as any methane reading more than than 10 percent, or more than one Standard Deviation, above that average (whichever measurement was greater).
Once they figured out how to account for background methane emissions, the researchers also threw out all data collected when the car was moving faster than 70kph (or about 44mph). This was done because spacial information (the distance between the sensor and the leak) degraded beyond that speed. It was also done because natural gas vehicles, especially trucks, are more likely to share the roads with the Google Street View cars driving at those speeds, which could potentially throw off the readings.
Then probable leaks were pinpointed by doing multiple passes down the same roads. Datapoints that had been identified as possible leaks but didn’t show up after a second pass were thrown out. The more times a leak was identified after every pass, the more confident the researchers were that this was, in fact, a leak. They aimed for two to five passes down every road they measured.
If the CSU researchers were only interested in measuring leaks for utilities, they could have stopped there. But getting the information out to the public was also a goal, so they sought out studies in science communication. They decided that, to maximize the “usefulness of the leak magnitude information,” they’d have to classify leaks as small, medium, or large. This helped the EDF build the interactive sites you can find today.
What the data tell us
The researchers admit in their paper that their measurements were conservative and their results aren’t a full census of all the leaks in a particular area. But the largest leaks are identified, and the researchers estimated that repairing the largest 20 percent of leaks could cut methane emissions from natural gas pipelines in half.
von Fischer told Ars that this research is only part of the story of natural gas emissions from local lines. “We don’t want utilities to abandon the walking leak surveys that they do,” he said. Instead, his team wants to democratize information about methane leaks. Even if the leaks don’t pose an immediate health threat, neighborhoods could take control of their greenhouse gas emissions with this information.
The broader accuracy of the Google Street View system was reflected in the fact that cities with an accelerated pipeline replacement program (APRP) had far fewer identified leaks than cities that do not. “The APRP cities of Burlington, Vermont, and Indianapolis, Indiana, registered 11 and five leaks, respectively, while we found hundreds or thousands of leaks in the non-APRP cities of Boston, Staten Island, and Syracuse,” the researchers wrote. Finding a fast way to quantify the largest leaks in a city will give municipal leaders a way to prioritize their spending on the areas that need it most.
Environmental Science and Technology, 2017. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06095 (About DOIs).
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/natural-gas-is-leaking-from-city-pipes-but-spotting-leaks-is-getting-easier/
-
PHMSA Increases Penalties for Hazmat Violations
Apr 18, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
U.S. pipeline regulators are increasing penalties for improperly transporting hazardous materials, according to a final rule to be published in Wednesday's Federal Register.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said it is increasing the penalties to account for inflation.
PHMSA can now seek a maximum of $182,877 for violations that result in death, serious illness or injury, or severe destruction of property. It can also charge a maximum of $78,376 for knowing violations of a less serious sort.
PHMSA made the changes as part of OMB mandate finalized in 2015 that required executive branch agencies to increase civil penalties in line with inflation. That brought penalty amounts up by 1.6 percent from levels set before July 2016.
Hazmat accidents have been rising in recent years, although their severity is down, according to PHMSA data. Last year 18,240 incidents were reported, the highest number since 2007. But the eight fatalities and $74 million in damages recorded were both at six-year lows.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Your Guide to Who's Who in the Paris Agreement Showdown
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Evan Lehmann
President Trump's top advisers will meet in the White House today to resolve a monthslong conflict about whether the United States should quit or continue with the Paris climate agreement.
Trump's team is split, and though there is some evidence that the pro-Paris contingent is on the ascendant, it's unknown what the group will urge the president to do.
"That could go either way," said Jeff Holmstead, a former candidate for the top job in Trump's U.S. EPA and former assistant administrator in the George W. Bush EPA.
Yet a decision must be made. The administration has pledged to announce one before the president heads to Sicily, Italy, in late May for a meeting of the Group of Seven major economies.
On one side of the question are policy experts like National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and George David Banks, a special assistant to the president for international energy and environment, who caution that a departure from the globally popular deal could complicate Trump's efforts on trade and security issues.
They appear to be supported by chief adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
In the other corner are campaign die-hards like chief strategist Steve Bannon and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Less known are the opinions of other Cabinet officials, many of whom have been invited to the meeting.
Whatever the decision is, former EPA transition chief Myron Ebell predicts the messaging will be the same. Trump, he believes, will cast his decision as a fulfillment of his campaign commitment.
"I'm pretty sure that at the end of the day, whatever they do, they're going to call it withdrawal," he said. "That's how they'll play it."
Ebell and other conservative proponents of a Paris retreat have been searching for ways to make it as difficult as possible for Trump to keep the United States in the Paris Agreement. Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, launched an online ad and petition this morning describing any advisers who support the agreement as part of "Washington's swamp," which the president promised to "drain" if elected.
Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners LLC, said he suspects that whoever leaked the existance of the meeting to the press might have believed that Trump is poised to remain in the global deal.
"When you lose, you leak," he said.
President Trump
He's the boss, and he'll make the final decision. Trump has reversed himself on several issues in April, but his energy policies — and promises — are not among them. A decision to remain in Paris would end that streak, after he pledged to "cancel" the climate deal while campaigning.
Today's meeting is being promoted as a crucible in which competing factions within the White House will work to resolve their divergent views on a pact forged under the umbrella of the United Nations. But finding a consensus might be an unlikely outcome of the meeting — and that could extinguish expectations for a straightforward recommendation to quit or continue.
Some insiders expect the session to produce a number of conclusions, or options, for the president to choose from. That could give him a better understanding of the agreement, and the ramifications of quitting or continuing. But it might not hand him a quick answer.
Whatever he chooses, it will lead to additional decisions with political knots.
If Trump stays in, he might choose to weaken the United States' commitment on emissions, which is currently a reduction of 26 to 28 percent by 2025. Supporters believe that could satisfy his promise to cancel U.S. commitments. But it stands to generate a storm of criticism from conservative groups.
"If they don't withdraw, they will certainly have carping from some folks," said Holmstead. "But politically, will they not support Trump? I have a hard time seeing that."
The other path provides its own pitfalls. Withdrawing from the agreement wouldn't be easy. It could take up to four years to rescind U.S. membership if the president follows the text of the agreement. That's a lifetime in politics, and critics would demand that he act faster.
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump
After the president himself, perhaps the most influential voices in the West Wing right now belong to his son-in-law, Kushner, and daughter Ivanka Trump. And they have long been viewed as moderating voices, especially on climate change.
Ivanka, who reportedly made climate change her signature issue during the transition and who is now on the White House staff, met with actor Leonardo DiCaprio about climate change before the inauguration. And she arranged a meeting between her father and former vice president and climate change advocate Al Gore in Trump Tower, though skeptics of her influence note that on the next day, Trump tapped climate disbeliever Pruitt to head EPA.
The two have seen their influence increase in recent weeks as Trump has distanced himself from chief strategist Bannon, who threatened to eclipse his independent image. They're seen as more supportive of global engagement than Bannon and other adherents to Trump's "America First" doctrine.
They also have been credited with working to remove references to the Paris accord from a previous executive order Trump signed gutting most of former President Obama's climate change regulations (Climatewire, Feb. 24).
But Book said that if Trump opts to stay in the Paris deal, that won't necessarily mean he's abandoning the isolationist bent he campaigned on. Rather, it would mean that in this particular case, his predilection for dealmaking outweighs his desire to disengage.
Scott Pruitt
While five Cabinet members are invited to the meeting, it is unclear how many will be there in person, versus being represented by lower-level acting officials from previous administrations.
It's also unclear whether Trump will take the agencies' advice anyway.
"Trump has handled his own climate politics," said Paul Bledsoe, a senior fellow on energy with the Progressive Policy Institute. "He hasn't handed that off to anyone so far."
Trump headlined the rollout of executive agreements to roll back EPA's Clean Power Plan, for example, and personally traveled to Detroit to announce a review of vehicle emissions standards.
When it comes to Paris, Cabinet members are split between the pro- and anti-Paris camps.
Soon after his confirmation in February, Pruitt declined to answer questions on the U.N. deal, stating that the decision would fall to the State Department. But then, in an appearance on "Fox & Friends" last week, the administrator blasted Paris as "something we need to exit, in my opinion."
The statement appeared to pre-empt Trump's own decision on Paris and was one of the strongest disavowals of the deal by a member of the administration.
Some saw it as an appeal to the right-wing base. The EPA chief is under fire from conservatives who question his reluctance to attack his agency's finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health — a necessary precursor to regulations.
But Ebell, who has criticized Pruitt in the past, said he "made the right call on Paris." Without the Clean Power Plan and other domestic actions, the Paris deal could make the United States vulnerable to litigation, he said.
Rex Tillerson
Secretary of State Tillerson supported Paris in his previous job as CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp. and called for a "seat at the table" on climate negotiations during his Senate confirmation hearing.
That position won him some bipartisan praise — but he has gone silent since, not only on Paris but on a host of issues that similarly fall under his purview as chief U.S. diplomat.
Still, said Book, from an institutional perspective, Tillerson's recommendations on Paris are more important than anyone else's in the administration. The State Department did not answer questions about whether Tillerson would attend today's meeting, but he meets frequently with the president.
"There are plenty of touch points between Tillerson and Trump, and by the time you get to a meeting like the meeting happening tomorrow, it's generally the case that most of those decisions have been made," Book said.
Ebell, who has called Tillerson a "swamp creature" for supporting Paris, said he hopes the secretary of State has been too busy to sway the president.
"I just hope he and his subordinates have too many other issues to deal with to be able to turn their attention back to Paris," he said.
George David Banks
Banks, special assistant to the president for international energy and environment, has emerged as a leading voice for staying in the climate agreement. He is said to be the one who called for today's meeting.
Banks has met recently with fossil fuel companies to float the idea of softening U.S. commitments, and he said before the election that remaining in Paris could be used to leverage better trade deals to help slow the transfer of jobs to China and other nations. That could help Trump fulfill additional campaign promises, he said at the time.
"Imagine this: I'm working on climate change [for Trump], and I convince him and his team of pulling out of Paris," Banks said last May. "Then he finds out he could have used that for leverage on the trade side. He'd fire me. He'd call me and say, 'You didn't know that? You're fired, Banks, get out of here'" (Climatewire, May 5, 2016).
Now he's putting those views to the test.
He has natural allies like Tillerson and Kushner. But he also has potential opponents. He's worked in diplomatic and intelligence circles and was deputy staff director on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe. He also served as a senior adviser on climate for President George W. Bush, making him an establishment Republican in an administration that often courts outsiders.
Steve Bannon
One of Bannon's "pet peeves" is "the great climate change con," James Delingpole, a climate skeptic who was recruited by Bannon for Breitbart News Network in 2014, wrote just after Trump was elected (Climatewire, Nov. 18, 2016).
That makes the Paris Agreement, which emphasizes the risks of warming, a natural point of friction for Trump's nationalistic chief strategist. Bannon is said to be on the side of Pruitt in arguing for quitting the global pact.
Still, today's meeting comes as Bannon appears to be losing influence, amid mild public rebukes by Trump last week and the growing orbit of Kushner. Nevertheless, Bannon helped Trump shepherd through a string of executive actions to rollback a large swath of climate efforts by the Obama administration.
He and his prolific media arm, Breitbart, are still seen as persuasive voices in the administration. And Bannon has perhaps an edge in tomorrow's debate: He is trying to preserve, rather than reverse, Trump's campaign promises.
That might be worth more to Trump, and his voters, than the benefits of continuing the climate deal, said Christian Ferry, who managed Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) presidential campaign.
"I don't see a lot of upside politically if [Trump] decides to stay in Paris," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/04/18/stories/1060053205
-
Trump Officials Postpone Meeting on Paris Climate Pact
Apr 18, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Trump administration officials have postponed a meeting scheduled for Tuesday to discuss the U.S. government’s position on the Paris climate change agreement.
A White House spokeswoman said early Tuesday that the meeting was postponed because some people involved were due to travel with President Trump to Milwaukee on the same day. It has not been rescheduled, and it is unclear when it will be.
Bloomberg News first reported the meeting’s postponement.
The behind-closed-doors event was scheduled to try to bridge a growing rift in the administration between officials who want Trump to exit the agreement and those who want him to keep the U.S. in it.
It was expected to include officials pushing President Trump to exit the agreement, such as Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt and White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon, as well as supporters of the pact, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Trump adviser Jared Kushner.
Nearly 200 countries agreed to the Paris accord in 2015, the first time that so many nations have agreed to cut or limit carbon dioxide emissions. Former President Obama was a leading figure in its formation.
Trump has so far not fulfilled a campaign promise to exit the agreement.
A growing group of Trump’s aides and allies are pushing him to stay in the pact to retain a voice on international climate policy and push conservative energy policy worldwide. Some of them want Trump to cut back on Obama’s non-binding pledge for the pact, which committed the United States to reduce its greenhouse gases 26 percent to 28 percent.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters last month that Trump would decide what to do with the Paris pact by the start of the Group of Seven meeting in Italy in late May.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329288-trump-officials-postpone-meeting-on-paris-climate-pact
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested