Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/1/2017
-
Hearing On Oil and Gas Technology Innovation
May 3, 2017 | House Science, Space and Technology Committee
Location: 2318 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Infrastructure Project Streamlining and Efficiency: Achieving Faster, Better, and Cheaper Results
May 3, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Location: 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing On Electromagnetic Pulse Threats
May 4, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Dow's Lobbying Spending Overshadows Competition
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Dow Chemical has poured money into lobbying efforts over the last decade as other corporate giants have remained steady or even pulled back on their spending. -
Thune Bill Would Revamp Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analyses
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune yesterday introduced a bill that would require U.S. EPA to include alternative analyses when estimating a regulation's costs and benefits. -
(ACC Mentioned) Why College Students Really Should Vacuum (It's About Health, Not Disgusting Dustballs)
Apr 28, 2017 | WBUR
By Karen Weintraub
Robin Dodson, who has a Harvard Ph.D. in environmental health, never thought she’d be vacuuming for a living. But a recent study had the research scientist collecting dust from college dorm rooms -- which certainly gave her mom a good laugh. -
EDF Health Podcast: You Make Me Sick! Plasticizers, Fast Food, and Your Urine.
Apr 28, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jonathan Choi
From the shores of the Puget Sound to the inside of your colon, EDF Health’s You Make Me Sick podcast has been bringing you the latest in environmental health science. -
Saint-Gobain to Pay $964,000 in Vermont for PFOA Contamination
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics will spend nearly $1 million to help bring municipal water to southern Vermont homes with contaminated wells. -
EU Commission Publishes Amendment To Test Methods
May 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has published in the Official Journal an amendment to the tests to be used to determine the physico-chemical properties, toxicity and ecotoxicity of substances. -
DOE, FERC Pick Leaders Of Rule-Cutting Panels
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Department of Energy has tapped Daniel Simmons, a former official with the Institute for Energy Research and the American Legislative Exchange Council, to lead a task force for cutting regulations. -
Court Unlikely to Guide EPA as it Unwinds Clean Power Plan
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump EPA will likely get a chance to review and potentially kill off carbon dioxide limits for powers plants without a federal appellate court ruling on the rule's legality. -
Omnibus Deal Ignores Trump Calls For Deep energy, Enviro Cuts
May 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Congressional leaders reached a bipartisan deal last night to fund the government through the rest of the year that avoids steep cuts for U.S. EPA and renewable energy programs sought by the Trump administration. -
Panel Eyes 'Appropriate' Role For DOE In Oil, Gas Innovation
May 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee this week will examine the Department of Energy's role in fostering innovation in the oil and gas sector. -
Committee Weighs Electromagnetic Pulse Threat
May 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week will consider policies for safeguarding the electric grid and other energy infrastructure from electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), a threat that has garnered high-profile attention in recent years. -
ASLRRA, BLET Testify At Rail Hearing; Pallone Tours Cembre
Apr 28, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
At a congressional hearing earlier this week, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) President Linda Bauer Darr called for "efficient, goal-oriented" industry regulations that provide proven safety benefits. -
(ACC Mentioned) Winter Rains Bring Attention to Los Angeles River
May 1, 2017 | Voice of America
By Jill Robbin
Usually that term relates to housekeeping: throwing away unwanted items, organizing closets, and washing places that have become dirty over the winter. -
Renewables, Carbon Tax Feel The Love At D.C. March
May 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Marchers carried tiny wind model turbines to the White House on Saturday, along with banners supporting solar energy, carbon taxes and pipeline resistance. -
Climate March Draws Huge Crowd To DC
Apr 29, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Nikita Valdimirov
Thousands of people poured into Washington, D.C., on Saturday to take part in the Climate March, the latest in a string of protests linked to the Trump administration's policies. -
Trump EPA Defends Brick MACT In Rare Legal Support Of Obama-Era Rule
Apr 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
In an April 28 response brief in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPA's behalf rejects environmentalists' claims that the rule is too lax and sets a bad precedent, and fights industry's claims that it is too stringent. -
Top Trump Aides Clash on Legal Risks of Paris Climate Accord
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter
Senior advisers to Donald Trump were divided over the Paris climate accord in a meeting April 27, as Cabinet members and staffers considered whether staying in the pact could legally jeopardize the president's regulatory rollbacks, according to people familiar with the high-level gathering. -
EPA Science Policies Go Under Congressional Microscope
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Maeve Allsup
Long-sought Republican bills setting new limits on the science driving EPA regulations could mark the first shot in a broader campaign to rein in the agency's authority, scientists told Bloomberg BNA. -
Only Constant in Trump's Approach to Climate is Inconsistency
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz, Dean Scott and Andrew Childers
Defibrillating what was once a vibrant coal industry has been central to President Donald Trump's environmental agenda. But that singular focus on fossil fuels has caused an inconsistent and often contradictory stance on climate change. -
Trump's 100 Days: Progress On Rule Rollbacks But Hurdles Remain
May 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
President Donald Trump has made some strides in starting to roll back environmental rules in his first 100 days in office, having more success on that front than in many other areas, but sources say that despite the administration's progress, it remains unclear when or whether the administration will be able to translate the rollbacks into final action.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Hearing On Oil and Gas Technology Innovation
May 3, 2017 | House Science, Space and Technology Committee
-
May 3, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
-
Hearing On Electromagnetic Pulse Threats
May 4, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dow's Lobbying Spending Overshadows Competition
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Dow Chemical has poured money into lobbying efforts over the last decade as other corporate giants have remained steady or even pulled back on their spending.
Lobbying expenditures by the company nearly tripled between 2008 and 2016, according to a Bloomberg BNA review of disclosure filings, from $5.2 million to $13.5 million annually.
The company is in the process of seeking Justice Department approval for a $79 billion merger with Dupont Co.
Collectively, companies involved in agrichemical mergers—Dow, Dupont, Bayer AG, Monsanto Co., and Syngenta AG—spent $1.6 million more in the first quarter of 2017 over the same period last year, and 2.7 times the expenditures for the first quarter of 2008.
A look at Dow's year-on-year quarterly spending is even more impressive: resources for lobbying jumped nearly eightfold in the first quarter of 2017 compared to the first quarter of 2008. At $5.2 million, Dow is the seventh-biggest spender on lobbying for the first quarter of 2017, as revealed in forms filed with the Senate April 20.
Close Relationship with Trump
The filings also show that Dow hired a lobbying firm to meet with members of Congress on issues before the Agriculture Department and the EPA weeks before an agency deadline to act on the insecticide chlorpyrifos, which is widely used on fruits and vegetables and was developed by the company. EPA denied to restrict the pesticide on March 29.
The merger with Dupont is just one of multiple concerns the company is raising with policymakers. While the merger has dominated the company's priorities more recently, it's probably not the biggest reason for the growth in lobbying spending, said Alex Vogel, co-founder of the VogelHood Group, a Washington, D.C. public affairs firm. Regulatory pressures, and high-stakes bills like last year's reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, are more likely drivers than the upcoming merger decision, he said.
“There are numerous justifications for them to be more engaged in addition to the merger,” Vogel told Bloomberg BNA.
An apparent close relationship to President Donald Trump's administration—CEO Andrew Liveris was appointed to head a White House manufacturing council and donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration—also has raised questions over the company's influence in government.
Liveris “has extraordinary access in the White House, chairs a group that advises Mr. Trump, was there when Mr. Trump signed his executive order relating to cutting back regulation,” Norm Eisen, a fellow with the Brookings Institution and former adviser to President Barack Obama on government ethics, said in a recent interview on PBS NewsHour. “It doesn't smell right.”
Merger Fever and More Spending in 2017
Financially, the company can afford it. Dow reported $888 million in net income for the first quarter of 2017 in its April 27 earnings statement, more than five times the amount reported for the same period last year.
Dow tends to front-load its lobbying spending early in the year to cover trade association dues, said Rachelle Schikorra, associate director for Dow's public affairs. Dow paid $4.8 million in 2015 to the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other groups in dues.
“Historically, our first and second quarter reports . . . are higher than subsequent quarters throughout the year,” Schikorra told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
Dow Chemical and DowAgroSciences began combining their respective filings in 2014—a year in which spending records show an increase to $14.4 million from $10.7 million over the previous year. This boosted the collective number attributed to advocacy despite an overlap in activities, said Schikorra.
Compared to Dow, many of the top spenders in 2008 have significantly pulled back on their spending. ExxonMobil, which spent $29 million in 2008, has decreased its spending about 10 percent per year since, and Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. cut its lobbying budget by about 25 percent per year, according to an analysis prepared by VogelHood.
Lobbying Spikes Under Trump
Dow's spending stands out. Other companies planning agrichemical mergers—which include biotechnology units that produce genetically-engineered seeds—have either remained steady or fluctuated in the last decade.
Spending for Bayer—which is planning a $66 billion buyout of Monsanto—has zigzagged between $4.2 million and $8.3 million per year since 2008. Dupont's spending peaked in 2014 at $10.2 million—up from $4.2 million in 2008—but has since dipped back down to $5.5 million. Monsanto's lobbying expenditures have dropped by half, from $8.8 million in 2008 to $4.6 million last year. Syngenta, which is planning to merge with ChemChina, has kept its lobbying spending around $1 million per year during that period.
As congressional gridlock intensified during the Obama administration, many companies—seeing their priorities lost in the bickering—shed their lobbying contracts. The Trump administration's anti-regulatory focus is likely to reinvigorate interest in lobbying said Tyson Slocum, who oversees federal policy related to commodity markets as director of the nonprofit Public Citizen's Energy Program.
But more spending doesn't necessarily mean smooth sailing, Slocum warned. For example, CEO Liveris has come out against increasing exports of liquefied natural gas, a move that would raise domestic prices for the industrial chemical feedstock. But the Trump administration has taken the opposite tack, with Energy Secretary Rick Perry and top economic adviser Gary Cohn backing plans to build LNG export terminals.
“You are absolutely going to see spikes” in spending with the new administration, Slocum told Bloomberg BNA. But “right now, I don't know what kind of returns they are going to see.”
Dow, Syngenta, Monsanto Add Environmental Lobbyists
Dow Agrosciences was one of three firms to hire lobbyists on environmental policy in the last few months.
Cornerstone Government Affairs is representing Dow's seed-and-pesticide branch in meetings with members of Congress on reforming the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, pollinator protection, USDA biotechnology programs, and the EPA's pesticide risk assessments. Cornerstone—which has several clients tied to farming, forestry and ranching—assigned four lobbyists to these issues and spent $20,000.
Dow achieved a significant regulatory victory last month when EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that it would not grant environmentalists’ petition to ban nearly all uses of chlorpyrifos, a broad spectrum and widely used insecticide. Pruitt reversed the Obama administration's plan to restrict the insecticide due to its association with neurodevelopmental delays in children, which is largely based on studies that Dow views as weak. The green groups have challenged Pruitt's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Pesticide Action Network N. Am. v. EPA, 9th Cir., 14-72794, 4/5/17).
“Dow's lobbying spending aligns to strategic areas of focus for the company which can vary from year to year,” spokeswoman Schikorra said.
Cornerstone began lobbying for Dow on March 15, according to its registration form, two weeks before the EPA denied the petition. On April 13, Dow and two other pesticide manufacturers asked Cabinet members to re-evaluate scientific findings on protecting endangered species from insecticides, including chlorpyrifos.
Environmental advocates criticized the company's perceived sway in the new administration when news of the letter emerged on April 20.
“When you look at the amount of money that Dow puts into lobbying and donations to politicians and how adamantly they oppose reasonable restrictions, wouldn't that money be better spent dealing with the underlying issue?” Center for Biological Diversity government affairs director Brett Hartl told Bloomberg BNA. “Instead of just lobbying to prevent the status quo, why don't you just do the right thing?”
Syngenta also deployed lobbyists from Squire Patton Boggs LLC to meet with members of Congress on the regulatory framework for pesticides, Endangered Species Act reform and conservation. The EPA is currently conducting a review of Syngenta's atrazine herbicide and has said it will submit the ecological risk assessment to a panel of outside scientists for peer review later this year. Since the herbicide was last registered in 2003, several new studies have been published on its environmental and health effects.
Monsanto hired SBL Strategies partner and former Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) staffer Chad Bradley to lobby Congress on environmental policy. Monsanto is pushing for a swift re-registration of glyphosate, the main ingredient in its Roundup weedkiller, as it fights back a European finding in 2015 that the herbicide probably causes cancer.
California recently announced that it would list glyphosate as a carcinogen under its Proposition 65 law, which requires labeling of substances known to cause cancer or create reproductive problems. Monsanto is challenging the decision in the state's Court of Appeals (Monsanto v. OEHHA, Cal. Super. Ct., 16CECG00183, 3/22/17).
“In one way or another, we are all connected to agriculture and the hard work of farmers,” said Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord in an email, when asked about the renewed focus on environmental policy.
“Our level of engagement is similar to that of other companies of our size,” Lord added. “We want to ensure legislators are aware of modern agriculture, digital tools for agriculture and the latest innovations that are important to farmers.”
Syngenta spokesman Paul Minehart said the decision to hire Squire Patton Boggs on environmental issues did not reflect a growing focus on environmental regulations.
“We regularly assess our advocacy resources and revise as needed,” he said in an email. “Providing information on federal environmental regulations is key for US grower productivity and competitiveness, and we support environmental policy that is science-based, meets grower needs and protects our environment.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110380831&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110380831&jd=110380831
-
Thune Bill Would Revamp Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analyses
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune yesterday introduced a bill that would require U.S. EPA to include alternative analyses when estimating a regulation's costs and benefits.
When the agency issues a rule, it includes a regulatory impact analysis, which is supposed to predict its costs and benefits.
Thune's proposal, the "Real EPA Impact Reviews (REPAIR) Act," S. 971, would require the agency to include a scenario in each of its RIAs that does not factor in other proposed or final rules that have yet to be implemented.
The lawmaker, a member of the Senate leadership team, said that when EPA includes proposed or unimplemented rules in its RIAs, predicted compliance costs tend to go down.
EPA's draft analysis for tightening the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone prompted the legislation.
That study assumed regulators were implementing the existing guidelines. But 227 counties had yet to meet those standards, said Thune's office.
"The Obama EPA's legacy will largely be defined by the massive amount of regulations it piled onto the economy," Thune said in a statement. "Many of these big-government regulations placed careless and unnecessary burdens on the backs of the American people and hid the true cost of what was actually being proposed."'Standard practice'
EPA analyses usually do not include proposed rules, said Anne Smith, managing director and co-chair of NERA's Global Environment Practice.
One exception is the most recent ozone rule, which included a proposed version of the Clean Power Plan in its analysis.
"This was inconsistent with standard practice," Smith said. "And indeed, the proposed version of the CPP rule that they put in their baseline ended up being substantially different than the CPP rule that was later finalized. And now, it appears even the final rule may not take effect."
Smith said she agreed RIAs should not use proposed rules in their baseline. But the bill also calls for a scenario that excludes final rules that industry may not be in compliance with yet, such as the ozone standard.
"That is a new concept in that there's nothing in current RIA guidelines or practice that addresses that," said Smith, calling the bill a recognition of the uncertainty in baseline calculations.
"RIAs need to have this sort of adjustment to the way they're done, but in a much broader way, to address not just uncertainty about the baseline, but also uncertainties in how the rule itself would be met, and in the estimates of the rule's benefits," she said. "Right now, they're not doing a good job of any of those sources of ambiguity."Benefits 'vastly exceed the costs'
Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said the bill would serve to massively inflate the cost figures by forcing EPA to double-count costs.
"I understand that Big Oil and Gas would love to have EPA double-count costs, but the truth is that EPA regulations across the board, including NAAQS, have benefits to society that vastly exceed the costs," he said.
"This is just a way to rig EPA's cost-benefit analysis so it looks like the costs to the oil and gas industry are greater than the clean air benefits to the public."
Narang said the best way for agencies to determine their baseline is to assume that pending regulations will be finalized.
Thune pointed to the Clean Power Plan, which has been blocked in court, as an example of why unimplemented rules should not be taken into account.
By prohibiting the inclusion of proposed or pending rules in at least one RIA scenario, stakeholders will have a clearer understanding of a regulation's true compliance costs, said his office.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/28/stories/1060053781
-
Apr 28, 2017 | WBUR
By Karen Weintraub
Robin Dodson, who has a Harvard Ph.D. in environmental health, never thought she’d be vacuuming for a living. But a recent study had the research scientist collecting dust from college dorm rooms -- which certainly gave her mom a good laugh.
The study convinced Dodson, a research scientist at the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, that all parents should be encouraging their college students to vacuum more regularly.
The reason: The dust in their dorm room could contain carcinogens. (Though the risk is still largely theoretical: No one has ever connected a cancer diagnosis to their college room.)
Her study, published this week in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, found that the flame retardant chemicals sprayed on foam mattresses and upholstered furniture can migrate out and build up in teenagers' never-too-clean bedrooms, as well as the common rooms where many study or spend their downtime.
Previous research, mostly in animals, has found that these flame retardant chemicals can potentially cause cancer. Dodson says the levels she found in the dorm-room dust were comparable to what studies tested in animals.
"The potential for health risk is there," she says.
But colleges have to balance legitimate concern about these flame retardants with the need to maintain fire safety, says Kathleen Almand, vice president of research for the National Fire Protection Association.
Between 2000 and 2015, there were 85 fatal fires in American dormitories, fraternities, sororities and off-campus housing, leading to 118 deaths, a report from the U.S. Fire Administration found. And flame retardants remain an important part of fire safety, Almand says, along with sprinklers and smoke detectors.
“We can’t close the door to fire retardants full stop,” she says.
The American Chemistry Council agrees. "Moreover, the chemicals found in this study were detected at extremely low levels, far lower than the levels at which toxicological responses have been observed in animal studies," Bryan Goodman, director of product communications with the council, says in an email. Also, he notes that the new study included many flame retardants that have long been phased out of the supply chain.
Luckily, there is a lot that parents can do to help reduce dorm room risks, says Dodson, who collected dust from 100 rooms at two New England universities that are not identified in the study.
She found higher levels of chemicals in rooms where students had brought a lot of their own upholstered and foam furniture, particularly the egg crates that many use to make thin dorm mattresses more comfortable, says Dodson. Egg crates manufactured within the last two years are likely to have fewer dangerous chemicals in them than older ones, she notes.
She says parents have an opportunity to buy furniture that is flame retardant-free when they indulge in that “big buying spree right before college.”
Parents can also encourage their students to regularly vacuum up dust, she says -- though she doubts that’s likely to happen. (Silent Spring’s Tip Sheet on managing flame retardants on campus is here.)
The study also found that fire safety standards make a difference, says Dodson, who conducted the study with colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health, the University of New Hampshire and the University of Antwerp in Belgium.
She found more chemicals at the school that was subject to stricter local fire safety codes and therefore had more retardants in its furniture. Next, she wants to look at whether relaxing those standards reduces the students’ exposure.
“We want to keep thinking about this idea that flammability standards matter, and they likely drive the actual exposures,” she says.
http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/04/28/form-room-vacuum-flame-retardant
-
EDF Health Podcast: You Make Me Sick! Plasticizers, Fast Food, and Your Urine.
Apr 28, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jonathan Choi
From the shores of the Puget Sound to the inside of your colon, EDF Health’s You Make Me Sick podcast has been bringing you the latest in environmental health science. In today’s episode, we’re excited to showcase the work of Dr. Ami Zota of the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.
We sat down with Dr. Zota to discuss her recent study where she looked at how certain chemicals associated with plastics show up in people’s urine after they eat fast food.
https://soundcloud.com/user-585965810/plasticizers-fast-food-and-your-urine-with-dr-ami-zota
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/04/28/edf-health-podcast-you-make-me-sick-plasticizers-fast-food-and-your-urine/
-
Saint-Gobain to Pay $964,000 in Vermont for PFOA Contamination
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics will spend nearly $1 million to help bring municipal water to southern Vermont homes with contaminated wells.
The company agreed April 26 to design the blueprints for bringing town water to homes in Bennington and North Bennington, where private wells, groundwater and soil were found contaminated with PFOA last year. Tests traced the chemical to Chemfab, a former manufacturer in North Bennington, which is now owned by Saint-Gobain, based in France. Chemfab has been shuttered since 2002.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was commonly used in manufacturing, and contamination by the chemical is believed to be widespread nationally. It can harm the thyroid gland and is suspected of causing testicular and kidney cancer. PFOA was produced by 3M and DuPont.
266 Wells Above Vermont PFOA Limit
Tests by the state Department of Environmental Conservation found 266 drinking water wells contaminated with PFOA at levels greater than 20 parts per trillion, Vermont's limit for the chemical, which is the strictest standard in the nation. The EPA recommends that PFOA be below 70 ppt in drinking water.
State officials emphasized that the agreement reached April 27 with Saint-Gobain is apart from ongoing negotiations with the company concerning cleanup of the contamination and the full cost of bringing municipal water to the homes. Extending the water lines would cost about $35 million, the state Agency of Natural Resources has estimated.
“I understand the residents impacted by this contamination are frustrated, and I share that frustration over the pace of negotiations with Saint-Gobain, but we will not let the settlement discussions stand in the way of preparing for construction,” Gov. Phil Scott (R), said in a statement.
Nationwide Contamination
Vermont began testing the Bennington wells after PFOA contamination was found in wells in nearby Hoosick Falls, N.Y., and Petersburgh, N.Y. New Hampshire will begin statewide testing for the chemical, targeting areas near manufacturing plants and also in landfills.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110380855&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110380855&jd=110380855
-
EU Commission Publishes Amendment To Test Methods
May 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has published in the Official Journal an amendment to the tests to be used to determine the physico-chemical properties, toxicity and ecotoxicity of substances.
The update of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 comes in the wake of new and updated tests adopted recently by the OECD. These take into account technical progress, and also ensure a reduction in the number of animals used for experimental purposes.
This adaptation to technical progress contains 20 test methods to be used under REACH:
· one new method for the determination of a physico-chemical property;
· five new and one updated test methods for the assessment of ecotoxicity;
· two updated test methods to assess the environmental fate and behaviour; and
· four new and seven updated test methods for the determination of effects on human health.
It also deletes six methods for which the corresponding OECD guidelines have been cancelled.
The Commission passed the amending Regulation on 14 February. It will come into force 20 days from publication.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55521/eu-commission-publishes-amendment-to-test-methods
-
DOE, FERC Pick Leaders Of Rule-Cutting Panels
Apr 28, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
The Department of Energy has tapped Daniel Simmons, a former official with the Institute for Energy Research and the American Legislative Exchange Council, to lead a task force for cutting regulations.
Simmons, IER's former vice president for policy and former director of the natural resources task force at ALEC, was also on the transition team and joined DOE's beachhead team before being brought on permanently.
The task force will also be made of representatives from DOE's general counsel's office, the Office of Management and other programmatic offices, according to an agency spokeswoman.
A senior legal adviser has been chosen to lead a similar effort at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Jette Gebhart, senior legal adviser in the Office of Energy Market Regulation, will lead the reform effort, a FERC spokeswoman said.
Gebhart previously served as an attorney adviser for FERC's Office of Enforcement after practicing law at a number of Washington firms, including Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; and Baker Botts LLP. She also worked as a House legislative assistant before going to FERC.
When asked for details about other members of the task force, FERC spokeswoman Mary O'Driscoll said no other information was known at this time.
President Trump laid out the task force in an executive order in February, requiring all agencies to set up deregulatory panels that would include a designated policy officer and separate regulatory reform officer.
The deadline for establishing the entities passed Monday.
The task force will be charged with identifying regulations that should be repealed, replaced or modified, part of the president's broader agenda at scrapping regulations and expanding a previous order that required agencies to identify two rules for repeal before issuing a new one.
A spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the executive order didn't appear to apply to independent agencies, even though FERC fits into such a category.
"It does not appear that particular EO was intended to apply to independent agencies," NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said. "The commission could, on a voluntary basis, decide at a later date to undertake its initiatives."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/28/stories/1060053787
-
Court Unlikely to Guide EPA as it Unwinds Clean Power Plan
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump EPA will likely get a chance to review and potentially kill off carbon dioxide limits for powers plants without a federal appellate court ruling on the rule's legality.
The odds that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will issue a decision on the carbon dioxide limits for the existing fleet of power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan, dropped, attorneys said, after the court agreed April 28 to halt challenges to the rule for 60 days (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir. en banc, No. 15-1363, 4/28/17).
During that time the court is seeking input on whether the carbon dioxide standards—the centerpiece of domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—should be returned to the Environmental Protection Agency for reconsideration. Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt was among the leading opponents of the rule.
“This at least suggests they were not about to issue an opinion,” Richard Lazarus, a Harvard Law School professor representing past EPA administrators supporting the Clean Power Plan, told Bloomberg BNA.
A 10-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held a full day of argument on the Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) in September 2016 and a decision had been expected soon. Instead, the court will allow the new administration an opportunity to reconsider the regulation.
Hearing for ‘Legal Limbo’
With the court unlikely to issue an opinion, environmental groups will push the EPA to act quickly on any reconsideration of the carbon dioxide rule.
“If the court would put this into an indefinite abeyance, we'd have legal limbo,” Vera Pardee, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Bloomberg BNA. “We wouldn't know if the rule was right or wrong.”
Even without federal carbon dioxide limits in place, utilities are likely to avoid coal and build in plans to reduce their emissions in anticipation of future regulation, attorneys said. President Donald Trump had specifically directed the EPA to reconsider the Clean Power Plan as part of a March 28 executive order instructing federal agencies to review “regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production.”
The D.C. Circuit's decision to halt the lawsuit is one of a string of cases the court has put on pause at the request of the new administration as it reviews its predecessor's priorities, including toxic pollutant limits for power plants and national air quality standards for ozone.
Separately April 28, the court also temporarily halted challenges to similar carbon dioxide limits for new power plants (RIN:2060-AQ91) while it also considers sending that rule back to the EPA for reconsideration (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 4/28/17). That case has been briefed to the court but not yet argued.
Courts are loath to issue opinions on regulations that are likely to be repealed or drastically revised, attorneys said. The same issues are likely to return to the court should the EPA propose a similar rule in the future.
“That's my fear that we would be back in the same spot. Really Congress is the one that needs to do something,” Jane Montgomery, a partner at Schiff Hardin LLP in Chicago, told Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110380854&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110380854&jd=110380854
-
Omnibus Deal Ignores Trump Calls For Deep energy, Enviro Cuts
May 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Congressional leaders reached a bipartisan deal last night to fund the government through the rest of the year that avoids steep cuts for U.S. EPA and renewable energy programs sought by the Trump administration.
The bill would also provide a long-sought, permanent fix to guarantee health care benefits for retired union coal miners and their widows. It does not contain many of the policy riders sought by Republicans to ease environmental regulations.
Lawmakers need to approve the $1.017 billion deal by the end of the week and avoid a federal shutdown when current, stopgap funding expires late Friday. The legislation would provide funds for the final five months of the fiscal year, which runs through Sept. 30.
Appropriators have spent months negotiating the omnibus package, which will include all 11 remaining fiscal 2017 spending bills. In advance of the deal, federal agencies have been operating under fiscal 2016 spending levels with little flexibility in making budget changes.
"It is time we complete this essential work. It is a solid bill that reflects our common values and that will help move our nation forward," said House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) in a statement.
EPA would receive $8.06 billion for fiscal 2017, a cut of less than $100 million, or a 1 percent reduction, below current funding. EPA staffing would be capped at 15,000 workers for the coming years.
Additionally, EPA would receive $1.4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $863 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Both totals match current funding for the programs. The Army Corps of Engineers would receive a $49 million increase to $6 billion for fiscal 2017.
The largely level spending for the agency is a far cry from the steep cuts the Trump White House is pressing for. The administration's blueprint for next year would cut EPA appropriations by a third and shed more than 3,000 jobs.Energy and water
Similarly, Congress does not seem eager to address the Trump administration's push to make steep cuts to energy research and development, including for cleaner power sources.
The measure would fund the Department of Energy at $31.2 billion, roughly $1.4 billion more than fiscal 2016 levels. It would give more than $4 billion for applied energy programs, a $123 million increase. And the Office of Science would get $5.4 billion, $42 million more than fiscal 2016.
The measure would provide $2.1 billion for DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a $17 million increase over current spending. And it would give the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which President Trump wants to eliminate, $306 million.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which the administration has targeted over it climate research spending, would receive $5.68 billion, a $90 million reduction.
However, NOAA's Ocean and Atmospheric Research programs would see a small increase to $477.7 million, with climate research funded at $158 million. The legislation also includes $75 million for a new ocean survey vessel and $329 million for new polar weather satellites.
The bill does not include any money for the international Green Climate Fund. But it also does not prohibit such spending, Democratic appropriators said in their summary of the proposal.Interior
The National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service would see slight funding increases. Overall, the Interior Department would get $1.3 billion, $42 million more than enacted levels.
The legislation also includes $56 million for the park maintenance backlog and a nonprofit foundation to help BLM with its mission. The omnibus would provide $400 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, $50 million less than enacted levels.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement would get $253 million, roughly the same as enacted levels. Republicans have sought to cut agency funding amid the mining downturn.
The agreement does provide President Trump the $25 billion boost he had sought for the Defense Department, although $2.5 billion of those funds will require him to first give Congress a plan for defeating the so-called Islamic State group.
The omnibus does not contain any money for building the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, a Trump priority that has been widely panned by environmentalists. Instead, the measure will spend $1.5 billion for technology, repairs to existing infrastructure and personnel to enhance security along the nation's southern border.
The deal also contains $407 million for fighting wildfires in several Western states; while providing $2 billion in disaster aid for California, North Carolina, Louisiana and West Virginia.
In a victory for backers of federal research, the National Institutes of Health will see its funding increased by $2 billion to around $34 billion. Earlier this year, the administration had proposed more than $1 billion in cuts for the medical research agency. The National Science Foundation would see its budget largely frozen at $7.47 billion.Riders
Democrats signaled they were likely to get behind the omnibus and sought to portray it as refutation of many of President Trump's policy proposals.
"This agreement is a good agreement for the American people, and takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), in a statement noting that "poison pill" policy riders were dropped in the final agreement.
Democrats did agree to some existing or less controversial riders, like the prohibition on changing the definition of fill material under the Clean Water Act and reiterating the law's limits in agricultural areas.
The legislation does not seem to include construction of an emergency road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a priority for top appropriator Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
And even though lawmakers had said the bill would include fresh funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site, the fate of such dollars is unclear in summaries and legislative text.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Democrats got 160 GOP riders dropped from the bill and pressed for more than $1 billion for coal miners' benefits. She, however, stopped short of endorsing the deal, saying it will need to be reviewed by the full caucus in the coming days.
The White House also has yet to officially endorse the deal, although the administration has been involved with the budget talks. The House Rules Committee is meeting tomorrow to set debate parameters for the legislation.
Click here to read the bill and spending summaries.
Schedule: The Rules meeting is Tuesday, May 2, at 3 p.m. in H-313 Capitol.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/01/stories/1060053821
-
Panel Eyes 'Appropriate' Role For DOE In Oil, Gas Innovation
May 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee this week will examine the Department of Energy's role in fostering innovation in the oil and gas sector.
The hearing will focus on technology development led by private industry and consider the "appropriate" role for DOE in partnering with oil and gas companies on applied research, according to a committee statement. The Trump administration proposed budget cuts in March to both DOE's Office of Science, which oversees the majority of the national labs, and the Office of Fossil Energy, which supports research on oil and gas at the National Research Energy Laboratory.
Separately, the oil industry is facing a lag in investment spending on conventional resources because of low oil prices. This week, the International Energy Agency reported that global oil discoveries fell to a record low last year, and the volume of conventional resources sanctioned for development plunged about 30 percent from the previous year.
Among the witnesses is Walker Dimmig, a principal at 8 Rivers Capital LLC, which is collaborating with NET Power, Exelon Generation Co. and the Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. on a new type of gas power plant that aims to produce zero carbon emissions.
The $140 million NET Power project, currently under construction in Texas, was called a potential "game changer" by environmentalists after breaking ground last year (Greenwire, March 11, 2016). The plant would test NET Power's "Allam technology," which burns natural gas with pure oxygen rather than air.
The resulting stream of pure CO2 could be used to fire a turbine rather than steam, and also would be in a form already ready for underground storage or transportation in a CO2 pipeline. That could eliminate the need for expensive CO2 capture equipment that has plagued other projects, developers say.
Also testifying are Edward Johnston of the Gas Technology Institute and David Brower, the president of Astro Technology Inc., which developed a fiber-optic system for monitoring offshore drilling operations.
Critics of Trump's budget plan for DOE say it could harm the nation's economic edge. They note that the shale gas boom had roots in earlier research at the national labs on hydraulic fracturing.
It remains unclear how much of Trump's proposal would affect the national labs specifically, although the proposed reductions at the Office of Science would affect one-fifth of the budget. In its budget blueprint in March, the Trump administration emphasized DOE's basic research, as opposed to applied work aiming to solve a specific energy challenge.
The administration said it would ensure that the Office of Science invests in the "highest priority basic science and energy research and development."
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, May 3, at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Edward Johnston, senior vice president for research and development, Gas Technology Institute; David Brower, founder and president, Astro Technology Inc.; Walker Dimmig, principal, 8 Rivers Capital LLC; and Ramanan Krishnamoorti, interim vice president and interim vice chancellor for research and technology transfer, University of Houston.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/01/stories/1060053796
-
Committee Weighs Electromagnetic Pulse Threat
May 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week will consider policies for safeguarding the electric grid and other energy infrastructure from electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), a threat that has garnered high-profile attention in recent years.
EMPs, bursts of electromagnetic energy that can disrupt electrical systems, have long drawn concerns from figures such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who fear that a high-altitude nuclear detonation from nations like North Korea or Iran could knock out broad swaths of the grid for months at a time. Intense solar flares from the sun have similar effects.
Thursday's hearing will "examine the threat posed by [EMPs] and policy options to protect energy infrastructure and to improve capabilities for adequate system restoration," states an advisory.
Additional details of the hearing were unavailable, but protecting energy infrastructure from cyber and physical risks is a top priority of Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
The hearing comes amid growing concerns over North Korea's recent ballistic missile tests, as well as fears that the nation may be planning further nuclear tests.
The hearing also comes as the Trump administration is looking to cut $2 billion from the Energy Department, which is leading federal research into threats to energy infrastructure (E&E Daily, April 5).
Moreover, the Energy panel is readying its contribution to President Trump's infrastructure package, which Murkowski has indicated will borrow from the broad energy package that died in the closing days of the 114th Congress.
That bill did not address EMPs because language in the 2015 transportation law handed DOE new authority to order grid security emergency measures, a committee aide said.
The House's energy legislation did include provisions that would have required the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to develop standards for dealing with EMPs — language the American Public Power Association asked energy conferees last fall to jettison, arguing that it was duplicative of the 2015 law.
The Government Accountability Office last year found that poor coordination among federal agencies was hampering the government's understanding of the risks of EMPs (Energywire, April 26, 2016).
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, May 4, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: TBA.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/01/stories/1060053801
-
ASLRRA, BLET Testify At Rail Hearing; Pallone Tours Cembre
Apr 28, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
At a congressional hearing earlier this week, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) President Linda Bauer Darr called for "efficient, goal-oriented" industry regulations that provide proven safety benefits.
The House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials called the hearing to solicit input on industry regulations.
"We need regulations that are more efficient, more goal oriented, less reliant on a one-size-fits-all mindset, and much more focused on costs and benefits,” said Darr, according to a press release of her comments.
Darr outlined three characteristics — size, capital needs and operating requirements — that make the application of regulations excessively burdensome to short lines and regionals.
"We understand the need to make railroading as safe as possible and we understand government has an obligation to step in when necessary," Darr said. "But government also has an obligation to step in responsibly. Too often government regulation forces companies to spend huge sums of money on solutions that don't solve much."
Also testifying before the subcommittee was John Tolman, vice president and national legislative representative for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), who called on Congress to invest in the nation's infrastructure and address rail worker fatigue and other safety regulations.
The lack of proper infrastructure funding has had a major negative impact on rail commuters, especially along the East Coast, Tolman said, according to a press release of his testimony.
"Tunnels are being used to carry passenger trains into and out of New York City that were built in the early 1900s," Tolman said. "Penn Station in New York is forced to handle three times as many trains as it was designed to accommodate. And every day three railroads, scores of employers, and hundreds of thousands of commuters cross their fingers that this won't be the day that infrastructure fails in a catastrophic way."
A railroad can build and maintain world-class infrastructure, "but if the issue of fatigue on the nation's railroads is not addressed in a serious and fundamental way, then catastrophic accidents will not cease," he said.
"Technology can help with the problem, but technologies such as positive train control (PTC) alone will not solve the problem," Tolman said. "Further, PTC has not been designed to be an answer to over-worked train crews who toil around the clock with unpredictable on-duty times."
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) recently attended a rail-cutting ceremony at Cembre Inc.'s facility in Edison, N.J. Pallone also toured Cembre's plant and met with company and Conrail representatives for a public policy discussion. The event was coordinated by the Railway Engineering Maintenance and Suppliers Association (REMSA).
Last week's tour was led by Cembre Vice President Chris Drew. Also in attendance were Jocelyn Gabrynowicz Hill, Conrail's director of public affairs and assistant general counsel; Roneil Jackson, Conrail's public affairs and legal assistant; and Sean Winkler, REMSA's director of advocacy.
Cembre manufactures railroad products, electrical connectors and associated tooling that includes thermal printers.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/ASLRRA-BLET-testify-at-rail-hearing-Pallone-tours-Cembre--51488
-
(ACC Mentioned) Winter Rains Bring Attention to Los Angeles River
May 1, 2017 | Voice of America
By Jill Robbin
It’s time for spring-cleaning in Los Angeles.
Usually that term relates to housekeeping: throwing away unwanted items, organizing closets, and washing places that have become dirty over the winter.
But in this case, we are talking about the massive project of cleaning up the Los Angeles River in Southern California.
The river runs about 80 kilometers and passes through 14 cities. It ends at the Pacific Ocean in Long Beach.
Usually the riverbed has very little water. But not now. California received record-breaking rainfall over the winter. As a result, the river is full again.
All the water has brought plants, animals, and trash. Lots of trash. Plastic bags, paper cups and even old pieces of furniture found their way into the river.
In addition, water wiped out camps on the riverbank where homeless people were living.
Now volunteers are working to clean up the mess.
Volunteers
Lauren Scott works for the American Chemistry Council. It is a business group. Many of the group’s members are companies that produce plastic items for people to use. Some of those items wound up in the river.
Along with picking up trash, Scott is trying to figure out what her organization can do to prevent trash from getting into the waterway.
“Because everyone wants a clean river that we can swim and boat and hike in.”
Candace Cable was out cleaning up the river, picking up trash from her wheelchair. She is a Paralympic Athlete. She is part of a group working to get the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games to Los Angeles.
She hopes supporters of Los Angeles’ efforts to get the Olympics will help clean up the river, too.
Christine Lee is a science applications engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, not too far from Los Angeles. She uses satellites to study water quality. She said waterways in cities are important for keeping plants, animals and people healthy.
For example, the Los Angeles River helps control floods and keeps wetlands healthy. Wetlands are home to many important plants and animals.
Some people feel like the annual cleanup is already making a difference. Residents are using walking and biking paths along the river more frequently than they used to.
“It’s been really exciting to start to see the river come back.”
I’m Jill Robbins.
http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/winter-rains-bring-attention-to-los-angeles-river/3823260.html
-
Renewables, Carbon Tax Feel The Love At D.C. March
May 1, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Marchers carried tiny wind model turbines to the White House on Saturday, along with banners supporting solar energy, carbon taxes and pipeline resistance.
Renewable energy mandates appeared to be the most popular policy option among environmental activists from across the country who traveled to Washington for the mass climate demonstration marking President Trump's 100th day in office.
Liberals rallied during the People's Climate March for a bill introduced by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to move the U.S. power mix to 100 percent renewable sources by midcentury.
Some carried "100x50" signs, representing S. 987, legislation that would impose a zero-emissions federal standard on vehicles, mandate major investments in energy storage and grid infrastructure, and stop the approval of major fossil fuel projects, among other provisions.
"If you want to be taken seriously as on the side of the climate, then you're for 100 percent renewable energy. Period. End of story from here on in," 350.org founder Bill McKibben said in an interview on the Capitol grounds before the more than 150,000-person march kicked off.
"No more, 'We're going to do some solar panels and we're going to do some frack wells.' From now on, if you're serious about climate, then you are for 100 percent renewable energy," McKibben said.
Critics chafed at the crowning of technological winners and losers. If groups behind the march really want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions or have a lasting impact on policy, the logic goes, they should broadly embrace solutions.
There was no love for nuclear power on display at the march, which filled over 20 blocks on Pennsylvania Avenue and stretched along the south side of the National Mall. Instead an entire section was dedicated to anti-corporate and anti-nuclear sentiment.
Other signs dissed natural gas and oil. One referred to clean coal, the technology backed by some of Trump's allies, as "an oxymoron."
But McKibben was adamant.
"Our problem is not figuring out how to negotiate with Republicans. Our problem is figuring out how to negotiate with physics," he said. "We've lost an ice cap already. We've only got two of them. So it's not what we want — it's what physics demands and that's 100 percent renewable energy now."
Many economists prefer putting a price on carbon to renewable energy mandates. They reason carbon pricing is more flexible for power companies, leaving it to the market to identify the best options. Marchers showed some support for the concept.
Phil Leavenworth, who traveled from Mount Horeb, Wis., for the march, gripped a wooden sign framed in duct tape that read "Tax carbon and Wall St. Trades." An active member of his local Citizens Climate Lobby chapter, Leavenworth said he thinks one problem facing the nonpartisan group's carbon fee and dividend model is that "it's more than a 30-second sound bite."
"The reason why I like taxing the Wall Street trades is that it's absolutely quantifiable," Leavenworth said. "Everybody knows what's going down on Wall Street, and if we took a couple of pennies off of every trade and used it to fund a renewable energy future instead of current fossil fuel system, things would change dramatically."Anti-nuclear sentiments
Third Way's Suzanne Hobbs Baker argued that nuclear, the country's largest source of carbon-free energy, should be viewed as part of the future electricity mix. In a Medium post on why she would not march for climate, Baker suggested organizers had fallen short of their goal of inclusiveness.
"At the very least they could refrain from attacking a growing community that fundamentally shares their aims to find socially just ways to stop climate change," she wrote.
Opponents of nuclear power point to concerns about safety, nuclear proliferation and the quagmire of long-term storage of nuclear waste.
José Bravo, executive director of the Just Transition Alliance, said Thursday during a rally with members of Congress that uranium mining threatens indigenous communities, exposing them to health risks associated with radioactive elements.
The march prominently featured native activists as part of its climate justice theme.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a nuclear proponent, responded that he thinks the overarching point of the march was to raise the profile of climate change as an issue and "communicate that we're sick and tired of having lies beat truth and having spin beat science."
On the eve of the march, the Trump administration removed most climate change information from U.S. EPA's website, saying in a release that language on the website is being updated to "reflect the approach of new leadership."
Whitehouse and other Democrats blasted the move in a rally Saturday before hitting the streets with activists.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) called out the agency for making a change in the "dark of night."
"Twenty years of research — gone, like that," Carper said.
Both Whitehouse and Carper are co-sponsors of the bipartisan "Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act," legislation designed to streamline federal licensing for advanced reactors and usher in the next wave of nuclear technology. The bill passed out of committee last month (Greenwire, March 22).
"If that's an avenue that can bring Republicans on board, I'm all for it," Whitehouse told E&E News. He pointed out he's a proponent of the carbon fee for the same reason. "It's particularly good policy, because it's the policy that virtually every Republican who has thought the climate change problem through to a solution comes to."'Crickets' for carbon tax
Experts put long odds on the prospect of passing a carbon tax with Trump's administration showing open skepticism of climate science. Even GOP members of Congress who acknowledge a need to mitigate greenhouse gases do not publicly advocate a carbon tax.
One popular approach for Republicans is "high-octane conservatism about no more subsidies," said Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who founded the group RepublicEn to advocate for free-enterprise climate solutions.
Speaking the day before the climate march at an Environmental Law Institute seminar, Inglis said, "That usually gets our folks going, because they think, 'Yeah, no more Solyndras.'"
From there, Inglis advocates no more production tax credit for wind, no more investment tax credit for solar and no more electric car credits. "All of that gets hearty amens," he said.
His conservative audience is usually more tepid to "no more under-market leases on public land extraction of minerals." Then comes what Inglis called "the biggest subsidy of them all," the ability to emit greenhouse gases "without paying any tipping fee for the damages caused there."
"So far that's crickets from our group," he said.
Conservatives who are calling for action on climate change will launch a series of TV ads running in D.C. this week to highlight the threat posed by warming. Sponsored by the Partnership for Responsible Growth, the ads urge both parties in Congress to protect America from climate change and "remind our nation's leadership that time is not on our side," according to a media advisory.
Allies of the 100 percent renewable energy approach say they are also well-aware their proposal won't pass this Congress, so they hope to spur action at the state and local level.
Mayors recently allied with the Sierra Club for an initiative that aims to get more cities on board with ditching fossil fuel as a power source (Greenwire, April 26).
Merkley told attendees at the march that to hit their target by 2050 requires action "at a grass-roots level" and encouraged them to ask their city councils for clean energy resolutions and an "action plan."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/01/stories/1060053805
-
Climate March Draws Huge Crowd To DC
Apr 29, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Nikita Valdimirov
Thousands of people poured into Washington, D.C., on Saturday to take part in the Climate March, the latest in a string of protests linked to the Trump administration's policies.
Demonstrators planned to march from near the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the White House, with attendees facing sweltering conditions on the bright Saturday afternoon.
The demonstration stems from a 2014 climate protest in New York, where more than 300,000 people came out to voice support for stronger environmental protection policies.
The organizers of the 2014 People's Climate March said it was the largest climate-change demonstration in history.
The Sierra Club said the tens of thousands of people taking to the streets in D.C. on Saturday showed "the true power of the climate movement."
“Donald Trump can try to stick his head in the sand when it comes to protecting our clean air and water all he wants, but that will never drown out the millions of voices across the country demanding action," the group's executive director Michael Brune said in a statement.
Saturday's march falls on the 100th day of President Trump's administration, which environmental activists and organizations have criticized as being opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change.
Trump signed an executive order in March aimed at undoing former President Barack Obama's climate change agenda, including regulations of greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump has also pushed for major reforms at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has faced criticism for backing away from the Obama administration's climate work.
The demonstration comes a day after the EPA took down the climate page on its website, a move that is sure to galvanize protestors already skeptical of the Trump administration.
The EPA said it removed the pages as part of an update to “reflect the agency’s new direction under President Donald Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt.”
EPA officials removed a page relating to the Obama administration’s main emissions regulation for power plants. That page now directs to an article about the executive order Trump signed undoing Obama’s climate agenda.
The Climate March is the third large demonstration in recent weeks linked to protests surrounding Trump, following marches earlier this month calling on Trump to release his tax returns and last week's Science March.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/331225-climate-march-draws-big-crowd-to-dc
-
Trump EPA Defends Brick MACT In Rare Legal Support Of Obama-Era Rule
Apr 28, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
In an April 28 response brief in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPA's behalf rejects environmentalists' claims that the rule is too lax and sets a bad precedent, and fights industry's claims that it is too stringent.
While a date for oral argument in the case has not yet been set, DOJ's continued defense of the rule against all claims suggests that, for now, the Trump EPA has not decided to review and possibly reconsider the rule, opting instead to defend EPA's approach in setting the rule that the Obama administration finalized in 2015.
That contrasts with the Trump administration's successful requests for the D.C. Circuit to postpone oral argument and delay a slew of lawsuits over Obama EPA air rules including litigation over a tightening of the ozone ambient air standard; the Clean Power Plan greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for existing power plants; GHG limits for new utilities; two suits over the utility MACT; and a rule forcing changes to states' air quality plans.
The brick MACT case is not the first Obama EPA air rule that the Trump administration has continued to defend, as it argued in favor of an Obama-era declaration that the agency had met a mandate to regulate 90 percent of sources of specific air toxics, although that occurred before EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt took office.
Since Pruitt was confirmed on Feb. 17, the agency has also in briefing and at recent oral argument defended the Obama EPA's 2014-2016 renewable fuel standard from consolidated legal challenges.
In the brick MACT case, the Trump administration appears -- for now -- to similarly continue fighting attacks from both industry and environmentalists over a rule that the prior administration issued.
Environmentalists' Attacks
DOJ rejects environmentalists' attacks on EPA's first-time use of “health-based” standards as an alternative to traditional MACT emissions limits. The air law allows use of such alternative, weaker limits where a safe threshold of a pollutant can be identified, but environmentalists contest that such a threshold exists for acid gas emissions.
Environmentalists further challenge EPA's use of the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL), a statistical method that critics say does not use true averages of emissions performance to calculate minimum MACT emissions limits, or “MACT floors,” as required by the air law. Environmental groups say that so long as some risk of cancer from the gases exists, EPA cannot assert a safe threshold, but the administration rejects these claims.
“The statute does not specify what it means when a health threshold 'has been established,' and the concept of an 'established' threshold is unique” to air law section 112(d)(4), the health-based alternative provision, DOJ says. EPA exercised its discretion to set health-based limits “fully consistent with the plain language” of the air law and did not have to “affirmatively conclude that the acid gases were not carcinogens before invoking” health-based limits.
Also, EPA's use of the UPL, a method previously upheld by the D.C. Circuit, is reasonable in the context of the agency having to rely on an incomplete data set when crafting its rule, DOJ says.
MACT Floors
DOJ in the brief also rebuts the Brick Industry Association's (BIA) argument that EPA wrongly relied on limited data to set MACT floors, which the sector argues are too stringent.
BIA also argues that EPA cannot rely on data gathered from certain brick kilns deemed “synthetic area” sources of emissions when setting MACT limits. “Area” sources are those emitting below the “major source” threshold of 10 tons per year (tpy) of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs. “Synthetic” area sources are those that have voluntarily limited their emissions to a level below that threshold, despite their ability to emit more.
But “EPA’s use of such data is consistent with the statutory requirement to determine MACT floors based on emission levels achieved by the 'best performing' sources,” DOJ says.
The brief says that BIA's challenge on this point is time-barred because the group failed to raise the issue in legal proceedings over EPA's vacated 2003 brick rule that the current MACT replaces.
DOJ defends EPA's decision not to subcategorize brick kilns when calculating MACT floors, an established practice that results in weaker air limits for some emissions sources that are grouped according to their different characteristics. BIA said that in the MACT rule, EPA should have created subcategories according to variable raw material content that contains different levels of mercury. However, “EPA reasonably declined to subcategorize,” DOJ says.
Other industry groups have distinct issues in the case and DOJ rejects them one-by-one. For example, the Tile Council of North America (TCNA) contests EPA's decision to set major source MACT standards for tile manufacturing, despite the fact that no tile facilities are classed as “major” sources.
DOJ responds that EPA can set major source standards in case tile industry sources increase their emissions and become “major” emitters. Further, TCNA lacks “standing to challenge the standards and the major source category listing of tile industry sources. In arguing that EPA impermissibly promulgated standards for a source category that includes no major sources, TCNA fails to allege that any of its members have suffered a cognizable injury,” necessary to establish standing.
'Malfunction' Emissions
DOJ also defends EPA's decision not to include “malfunction” emissions in its calculation of MACT floors. In line with rulings from the D.C. Circuit finding regulatory exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) unlawful, EPA has sought to remove such exemptions from its rules.
Industry groups in legal challenges to several rules have argued that if the agency will not allow such exemptions, it must weaken limits by setting them using emissions data that includes malfunction episodes. Environmentalists and the Obama EPA countered that this would result in unlawfully weak emissions limits.
The Trump EPA is now reconsidering the Obama policy on SSM waivers, and the D.C. Circuit at its request has indefinitely postponed oral argument in a case, Walter Coke, et al. v. EPA, et al. in which states are challenging the agency's rule requiring that they strip SSM exemptions from their air law compliance plans.
The issue is further being tested in an appeal to the Supreme Court to review EPA's MACT rules for industrial boilers, American Municipal Power v. EPA, in which industry groups attack the agency's “absurd” policy making no allowance for malfunction emissions.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-epa-defends-brick-mact-rare-legal-support-obama-era-rule
-
Top Trump Aides Clash on Legal Risks of Paris Climate Accord
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter
Senior advisers to Donald Trump were divided over the Paris climate accord in a meeting April 27, as Cabinet members and staffers considered whether staying in the pact could legally jeopardize the president's regulatory rollbacks, according to people familiar with the high-level gathering.
The split means Trump's staff could end up giving the president dueling advice, with one camp of advisers urging the U.S. to stay in the treaty and another urging an exit. The White House has said a decision on whether to remain in the pact will be made by the end of next month, when world leaders gather for the Group of Seven summit in Italy.
The question has divided top administration officials. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said the U.S. should keep its seat at the table, while EPA chief Scott Pruitt wants the U.S. to get out. Energy Secretary Rick Perry says the U.S. should remain in the deal, but renegotiate.
All three were in the roughly hour-long meeting at the White House April 27, that also included Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin; White House advisers Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon and Ivanka Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, according to administration officials.
Under the accord, signed by more than 190 countries, the U.S. set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels. It's one of former President Barack Obama's signature achievements on climate change, but Trump vowed on the campaign trail he would seek to end U.S. involvement in it, calling it a bad deal.
A draft three-page internal State Department memo circulated in advance of the meeting said the accord imposes few obligations on the U.S., noting that “legal obligations are relatively few and are generally process-oriented.“
That was the one area of emerging consensus April 27, according to people familiar with the meeting, who declined to be identified because it was an internal discussion. The top-level officials seemed to agree that there is no legal mechanism for the United Nations to punish the U.S. for flouting its commitment.
But there are potential domestic legal implications of staying in the deal anyway, representatives from the White House counsel's office told the group. There is some risk that if the U.S. stays in the agreement and doesn't take actions to cut emissions, it could surface in legal challenges to Trump's moves to roll back environmental regulations, they said.
Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter and a special assistant at the White House, was described as outspoken in favor of remaining in the pact. Pruitt and Sessions, meanwhile, jointly argued the U.S. has an obligation to honor the commitments it makes to other countries, and if it wouldn't aim to get to the 26 percent reduction, should leave.
Jeopardize Exports
Supporters of sticking with the accord have argued that U.S. exports, including sales of liquefied natural gas, could be jeopardized if the country ditches the deal. Ahead of the meeting, some Republicans argued that the U.S. should stay in the deal but revise its climate pledge.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who served as an informal energy adviser to Trump on the campaign, sent a letter with eight other Republican lawmakers advising Trump that the U.S. can leverage its role in the deal to encourage worldwide use of its energy resources and technology.
“The U.S. should use its seat at the Paris table to defend and promote our commercial interests, including our manufacturing and fossil fuel sectors,” they wrote. “Our engagement must prevent the development of harmful policies which undermine economic growth and energy security here and abroad.“
Companies ranging from oil giants such as BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp. to utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co. have also made the argument the U.S. should remain in the pact.
But opponents argue that Trump promised to exit, and if the U.S. is abandoning its efforts to cut emissions it should also abandon this pact, too.
“Those who argue for us to remain in the agreement are essentially arguing for us to become (officially) liars,” Mike McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist, said in an email.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110380828&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110380828&jd=110380828
-
EPA Science Policies Go Under Congressional Microscope
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Maeve Allsup
Long-sought Republican bills setting new limits on the science driving EPA regulations could mark the first shot in a broader campaign to rein in the agency's authority, scientists told Bloomberg BNA.
“The misleadingly-named Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act are one face of a broader assault on public health safeguards,” Joanna Slaney, legislative director for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg BNA, “They're part of an effort to limit EPA's ability to use the best science and scientific advice in protecting the public's health.”
The two bills, which have passed the House and await Senate action, would place new limits on the science the Environmental Protection Agency can use to develop its regulations, particularly limits on air pollution, and would update requirements for scientists who serve on the agency's advisory boards. Some scientists fear the bills, if signed into law, would hamper the EPA's ability to craft necessary environmental protections and skew the structure of the Science Advisory Board, which consists of different scientific committees that offer the EPA advice on engineering, risk assessment and other technical issues.Industry advocates, however, say the bills would increase transparency and public confidence in the EPA's use of science.
“A lot of this research is actually funded by the taxpayer—research that is used to support regulations which impose further costs on those same citizens, who are not allowed to examine all the evidence,” Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market advocacy group, told Bloomberg BNA.
Senate aides did not respond to requests for comment on when the bills might receive a hearing.
More to Come
“I think that more bills related to the EPA will be coming out,” Taylor Eighmy, vice chancellor for research and engagement at the University of Tennessee Knoxville and a former SAB member, told Bloomberg BNA, “as well as more executive actions, as Congress takes advantage of opportunities to manage issues it sees in the agency.”
Scientists are bracing for further assaults on the EPA's abilities now that Republicans control the entire government.“To me, what is in the two bills together would be a real blow to the use of peer reviewed scientific evidence to formulate policy,” Jonathan Samet, another former SAB member and the director of the University Of Southern California's Institute for Global Health, told Bloomberg BNA. “We're a country that is based on fact and evidence, and this would seem to be a turn away from that tradition.”
The bills would alter the EPA's “ability to fundamentally consider and make decisions about health and air quality,” Gina McCarthy, the agency's administrator under President Barack Obama, said during an April 26 talk at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.HONEST Act Sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in a March 9 statement that the bill will ensure sound science is the basis of all EPA decisions and regulatory actions. Similar legislation has passed the House with bipartisan support in past congressional sessions, but has failed to pass the Senate. This year's iteration of the bill includes provisions to better protect personally identifiable and confidential information, Smith said.
Despite these additions, the bills are unlikely to pass the Senate, Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists told Bloomberg BNA. However, it is possible that the legislation might be attached to must-pass spending bills, Rosenberg said.
Sponsors of the bills and EPA representatives could not be reached for further comment.
Limitations Versus Transparency
Many scientists fear the HONEST Act (H.R. 1430) would jeopardize public health by restricting EPA's authority to make decisions about air and water quality.
The bill would mandate that the EPA release all the data from studies it uses to justify its regulations, so that it can be reanalyzed, reevaluated and replicated, said Thomas Burke, associate dean for public health practice and training at the Johns Hopkins University. The EPA would not be able to take action, despite evidence of a threat, until all data are available for analysis, Burke told Bloomberg BNA.
However, advocates for the bill say it could actually bolster support for the EPA's actions.
“The long-run effect of 1430 would be to enhance the scientific credibility of the EPA and its rulemakings, making them less likely to be opposed by stakeholders and less likely to be overturned by the courts,” John Graham, dean of the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, told Bloomberg BNA.
He also doesn't think it would affect the EPA's ability to fund new research.
“EPA may make less use of proprietary models where the owner of the model is not willing to disclose publicly the input data and the algorithms used to generate the modeling results,” he said, but the trend in environmental modeling is strongly toward transparency and public disclosure even without the bill.
Environmental advocates argue that many major public health studies are not conducted in carefully controlled lab environments, making them difficult to replicate.The studies often rely on real patient data, which can prevent releasing all of the underlying data.
“Requiring that the underlying data be made public is not always possible,” Jay Austin, senior attorney at the Environmental Law Institute, told Bloomberg BNA. “To make that an absolute requirement would take out of the picture a lot of very important health studies.”
SAB Facing Membership Decline?
Scientists also fear the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act (H.R. 1431), which would restrict those receiving EPA grants from serving on the board, would deter many experts from accepting membership. That could shift the balance of the advisory board towards industry interests.
The EPA funding restrictions are not necessarily the most significant part of this bill, Eighmy said, because during his time on the board he was not aware of many members currently working under EPA funding. However, an expected reduced role for the advisory board might deter some scientists from participating, he said.
Eliminating Conflict of Interest
While the bill might make the process of assembling experts more onerous, it doesn't change the basic procedures followed by the board as a committee governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Eighmy said. The selection of members for specific committees was an extremely deliberative process with extensive ethics and conflict of interest review that involved high levels of participation from industry scientists, he said.
Others in the field are not so sanguine.
“This bill suggests to me that the people who wrote it think that the science that's being given to EPA by the current SAB is political, not just scientific, and this is their way to respond to that,” Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, told Bloomberg BNA. “I think that it's intended to be a check on robust EPA action and on strong scientific advice.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110380843&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110380843&jd=110380843
-
Only Constant in Trump's Approach to Climate is Inconsistency
May 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz, Dean Scott and Andrew Childers
Defibrillating what was once a vibrant coal industry has been central to President Donald Trump's environmental agenda. But that singular focus on fossil fuels has caused an inconsistent and often contradictory stance on climate change.
Not that industry seems to mind much so far. Most of the Trump administration's environmental priorities in its first 100 days have been targeted at lifting burdens on domestic energy production, particularly coal. Climate change policies that the power sector has long opposed are now on the Environmental Protection Agency's chopping block.
But his administration has also kept in place—and, in one instance, even defended—other Obama-era climate policies that don't affect energy production. And, in likely the most significant environmental decision of Trump's presidency thus far, the U.S. may end up staying in an international agreement to address climate change even as it guts the carbon dioxide limits for power plants that are crucial to meeting that goal.
Taken together, Trump's actions signal a renaissance for energy production but chaos and confusion for climate change advocates.
“There is no coherent climate policy,” Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, told Bloomberg BNA. “There is no climate policy at all. A policy requires that there be a goal.”
Some Industries Set the Agenda ..
Trump is earning accolades from industry groups who say some initial policy uncertainties are worth the regulatory relief they see coming from the new regime.
“I think there's a general sense out there among the energy industry that things are heading in the right direction,” Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research, told Bloomberg BNA. “The question is, what will prevent a whipsaw? What will prevent the next administration from coming back and pushing it?”
Ensuring those gains last will require reopening laws such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to make the Trump actions harder for a new administration to undo, Pyle said.
“You have a Clean Air Act that is interpreted widely differently across administrations and we would love to see a long-term approach,” Dan Byers, vice president for policy at U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, told Bloomberg BNA. He predicted overhauling the Clean Air Act could begin within a year. However, he acknowledged such an effort would face significant hurdles in the Senate and ignite a firestorm from environmental groups.
The Trump administration's environmental and climate policies appear patchwork and occasionally contradictory because industry groups now have leverage with a friendly White House, Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg BNA. Industries with the most clout are seeing their issues addressed first by a Trump team eager to boost American business, especially energy producers.
“Trump in each case was responding to pressure, from industry, either privately behind the scenes or publicly,” Meyer said.
... While Others Wait Their Turn
However, industries with less clout are still awaiting their opportunities. For example, the Trump EPA has not yet indicated what, if anything, it will do about the Obama administration's methane limits for landfills, something that industry would like to see reconsidered or revised.
Anne Germain, a director with the National Waste & Recycling Association, which is a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the rule, said she believes this area simply isn't a major priority for the Trump administration.
Germain said her group met earlier this month with two new policy advisers to the EPA's administrator, Scott Pruitt. She said the advisers were polite and professional, but also firmly noncommittal.
“There was no commitment to do any action,” Germain told Bloomberg BNA. “I think they are trying to make sure they fully understand what we're asking for. They're hearing it from many, many industries.”
But another factor may be at play here. It's possible that the nascent Trump administration, still struggling to staff up in key areas, has simply yet to think through its stance on the lower-profile climate regulations that don't affect the energy sector, she said.
Indeed, political leaders at the agency have been getting an earful from lots of different industry groups, according to EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman.
“It is not a secret that many Americans felt left out of the regulatory process by the previous administration and have highlighted a significant number of concerns with existing rules,” she told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
Competing Interests Tug at Paris Deal
The in-or-out uncertainty about the U.S. role in the Paris climate agreement is a reflection of those same tugging forces.
Pruitt has called for leaving the international pact while Secretary of State Rex Tillerson favors remaining in the agreement and Energy Secretary Rick Perry has called for remaining but renegotiating its terms. Even if the U.S. remains in the Paris deal, Trump has directed the EPA to roll back carbon dioxide limits for power plants, the heart of the country's pledge to reduce its emissions by at least 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
“That's the interesting scenario: What happens if the U.S. does what seems quite likely and stays in and does nothing,” Burger said.
The White House was scheduled to pull together competing factions to hash out the administration's stance on the Paris deal on April 27.
In the absence of federal action, states, cities and companies will still take action on climate change, said Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA under President Barack Obama. Pulling the U.S. out of Paris would also give ground to China, which has served as an economic and policy foil for Trump, she said.
“Why would we want to run away and cede leadership to China?” McCarthy said April 26 during a talk at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Clarity—and More Rollbacks—Coming?
Greater policy clarity could be coming once Republicans clear other legislative priorities from their calendars and start uprooting more regulations.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a key Trump ally on energy issues in the House, acknowledged that Trump has left some climate policies untouched, including U.S. participation in the global deal to cut hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), refrigerants that are extremely potent climate pollutants, and the EPA's initial determination that greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
Cramer called Trump's policies “a little bit disjointed,” but he told reporters April 25 that the Republican-led Congress has been busy rolling back as many energy and climate regulations as it can under the Congressional Review Act before the window for taking advantage of the law's expedited procedures closes. Trump has signed 13 resolutions repealing regulations into law in the first three months of his presidency.
Once the Congressional Review Act option expires, Republicans and the new administration will be able to take a closer look at what to do about any remaining Obama climate policies.
“Whatever remnants that are still left that are reasonable [we can] hang onto. And whatever needs to be re-done or rebuilt—we'll do that,” he said.
Though all of the policy components may not be in place, businesses say the regulatory tide is turning in their favor.
“We couldn't be more pleased, frankly, with what they're doing,” Byers said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110380844&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110380844&jd=110380844
-
Trump's 100 Days: Progress On Rule Rollbacks But Hurdles Remain
May 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
President Donald Trump has made some strides in starting to roll back environmental rules in his first 100 days in office, having more success on that front than in many other areas, but sources say that despite the administration's progress, it remains unclear when or whether the administration will be able to translate the rollbacks into final action.
While it “has been a long 100 days,” one GOP strategist says, the time has included “lots of clear direction on energy and environmental regulations” rollbacks, such as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Waters of the United States rule and others. “Those will eventually be realized over time,” the source says.
Although Trump has accomplished much in his first 100 days, sources say implementing and codifying the environment and energy regulatory rollbacks will face hurdles, delays and some heavy lifting if the actions are to stand the test of time.
A big part of that will depend on Trump's ability to nominate and win confirmation of needed political appointees.
One industry attorney says what stands out in Trump's first 100 days is “the extraordinary ambition that President Trump and [EPA] Administrator [Scott] Pruitt have announced, and the massive amount of work it will take EPA to actually implement even a portion of that agenda.”
While the intent to do many things has been announced, “it is going to be necessary for the agency to get some leadership in place to marshal the forces and move any of these efforts forward, and they will have to come up with actual proposals,” the source notes.
The 100-day mark is a traditional test for any new administration. Trump's has been characterized by scores of administrative and legislative actions that either roll back rules or create a framework to do so.
For example, Trump signed a series of executive orders that create a new deregulatory architecture. Among other things, the orders require agencies to repeal two existing rules for every new measure, offset regulatory costs, and appoint agency-level officials to identify and review existing rules for repeal.
Others, like a recent order on energy independence, kicked off a process to review and roll back EPA's CPP and other climate policies, and also required agencies across the government to review all rules for potential adverse effects on the energy sector.
And on the legislative front, Trump signed a series of disapproval resolutions under the Congressional Review Act that repealed several late Obama-era regulations, including an Interior Department (DOI) stream protection rule. While lawmakers still have until the second week in May to act on any remaining resolutions, including one that would address a DOI rule regulating methane emissions from oil and gas operations, none is expected to address EPA rules.
ThinkProgress notes in an April 27 post that of the 69 actions Trump has taken since Jan. 20, 33 of them have targeted environmental protections, while noting most are more show than substance.
The left-leaning group argues that the public is not on board with these rollbacks, citing a 100-day report card from Politico, which finds climate change to be Trump's worst area, with 44 percent of respondents giving him a D or an F, and 75 percent of Trump voters wanting action to accelerate clean energy.
'Get Moving'
Substantive or not, the progress Trump has made on climate and environmental rollbacks stands in sharp contrast to a lack of movement on budget, health care, immigration, and infrastructure, whose “discussions are completely different,” according to the GOP source, who says the biggest overarching Trump achievement in the 100 days is confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
But this source also sees major hurdles going forward, including an administration that lacks experience and staff.
“The president and his senior crew [don't] seem to understand the timing, tempo and tics of Congress terribly well,” the source says. “And some people in the cabinet are having trouble navigating the bureaucracy. Those things might get better over time. Or they might not.”
So far, the administration has not nominated anyone to a Senate-confirmed position at EPA other than Pruitt -- who has emerged as a lightning rod among many opponents and faces several ethics investigations.
Such delays have prompted significant concerns, including from industry groups worried that it may slow the administration's deregulatory agenda. Automakers, for example, are said to have told Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao at a meeting earlier this week to “get moving” on their plan to review the Obama administration's decision to retain current vehicle greenhouse gas standards through model year 2025.
And Republicans are similarly concerned. “I don't think they're fully aware this is a disaster,” a GOP source close to the administration told CNN. The source cited “arrogance” among Trump associates who think they can carry over into governing the Trump Tower mindset of winning the election with 80 people.
Such concerns suggest that the chaos and infighting that characterized the early days of the administration continue at the 100-day mark, though many Trump campaign “beachheaders” who were reportedly being shut out by Pruitt have left the agency. These include David Schnare, who retired; Don Benton, who was nominated to head the Selective Service; David Kreutzer, who is expected to return to the Heritage Institute; and several others.
The infighting at EPA may have been tempered by those departures and Pruitt's addition of his personal staff that largely hail from Oklahoma, coming to the agency either from the attorney general's (AG) office where he served prior to moving to EPA and filed dozens of lawsuits challenging agency rules, or from the office of Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK).
But those staffers mostly lack experience with EPA and it remains unclear whether they will be able to execute.
One source has previously suggested that given such chaos and inexperience, Pruitt would be in a position to implement the rollbacks “somewhere around 2023."
That, according to one environmentalist, “is good for the environment.”
Clean Power Plan Rollback
One deregulatory process that is likely to take years to complete is the rollback of the CPP and other climate rules. Trump's energy independence order, issued in late March, began the process of rolling the rule back. A federal appellate court April 28 stayed the pending litigation, one of a number of largely successful efforts by the administration to prevent courts from ruling on Obama-era rules in a way that may undercut Trump administration rewrites.
But EPA has not yet launched a formal rulemaking review of the CPP, which once begun is expected to be a years-long process because any final rule change would then be subject to litigation.
Jay Austin, a senior attorney at the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), told an April 27 event that rolling back the rule will not be easy. In order to successfully repeal the CPP, EPA will have to come up with a plausible explanation and that “may be as hard to produce . . . as [Trump's] executive order was easy to sign.”
Additionally, former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an April 26 event hosted by the Harvard University school of public health that she is urging supporters of strong environmental standards to “take a little bit of a deep breath” when it comes to Trump and Pruitt, and to “keep this in perspective.”
“While there's a lot of promises to roll things back, it takes a really long time for government to change action,” she said, adding she is “very confident” the Obama EPA's major climate and other rules will “stand the test of time.”
“This administration is severely overestimating their ability to roll back really sound actions that are taken at the federal level,” she added.
Even administration supporters agree that it remains to be seen whether the actions taken so far will achieve their ultimate goals. Susan Dudley, a deregulatory advocate who led the White House regulatory review office in the George W. Bush administration, noted recently in Forbes that while Trump's executive orders incentivize “agencies to evaluate the accumulated stock of regulation before issuing new rules . . . he has taken many of these actions through memoranda and executive orders, which do not have the force of law, and can be rescinded with the stroke of a pen.
“Moreover, they may face litigation obstacles,” she added.
And EPA career staff are far from on board with the Trump/Pruitt agenda, especially given low morale as a result of the administration's plans to cut the agency's budget by 31 percent and dramatically reduce staffing levels.
One agency source says that there have been “much more frequent 'all-hands meetings'” to address employee concerns with the administration's budget plan, proposed early buyouts and other issues.
Staff is being taught how to stay “motivated in these challenging times,” and a section has been added to the agency's intranet where they can share pep talks, with one staffer already sharing “an elevator speech to myself."
The source notes that staff have been assured that the Environmental Council of the States, which represents state environmental secretaries, is behind them.
Staff is also not welcoming Pruitt's “Back to Basics” agenda. Announcing the plan April 13, EPA said it “reinforces Administrator Pruitt's commitment to refocusing EPA on its intended mission, returning power to the states, and creating an environment where jobs can grow."
But the staffer notes that Pruitt's agenda fails to mention protecting human health and the environment -- which is “unprecedented. . . . No one that I know of is applauding” Pruitt's agenda, the source says. “We don't trust him. It's as if our agency has been hijacked. We're in a constant state of concern.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trumps-100-days-progress-rule-rollbacks-hurdles-remain
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested