Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/28/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business and Industry Association to Present Awards
Apr 28, 2017 | Bedford Patch
By Jamie Wilkins
With the recent expansion of the Business and Industry Association’s board of directors from 34 to 90 members, there is no better opportunity than the association’s Annual Business Meeting & Member Reception on May 11th to network with board members and CEOs from New Hampshire's top companies. -
(ACC Mentioned) Personnel Changes Bring U.S. Chemical Industry Group Closer to EPA, Congress
Apr 28, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Former senator joins firm lobbying for American Chemistry Council, association officials move into agency. -
Sensible and Pragmatic Proposal For Implementing the EC's Criteria for Identifying Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
Apr 28, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
In a previous blog, I discussed the European Commission’s (EC) proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), highlighting its strengths and shortcomings. -
New York Proposes Cleaning Product Disclosure Requirements
Apr 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
New York is set to become the first US state to require cleaning product manufacturers to publicly disclose ingredients and to identify chemicals of concern used in formulations. -
EPA Seeks Ideas to Gut Clean Water Rules, But Citizens Speak Up for Public Health
Apr 28, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
The Environmental Protection Agency is soliciting ideas for easing "burdensome" water regulations – Trump administration doublespeak for gutting rules that protect drinking water from toxic chemicals, animal waste and other contaminants. -
Court OKs Trump's Request to Pause Litigation
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court today agreed to pause the massive litigation over the Obama administration's rule for limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. -
Court Suspends Case Over Obama Climate Rule
Apr 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court is pausing its case over former President Barack Obama’s landmark climate change regulation, notching a major victory for the Trump administration. -
Court Delay Hands Trump Victory Over Obama Climate Change Rule
Apr 28, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillen
A federal appeals court granted President Donald Trump's request to halt a lawsuit over the Obama administration's most important climate change regulation on Friday, handing the him a major victory in his bid to revoke the rule that would have required power plants to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. -
Court Suspends Litigation on Climate Rule in Win for Trump
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court's decision this morning to pause litigation over the Clean Power Plan is a win for the Trump administration, making it unlikely that judges will issue a ruling on its legality as U.S. EPA reviews the controversial program. -
Court Delays EPA Mercury Rule Case While Trump Reviews
Apr 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal court delayed its case Thursday regarding a major Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air pollution rule. -
Exploded Home was Built 178 Feet from Oil Well
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Mike Soraghan
An explosion at a home in Colorado, which killed two people and prompted the state's biggest oil producer to shut down some of its wells, has highlighted the tension between Colorado's flourishing oil business and its rapid housing development. -
White House Leaning Toward DHS Cyber Shakeup — Lawmaker
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump's administration has warmed up to creating a distinct, cyber-focused agency within the Department of Homeland Security, according to the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. -
'We're Gonna Have to Do the Same Meeting Again' — with Trump
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Jean Chemnick
Top administration officials failed to reconcile their differences over the Paris climate agreement yesterday, making an additional meeting likely over which President Trump may preside, according to a source. -
Trump Hints He May Stay in Paris Climate Pact
Apr 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is hinting that he might keep the United States in the Paris climate change agreement, but he doesn’t think it currently treats the U.S. fairly. -
State and Local Governments Can Take the Lead on Climate Policy
Apr 28, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Basav Sen
In March, the World Meteorological Organization released data on the state of the earth’s atmosphere in 2016. Last year, it found, was the hottest year since humanity started recording temperatures, continuing a trend of steadily rising mercury.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business and Industry Association to Present Awards
Apr 28, 2017 | Bedford Patch
By Jamie Wilkins
With the recent expansion of the Business and Industry Association’s board of directors from 34 to 90 members, there is no better opportunity than the association’s Annual Business Meeting & Member Reception on May 11th to network with board members and CEOs from New Hampshire's top companies.
The meeting will include the election of officers and directors for 2017-2018 and honor outstanding BIA volunteer members with Above & Beyond Awards from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Radisson Hotel in Manchester. The business meeting (open to BIA members only) is sponsored by Pierce Atwood and the networking reception (open to members and non-members) is sponsored by the American Chemistry Council and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health, and media sponsor New Hampshire Business Review.
“The ‘Above and Beyond’ award recognizes those individuals who have gone the extra mile and demonstrated an extraordinary willingness and commitment to helping further BIA’s legislative and regulatory priorities,” said BIA President Jim Roche. “We appreciate the time and energy each honoree has devoted to BIA in the past year.”
The award recipients include:
Dan Bennett, New Hampshire Automobile Dealers Association (NHADA)
Bill Burke, McLean Communications
Judy Burrows, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation
Jeff Chierepko, Sig Sauer, Inc.
Mark Ciborowski, Ciborowski Realty Trust
Beth Doiron, Community System College of NH
Kim Firth, Endowment for Health
Stephen LeBlanc, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health
Neil Levesque, The New Hampshire Institute of Politics
Deb Libby, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Michael Licata, Liberty Utilities
Brian Maloy, Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc.
James Reidy, Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green
Connie Roy-Czyzowski, Northeast Delta Dental
The Annual Business Meeting begins with the election of directors and officers to BIA’s 90 member board of directors for 2017/2018. This portion of the meeting is open to BIA members only. The reception following the business meeting is open to non-members as well.
Registration begins at 4:30 p.m. The business meeting will commence promptly at 5 p.m. and the reception will begin at 6 p.m. Tickets are $45 per person for BIA members for the business meeting and reception. The cost for non-members attending the reception is $75 per person. Register online here or call 603-224-5388 x101 for more information.
https://patch.com/new-hampshire/bedford-nh/business-industry-association-present-awards
-
(ACC Mentioned) Personnel Changes Bring U.S. Chemical Industry Group Closer to EPA, Congress
Apr 28, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Former senator joins firm lobbying for American Chemistry Council, association officials move into agency.
Full Article Found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i18/Personnel-changes-bring-US-chemical.html
-
Apr 28, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
In a previous blog, I discussed the European Commission’s (EC) proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), highlighting its strengths and shortcomings. Subsequently, the EC asked the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to jointly develop guidance for actual implementation of the proposed criteria. They published an outline for their proposed guidance last December.
In a recent development, the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) has added flesh to the bones of the ECHA/EFSA outline by publishing its proposal for a seven-step process for the identification of EDCs. (You can read ECETOC’s announcement here.)
As I will discuss below, the ECETOC proposal should be received favorably as it represents a sensible and pragmatic approach to what otherwise could be an overly complicated process.
The seven-step process
The way in which ECETOC defines an EDC establishes a crucial starting point for its seven-step process for identifying EDCs. As did the EC in its proposed criteria, ECETOC relies on the widely accepted World Health Organization’s International Programme on Chemical Safety definition of an EDC, which stipulates that a chemical 1) act through an endocrine mode of action to 2) cause an adverse effect.
Mirroring the joint ECHA/EFSA proposed outline, the ECETOC proposal includes a seven-step process:
I. gathering relevant data relating to adverse effects and endocrine modes of action;
II. evaluating data quality;
III. evaluating evidence for adverse effects;
IV. evaluating evidence for endocrine activity;
V. integrating the evidence and evaluating biological plausibility that adverse effect and endocrine activity are linked by specific endocrine mode of action;
VI. identifying uncertainties; and
VII. concluding on endocrine disrupting properties
According to ECETOC, the seven steps need not be followed in consecutive order; rather, the most appropriate sequence of steps should be determined on a case-by-case basis, requiring “expert judgment”.
The ECETOC guidance covers both human and environmental health. It also demonstrates how to integrate data from a variety of sources employing a Weight-of- Evidence (WoE) approach using best practices.
Positive Attributes of the ECETOC Guidance
The ECETOC guidance proposes applying existing, relevant scientific concepts and established best-practice frameworks and methodologies, e.g. the Joint Research Centre Toxicological data Reliability Assessment Tool (ToxR Tool) for assessing data reliability; the OECD Conceptual Framework for Testing and Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters; the OECD Guidance Document No.150; and the most recent version of the WHO/IPCS MoA/species concordance framework.
By following the ECETOC guidance, those charged with applying the EC criteria can transparently organize and evaluate the data for any regulated substance to reveal the WoE available, including its strengths and uncertainties, to compare with the WHO/IPCS definition for an endocrine disruptor and the scientific criteria set out in the context of the EU plant protection products and biocidal products legislation. This enables a conclusion to be drawn on whethera substance does or does not meet this regulatory definition.
Opportunities for Improvement
There is one constraint of using the ECETOC guidance. Similar to the EC criteria and the ECHA/EFSA outline, the guidance is restricted to only the hazard evaluation step, although its authors rightfully note that substances that are identified as possessing endocrine disrupting properties should undergo a comprehensive hazard and risk assessment. This entails the determination of safety thresholds, exposure assessment, potency assessment, and a determination of whether acceptable risk can be demonstrated. Such approaches have already been implemented internationally, e.g., in the USA, Canada, and Japan.
Although the joint ECHA/EFSA outline specifically references use of data derived from epidemiology and/or field studies for the purposes of identifying adverse effects (Step III), the ECETOC guidance is conspicuously silent on these data sources. The reasons for this omission are unknown, but may relate to the difficulties that regulatory agencies have historically faced in integrating evidence obtained from observational studies with evidence derived from experimental ones. The omission may not constitute a major problem, however, since the existing relevant tools that ECETOC relies upon can be adapted for use with observational studies. Still, one can’t help but think that ECETOC missed an opportunity to highlight the limitations and special challenges posed by observational studies. In 2013, EFSA provided some of its early thinking on uses of epidemiology and field studies that may signal how it and ECHA will tackle this issue in their forthcoming guidance. The US EPA has recently published a framework for how it intends to incorporate epidemiology and incident data into its risk assessments on pesticides; however, its experience to date with doing so suggests there are opportunities for improvement.
A public consultation on the ECHA/EFSA draft guidance is scheduled for the summer. In the meantime, ECETOC plans a series of case studies to test its own proposed guidance document into actual practice. Stay tuned for further developments.
http://www.science20.com/gregory_bond/sensible_and_pragmatic_proposal_for_implementing_the_ecs_criteria_for_identifying_endocrine_disrupting_chemicals
-
New York Proposes Cleaning Product Disclosure Requirements
Apr 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
New York is set to become the first US state to require cleaning product manufacturers to publicly disclose ingredients and to identify chemicals of concern used in formulations.
As announced by Governor Andrew Cuomo earlier this year, the state is introducing the Household Cleaning Product Information Disclosure programme under a 47-year-old and once-forgotten state law. The state's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) released a draft certification form and guidance document for public consultation earlier this week.
The draft calls for manufacturers of covered household cleaning products – which include soaps and detergents used for cleaning fabrics, dishes and other purposes – to disclose on their websites a list of all ingredients, including those present in trace quantities. Substances should be listed in descending order of quantity, with each one's content by weight and functional role indicated.
The rule proposes allowing certain exclusions for protection of confidential business information (CBI), including for fragrance ingredients.
A separate provision would also require manufacturers to identify the presence of any 'chemicals of concern'. These include substances found on any of 16 state-identified 'authoritative lists' or those with certain hazard characteristics. They include:
those identified by the US EPA as chemicals of concern, PBTs, priority chemicals, or ozone-depleting substances;
the EU Endocrine Disruptor list and list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs);
substances listed as reproductive toxicants or carcinogens under California’s Proposition 65;
chemicals classified as a group 1, 2a or 2b by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc); and
those ingredients classified under the GHS as skin or eye irritants, respiratory or skin sensitisers, mutagens or aquatic toxicants.
Each list on which an ingredient appears, together with a link to the authoritative source, should be included in the listing. The requirement would also extend to those ingredients protected as CBI.
The DEC has also proposed that manufacturers post information "regarding the nature and extent of investigations and research performed by or for the manufacturer concerning the effects on human health and the environment" of products and their ingredients.
Ingredient disclosure debate continues
DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos said the new programme "will reduce contamination and human exposure to these chemicals of concern" and lauded Governor Cuomo's efforts to introduce the new regulations.
But the American Cleaning Institute (ACI) issued a statement saying that "consumers should understand that cleaning product manufacturers already provide detailed information online about the ingredients in the products they use safety and effectively every day".
The industry's voluntary Consumer Product Ingredient Communication Initiative, it added, offers "flexibility … [that] facilitates strong marketplace ingredient communication by manufacturers with the customer base they serve."
The trade group says it will be providing in-depth comments by the state's consultation deadline.
Ingredient disclosure has been a major issue for both state and federal legislators in recent years. So-called ‘right to know’ legislation has been introduced in more than half a dozen states this year, addressing such product categories as household cleaners, cosmetics, toys and electronics.
A California bill that would have required cleaning product ingredient disclosure – including for fragrances – was narrowly voted down last year. The current legislature has reintroduced the Cleaning Products Right to Know Act of 2017, which is currently working its way through committee.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55520/new-york-proposes-cleaning-product-disclosure-requirements
-
EPA Seeks Ideas to Gut Clean Water Rules, But Citizens Speak Up for Public Health
Apr 28, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
The Environmental Protection Agency is soliciting ideas for easing "burdensome" water regulations – Trump administration doublespeak for gutting rules that protect drinking water from toxic chemicals, animal waste and other contaminants. So far more than 32,000 Americans have submitted online comments, but many aren’t sending EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt the feedback he bargained for.
Thousands of comments came from folks who want existing rules on clean water and other environmental protections kept intact or strengthened. Here's a selection of the views of anonymous Americans who – in no uncertain terms – resist Trump and Pruitt’s agenda to give polluters a free hand:
I am extremely fond of breathing clean air and drinking clean water, I would like these things to be available to my children and grandchildren. Please keep the regulations in place that help protect our air and water. Short term profits for corporations do not outweigh the long term benefit of a healthy environment.
As one of a majority of Americans I do not support any weakening of regulations that insure that we have clean water, clean air and healthy soil. I support the clean power regulations to reduce air pollution from coal plants. Those regulations will save many lives ... Do not weaken the ability of the EPA to protect our clean water, soil and air.
Please work to keep our water, air, and land clean and safe for all people. Regulations that protect the water we drink, the air we breathe, the land where our food is grown, where our children play, the open spaces that people and animals need and enjoy should not be removed. This means that existing regulations on mining, industry, farming and other activities that require safe practices and healthy outcomes are also essential. Keep America clean and healthy for all.
The current administration has made it clear that their intent is to jeopardize the health of the planet in order to enrich the pockets of the fossil fuel industry ... The blatant disregard for the quality of our country's air and water is disheartening and will not be forgotten in upcoming election cycles. It is clear that Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt want to shape the EPA to be the next Tobacco Institute. How these people sleep at night is beyond me.
A nationwide survey conducted by Gallup last month found that 63 percent of Americans “worried a great deal about pollution of drinking water” – the most in 17 years. But it's really no surprise that under Trump and Pruitt the EPA is more interested in listening to polluters than the American people.
An EWG investigation earlier this year found that as Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt took sizable campaign contributions from interests tied to water polluters. After receiving $40,000 for his unopposed 2014 campaign from donors connected to industrial-scale chicken farms, Pruitt halted state litigation against the poultry industry’s pollution of the Illinois River watershed with chicken manure. For Trump's part, despite promising “crystal clear, clean drinking water,” one of his first executive orders abolished the Clean Water Rule, putting the drinking water sources of roughly 117 million Americans at risk from industrial and agricultural pollution.
In addition to taking online input, next week the EPA is holding a so-called listening session on water regulations by telephone and web conferencing. But the agency isn't exactly making it easy for the public to take part.
People who want to give input must pre-register for what EPA says are randomly selected spots on one of 150 phone lines set aside to call in. About half of them will get a chance to speak for one to two minutes each. You can also pre-register to be one of 1,000 people allowed to listen in online. You have until May 15 to submit written comments here.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/04/epa-seeks-ideas-gut-clean-water-rules-citizens-speak-public-health
-
Court OKs Trump's Request to Pause Litigation
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court today agreed to pause the massive litigation over the Obama administration's rule for limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Trump administration's motion to hold the case in abeyance for 60 days. The court directed parties to file briefs addressing the future of the litigation.
The full court heard nearly seven hours of oral arguments in September 2016 on the Clean Power Plan but had yet to issue a decision on the legality of the rule, which was stayed by the Supreme Court earlier last year.
The government asked to pause the case in response to President Trump's executive order in March calling on federal agencies to reconsider a number of Obama administration climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan.
"EPA should be afforded the opportunity to fully review the Clean Power Plan and respond to the president's direction in a manner that is consistent with the terms of the executive order, the Clean Air Act, and the agency's inherent authority to reconsider past decisions," the Justice Department told the court (Energywire, March 29).
Environmentalists and state supporters of the Clean Power Plan had urged the court to reject the request.
They argued that halting the case now would be unprecedented and that the litigation raised several questions that would still be relevant no matter what the Trump administration did with the rule.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060053749
-
Court Suspends Case Over Obama Climate Rule
Apr 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court is pausing its case over former President Barack Obama’s landmark climate change regulation, notching a major victory for the Trump administration.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday halted the case while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) works through the process of repealing the Clean Power Plan.
The decision means that the federal court will not publish its ruling on whether or not the regulation, the main pillar of Obama’s climate change agenda, is legal.
The court heard oral arguments in September in the challenge by conservative states, fossil fuel businesses and others who argue that the Clean Air Act and the Constitution prohibit the EPA from writing the regulation.
The Trump administration also opposes the rule. President Trump signed an executive order last month to start the process of repealing the Clean Power Plan, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt led the legal challenge against it in his previous job as Oklahoma’s attorney general.
Shortly after Trump signed his order, the Justice Department asked the court to hold off on the case.
“EPA should be afforded the opportunity to fully review the Clean Power Plan and respond to the president’s direction in a manner that is consistent with the terms of the executive order, the Clean Air Act, and the agency’s inherent authority to reconsider past decisions. Deferral of further judicial proceedings is thus warranted,” attorneys wrote.
Environmentalists and Democratic states supporting the rule said the court should decide on the case and that a delay “would have the effect of improperly suspending the rule without review by any court, without any explanation, and without mandatory administrative process.”
Most of the court’s 10 judges who heard the case in September seemed to lean toward the Obama administration’s position that the regulation at issue is proper and can be enforced.
The rule would have ordered a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, with targets individually assigned to each state. It has been on hold since February 2016 because of a Supreme Court order.
The Trump administration is working to repeal the Clean Power Plan. The process requires a proposal and an opportunity for public input, and could take a year or more. At that point, environmentalists, Democratic-led states and others are likely to sue the administration to keep the regulation in place.
The D.C. Circuit asked the Trump administration to file updates every 30 days on its process of formally reviewing the rule.
The court also put on hold a separate case over a related EPA rule setting limits on emissions from newly built coal and natural gas power plants.
Similarly, the Obama administration wrote that rule, and the Trump administration wants to repeal it.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/331060-court-suspends-case-over-obama-climate-rule
-
Court Delay Hands Trump Victory Over Obama Climate Change Rule
Apr 28, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillen
A federal appeals court granted President Donald Trump's request to halt a lawsuit over the Obama administration's most important climate change regulation on Friday, handing the him a major victory in his bid to revoke the rule that would have required power plants to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.
The decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals sends the rule back to Trump's EPA to review and most likely quash the regulation that had been at the heart of former President Barack Obama's strategy to combat emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants.
Today's ruling comes just as Trump signed a new executive order to begin rolling back Obama's restrictions on offshore oil and gas drilling and just one day ahead major climate change protests planned for Washington and several other cities around the country.
The administration is also debating whether to remain in the Paris climate change agreement. Trump said in an interview published this morning that the pact is "not a fair situation" and that China, Russia and India aren't contributing enough money to help poorer countries cope with the effects of climate change.
The court had been expected to decide soon on whether the rule, called the Clean Power Plan, was legally sound under the Clean Air Act, but the Trump administration asked the judges to halt their deliberations so it could take another look at the regulation. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has been one of the rule's most vociferous opponents, and as the attorney general of Oklahoma had helped spearhead the legal challenges seeking to overturn it.
The court's pause in the case means EPA will not have to contend with a potentially awkward opinion that could have upheld the regulation as Trump's EPA worked to dismantle it. Many legal observers believed after last year’s arguments that the rule would have survived most, if not all, of the legal challenges.
The landmark Obama rule sought to curb power plant carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent below their 2005 levels by 2030. The court paused the lawsuit against the rule for 60 days, and it asked for EPA to file status reports every 30 days. It also asked litigants to file motions on whether to remand the case back to the agency rather than hold it in abeyance.
Neither the White House nor EPA offered an immediate reaction to today's court ruling.
Pruitt's EPA now has the time it needs to review the rule and most likely propose repealing it. Trump specifically ordered EPA to do so in his executive order in March, saying he was ending the "war on coal," and that his policy would "create millions of good American jobs, also so many energy jobs, and really lead to unbelievable prosperity.”
Trump, who famously dismissed climate change as a hoax, has also repealed several Obama-era environmental directives aimed at reducing the federal government’s own carbon footprint, and it directed agencies to ferret out any additional policies that impeded U.S. energy production. The president also told federal regulators to stop using the “social cost of carbon,” which attempts to quantify the effects of climate change, in economic analyses of future rules.
Carrying out that repeal of regulation could take a year or more since the agency must go through the same sort of public notice-and-comment rulemaking it followed in creating the rule that was issued under former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in 2015. And EPA’s final decision could be challenged in court as well, meaning the agency would have to defend its legal rationale for repealing the rule.
It’s not entirely clear what will happen in the future, and observers say these are relatively uncharted legal waters. With today's ruling, the federal court is keeping a sweeping regulation on ice, potentially for years, while a new administration works to repeal it.
Some experts say it is possible that if EPA’s expected repeal is rejected by the courts in the future, the issue could simply push the court to rule on the legal merit of the challenges to the Clean Power Plan.
Also, repealing the Clean Power Plan and litigating that action could last through much of Trump’s term, keeping the issue in the political spotlight during the 2018 and 2020 elections.
Both Trump and Republicans in Congress have been working hard to erase a host of energy regulations issued in the final two years of Obama’s term.
The pause of the Clean Power Plan challenge makes it likely the court will grant a similar request for halting its sister regulation, which sets emission limits for future power plants. That rule’s legal challenge had been proceeding at a slower pace, and arguments that had been scheduled for April arguments were canceled at the new administration's request.
The administration has succeeded in getting the court to suspend other ongoing court cases over Obama-era rules, including the 2015 ozone standard, regulations limiting pollutants discharged in power plants' water streams and from smokestacks during startup, and a refrigerant rule. Plus, EPA is seeking similar pauses in several other lawsuits, including over truck emissions and the mercury rule.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/04/court-ruling-hands-trump-victory-over-obama-climate-change-rule-156023
-
Court Suspends Litigation on Climate Rule in Win for Trump
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court's decision this morning to pause litigation over the Clean Power Plan is a win for the Trump administration, making it unlikely that judges will issue a ruling on its legality as U.S. EPA reviews the controversial program.
The rule was the centerpiece of the Obama administration's domestic climate change agenda and required states to develop plans to lower carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's order this morning paused consolidated litigation over the rule for 60 days and asked EPA to file status reports every month. All of the court's active judges except Chief Judge Merrick Garland participated in the order.
"If the court had upheld the rule, it wouldn't have prevented the new administration from revoking it, but it might have made this effort harder," said Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell and a former EPA air chief. "At the very least, today's ruling means that it will not take as long for the administration to undo the Clean Power Plan."
A three-judge panel of the same court this morning also paused litigation over the Obama administration's carbon rule for new power plants.
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan had supported the Trump administration's request to pause the litigation and said they were happy with the court's decision.
"We're pleased they held in abeyance, and we're reviewing the order," said Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former Justice Department environmental attorney who is representing industry in the litigation.
Environmentalists and state supporters of the Clean Power Plan, on the other hand, had opposed efforts to pause the litigation. They asked the court to still issue a decision on the legality of the Clean Power Plan regardless of what the Trump administration ultimately does with the rule.
In a statement, the Environmental Defense Fund today pledged to oppose "litigation tactics of polluters" and efforts by the Trump administration to roll back climate change rules.
"The Supreme Court is clear that EPA has a duty to protect Americans from dangerous climate pollution under our nation's clean air laws," said Vickie Patton, EDF's general counsel, "and Environmental Defense Fund will take swift action to ensure that EPA carries out its responsibilities under the law."
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), who leads a coalition of states and localities in defense of the Clean Power Plan, also this morning vowed to "continue to fight" EPA in court over protections for public health and the environment.
"Today's temporary pause in the litigation does not relieve EPA of its legal obligation to limit carbon pollution from its largest source: fossil-fueled power plants," Schneiderman said in an emailed statement via a spokesperson. "Nor does it change the reality of the dire harm climate change is causing to communities around New York and across the country."
The administration filed its motion to hold the case in abeyance in March after President Trump issued his "energy independence" executive order that called for rolling back several Obama administration climate initiatives, including the Clean Power Plan.
In the past few weeks, federal circuit courts have granted other requests by the Trump administration to pause litigation over Obama-era EPA rules, including the agency's cost analysis for a rule targeting mercury and other air toxic emissions from power plants (see related story).
Today's order on the Clean Power Plan is "obviously important, but not terribly surprising," Holmstead said. "I don't think the D.C. Circuit has ever gone ahead and decided on the legality of a rule when a new administration says it plans to rescind or revise it."
Unlike with other litigation over Obama-era rules that courts have paused, however, the D.C. Circuit today also ordered parties in the Clean Power Plan dispute to file briefs by May 15 on whether it should remand the consolidated cases back to EPA or continue to hold them in abeyance.
In effect, the court wants to know whether it should terminate or maintain jurisdiction over the litigation.
"It signals the court's interest in not just putting this off but making sure the agency actually goes forward with something," said Jim Rubin, an attorney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP and formerly of the Justice Department. "It'll be interesting to see what positions the parties take."
"It usually doesn't happen this way," he added. "Nothing in this case is usual."
In an unprecedented move in February 2016, for example, the Supreme Court issued a nationwide stay of the rule until litigation is resolved; the rule remains stayed today. The court issued the 5-4 order just days before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The D.C. Circuit also unexpectedly decided to hear the case en banc, or in front of the whole court. In September 2016, 10 judges of the court heard nearly seven hours of oral arguments in the case.
Opponents have argued that the rule exceeds EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act, as well as infringes on state sovereignty. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had been among the rule's opponents as the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma.
Vera Pardee, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that the court's order for more briefing is a sign that the Trump administration must take steps to address climate change.
"The D.C. Circuit Court recognized that the Trump administration cannot have it both ways," Pardee said. "The administration can't put the case in legal limbo while doing nothing to protect the planet from the consequences of climate change."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/28/stories/1060053774
-
Court Delays EPA Mercury Rule Case While Trump Reviews
Apr 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal court delayed its case Thursday regarding a major Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air pollution rule.
In a victory for the Trump administration, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled late Thursday that the case will be on hold while the administration decides whether to repeal the regulation or defend it in court.
At issue is a rule the Obama administration wrote last year to fix a problem with the cost-benefit analysis regarding 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, limiting pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
The Supreme Court decided against the underlying rule in 2015, but a lower court gave the EPA an opportunity to fix the cost-benefit analysis.
The Trump administration said in requesting the delay earlier this month that it is reviewing the 2016 rule to decide if it supports it.
It’s unclear what that means for the underlying 2012 rule and whether the administration is considering repealing that regulation.
The Environmental Defense Fund slammed Thursday’s decision and the EPA’s decision to review the rule.
“The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards have a rock-solid foundation in the law and science, and there is no basis to weaken them,” Graham McCahan, an attorney with the group, said in a statement. “We fully expect these critical health protections will continue to remain in place.”
In the case, numerous business groups and conservative states are asking the court to overturn the 2016 fix, saying it doesn’t follow the Clean Air Act’s requirements. Scott Pruitt, the EPA’s administrator, had been a leader in the litigation when he was Oklahoma’s attorney general.
The court asked the Trump administration to give updates every 90 days on its review process.
The regulation took effect in 2015 and has already been blamed for shutting down scores of coal-fired power plants.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/330960-court-delays-epa-mercury-rule-case-while-trump-reviews
-
Exploded Home was Built 178 Feet from Oil Well
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Mike Soraghan
An explosion at a home in Colorado, which killed two people and prompted the state's biggest oil producer to shut down some of its wells, has highlighted the tension between Colorado's flourishing oil business and its rapid housing development.
It's still unclear exactly what caused the April 17 explosion at a home in Firestone, about 35 miles northeast of Denver. But the home was built in 2015, 178 feet from an existing well that was drilled in 1993, and both politicians and activists say it shows the uneasy balance between the building boom and the energy boom.
Regulators at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission impose a 500-foot setback between new oil and gas wells and existing homes. But they don't control how closely new homes are built to existing oil wells, Director Matt Lepore said yesterday.
That's left up to local governments, and Firestone requires a 150-foot buffer when a home is built near an existing well, according to the town website.
"This subdivision was built after this well was put in — the subdivision moved south slowly toward the well," Lepore said in a news conference broadcast on the web.
Weld County, which includes Firestone, was the fourth fastest-growing county in the United States last year, according to the Greeley Tribune. At the same time, the county was also home to 42 percent of Colorado's 54,000 active wells, according to the county Planning and Building Department.
The issue isn't new. Homes and business have encroached on existing oil fields in Oklahoma, California, New Mexico and Texas, in addition to Colorado.
Gap in the regulatory system?
When the shale gas boom pushed drilling into urban areas around Fort Worth, Texas, in the mid-2000s, many of them adopted "reverse setbacks" that regulate the distance between new construction and existing gas wells. Fort Worth settled on 300 feet.
It was a tricky political issue, said Jim Bradbury, an attorney who served on a task force that helped write Fort Worth's drilling ordinance. Regular setbacks anger drillers, while reverse setbacks anger developers, who are often politically powerful in the cities where they operate.
"It's important to have a setback both ways, the principle is the same," he said. "When you say there's going to be a reverse setback, developers get agitated. They view that as taking their property."
Shane Davis, who runs the Fractivist.org website in Colorado, said he's been concerned about the potential danger of older oil wells for a long time. It's one of the reasons he moved out of Firestone, he said.
"The big question is, why isn't the COGCC doing anything about this to protect communities?" Davis said. "Why isn't there a state law demanding, preventing home developers from developing closer than any setbacks that the state ... has?"
At the same time, most of the debate in Colorado has centered on how to regulate new oil and gas wells. The question of setbacks between new homes and older wells "could well be" a gap in the regulatory system, said Sam Mamet, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, a nonprofit coalition of cities and towns.
"This could be something to look at in concert with the commission, the operators, and other interested parties," Mamet wrote in an email.
The explosion happened in a rapidly growing suburban area near the intersection of two major streets. The home belonged to Mark Martinez, a local water department foreman and his wife, Erin Martinez, a teacher, according to local media reports. Mark Martinez and his brother-in-law Joey Erwin died in the explosion, and Erin Martinez was severely burned (Energywire, April 27).
The Firestone fire department is leading the investigation into the explosion and will determine the cause of the fire.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which owns the well near the Martinez home, said it would shut in all 3,000 of its vertical wells in northeastern Colorado that were drilled in the early 1990s as a precautionary measure while it conducts safety tests.
Lepore said all seven wells in the Oak Meadows subdivision, where the explosion occurred, have been shut in. The COGCC hired a contractor to test the air in the subdivision for fugitive gas, and another contractor will test the soil in the area for evidence of hydrocarbons.
"COGCC believes there is no immediate threat to the public associated with oil and gas operations in the neighborhood," Lepore said.
Previous damage
Colorado has had other instances when oil and gas wells damaged homes.
Gas from pre-World War II wells was blamed for a February 2005 explosion that destroyed a house near Durango and injured its owner. State officials had already tried three times to plug old wells in the area. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their fourth try.
In 2007, an operator agreed to shut down gas wells near a housing development around Walsenburg in southern Colorado after an explosion blew the roof off a water well house.
The well close to the Martinez's house, named the "Coors V 6-14Ji," produced both oil and gas. It was drilled in 1993 for Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. and had surface casing down to 571 feet.
It was acquired by Noble Energy, which sold it in 2014 to Kerr-McGee Corp., which by then had been bought by Anadarko.
It was inspected by COGCC staff in 1994, 2000, 2004 and 2009 and 2014. It was rated satisfactory the last four times. State records don't show any spills from the well or any complaints about it.
The 2014 inspection noted that it was producing only intermittently.
The encroachment of houses on oil and gas development in northeastern Colorado was documented last year in a study by the Colorado School of Public Health.
The study found that by 2012, under one-fifth of the population in the Denver-Julesburg Basin drilling area lived within a mile of an oil and gas well. The reason, the study said, was that houses were being built near wells.
"The bottom line is, we shouldn't be building homes, schools and hospital next to" oil and gas sites, said Christine Berg, the mayor of Lafayette, Colo., who has pushed for bigger setbacks between homes and oil and gas wells.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/28/stories/1060053740
-
White House Leaning Toward DHS Cyber Shakeup — Lawmaker
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump's administration has warmed up to creating a distinct, cyber-focused agency within the Department of Homeland Security, according to the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said yesterday that one of his "biggest priorities" in Congress this year will be to revive plans for a dedicated cybersecurity agency at DHS with its own operating authority.
"The administration, I think, supports this — we'll be introducing the bill soon," McCaul said at a cybersecurity conference hosted by CTIA, a wireless industry group. "We were waiting for the White House, but we just got that word," he added, noting that "it looks very positive."
A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.
Under the current bureaucratic setup, DHS's infrastructure protection and cybersecurity teams are housed under the vaguely named National Protection and Programs Directorate, which in turn reports to the Office of the Secretary.
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, has noted McCaul's attention to cybersecurity and has said he will make the issue a priority in his tenure (Energywire, April 19).
The agency's cybersecurity responsibilities now fall to NPPD's National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, which helps share cyberthreat intelligence between the public and private sectors.
"It's not a priority; it's not a focused mission that can be streamlined and effective," McCaul said. "I think in this evolving threat that we're facing, it's vitally important that the department has a separate agency devoted solely to cybersecurity."
McCaul said he intends to push legislation to restructure DHS apart from the agency's funding reauthorization.
"We'd like to move it quickly as a stand-alone bill," he said.
McCaul noted that his colleagues in Congress have also started to come around to the cybersecurity issue as high-profile breaches and hacking attacks continue to proliferate.
"The cyber warfare piece, the ability to shut things down, is far more devastating than an active shooter or suicide bomber could ever be, when you look at power grids to telecommunications, to energy," he said. "We're lacking in our defensive capability, in terms of defending the private sector and the critical infrastructures."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/28/stories/1060053723
-
'We're Gonna Have to Do the Same Meeting Again' — with Trump
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann and Jean Chemnick
Top administration officials failed to reconcile their differences over the Paris climate agreement yesterday, making an additional meeting likely over which President Trump may preside, according to a source.
A number of Cabinet members and top White House advisers took turns voicing their opinions about whether to continue with or quit the global agreement, and whether it harms economic growth in the energy sector. The discussion was respectful, if at times "a little spirited," but it did not resolve the divisions separating the two camps, the source said.
"We're gonna have to do the same meeting again with the president, I think," the source said.
The meeting yesterday was organized to help officials agree on a recommendation that could be given to the president before the Group of Seven meeting late next month. Trump is expected to announce his decision about the climate agreement before that conference of nations.
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently urged for a withdrawal from the agreement, and he is said to be joined by the president's chief strategist, Steve Bannon. Those who appear to support staying in the climate pact include Jared Kushner, a top adviser to Trump, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Yesterday's meeting did not provide any surprises with regard to which side of the issue individual officials line up on, the source said.
Just before the White House meeting yesterday, a key trade group representing the U.S. coal industry reversed course and asked Trump to withdraw from the global pact.
The National Mining Association sent the president a letter yesterday that described the agreement as harmful to miners. That represented an about-face from the trade group's previous decision to remain neutral on Paris, while focusing instead on a domestic agenda that includes the termination of EPA's Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era regulations. The group declined to provide the letter.
"NMA does not believe the Paris Accord allows the U.S. to achieve the important balance between ensuring affordable energy and at the same time fostering innovation and building the economy," said Luke Popovich, an NMA spokesman.
With Trump being pulled in two directions on the agreement, both options expose the administration to potential risks. Leaving the agreement would fulfill Trump's promise to "cancel" it, but that could complicate international negotiations on trade and other issues. If the United States maintains its membership, that could calm concerns among international partners who view climate change as an acute risk, but it stands to cause discontent in the Republican base.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who advised Trump on energy issues before the election, said he believes the meeting marks the beginning, not the end, of a "family discussion" that won't be resolved this week.
"What comes out of it won't be obvious today," Cramer said in an interview. "That's my anticipation. This is the first opportunity for the various divergent opinions to all get in the room at the same time and sort of debate this thing out."
A climate 'veto'
Sources said the reversal by the National Mining Association followed a vote by its membership on Tuesday. Pruitt has been the Trump administration's most vocal opponent of staying in the Paris deal, and he visited the trade group prior to the vote. But Popovich disputed news reports that said Pruitt demanded that the coal group back his position.
While he said the industry engaged with Pruitt, "who has been responsible for the regulations that have been most injurious to us," he dismissed the suggestion that Pruitt's position on Paris was decisive.
"There is a diversity of opinion within the industry," Popovich acknowledged, adding that in the end, anti-Paris advocates won out.
White House proponents of preserving the climate agreement have sought the support of coal companies this spring by floating a laxer U.S. emissions commitment. Cloud Peak Energy Inc., Peabody Energy Corp. and Arch Coal Inc. expressed some support for that position. Rio Tinto PLC and BHP Billiton Ltd., which are also large international mining companies, signed a letter this week backing U.S. participation.
But Popovich said that the industry in general agrees with Pruitt that Paris is a less effective path forward for coal than Trump's executive order released in March, which rolled back the power plant rule and tackled other parts of the previous administration's climate agenda.
The executive order is not necessarily inconsistent with remaining in the Paris accord, and a handful of GOP opponents of the EPA power plant rule have asked Trump to stay in the deal while continuing to dismantle former President Obama's emissions curbs. They dismiss Pruitt's argument that staying in Paris will make it harder to scrap existing greenhouse gas rules while creating a context for future administrations to promulgate replacements.
Cramer, the North Dakota congressman, made the case in a letter he sent to Trump with eight other Republican House members yesterday that retaining U.S. membership would give Trump the power to "veto" global efforts that could harm the fossil fuel industry. The United States could also use its perch to promote coal power, even as European nations and others seek to phase it out, and to secure funding for carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technologies.
"We should work closely with our allies to develop, deploy, and commercialize cleaner technologies to help ensure a future for fossil fuels within the context of the global climate agenda," the letter says.
Proxy battles and bureaucrats
Proponents of preserving U.S. involvement in the international deal are promoting the idea of weakening American commitments related to emissions reductions. Right now, the United States is supposed to cut greenhouse gases 26 to 28 percent by 2025. No alternative has been proposed, and Cramer declined to offer a specific number yesterday.
Instead, he criticized the past administration for setting emissions standards without conferring with utilities that could see diminished grid reliability from an influx of renewable energy.
"I think the first thing is to not set the goals in the White House, but rather set those goals with a lot more stakeholder input and interagency consultation," Cramer said in the interview. "I don't know what it might be."
But GOP strategist Mike McKenna said the signatories to Cramer's letter, many of whom hail from coal country, would pay electorally for supporting the Paris Agreement.
"Very few of their voters are going to be excited that their representative favors international bureaucrats having some say in how Americans produce and consume energy," McKenna said.
The mining industry is diverse, with large multinational coal and hardrock companies generally more supportive of the U.S. staying in the climate deal while small, family-owned businesses take a more cautious stance.
Paul Bledsoe, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, said the NMA move was likely due to broader competition with the oil and natural gas industry, which has overwhelmingly backed U.S. participation in Paris.
"The Paris Agreement is a proxy battle between big natural gas and big coal over U.S. emissions standards," Bledsoe said.
U.S. oil producers like Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. are now overwhelmingly investing in natural gas production, which has become unprofitable. International climate measures are seen as a means to permanently disadvantage coal while spurring long-term investment in gas.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/04/28/stories/1060053745
-
Trump Hints He May Stay in Paris Climate Pact
Apr 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is hinting that he might keep the United States in the Paris climate change agreement, but he doesn’t think it currently treats the U.S. fairly.
Trump told Reuters in an interview that he would make a decision in about two weeks on the pact that former President Obama negotiated.
He said his primary concern with the agreement is that he doesn’t believe countries like China, India and Russia are being held to the same standards as the U.S., particularly with contributions to the Green Climate Fund.
“It’s not a fair situation because they are paying virtually nothing and we are paying massive amounts of money,” Trump told Reuters.
He refused to say what his decision would be, saying only: “I can say this, we want to be treated fairly.”
Trump’s comments come as numerous major businesses push him to stay in the pact and abandon his campaign promise to exit it. BP, Exxon Mobil Corp., Cloud Peak Energy and Microsoft Corp. are among the companies that have asked recently to stay in.
Many of the supporters, however, want Trump to change the nonbinding emissions reductions that Obama promised.
Earlier Thursday, a group of Trump administration officials and advisers met at the White House to try to sort out a growing rift in the administration about whether to stay in.
People like senior adviser Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson want to stay in the pact, while chief strategist Stephen Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt want to exit.
Attendees at the meeting did not settle on a position for Trump, Politico reported, and are planning to meet again before late May, when Trump has promised to come to a conclusion on Paris.
But the officials are starting to reach a consensus that if the U.S. stays in the accord, Trump ought to change the country’s commitment, Politico said.
Bloomberg News reported that a major subject of conversation was the legal implications of staying in the pact. Some in the administration are worried that it would be difficult to repeal climate regulations without replacing them if the Paris commitments remain in place, even though they aren’t binding.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/331046-trump-hints-he-might-stay-in-paris-climate-pact
-
State and Local Governments Can Take the Lead on Climate Policy
Apr 28, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Basav Sen
In March, the World Meteorological Organization released data on the state of the earth’s atmosphere in 2016. Last year, it found, was the hottest year since humanity started recording temperatures, continuing a trend of steadily rising mercury.
Inevitably, the rising temperatures led to record severe storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires, from the United States to Brazil to South Africa. Experts believe that the planet will become a much harder place to live if the temperature rise exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius, and will start becoming unlivable if it crosses 2 degrees.
The vast majority of atmospheric scientists attribute these rising temperatures, of course, to emissions from fossil fuels, among other human activities. Yet completely without irony, the Trump administration chose the week after the release of the WMO data to completely roll backeven the insufficiently ambitious steps taken by the prior administration to address this looming global disaster.
This is very bad news. But the good news is that there is much ordinary people can still do to ensure that the United States continues to cut back on carbon emissions.
For one thing, we can exert popular pressure on the administration to reverse course, as the tens of thousands of people gathering in late April for the People's Climate March in Washington are doing, along with thousands more in sister marches worldwide. And we can use the courts to challenge aspects of the administration’s attack on sound environmental policy.
But we can also push a wide range of policy changes in our states and cities to proactively advance a just clean energy agenda, regardless of what's going on at the federal level.
In fact, states are already being the adults in the room when it comes to taking bold steps to address carbon emissions. Let’s look at just one possible policy — expanding electricity generation from renewable sources, the subject of a report I recently authored for the Institute for Policy Studies.
Transitioning our fossil-fueled electric grid to renewables would reduce emissions more than if we took every single car in the U.S. off the road, so this is a huge deal.
One adult in the room is Oregon, which legislated that coal be completely phased out of its electricity supply by 2030, and that half its electricity come from renewables by 2040.
The legislation in Oregon also enabled the formation of shared solar projects. A shared solar project is an array of solar panels typically located on the roof of a large building such as a school or church, and collectively owned by community members who cannot install solar panels on their own roof, often because they are renters. To ensure economic inclusiveness, Oregon mandated that 10 percent of the capacity of these shared solar projects be set aside for low-income residents.
Given the disproportionate prevalence of poverty among people of color, this is also a step forward for racial justice. And the idea is spreading far beyond Oregon. Shared solar projects are enabled by legislation in 14 states and the District of Columbia.
Another adult is California, which not only provides dedicated funding to install solar panels on low-income homes, but also requires that the jobs and skills training in those solar jobs be made accessible to people from underserved communities.
The states displaying these signs of maturity don't follow predictable political lines. The South Carolina Senate has passed a bill, for example,exempting homeowners with solar panels from paying property taxes on their panels.
Expanding renewable energy helps reduce carbon pollution and makes the energy system more just. It also creates lots of jobs. Energy Department data show that solar energy accounts for 43 percent of direct electricity generating jobs — the most of any one source, even though it represents only 2 percent of generating capacity.
Even after accounting for the coal mining and oil and gas drilling jobs created by fossil fueled electricity generation, solar remains the second largest employer in the sector, with 18 percent of jobs — still ahead of natural gas, which is the single largest source by generating capacity.
If solar can create this many jobs at 2 percent of capacity, imagine what a dynamic job creation engine it would be if we aggressively expanded it. Compared to that, Trump's fantasy of bringing back coal — which accounts for less than half as many electricity generation jobs as solar, even though its generating capacity is more than 10 times as much — doesn't even hold a candle.
Yes, states can be grown-ups, counteracting Trump's perspective on climate change. But it doesn’t happen by magic. It's going to take lots of local organizing. Environmentalists will have to join hands with anti-poverty groups, civil rights organizations, small businesses, workers, clergy, and other constituencies united in demanding a clean energy economy designed to benefit historically excluded populations and to create good jobs.
So after you march, find out what your state has already accomplished in this regard. If you see room for improvement, start organizing now!
Basav Sen directs the Climate Justice Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. He's the author of the recent report "How States Can Boost Renewables, With Benefits for All."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/330907-state-and-local-governments-can-take-the-lead-on
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested