Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/24/2017
-
Hearing on Hazardous Materials Transport
Apr 26, 2017 | House Subcommittee Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazard
Location: 2167 Rayburn/ 10:00 AM -
A Review of the Technical, Scientific, and Legal Basis of the WOTUS Rule
Apr 26, 2017 | Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Architect of Chemical Law Now Lobbying EPA
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), an architect of the landmark chemical law passed last year, is now lobbying the EPA on regulatory issues on behalf of a major chemical organization, federal records show. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Administration Starts to Populate the Team
Apr 21, 2017 | National Law Review
By Christopher R. Bryant and Lynn L. Bergeson
According to press reports, Nancy Beck, Ph.D., DABT has been hired as the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump EPA to Shed Chemical Programs, Grants
Apr 24, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson, Cheryl Hogue, Jessica Morrison
In a move toward fulfilling his campaign promise to “get rid of” the Environmental Protection Agency “in almost every form,” President Donald J. Trump in March proposed slashing EPA’s budget by 31% in fiscal 2018... -
(ACC Mentioned) Proprietary Data at Risk by Science Bill, EPA Staff Say
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
House-passed legislation would prevent the EPA from protecting proprietary chemical, pesticide or other data that companies submit, according to a staff analysis of the bill quashed by agency leadership. -
HBCD Will Threaten Health and Environment for Decades Unless EPA Acts
Apr 21, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jen Dickman
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) is a toxic chemical that has been used as a flame retardant in foam building insulation and other products for many years. -
Progress Takes Vigilance to Reduce Children’s Exposure to Lead
Apr 21, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
The United States has made significant progress over the past fifteen years towards reducing children’s exposure to lead. -
Why Exxon Is Giving XTO, Its Shale Unit, a Long Leash
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Carroll
In a matter of weeks, crews working for Exxon's XTO Energy Inc. unit will begin erecting drilling rigs across a patch of southeast New Mexico to exploit the region's mile-thick strata of oil-soaked rock. -
Trump to Order Review to Open New Offshore Drilling Areas
Apr 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
President Donald Trump will order the administration to take its first steps this week toward expanding oil and gas drilling in waters off the U.S. coast, according to a person familiar with Trump's plans. -
White House's Cohn Wants to See ‘More and More’ LNG Terminals
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins
If Gary Cohn gets his way, the U.S. could be the biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world. -
Commentary: Jones Act Rulings Would Damage Economy, Jobs, Energy Production
Apr 21, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Marty Durbin
More than 80 percent of voters support increased development of U.S. oil and natural gas, and it’s clear why. The average American household saved as much as $1,337 on energy costs in 2015, and drivers saved an average $550 at the pump... -
Natural Gas Growth in Power Generation Stack Expected to Continue, NGSA Study Finds
Apr 21, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Alex Steis
Natural gas has played and will continue to play a critical role in power generation within the United States, regardless of what the Trump administration does with the Clean Power Plan (CPP), according to a new study conducted by Pace Global... -
Opposing Delay, Environmentalists Say EPA Lacks Power to Reverse MACT
Apr 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Environmentalists are urging a federal appeals court to reject EPA's request to delay litigation over the agency's power plant air toxics rule, charging that EPA lacks legal authority to try to reverse the Obama-era threshold finding that the rule was "appropriate and necessary”... -
EPA Cites Reconsideration to Defend Methane Case Delay Request
Apr 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is defending its request to pause litigation over its rule regulating methane from new oil and gas sources while the agency reviews the measure, arguing its recent grant of administrative petitions for reconsideration shows the rule is likely to be revised... -
Rail, Pipeline Execs to Testify on Safety Rules
Apr 24, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
Rail and pipeline industry executives will testify on Capitol Hill this week as lawmakers review safety regulations and consider reforms. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Manufacturers, EPA Administrator Target Environmental Regulations
Apr 21, 2017 | CBS San Francisco Bay Area
By Hannah Albarazi
The policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have emerged as the main target of American manufacturers, after the Trump Administration pressed industries on which federal regulations they found most burdensome. -
Perry, Pruitt and Zinke Pen Op-Ed for Earth Day
Apr 24, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
In honor of Earth Day, top White House appointees penned a "new vision" for the future of American jobs, the environment and energy production. -
Senate Panel to Examine Scientific Basis for Water Rule
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Former and current environmental officials are set to justify the White House's directive to ax an Obama-era rule clarifying the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction at an April 26 Senate committee hearing. -
March for Science Rallies Draw Huge Crowds Around US
Apr 22, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
Thousands of people descended on Washington and other cities across the country on Saturday to voice support for science, with calls for evidence-based public policy and increased funding for scientific research as President Trump defended his climate policies. -
Bloomberg to World Leaders: Ignore Trump on Climate
Apr 23, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg urged world leaders not to follow President Donald Trump's lead on climate change and declared his intention to help save an international agreement to reduce carbon emissions.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Hearing on Hazardous Materials Transport
Apr 26, 2017 | House Subcommittee Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazard
-
A Review of the Technical, Scientific, and Legal Basis of the WOTUS Rule
Apr 26, 2017 | Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
-
(ACC Mentioned) Architect of Chemical Law Now Lobbying EPA
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), an architect of the landmark chemical law passed last year, is now lobbying the EPA on regulatory issues on behalf of a major chemical organization, federal records show.
The American Chemistry Council is just one of the handful of environment-related clients that Vitter, who now works at public strategy firm Mercury Public Affairs, has attracted in his first three months out of Congress. Vitter is currently not allowed to lobby his former colleagues, but has started to lobby the Trump administration.
Vitter's trek to K Street isn't rare. More than 400 former Washington lawmakers have turned around and joined the advocacy community, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. They include former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who served in Congress from 1993 to 2010 and now is a partner at Venable LLP, and former House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who served in Congress from 1991 to 2016 and currently works for Squire Patton Boggs as a senior strategic adviser.
Bloomberg BNA obtained its information on Vitter's lobbying through Senate Office of Public Records filings. April 20 marked the deadline for filing records of lobbying that occurred between Jan. 1 and March 31.
Senators are barred from lobbying the legislative branch for two years after leaving their seats. Vitter, who left the Senate after a failed run for Louisiana governor, served in the House from 1999 to 2005 and Senate from 2005 to 2017 and plans to lobby Congress when his “cooling off” period is over, he told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
Environmental Lobbying Work
Vitter did not provide specifics about his work for the American Chemistry Council . The federal form shows he lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency on “regulatory issues.” Scott Openshaw, a spokesman for the council, told Bloomberg BNA in an email that Vitter will be “focused on a range of regulatory issues at EPA including those related to chemical management,” but didn't comment further on the council's regulatory priorities.
Also on Vitter's environmental docket is the the Cabot Corp., a chemicals and performance materials business. The corporation has paid the former senator to lobby on “Clean Air Act issues,” a first-quarter filing shows. Vanessa Craigie, a spokeswoman for Cabot, in an email would only say the former senator is working with the company on “environmental regulatory issues” and didn't provide additional details on its Clean Air Act priorities.
Additionally, Vitter is registered to lobby in the future for the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute. He will be a part of a team monitoring issues such as budget happenings for the Energy and State departments, a filing shows.
Mercury's work for the air conditioning group will also include monitoring the status of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer that would phase down use of super-polluting hydrofluorocarbons. The institute has told Bloomberg BNA that the amendment, which was reached in October 2016, should be protected.
Vitter also will lobby on “mitigation issues” on behalf of the Morganza Action Coalition, which focuses on flood protection.
The former senator also is working on issues outside the environment sector, such as infrastructure and Justice Department-related topics. For example, he is registered to lobby the Atlantic Development Group, a real estate, rental and leasing company, on nonenvironmental issues.
Vitter's Experience
Vitter, who chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee from 2013 to 2015 and later chaired a subcommittee, was a major voice in the environmental space in his final years in the Senate. He is perhaps best known for winning re-election in 2010 despite his earlier involvement with a Washington, D.C., escort service, though the scandal contributed to his defeat in the governor's race.
The former senator played key roles in passing water infrastructure legislation (Pub. L. No. 113-121) and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182).
He also notably held up for 135 days the confirmation of Gina McCarthy to be EPA administrator under then-President Barack Obama (D) due to transparency concerns related to the agency. When he led the environment committee, he was known for his frequent letters to federal agency heads.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109949951&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109949951&jd=109949951
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Administration Starts to Populate the Team
Apr 21, 2017 | National Law Review
By Christopher R. Bryant and Lynn L. Bergeson
According to press reports, Nancy Beck, Ph.D., DABT has been hired as the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). Dr. Beck holds a doctorate in environmental health from the University of Washington. For the past five years she served as the Senior Director for Regulatory Science Policy at the American Chemistry Council (ACC). For a decade prior to ACC, she was an analyst within the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Despite Dr. Beck’s compelling credentials, the appointment has displeased some stakeholders. Dr. Beck has been a staunch critic of how EPA conducts chemical risk assessments and its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). President Trump is proposing to eliminate IRIS; it thus is unlikely that Dr. Beck would revive or rely upon it in implementing the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Less than two months ago, Dr. Beck provided testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management calling for changes to EPA’s risk assessment processes.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/pruitt-administration-starts-to-populate-team
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump EPA to Shed Chemical Programs, Grants
Apr 24, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson, Cheryl Hogue, Jessica Morrison
In a move toward fulfilling his campaign promise to “get rid of” the Environmental Protection Agency “in almost every form,” President Donald J. Trump in March proposed slashing EPA’s budget by 31% in fiscal 2018. Details of how the Trump Administration would do so have recently emerged in a leaked internal EPA memo.
That document shows the Administration is planning to defund several EPA programs related to chemicals and pesticides, as well as climate change activities. At the same time, the Administration intends to increase fees from industry to help offset some of the agency’s costs of reviewing commercial chemicals and registering pesticides.
The leaked document—a March 21 memo from the agency’s acting chief financial officer, David Bloom—has been widely distributed on the internet. EPA officials need to finalize the plan’s details, which must undergo White House review before the President sends his full 2018 funding request to Congress next month. Lawmakers can alter the request as they appropriate money for the new fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.
Nonetheless, the memo indicates which parts of the agency the Trump Administration wants to pare back or kill. Industry and environmental groups are already clamoring to save their favorite EPA programs from getting the ax.
Overall, the President is asking for $5.7 billion in fiscal 2018 funding for EPA. That would be $2.6 billion less than the estimated $8.3 billion the agency could get this year if Congress extends a stopgap funding law that expires on April 28. The memo anticipates elimination of more than 4,000 jobs at EPA in 2018, bringing its workforce down to 11,548 full-time employees.
But the memo shows one apparent bright spot in EPA’s budget: an increase of $13.8 million to support work required under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The new chemical safety law, known as the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, was enacted last year.
Funding for other programs related to chemical safety, however, would face major cuts. For example, EPA research on computational toxicology and high-throughput in vitro toxicity testing would be scaled back.
Also, the plan would eliminate EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program for assessing the risks of toxic chemicals. In an IRIS assessment, the agency provides expert scientific judgments on how much exposure to a particular chemical is safe. EPA regulators in the U.S. and abroad use these numbers to establish cleanup levels for pollution in air, water, and soil. In the U.S., IRIS values affect the affordability and degree of cleanups as well as a polluter’s financial liability. The program has historically taken years to finish each assessment and has drawn calls for improvements from industry, Congress, environmental activists, and the National Research Council.
Environmental advocates are criticizing the Trump Administration’s plan for defunding IRIS, saying it would limit the agency’s ability to implement the new chemical safety law.
“EPA’s ability to conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA would be severely curtailed by the loss of both expertise and capacity that reside in the IRIS program,” Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist at the activist group Environmental Defense Fund, says in a blog post.
The free-market-advocating Competitive Enterprise Institute and other conservative groups have pushed Congress to defund the IRIS program, claiming EPA’s assessments are unscientific and poorly designed. Some IRIS critics also say the program is no longer needed with a beefed-up TSCA program.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents many chemical manufacturers, declined to comment on the Trump Administration’s plans to eradicate the IRIS program. The group says it is “committed to working with the Administration and Congress to ensure EPA has funding to carry out essential responsibilities, including the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.”
ACC’s former senior director of regulatory affairs, Nancy Beck, has been tapped to be principal deputy assistant administrator of the EPA office that oversees TSCA implementation. Beck has spoken out in the past about the IRIS program’s deficiencies.
To help offset some of the costs of implementing the updated TSCA, the agency would rely on industry-paid user fees, the memo says. EPA is required to establish a user-fee system under the revised TSCA, but the agency is not subject to a statutory deadline for making it operational. The Trump Administration plans to expedite completion of a rule instituting these fees to ensure this funding stream is running for fiscal 2018.
EPA’s pesticide office would also restructure to rely more on industry fees, the memo indicates. The agency currently collects fees from pesticide manufacturers, but the authority Congress granted EPA to do so expires on Sept. 30. Negotiations to reauthorize such fees through 2023 have already begun.
In fiscal year 2016, “the pesticide industry paid $27.5 million in maintenance fees and $19.1 million in registration service fees,” says Beau Greenwood, executive vice president of CropLife America, a trade group representing pesticide manufacturers. “Industry has agreed to pay an increase in maintenance fees totaling $31 million per year over the life of the reauthorization,” Greenwood says. Anything above that level that will be a hard sell, he predicts.
EPA plans to allow its pesticides program to use the fees for a broader range of activities, including speeding up pesticide safety reviews. EPA also has about $30 million of unspent fee money that it plans to carry over to support core pesticides work.
In addition, the memo indicates that numerous research grants supported by EPA are slated for elimination, including those related to pollution prevention, lead poisoning prevention, water quality, air quality, energy, and sustainability. Extramural grants under the agency’s Science to Achieve Results program, which complements its intramural research program, would also be terminated. This isn’t the first time these grants have been targeted for elimination. President George W. Bush proposed dropping them in 2003, but Congress ultimately funded them.
EPA’s Science Advisory Board, an external group of scientists who advise the administrator, would also see its budget slashed by $542,000, or 84%, compared with the 2016 funding level. The memo says the planned cut reflects “an anticipated lower number of peer reviews” of EPA scientific work, such as hazard assessments of chemicals.
In addition, many long-term, regional environmental cleanup programs would have funding zeroed out, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Chesapeake Bay Program. Also, the agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, which aims to test chemicals for their ability to affect the hormone system, would be abolished, according to the memo.
In a move reflective of Trump’s past remarks describing climate change as a hoax, his Administration intends to halt all EPA climate change activities by defunding them. This action, the memo explains, would focus the agency’s resources on “core statutory requirements” under federal pollution control and chemical safety statutes.
If Congress agrees to it, the Trump budget plan will get rid of EPA’s voluntary programs with industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These include efforts to curb methane leaks from natural gas pipelines, landfills, and coal mines, as well as work to lower releases of the highly potent greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride used to insulate electric power systems.
Also on the chopping block is EPA’s Energy Star program, which identifies energy-efficient homes, buildings, and products such as light bulbs and appliances. The Administration wants to transfer this program to an organization outside the government, the memo says.
The agency’s hazardous waste cleanup work is also targeted for funding reductions, according to the memo. The Trump Administration wants to cut support for EPA’s Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program by 30% compared with 2017 spending.
The cuts would entail hefty reductions to hazardous waste remediation and enforcement activities, including a reduction of more than $152 million from the Office of Land & Emergency Management. Nearly $128 million of that reduction would come from federal funds that support cleanup in states and local communities. In addition, the cuts would reduce federal money for emergency response and contamination removal by $29 million and explicitly return responsibility for cleanups that aren’t time-critical to states and local communities, the agency says.
The budget memo also shows that the Trump Administration plans to curtail EPA’s international activities. In part, this would involve halting the contribution the U.S. makes to an international fund to help developing countries switch from stratospheric-ozone-depleting chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons, to modern alternatives. For 2017, that contribution is expected to be about $8.9 million.
The Administration also wants EPA to stop bilateral efforts to clean up pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border. And it intends to withdraw the U.S. from a two-decade-old environmental cooperation program with Canada and Mexico that was formed in conjunction with the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Whether the President’s official 2018 budget proposal will include all of these details remains unclear. But given Trump’s promises to slim down EPA, most, if not all, are likely to be retained. Whether Congress will go along with the plan to prune back the agency, however, is even more uncertain.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i17/Trump-EPA-shed-chemical-programs.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Proprietary Data at Risk by Science Bill, EPA Staff Say
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
House-passed legislation would prevent the EPA from protecting proprietary chemical, pesticide or other data that companies submit, according to a staff analysis of the bill quashed by agency leadership.
It also could hinder the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to fulfill its mandates under a chemicals law amended last summer by Congress, the staff said.
The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017, H.R. 1430, would require the EPA to disclose even redacted information to anyone who signed a confidentiality agreement, staff said in an analysis written for the Congressional Budget Office. EPA leaders blocked the staff comments from reaching the Congressional Budget Office, which scores costs of the legislation, Bloomberg BNA first reported April 3.
The bill's requirement that the agency release redacted information means it could not protect trade secrets or intellectual property, according to EPA staff. Patients’ medical records and other personal information gathered by academic or clinical researchers also would be at risk of forced disclosure, staff said.
The House approved the bill on a 228–194 vote March 29 that mostly followed party lines. The legislation would mandate all research used in EPA assessments and regulations be publicly available and reproducible. The House bill came to the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, where Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has indicated an openness to addressing the issue, but no hearing is scheduled. Nor has a companion Senate bill been introduced as of April 21.
Congress Urged to Protect Data
Any legislation that would pass Congress must protect confidential business information and other competitive intelligence, the American Chemistry Council said in a statement provided Bloomberg BNA. The council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation are among the bill's supporters.
Stephen Caldeira, president of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, didn't voice a position on the bill, but said by email that the association supported “a common-sense balance between transparency and the protection of confidential business information.”
EPA staff's analysis raised many other concerns about the HONEST Act, saying the legislation would “grind to halt,” the agency's efforts to implement the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016.
For example, instead of using the best available science, as the TSCA amendments required, the agency would have to use only studies that meet the bill's public availability standards, staff said. “This approach would introduce research bias that would compromise the quality of the agency's work,” staff said. Many computer-aided analyses would not qualify, because the computer codes and models used in them are typically not available, it said.
Opponents Share EPA Concerns
Joanna Slaney, a legislative director for health at the Environmental Defense Fund, said that group opposes HONEST Act for many of the reasons highlighted in the EPA staff memo.
“We believe that the agency must be able to rely on the best available science in order to protect public health and that the HONEST Act would prevent EPA from doing so. The impact of the HONEST Act on TSCA, in effect preventing the agency from reviewing and regulating chemicals under this recently passed, strongly bipartisan law, is just one area of particular concern,” Slaney said by email.
Other opponents of the bill include the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund and American Geophysical Union.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109949956&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109949956&jd=109949956
-
HBCD Will Threaten Health and Environment for Decades Unless EPA Acts
Apr 21, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jen Dickman
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) is a toxic chemical that has been used as a flame retardant in foam building insulation and other products for many years. Although it is being phased out of new foam board, this legacy use combined with other ongoing uses in the U.S. create a toxic reservoir of HBCD that may be released into the environment and harm people’s health. The Environmental Protection Agency has decided to evaluate this chemical to determine its risks. We need to make sure EPA reviews all the information it needs to protect health and the environment!
Buildings in U.S. contain a toxic reservoir of HBCD
Healthy Building Network (HBN) recently reported that approximately 99 million pounds of HBCD were used in the United States over the period between 1988 and 2010. Most of this was added to foam insulation board installed in buildings – including homes, schools and workplaces. HBCD was also used in building insulation after 2010, but the specific amount is unknown.
This first-ever estimate of HBCD use and much of the information discussed below were published in comments jointly submitted to EPA by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Environmental Health Strategy Center (EHSC), and HBN. These groups provided input on what should be addressed by the agency’s risk evaluation of HBCD under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.
Multiple pathways for exposure to HBCD from foam board put people’s health at risk
When the foam board is removed or destroyed – through renovations, demolition, or a fire – HBCD may be released into dust, since it isn’t chemically bound to the foam. Fires can generate byproducts that are also toxic, putting firefighters at risk for serious health problems. Firefighters are at an increased risk for developing a range of cancers, especially when flame retardants are used in furniture and other household or office items. (According to EPA, studies indicate that HBCD may affect human reproduction and development.)
Foam insulation has a limited service life of 25 to 60 years, so its disposal will likely be a significant source of HBCD emissions in future years. A European study found that in 2006, a sizeable amount of HBCD was already being released from discarded insulation boards – almost 19,000 pounds. Weathering and degrading of foam insulation in landfills and burning during incineration can release HBCD, potentially exposing workers at these facilities. Improper disposal can also impact the food chain: a study found that if insulation fragments with HBCD end up in the ocean, high levels of the chemical can be transferred to mussels that latch onto the foam.
Other uses of HBCD are ongoing in the U.S., despite its global phase-out
U.S. manufacturers are moving away from adding HBCD to new foam insulation board, but the chemical is still used in other products, such as textile coatings. According to industry reporting in Washington State, HBCD is present in at least 48 children’s products, including clothing, blankets, and toys. The Washington State Department of Ecology’s testing also found HBCD in poly foam beans of a beanbag chair, as well as the rubber palm fabric of a protective glove. SCHF coalition partners at the Ecology Center analyzed samples of foam in children’s car seats and found flame retardants believed to be HBCD.
The U.S. is not a signatory to the international Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which provides for the global phase-out of HBCD. Parties to this agreement, which include almost all other countries in the world, have agreed to stop using HBCD because it persists in the environment and builds up to high levels in the food web and in humans. These characteristics mean that HBCD also accumulates in the food and medicine sources of indigenous Arctic communities, who are disproportionately impacted even though they live far from where the chemical is actually used.
What is EPA doing about this?
Among its new responsibilities under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act), EPA must decide whether existing chemicals pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. EPA has begun risk evaluations for 10 chemicals, including HBCD. The agency is currently deliberating on the scope of the evaluation and will issue a final scoping document by June 2017.
Make your voice heard!
EPA needs to hear from you that its risk evaluation must ensure that public health and the environment are protected. Tell EPA to –
· Consider exposures and releases connected with all uses, both legacy and ongoing; and
· Assess all potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, including workers in waste industries, firefighters, pregnant women, indigenous Arctic populations, and fenceline communities that may be disproportionately exposed to HBCD.
We want EPA to have all of the evidence necessary to support a finding that HBCD poses an unreasonable risk. This determination will give EPA a strong foundation for taking needed regulatory actions, including: banning all remaining uses, holding chemical manufacturers financially responsible for safely removing and destroying HBCD-containing foam insulation board at the end of its useful life, restricting releases during building demolition, and banning the disposal of this foam board in landfills and incinerators.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/04/21/hbcd-will-threaten-health-and-environment-for-decades-unless-epa-acts/
-
Progress Takes Vigilance to Reduce Children’s Exposure to Lead
Apr 21, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
The United States has made significant progress over the past fifteen years towards reducing children’s exposure to lead. While much more needs to be done to eliminate the more than $50 billion a year in societal costs from lead, the progress is good news for children since it is well known that there is no safe level of lead in children, and it can impair their brain development, contribute to learning and behavioral problems, and lower IQs.
Achieving this progress has required a diligent and ongoing commitment from all levels of government. If we expect to continue to make progress – and not backslide – the federal government needs to remain committed to reducing sources of lead exposure. So far what we’ve seen from the Trump Administration raises serious concerns about any real commitment to protecting children’s health, including from lead.
Lead has a toxic legacy from decades of extensive use in paint, gasoline, and water pipes. As long as lead is in the paint, pipes, and soil where we live, work and play, progress is far from inevitable. Protecting children from lead takes constant vigilance, especially when the paint or plumbing is disturbed. Flint provided a tragic example of what happens when we turn away. Without vigilance, the positive trends we have seen in blood lead levels could all too easily reverse course and go up. That is why the proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget, which would eliminate the agency’s lead-based paint programs, are yet another indication that this Administration is turning its back on protecting children’s health.
Mean blood lead levels in young children dropped 56% from 1999 to 2014
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) demonstrates that from 1999 to 2014 the levels of lead in children’s blood or “blood lead levels” (BLL) dropped preciptiously. Average BLLs in young children declined by 56% during that period with the rate of decline increasing after 2010. For children with a BLL greater than 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter (µg/dL), the reduction was an impressive 86%.
Progress result of important policy decisions
Looking at the chart above, it’s clear we’ve made significant progress in reducing children’s exposure to lead. So what happened since 1999? You can learn more about the different lead policies on EDF’s interactive tool that plots federal policy decisions and blood lead levels. Here is a quick summary of the major actions taken during this time:
· 1999 – The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) promulgated its Lead-Safe Housing Rule setting strict standards for lead-based paint in more than 1.2 million federally subsidized homes. The rule went into effect in 2000.
· 2001 – EPA promulgated hazard standards for dust and soil contaminated by lead-based paint in housing and child-occupied facilities.
· 2008 – EPA adopted its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) that requires lead-safe work practices by trained and certified renovators when they disturb lead-based paint in pre-1978 housing or child-occupied facilites. The rule, which went into effect in 2010, was estimated to affect more than 4.4 million projects each year.
· 2008 – EPA promulgated a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead that was ten-fold lower than the one set decades earlier.
· 2008 – Congress enacted the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) which set more stringent standards for lead in paint and in children’s products and required a third-party to certify that children’s products met the standards.
· 2011 – Congress lowered the definition of lead-free plumbing from 8% to 0.25% with compliance required in 2014.
· 2012 – CDC adopted a BLL Reference Level for young children that was half of its previous level of concern. That same year, Congress virtually eliminated funding for CDC’s lead office as part of its sequester cuts and has restored only part of it.
Each of these federal policy decisions had an impact in some way on the impressive drops in BLLs since 1999. And each built on earlier policy decisions banning lead from paint, gasoline, and metal food cans, and sustained investment in Lead Hazard Control Grants at HUD. There is no realistic method to assess the relative contribution of each policy change.
Progress is not inevitable – it results from sound policy and vigilance by all levels of government
Vigilance is imperative when the lead is distributed throughout our communities, whether in the estimated 37 million older homes with lead-based paint or 6.1 million with lead pipes connecting their home to the drinking water main under the street. While no renovator wants to poison a child, people usually are more careful when they are being monitored and can be held accountable. Ultimately that means people in the federal government are on-board and have the time and resources to provide the essential oversight. And the policies only work if they are updated regularly to reflect the latest scientific research.
With lead costing our society more than $50 billion annually in lost IQ points, reduced attention spans, and more violent behavior, the proposed cuts are incredibly shortsighted. The proposed cuts at EPA as well as HUD and the other agencies, if adopted by Congress, run a very real risk of slowing the progress we have seen in protecting young children from lead. The numbers could go up if we, as a nation, do not remain committed to continued progress: that means updating standards, ensuring that laws are complied with, and providing the resources federal and state agencies they need to protect children. Few areas of environmental health have such a direct and tangible feedback as levels of lead in the blood of young children.
The data is clear: policies have consequences. If members of Congress gut lead programs, their constituents will have a clear metric by which to judge the impact of their votes.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/04/21/progress-on-lead-takes-vigilance/
-
Why Exxon Is Giving XTO, Its Shale Unit, a Long Leash
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Carroll
In a matter of weeks, crews working for Exxon's XTO Energy Inc. unit will begin erecting drilling rigs across a patch of southeast New Mexico to exploit the region's mile-thick strata of oil-soaked rock.
ExxonMobil Corp. paid almost $6 billion for the drilling rights in late February—its biggest acquisition in more than six years—but that's where the parent company's involvement ends: Decisions on when and how to harvest the crude fall solely on the shale experts at XTO.
Exxon Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods and his top lieutenants at corporate headquarters in suburban Dallas are intentionally staying out of the way of the tightly knit phalanx of XTO engineers, physicists, and geologists leading the oil major's advance into shale. Based largely in the Texas cities of Fort Worth and Midland, XTO's 5,000-person staff has been exempt from many of the centralized bureaucratic and planning structures of their overlords since Exxon acquired XTO for $35 billion in 2010, according to people with knowledge of the arrangements who weren't authorized to speak publicly.
Exxon's policy of benign neglect is one it shares with other oil giants such as Chevron Corp., which has set up its own “dedicated shale team” that operates like a quasi-independent unit, according to Noah Barrett, an analyst at Janus Capital Group Inc. The top-down and heavily structured approaches they use on megaprojects—building a liquefied gas export complex or pumping crude that lies miles beneath the sea surface—won't work with shale. Rigs and roughnecks must be hired or moved at a moment's notice in response to emerging opportunities or volatile crude prices. “Historically, the major operators have been slower-moving beasts,” Barrett says. But in the age of shale, “the ability to be flexible is a huge advantage.”
To that end, XTO managers aren't constrained by the purchasing order system that governs project spending at the rest of Exxon, the people said. The practice, conceived for projects that can take a decade to build and cost $50 billion, is too burdensome for shale's $6 million wells, which can be up and running within weeks. XTO's special dispensation means it can hire a bulldozer to clear a drilling site or summon a fracking crew to complete a well without enduring the months-long wait for signoffs by multiple layers of middle and upper management. XTO planners are also free from the usual Exxon practice of submitting—and strictly adhering to—12-month operating blueprints that undergo arduous vetting and amendment as they make their way through manifold HQ filters.
For Woods, who was elevated to CEO in January when his mentor, Rex Tillerson, was tapped for the job of U.S. secretary of state, the experiment is fraught with peril. About one-third of Exxon's drilling budget will be entrusted to XTO's shale projects this year; in 2018 that rises to 50 percent. The expected payoff is a projected increase in Exxon's shale output of 20 percent a year through 2025.
If the gamble pays off, it'll go a long way to reversing a series of recent setbacks for Exxon. These include the loss last year of the company's platinum credit rating; the erasure of $154 billion in future cash flow as the oil price slump turned some fields into money losers; and international sanctions that have placed Exxon's $1 billion investment in Russia's Arctic in limbo for the past two and a half years.
In the February deal, Exxon won control over 275,000 acres, including a quarter-million in the Delaware region of the Permian Basin, the object of some of the global energy industry's most frenzied dealmaking. According to sources, it took almost two years of negotiations with the Bass clan of Fort Worth wildcatters to bring it off. The family received $5.6 billion in Exxon stock and is entitled to contingent cash payouts of as much as $1 billion over the next 15 years. At around $24,000 an acre, the price for those rights is a fraction of the $60,000 QEP Resources Inc. shelled out last year for Permian drilling rights. XTO will deploy 15 new rigs, which will more than double the size of Exxon's fleet of rigs in the Permian Basin.
The bottom line: Exxon is projecting a 20 percent a year increase in crude output through 2025 from shale properties overseen by its XTO unit.
While it may have a hands-off policy, Exxon is closely watching XTO via management. The company appointed a 30-year veteran, Jack Williams, to head the unit post-merger. Williams, who was also a contender to succeed Tillerson, is now a member of the five-man inner circle that runs Exxon worldwide. XTO's current president, Sara Ortwein, is also an Exxon lifer. A civil engineer, she joined the company in 1980 and cut her teeth in Russia and Central Asia before landing at XTO in November.
—With David Wethe
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109949945&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109949945&jd=109949945
-
Trump to Order Review to Open New Offshore Drilling Areas
Apr 23, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
President Donald Trump will order the administration to take its first steps this week toward expanding oil and gas drilling in waters off the U.S. coast, according to a person familiar with Trump's plans.
The president is planning to sign an executive order that will instruct the Interior Department to conduct a review of the areas currently available for offshore drilling and begin streamlining regulations governing offshore oil and gas development, according to the source.
It's one of several executive orders that Trump will sign this week ahead of his 100th day in office. By Friday, Trump will have signed 32 executive orders, the most signed by a president in the first 100 days since World War II, according to the White House.
Former President Barack Obama put large portions of the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic and dozens of underwater canyons off the East Coast permanently off limits for drilling during his final weeks in office. His administration had previously shelved plans that would have opened up other parts of East Coast and Arctic waters to oil exploration in the coming years.
Some advocates for offshore drilling have also called for opening up the Pacific Coast for new drilling for the first time in decades, and lifting the prohibition on exploration in the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico, a move that's long been opposed by politicians from both parties in Florida.
Trump will also sign an executive order calling on Interior to review previous monument designations under the Antiquities Act. Republicans have criticized Obama for designating more than two dozen national monuments during his time in office. Once an area becomes a national monument, it is largely off limits to drilling, fishing and mining.
A White House spokeswoman did not immediately comment. Axios first reported details of the executive orders.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
White House's Cohn Wants to See ‘More and More’ LNG Terminals
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins
If Gary Cohn gets his way, the U.S. could be the biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world.
The director of the White House's National Economic Council—and former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. president—said the administration would step up approvals for LNG export terminals, starting with a project in the Northwest that he didn't identify. At present, Cheniere Energy Inc. is the nation's sole LNG exporter from the lower 48 states.
“We could be and should be the largest exporter of LNG in the world,” Cohn said at the Institute of International Finance forum in Washington. “We're going to permit more and more of these LNG plants.“
Federal regulators are reviewing about two dozen applications from companies seeking to send America's gas bonanza overseas. That's putting the U.S. on course to become a net exporter of natural gas by 2018, the first time that's happened since the 1950s.
Veresen Inc.’s Jordan Cove LNG export project in Oregon has been denied a permit twice by regulators. After Cohn's comments, shares of the Calgary-based company jumped the most since the beginning of February. The company had no comment on Cohn's remarks, according to Riley Hicks, a spokesman.
—With assistance from Kevin Orland.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109949940&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109949940&jd=109949940
-
Commentary: Jones Act Rulings Would Damage Economy, Jobs, Energy Production
Apr 21, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Marty Durbin
More than 80 percent of voters support increased development of U.S. oil and natural gas, and it’s clear why. The average American household saved as much as $1,337 on energy costs in 2015, and drivers saved an average $550 at the pump – tangible benefits of the American energy resurgence. There’s no denying that oil and natural gas production is a powerful engine for the U.S. economy, supporting 9.8 million jobs and providing competitive advantages for our manufacturers.
Government energy policy is still catching up to our rapid emergence as the world’s leading producer and refiner of oil and natural gas. Until 2015, a ‘70s-era ban on crude exports remained in place. Even ethanol mandates set in 2007 – when policymakers assumed a future of declining production and increasing fuel imports — are outdated. But the Jones Act is especially interesting. Passed in 1920, the law requires that all merchandise shipped between U.S. points be carried on U.S.-built, owned and operated vessels.
For decades, the oil and natural gas industry has met the policy’s goals while protecting consumers from negative effects. But a new interpretation of the law could make that more difficult. Two days before President Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) released a proposal that would make drastic changes to long-standing rulings related to the use of Jones Act vessels in offshore oil and natural gas activities.
CBP’s proposal would not only overturn more than 40 years of precedent, it would place serious limitations on the industry’s ability to safely, effectively, and economically operate – limitations that could cut jobs and reduce oil and natural gas production, according to a new report.
The report from energy consulting firm Calash projects that losses in the range of 30,000 industry-supported jobs could occur in this year alone, increasing to as many as 125,000 jobs lost by 2030 –with the Gulf region most impacted.
U.S. oil and natural gas production could see a drop in the range of 23 percent from 2017 to 2030, while cumulative GDP losses could reach $91.5 billion. Oil and natural gas development and investment in the Gulf of Mexico could take an abrupt hit, causing additional strain on consumers and businesses that depend on domestic energy resources and further imperiling our long-term national energy security.
We can’t afford these kinds of setbacks. Maintaining U.S. energy leadership – and the wide range of economic and national security benefits it provides – requires forward-thinking, 21st century energy strategy.
CBP’s rushed proposal is an unforced error, and should be withdrawn.
Marty Durbin is executive vice president and chief strategy officer at the American Petroleum Institute.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/04/21/commentary-jones-act-rulings-would-damage-economy-jobs-energy-production/
-
Natural Gas Growth in Power Generation Stack Expected to Continue, NGSA Study Finds
Apr 21, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Alex Steis
Natural gas has played and will continue to play a critical role in power generation within the United States, regardless of what the Trump administration does with the Clean Power Plan (CPP), according to a new study conducted by Pace Global and commissioned by the Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA).
The report found that current market conditions have driven the increase in low-emission generating sources, such as natural gas, noting that the share of natural gas as a fuel in the U.S. power stack has grown from 18% in 2005 to more than 33% in 2015.
"This market trend is driven by favorable long-term fundamental economics and is likely to continue into the foreseeable future, regardless of the presence or absence of additional regulation to expressly limit emissions," Pace Global said in the report. "The cost competitiveness and reliability of natural gas generation makes it a critical component of a low-carbon energy future."
Speaking at a rollout of the report in Washington, DC, on Thursday, Melissa Haugh, executive director at Pace Global and author of the study, said U.S. power markets are currently undergoing a rapid transformation. "There are three key elements that are driving that from our perspective. The current market is challenging our large fleet of baseload coal-fired generation, and some nuclear generators as well are challenged to remain economic in certain markets. Coal traditionally has been about 60% of the generation mix, but in 2016 that was down to about 30%."
Haugh added that the report took into account the significant amounts of renewable sources, such as wind and solar, coming into the market as costs are coming down. But economic electricity battery storage technology is not there yet and the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow.
The company found that the growth in market share for natural gas -- which is expected to continue -- was triggered by competitive natural gas prices as a result of the shale gas revolution, citing the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Natural gas is also expected to remain affordable for the foreseeable future. "The EIA projection in their last outlook expects natural gas prices to remain at or below the $5/MMBtu level through 2030, and a lot of other forecasts including our own are even lower than that," Haugh told the audience. "So the long-term consensus view is for sustained lower prices of natural gas."
In addition to low commodity costs, the report found that gas-fired combined-cycle generation facilities provide the lowest total cost per megawatt hour (MWh) of any fuel. Looking at data from 2016, Pace pegged the total MWh cost of a gas-fired combined cycle power plant at $63/MWh, which compares to $87/MWh for onshore wind, $89/MWh for advanced coal, $105/MWh for nuclear, $126/MWh for advanced coal with carbon capture and $162/MWh for solar photovoltaic (tracking).
“The Pace Global report’s findings validate what we already suspected: electric utilities and generators have increased their use of natural gas because of its cost, reliable performance and environmental savings," said NGSA CEO Dena E. Wiggins. "Those factors will continue to fuel the power sector’s embrace of natural gas, with or without federal low-carbon regulations.
“Greater use of natural gas already has been a major cause of the energy sector’s cuts in carbon emissions. In 2016, the energy sector used natural gas to generate electricity at the highest levels on records, and at the same time achieved the lowest carbon emissions in almost 25 years,” Wiggins added.
CPP a Deal-breaker?
Since the election of President Trump, the future of the CPP is very much in question as the new administration continues to slash regulations that it feels are harming business. If the CPP were to go away, Wiggins does not see it as a blow to natural gas in the power stack. "Then we compete on price," Wiggins told the audience. "There are a number of coal plants that are currently struggling in the marketplace. They are operating solely so that they do not have large piles of coal sitting on their lands [due] to the take-or-pay contracts that they have."
The Obama administration unveiled the final version of the CPP in August 2015. The plan, which embraces renewables, solar and wind powers, calls for states to reduce emissions by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. The CPP would require that states develop and implement plans to ensure power plants in their state -- either as single plants or as a collective group -- achieve goals for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2022 and 2029, and final CO2 emission performance rates by 2030. The CPP gave states the option of choosing between either an emissions standards plan or a state measures plan to reduce emissions. They also had the option of trading emissions rate credits with other states.
Infrastructure Opposition Reaching a Fever Pitch
Addressing the pushback from environmental and anti-fossil fuel contingents to natural gas infrastructure development, Wiggins said the industry needs to do a better job of educating the public. But she allowed that a subsection of the opposition have their minds made up and are not interested in listening to reason.
"I think if you ask the people at Constitution Pipeline, they would say things are worse [in terms of anti-fossil fuel opposition]," Wiggins said. "So far, although I think they have been drug out perhaps longer than what we would normally in the past expect a certificate process to take, but at the end of the day, most of these pipeline projects are getting approved, eventually. They might have to go to the courts or [work through] FERC," but eventually they are making it through. "We are just going to have to keep at it. I just don't think we can as a country lose the benefit of this valuable natural resource." Wiggins added that NGSA is "standing shoulder to shoulder" with the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, which includes involvement in some of the court cases.
Wiggins said the water court case in New York against the proposed Constitution Pipeline is a big case for the industry. "Hopefully the second circuit [court] will rule the right way. I'm not a Clean Water Act lawyer, I understand there is a state's rights tension here, but whatever rights and responsibilities that New York has under the Clean Water Act, it just can't be a veto power," she said. "It just can't mean that New York can effectively veto a federally approved certificate. It can't mean that New York can stop New England from getting gas supply through a pipeline that goes through their state."
Next Steps
NGSA made the following policy recommendations in tandem with the report’s release: Include natural gas as a solution in clean energy policies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions; Oppose policies that distort the market, such as subsidies for uneconomic generation sources; Oppose policies that seek to place natural gas at a disadvantage by unnecessarily stalling needed pipeline infrastructure; and Employ a market-based approach that is realistic, considers costs and provides clear sustainable goals.
NGSA said it commissioned the study to document the importance of natural gas to clean air policy goals and the organization plans to use the report to help educate policymakers at the federal and state levels.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110210-natural-gas-growth-in-power-generation-stack-expected-to-continue-ngsa-study-finds
-
Opposing Delay, Environmentalists Say EPA Lacks Power to Reverse MACT
Apr 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Update Appended
Environmentalists are urging a federal appeals court to reject EPA's request to delay litigation over the agency's power plant air toxics rule, charging that EPA lacks legal authority to try to reverse the Obama-era threshold finding that the rule was “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act.
In an April 21 motion, a coalition of environmental groups says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should deny the agency's recent request to postpone May 18 oral argument in ARIPPA v. EPA.
The case consolidates challenges to EPA's denial of petitions for reconsideration filed by environmentalists and utilities seeking changes to specific parts of the utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule.
It is one of two pending cases dealing with the MACT rule, with EPA also seeking to delay litigation over the Obama administration's cost assessment underpinning the “appropriate and necessary” finding. In the latter case, Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, environmentalists also filed an April 21 motion that criticizes the agency's request to delay May 18 argument, saying similarly there is no legal basis to grant the request.
But environmentalists fear that EPA's push to delay argument in the two utility MACT cases is an attempt to start a process for reviewing the rule that could ultimately lead to efforts to undoing all or parts of it.
They are already opposing administration requests to delay the ARIPPA case, arguing that EPA cannot show the “extraordinary cause” the court requires to delay oral argument.
They also say the agency is erroneously hinting that it wants to delay the litigation over the reconsideration petition denials in order to consider a broader review of the merits of the “appropriate and necessary” finding.
“To the extent that EPA is alluding to a 'possib[ility]' of using its contemplated administrative review of the Supplemental Finding to scrap the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), mooting any and all cases addressing them, no such possibility exists,” says the filing.
It cites the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling in New Jersey v. EPA that rejected the Bush administration's attempt to reverse a Clinton-era version of the regulatory finding.
“[T]he agency now lacks authority to deregulate power plants by the mechanism of administrative reconsideration of that finding. Not only has EPA failed to substantiate the claimed 'possib[ility]' that administrative review of the Supplemental Finding 'could impact' the issues in this case, but to the extent EPA's theory can be guessed at, no such possibility exists,” says the filing from Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project and others.
The environmentalists also say that the court should proceed with the ARIPPA litigation because the judges can rule on the merits of the various reconsideration petition denial challenges and through that offer guidance to any future administrative review that the agency might attempt to consider for the utility MACT.
The environmentalists' filing in the Murray Energy case makes many of the same arguments, and says that EPA appears to be pushing for delay to review whether the appropriate and necessary finding should even have been issued. Environmentalists say this has nothing to do with the case, which focuses on the merits of the supplemental cost assessment for the utility MACT that EPA crafted in response to a Supreme Court ruling.
And they reiterate arguments from their ARIPPA filing that any attempt to undo the appropriate and necessary finding would run afoul of the New Jersey decision. “The Court saw this movie almost a decade ago, and gave it three thumbs down,” their filing in Murray Energy says.
'Remains In Force'
The industry parties in the suit have not formally sought a reversal of the appropriate and necessary finding in the case. ARIPPA is asking EPA to reconsider whether the rule's standard for hydrogen chloride is too strict and the Utility Air Regulatory Group is challenging whether risks from non-mercury hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) is de minimis and exempt from regulation.
But during his confirmation hearing, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signaled he is open to reconsidering the rule.
In written responses to Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), ranking member on the Senate environment committee, he said that while mercury is listed as a HAP that is subject to regulation under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, he also said that he will enforce the MATS Rule “so long as that Rule remains in force.”
He also said in response to a later question, “If I am confirmed as Administrator, I look forward to working with EPA staff to arrive at a transparent and scientifically sound process for determining the health risks associated with any activity that is properly before me at the Agency, including those related to mercury exposure, and regulating those activities as appropriate consistent with Congress's intent in enacting the Clean Air Act.”
The responses also signaled Pruitt's openness to a possible reconsideration of the entire MACT and removing utilities from the air law section 112 list of emissions sources subject to MACT requirements.
He said that if confirmed as administrator and “presented with information showing that EPA has discretion to regulate power plants in a manner that is consistent with the Clean Air Act but that differs from the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, or that power plants meet the standard for de-listing under Section 112(c)(9), I would consider that matter in due course as I would consider any other matter under my jurisdiction in due course.”
But environmentalists say Pruitt lacks authority to reverse the “appropriate and necessary” finding so the court should deny any request to delay the litigation.
“EPA lacks authority to administratively reverse the Supplemental Finding, so no action EPA proposes to take could affect the issues before the Court. But to the extent EPA intends to review other aspects of the MATS standards, the agency would benefit from a decision in this case clarifying what issues EPA is obligated to reconsider and whether EPA is obligated to take public comment. A prompt decision would serve the cause of efficiency by enabling EPA to combine the required reconsideration action with any other review it chooses to conduct,” the filing says.
“Conversely, delaying decision in this case until after EPA reviews the MATS standards would be inefficient, because it could result in EPA conducting multiple, sequential administrative processes,” they add.
Environmentalists are suing to overturn EPA's denial of their petition faulting a particulate matter emissions limit used as a “surrogate” for reducing non-mercury metal HAPs -- such as lead -- for being too weak. They say that delaying the case would delay a possible tightening of that limit, harming public health.
The ARIPPA case is currently slated to be heard by the D.C. Circuit on May 18, the same day as Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, in which several states and power companies are challenging the agency's revised cost assessment underpinning the finding that MACT is appropriate and necessary.
EPA in its requests to delay argument in both ARIPPA and Murray Energy argued the two cases are closely connected, but environmentalists in their ARIPPA filing say any such overlap is minimal.
“The circumstance of overlap in background facts between cases is routine, not 'extraordinary,'” according to the environmentalists. “To be sure, the minor overlap in background facts between these cases furnished a reason to coordinate the two cases for argument while no party objected. But it hardly justifies the disruption to the schedules and preparations of the parties and the Court, or the severe prejudice to Environmental Petitioners and their members, that continuance would produce now,” they argue.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/opposing-delay-environmentalists-say-epa-lacks-power-reverse-mact
-
EPA Cites Reconsideration to Defend Methane Case Delay Request
Apr 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is defending its request to pause litigation over its rule regulating methane from new oil and gas sources while the agency reviews the measure, arguing its recent grant of administrative petitions for reconsideration shows the rule is likely to be revised -- thus making claims in the pending lawsuit “moot.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt April 18 granted several petitions from industry groups to reconsider portions of the methane new source performance standards (NSPS), first-time limits on emissions of the potent greenhouse gas from the oil and gas sector.
Pruitt agreed to reconsider several aspects of the rule over concerns that the industry groups had not been able to comment on monitoring and other requirements that appeared in the final rule but were not included in the proposed version and were thus not subject to public comment. Pruitt also stayed an initial June 30 compliance date by 90 days.
The reconsideration proceedings come after EPA had already initiated a review of the methane NSPS consistent with President Donald Trump's March 28 executive order. The Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of EPA, also filed April 7 to hold consolidated litigation, American Petroleum Institute (API), et al. v. EPA, et al., challenging the methane NSPS and two related rules in abeyance during the course of the agency's review of the methane rule.
State intervenors, in their April 17 brief opposing the abeyance request, suggested that the record “strongly supports” the current methane NSPS, “which makes it doubtful that EPA can adequately support a different or weaker rule.”
But in an April 21 reply EPA defends its request, arguing its recent move to grant reconsideration petitions is evidence the rule is likely to be revised in some manner.
“[W]hile the Presidentially mandated review of the 2016 NSPS Rule as a whole is ongoing, EPA recently announced it is initiating a reconsideration proceeding to address certain issues raised in pending administrative reconsideration petitions,” the brief reads. “Thus, the prospect of the Rule being meaningfully revised in the near term is plainly not the remote possibility that Intervenors make it out to be.”
EPA also argues that the methane NSPS litigation is in the early stages. Under the current schedule, parties would be required to submit a briefing schedule and proposed briefing format by May 19.
In addition, the agency dismisses rule supporters' argument that the court should proceed with the litigation to decide “fundamental” issues regarding the methane rule. EPA notes that the court denied a request last fall from petitioners to sever “fundamental legal issues” from the rest of the litigation.
And the agency adds: “If the Rule or record were to change in a meaningful way, then the parties' and the Court's analysis of the issues -- whether primarily 'legal' in character or not -- would necessarily change as well, rendering any prior adjudication an exercise in futility.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-cites-reconsideration-defend-methane-case-delay-request
-
Rail, Pipeline Execs to Testify on Safety Rules
Apr 24, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
Rail and pipeline industry executives will testify on Capitol Hill this week as lawmakers review safety regulations and consider reforms.
The hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials will feature only representatives from the private sector, including the American Petroleum Institute's Robin Rorick and Donald Santa, president of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
Rorick has in the past criticized natural gas pipeline safety rules proposed by former President Obama (Energywire, July 8, 2016).
The hearing will "explore opportunities for reform to ensure America's economic competitiveness in the 21st century."
Lawmakers may also delve into oil pipeline safety regulations that were finalized by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration days before President Trump took office in January (E&E News PM, Jan. 13). That agency is dealing with vacancies in critical positions and is awaiting an administrator nominee from Trump.
Rail safety has also been a significant focus for the committee recently; it successfully pushed legislation through the House late last year aimed at boosting safety along railroads used to transport hazardous materials.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, April 26, at 10 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Linda Darr, president, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association; Roger Nober, executive vice president for law and corporate affairs, BNSF Railway; Paul Rankin, president, Reusable Industrial Packaging Association; Robin Rorick, group director of midstream and industry operations, American Petroleum Institute; Donald Santa, president and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; and John Tolman, vice president and national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060053446
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Manufacturers, EPA Administrator Target Environmental Regulations
Apr 21, 2017 | CBS San Francisco Bay Area
By Hannah Albarazi
The policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have emerged as the main target of American manufacturers, after the Trump Administration pressed industries on which federal regulations they found most burdensome.
Four days after taking office, President Trump signed a memorandum instructing the Commerce Department to find ways to streamline or eliminate burdensome regulations in order to boost domestic manufacturing. Part of the memorandum directed the Secretary of Commerce to solicit comments from stakeholders and the public about regulatory burdens.
The EPA was the primary target among the 171 comments.
The comments solicited from industry come just as EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced a new agenda for the agency, which includes the launch of the EPA Regulatory Reform Task Force, which is tasked with conducting extensive reviews of its own “misaligned regulatory actions.”
Dozens of major American companies — ranging from Koch Industries to United States Steel Corporation to AT&T — submitted their federal regulation grievances to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
American trade associations — such as the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council — also chimed in, largely naming the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corp of Engineers’ policies as major obstacles to building and expanding their domestic businesses.
The businesses and trade associations that listed the regulations having an adverse impact on their bottom lines were located across the country, including some operating in California, where Democratic lawmakers have largely challenged the Republican president’s policy moves.
The California Environmental Protection Agency told CBS San Francisco Friday that “on issues where the Trump administration has taken specific action, the Governor has clearly signaled our intention to fight efforts in Washington to roll back federal programs that protect public health and the environment and fight climate change.”
Valero Energy Corporation, which runs the Benicia petroleum and asphalt refinery, commented that federal, state or local laws overlap in the permitting process and require information needed to satisfy secondary agendas including “addressing perceived environmental justice concerns.”
Valero, a member of the American Fuels and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association, maintains its manufacturing operations are all “significantly impacted by the inefficiencies of the current permitting process, the burdens of the current regulatory regime, and the competitive disadvantage this situation places on American manufacturing.”
Valero also commented on potential challenges poised by the California Bay Area Air Quality Management District — the agency best known for issuing Spare the Air Days — and which is now drafting regulations that could cap emissions at the five Bay Area refineries.
The air district is currently seeking public comment on the proposed regulation before a vote on it next month.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America, which submitted comments on behalf of the California Independent Petroleum Association and other state oil and gas associations, claimed the Bureau of Land Management has “slowed or cancelled lease sales, capitulating to Keep It in the Ground radicals.”
Among the 171 comments submitted to the government, one comment stood out.
A comment submitted by New York University Law School’s Institute for Public Integrity stood out not only because it didn’t represent industry, but because it attempted to warn the Trump administration, stating that it “is an irrational and inefficient approach” to prioritize retrospective review based only on the volume of opposition from industry.
The Institute for Public Integrity warned the U.S. Department of Commerce that, “Such an approach is inappropriate, as it completely ignores the magnitude of the social benefits generated by such regulations and permitting requirements.”
Among the other comments submitted, more than 100 comments mentioned EPA regulations that they believe have hindered their businesses.
Some of the top criticisms of the EPA that flooded into the U.S. Department of Commerce were that the agency failed to adequately address the cost impacts of their policies — such as the Clean Power Plan — on the coal industry. Significant criticism was also raised concerning the EPA’s proposed ban on the chemical compound Trichloroethylene, a common industrial solvent.
U.S. Steel Corporation wrote, “When developing regulations, U.S. EPA must consider the cumulative impact on the industries or even individual sources. All too often, U.S. EPA does not adequately address cost impacts, as has been shown in the effects of the coal industry…”
While the mission of EPA is “to protect human health and the environment,” the new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, launched a new agenda last week.
From a Pennsylvania coal mine, Pruitt launched the “Back-To-Basics” agenda, which aims to refocus the EPA “on its intended mission, returning power to the states, and creating an environment where jobs can grow.”
Pruitt told the coal miners that the “regulatory assault is over.”
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/04/21/epa-administrator-industry-leaders-target-environmental-regulations/
-
Perry, Pruitt and Zinke Pen Op-Ed for Earth Day
Apr 24, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
In honor of Earth Day, top White House appointees penned a "new vision" for the future of American jobs, the environment and energy production.
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke laid out a promise to produce and follow "sound science" to protect America's environment and economy.
They promised to clean up Superfund sites, diversify energy resources, support research for cleaner power and maintain the country's national park system, all while growing the economy and cutting "devastating" regulations.
"We invite all Americans to unite behind our vision of a healthy and clean environment and a strong economy that can support it," they wrote in an op-ed in the Waco Tribune-Herald.
"This Earth Day, we have a message for our fellow Americans: Together we can achieve a clean environment and a strong economy," they wrote.
The op-ed came as thousands of scientists and their supporters gathered on the National Mall this weekend to protest President Trump's policies, which they say could endanger the use of sound science in policymaking.
March for Science participants trekked toward to Capitol chanting and holding signs with slogans like "Save the EPA," "the oceans are rising and so are we" and "stop denying the Earth is dying."
Still, Pruitt, Perry and Zinke — the three Cabinet members most associated with energy and the environment — said they are heeding President Trump's call for environmental and economic "stewardship."
"The days of political agendas guiding policy are over," they wrote, referring to Obama's presidency as eight years of "heavy-handed" regulation that picked "winners and losers."
"When it comes to the economy and environment, our effort is neither left nor right — it's about putting Americans first," the secretaries wrote.
They lauded Trump's executive order on American energy independence as a means to restore job growth and spur energy development. "In response, each of our agencies has taken on the hard work of reviewing regulations that have devastated American communities," said the op-ed.
Trump's second executive order on regulation directs all agency heads to establish a regulatory task force to identify and review rules to be modified or repealed.
Pruitt announced the members of EPA's task force early this month, including Clean Power Plan foe Samantha Dravis. Neither Interior nor DOE has yet to announce similar efforts. The deadline for action is today.
James Goodwin, senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, said when it comes to administrative process, EPA has always been "the head of the class."
EPA's progress implementing Trump's order could be a reflection of the agency's ability to take the lead on regulatory matters, he said. "Alternatively, it may be they've just been the most public about it," said Goodwin.
Pruitt, Perry and Zinke also said they would work to empower local municipalities, seeking greater input from those outside Washington, D.C.
"For too long, job creators, local communities, tribes and states have been kept in the dark about how the federal government will regulate or support them," they wrote. "This hampers the very efforts our agencies undertake to achieve our shared goals of a cleaner environment and a healthy economy."
The agency heads said they are fighting to restore "common sense" and return to the founding principles of balanced power and federalism. "American energy independence means a healthier American environment and a stronger American economy," they wrote.
In an interview with Fox News, Perry echoed the sentiments. "I don't argue that the climate's changing, I don't argue that man is having an impact on it," Perry said, "but you can have economic growth and clean up your environment."
The president himself released a statement with a similar message: "Economic growth enhances environmental protection. We can and must protect our environment without harming America's working families."
Apparently responding to the science march, he added, "My Administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks. As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate."
Reporter Hannah Northey contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/04/24/stories/1060053448
-
Senate Panel to Examine Scientific Basis for Water Rule
Apr 24, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Former and current environmental officials are set to justify the White House's directive to ax an Obama-era rule clarifying the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction at an April 26 Senate committee hearing.
The hearing will examine why President Donald Trump's executive order to repeal and replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule, or waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) (RIN: 2040-AF30), was justified.
The rule, issued jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in June 2015, is currently stayed nationwide pending litigation. It clarifies which waters and wetlands fall under the Clean Water Act jurisdiction and are subject to permitting and other federal water programs.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hear testimony from retired Maj. Gen. John Peabody, who was the commanding general for civil and emergency operations at the Corps until fall 2015. Peabody, whose memos revealed the Corps’ dissent over the Obama rulemaking, will testify that many of the definitions in the WOTUS Rule are not based on the Corps’ expertise and experience. The Corps is the agency performing the in-person inspections that identify what water is federally regulated.
“This hearing will shed light on the fact that the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule is not based on the experience and expertise of the Corps of Engineers, cannot be justified scientific studies, and is not supported by law,” the Senate panel said.
Other witnesses will include:
• Michael Josselyn, principal with California-based Wetlands Research Associates;
• Misha Tseytlin, Wisconsin's solicitor general;
• Ken Kopocis, former EPA deputy assistant administrator for water; and
• Collin O'Mara, president and chief executive officer of the National Wildlife Federation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109949963&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109949963&jd=109949963
-
March for Science Rallies Draw Huge Crowds Around US
Apr 22, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
Thousands of people descended on Washington and other cities across the country on Saturday to voice support for science, with calls for evidence-based public policy and increased funding for scientific research as President Trump defended his climate policies.
While the massive March for Science demonstration was officially organized to support evidence-based efforts in Washington, many marchers voiced opposition to Trump's administration, which they view as hostile toward the scientific community.
Under grey skies and chilly rain, thousands of people crowded onto the National Mall to hear from speakers, who urged policymakers to fund scientific research and pursue efforts to ease and reduce the effects of climate change.
"Today we have a great many lawmakers, not just here, but around the world, deliberately ignoring and actively surpassing science," Bill Nye the "Science Guy" told marchers. "There inclination is misguided, and in no one’s best interest."
Some protesters on the National Mall waved signs embracing science-related puns, such as one featuring an image of Albert Einstein that stated "Science cuts make me relatively angry," a reference to the famous physicist's Theory of Relativity.
"Pretty absurd that this march is necessary," another sign read.
The March for Science, which stretched to cities such as London and as far away as Antarctica, was the latest in a series of massive weekend protests linked to opposition to Trump and his policies.
A day after Trump took office on Jan. 20, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets for the Women's March on Washington and related rallies, and crowds gathered earlier this month to protest Trump's decision not to release his tax returns.
The science march and its sister rallies across the country had been billed as a nonpartisan show of support for scientific enterprise, though a number of demonstrators voiced their opposition to Trump, who has called climate change a hoax created by China.
In Chicago, authorities estimated a crowd of more than 40,000. By noon, according to the city's NBC 5 News, police were telling would-be attendees who had not yet gotten to the march to avoid the event altogether.
In Los Angeles, billionaire Democratic donor and environmental activist Tom Steyer spoke to a crowd of thousands, taking direct aim at Trump. The Trump administration, he said, was bent on ignoring evidence of climate change in favor of corporate interests.
3.4K
© Greg Nash
Thousands of people descended on Washington and other cities across the country on Saturday to voice support for science, with calls for evidence-based public policy and increased funding for scientific research as President Trump defended his climate policies.
While the massive March for Science demonstration was officially organized to support evidence-based efforts in Washington, many marchers voiced opposition to Trump's administration, which they view as hostile toward the scientific community.
Under grey skies and chilly rain, thousands of people crowded onto the National Mall to hear from speakers, who urged policymakers to fund scientific research and pursue efforts to ease and reduce the effects of climate change.
"Today we have a great many lawmakers, not just here, but around the world, deliberately ignoring and actively surpassing science," Bill Nye the "Science Guy" told marchers. "There inclination is misguided, and in no one’s best interest."
Some protesters on the National Mall waved signs embracing science-related puns, such as one featuring an image of Albert Einstein that stated "Science cuts make me relatively angry," a reference to the famous physicist's Theory of Relativity.
"Pretty absurd that this march is necessary," another sign read.
The March for Science, which stretched to cities such as London and as far away as Antarctica, was the latest in a series of massive weekend protests linked to opposition to Trump and his policies.
A day after Trump took office on Jan. 20, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets for the Women's March on Washington and related rallies, and crowds gathered earlier this month to protest Trump's decision not to release his tax returns.
The science march and its sister rallies across the country had been billed as a nonpartisan show of support for scientific enterprise, though a number of demonstrators voiced their opposition to Trump, who has called climate change a hoax created by China.
In Chicago, authorities estimated a crowd of more than 40,000. By noon, according to the city's NBC 5 News, police were telling would-be attendees who had not yet gotten to the march to avoid the event altogether.
In Los Angeles, billionaire Democratic donor and environmental activist Tom Steyer spoke to a crowd of thousands, taking direct aim at Trump. The Trump administration, he said, was bent on ignoring evidence of climate change in favor of corporate interests.
"There is a force in our land," Steyer said. "There is a force coming out of Washington, D.C., called the Trump administration that is out to deny truth and bury science."
Democratic lawmakers seized on the occasion to hit the Trump administration on what some claimed is an outright denial of scientific evidence and willful disregard of the scientific community.
"Science is real. Climate change is real. And the danger the Trump administration poses to the future of our environment & planet is real," Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter.
"With an administration that deals in alternative facts, supporting objective science is more important than ever #MarchforScience#EarthDay," Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) tweeted.
Trump defended his climate policies on Saturday, saying in a statement marking Earth Day that "rigorous science is critical" to his administration's work.
"Economic growth enhances environmental protection. We can and must protect our environment without harming America’s working families. That is why my Administration is reducing unnecessary burdens on American workers and American companies, while being mindful that our actions must also protect the environment," he said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/330082-march-for-science-rallies-draw-huge-crowds-around-us
-
Bloomberg to World Leaders: Ignore Trump on Climate
Apr 23, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)
New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg urged world leaders not to follow President Donald Trump's lead on climate change and declared his intention to help save an international agreement to reduce carbon emissions.
Bloomberg, who considered a presidential bid after serving three terms as New York City's mayor, addressed his intensifying focus on climate change in an interview with The Associated Press. He said there was no political motive tied to last week's release of his new book, "Climate of Hope: How Cities, Businesses, and Citizens Can Save the Planet," co-authored by former Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope.
"I'm not running for office," the 75-year-old Bloomberg said.
Instead of helping to re-ignite his political career, he said the new book offered a specific policy objective: To help save an international agreement, negotiated in Paris, to reduce global carbon emissions.
The Trump administration is debating whether to abandon the pact as the president promised during his campaign. Under the agreement, the U.S. pledged that by 2025 it would reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels, which would be a reduction of about 1.6 billion tons.
Bloomberg said he believed the U.S. would hit that goal regardless of what Trump does because of leadership at the state level and market forces already at play in the private sector.
"Washington won't determine the fate of our ability to meet our Paris commitment," he said in an email Saturday to the AP. "And what a tragedy it would be if the failure to understand that led to an unraveling of the agreement. We hope this book will help to correct that wrong impression — and help save the Paris deal."
Bloomberg already plays a significant role in shaping some of the nation's fiercest policy debates, having invested millions of dollars in one advocacy group that pushes for stronger gun control and another that promotes liberal immigration policies. In the new book, which follows what a spokeswoman described as $80 million in donations to the Sierra Club in recent years, the New York businessman solidifies his status as a prominent climate change advocate as well.
His policy repertoire aligns him with core values of the Democratic Party, although the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned independent has no formal political affiliation.
In the interview, Bloomberg shrugged off conservatives who condemn him as a paternalistic New York elitist. He noted that policies he helped initiate in New York City — including a smoking ban and high taxes on sugary drinks — have eventually caught on elsewhere.
"My goal has been to save and improve lives," he said. "Some ways of doing that can be controversial at first, but end up being highly popular and successful."
In his new focus on climate change, Bloomberg directs particularly aggressive language at the coal industry.
"I don't have much sympathy for industries whose products leave behind a trail of diseased and dead bodies," he wrote in the book. He added: "But for everyone's sake, we should aim to put them out of business..."
Similar language haunted Hillary Clinton's presidential bid last year and fueled criticism from Trump and other top Republicans that Democrats were engaged in a "war on coal."
Bloomberg offered a pragmatic approach when asked about the political consequences for politicians who embrace such a stance.
"The fact is, coal in Appalachia is running out," he said, adding that "Washington can't put generations of people back to work in a dying industry."
Saying that coal miners "have paid a terrible price," Bloomberg also disclosed for the first time plans to donate $3 million to organizations that help unemployed miners and their communities find new economic opportunities. Bloomberg Philanthropies highlights the plight of coal miners in a new film to be featured at the Tribeca Film Festival on Wednesday.
He avoided condemning the Trump administration directly, however, largely casting the new president's steps on climate change as irrelevant. The White House declined to comment when asked about Bloomberg's statements.
"As it turns out, Trump's election makes the book's message — that the most important solutions lie outside of Washington — even more important and urgent," Bloomberg said.
___
This story has been corrected to show that Carl Pope is the former, not current, Sierra Club executive director.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/04/23/us/ap-us-bloomberg-climate.html?_r=0
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested