Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/5/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Solid PS, PET Bottle Resin Prices Slide in April
May 4, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American prices for solid polystyrene and PET bottle resin both fell in April as a result of lower feedstock costs. -
Pruitt to Seek New EPA Scientific Advisers
May 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is reopening the nomination process for outside scientific counselors to advise the agency on research and development, according to internal agency emails obtained by POLITICO. -
EDF Warns Senate Regulatory Reform Bill Would Undo Key TSCA Changes
May 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
An Environmental Defense Fund scientist is warning that a recently introduced Senate regulatory reform bill could undo multiple key revisions Congress made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in last year's law overhauling the statute and impose new hurdle... -
FDA Denies Petition to Ban Rocket Fuel Chemical in Food
May 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The Food and Drug Administration has denied a two-year old petition to ban a chemical best known as a component of rocket fuel, saying the request seeks to end uses that no longer exist and questions science that the industry considers robust. -
Protecting Industry or People? FDA Refuses to Ban Toxic Chemical in Packaging for Baby Cereal.
May 4, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today rejected a petition to ban perchlorate from our food, a chemical known to impair brain development in infants. -
America’s Tap Water: Too Much Contamination, Not Enough Reporting, Study Finds
May 4, 2017 | New York Times
By Jacey Fortin
If you live in the United States, there is a nearly one-in-four chance your tap water is either unsafe to drink or has not been properly monitored for contaminants in accordance with federal law, a new study has found. -
Echa Biocides Committee Supports Six Substance Approvals
May 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) has adopted six opinions that support the approval of active substances. -
EU Could Further Restrict Chemicals Left on Skin, Used in Wipes
May 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency called for information on two hazardous chemicals used in skin products, tissues and wipes, a step that could lead to further restrictions in the European Union. -
Rubio Introduces Bill to Extend Drilling Moratorium, Share Revenue with Florida
May 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation today to extend a drilling moratorium off Florida's coast to 2027, and to bring the state into a lucrative revenue sharing deal for offshore drilling. -
Senators Revisit the Strategic Puzzle of the EMP Threat
May 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Peter Behr
As senators drifted in and out of a hearing yesterday, they heard conflicting testimony about a potential electromagnetic pulse attack. -
Eco-right Searching for Lessons from Health Care Fight
May 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
With the addition of New York Reps. Dan Donovan and Peter King, 20 lawmakers have now endorsed the House GOP resolution that calls for action to combat climate change, H. Res. 195. -
Omnibus Seeks State Flexibility to Meet Ozone Standard
May 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA will have to explore the possibility of granting states more flexibility to meet its 2015 ground-level ozone standard, according to a provision from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) attached to the newly passed omnibus spending bill. -
State, Local Groups Raise Questions over EPA's Regulatory Reform Push
May 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Groups representing state and local environmental regulators at a recent meeting with EPA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Officials (OCIR) raised questions over how the agency will conduct its regulatory reform push, and the groups plan on suggesting... -
This Is the Pivotal Moment in the Fight Against Climate Change
May 4, 2017 | TIME Magazine
By Justin Worland
Momentum is building in the Trump administration to leave the Paris Agreement on climate change in the coming weeks... -
Europe to Trump: Don't Abandon Paris Climate Deal
May 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia, Kalina Oroschakoff, and Sara Stefanini
European leaders are working to persuade President Donald Trump to remain in the Paris climate change agreement, warning of dire diplomatic consequences if the United States withdraws and stressing that the administration would not be bound by Barack Obama's plan... -
We’ll Always Have Paris, Unless the Senate Has Its Say
May 5, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Rupert Darwall
Expect some clarity soon on America’s future participation in the Paris Agreement on climate.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Solid PS, PET Bottle Resin Prices Slide in April
May 4, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American prices for solid polystyrene and PET bottle resin both fell in April as a result of lower feedstock costs.
Regional PS prices declined by an average of 5 cents per pound, taking away most of a 6 cent increase the market had seen in March. The March PS hike was the third consecutive one for that material. Those three increases sent regional PS prices up a total of 19 cents per pound.
A major price drop for benzene, which is used to make styrene monomer, affected PS prices in April. Benzene prices fell 61 cents per gallon, a drop of about 18 percent. March was an unusual month in that PS prices rose even though benzene prices declined slightly.
PS maker Americas Styrenics of The Woodlands, Texas, already has announced a PS price decrease of 2 cents per pound for May. North American PS sales through March were down around 2 percent from the same period in 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic PS sales were down just over 2 percent for those three months, while exports increased almost 6 percent.PET down 2 cents
North American prices for PET bottle resin declined an average of 2 cents per pound in April, according to market watchers contacted by Plastics News. That marks the second straight month that prices for that material have dropped, following a 0.5 cent dip in March.
Paraxylene and PTA feedstocks have been under downward pricing pressure, sources said. Prior to March, regional PET prices had increased for six consecutive months, with those increases totaling 9.5 cents per pound.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170504/NEWS/170509938/solid-ps-pet-bottle-resin-prices-slide-in-april
-
Pruitt to Seek New EPA Scientific Advisers
May 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is reopening the nomination process for outside scientific counselors to advise the agency on research and development, according to internal agency emails obtained by POLITICO.
In an email to staffers yesterday, Office of Policy chief Samantha Dravis said Pruitt would not be moving forward at this time with the reappointment of nine members of the Board of Scientific Counselors whose terms expired last week, and that political leaders "would like to re-open the nominations process." The board is a federal advisory committee currently made up of 18 members that provides advice and recommendations to EPA's Office of Research and Development. It has tackled issues ranging from methods for evaluating lead exposure to wildfire smoke risks in recent years.
The move comes as congressional Republicans have been pushing to alter the process by which science is overseen and used to inform regulations at EPA — changes that GOP lawmakers say would promote fairness and transparency, but that environmental groups argue would give more influence to industry.
EPA political leaders also opted to withdraw the agency program from consideration for a Harvard University Kennedy School of Government award. According to the emails, the Federal Community of Practice on Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science, a program co-chaired by EPA to help government agencies with citizen science initiatives, is a finalist for the Innovations in American Government Awards. Pruitt needed to sign a form in order for the program to move forward in the competition, but Dravis informed staffers yesterday that "the Administrator will not be moving forward at this time" with the award.
Last week, EPA said it removed “outdated language” referring to Obama-era programs that President Donald Trump has targeted for elimination, including virtually all mentions of climate change.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EDF Warns Senate Regulatory Reform Bill Would Undo Key TSCA Changes
May 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
An Environmental Defense Fund scientist is warning that a recently introduced Senate regulatory reform bill could undo multiple key revisions Congress made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in last year's law overhauling the statute and impose new hurdles on the agency's ability to regulate new and existing chemicals.
In a May 4 blog post on EDF's website, Richard Denison says the bill, S. 951, would reinstate several mandates the TSCA overhaul -- known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act -- removed in order to reduce barriers to EPA's regulation of toxic substances.
This would be “ironic,” Denison argues, because TSCA reform cleared Congress with significant bipartisan support but S. 951, known as the Regulatory Reform Act (RRA), would undo many of the changes in the toxics law overhaul and limit EPA and other agencies' regulatory powers.
Introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), S. 951 would create hurdles for new EPA rules and effectively override key environmental statutes, requiring the agency to consider costs when setting some standards and opening the door to new procedural challenges to regulations, according to Denison.
The bill would generally amend the Administrative Procedure Act to create a host of new procedural steps for agencies before issuing final rules. It would also impose new judicially reviewable cost-benefit requirements and add a host of other steps that will likely hamper development of agency rulemakings.
The bill is a companion to H.R. 5 which the House approved in January by a 238-183 vote. It would add new mandates for agencies to choose the least burdensome option for accomplishing statutory goals and create new requirements for regulators by requiring advance notice of rulemakings in development.
While the Senate bill enjoys bipartisan support from two Democratic and one GOP co-sponsors, it may not be enough to overcome an expected filibuster from Democratic senators.
'Critical Changes'
Denison provides an analysis of “provisions of RAA that would directly undo critical changes the Lautenberg Act made to TSCA,” as well as changes that would impact EPA and other agencies more broadly.
As he explained in a March blog post, these changes “removed from the original TSCA several major constraints on the rulemaking process that had so tied the hands of the [EPA] that it could not even restrict asbestos...”
Denison pointed to the original 1976 TSCA's requirements that EPA perform quantitative cost-benefit analysis on regulatory options and choose the least burdensome of these approaches for its rule -- requirements that led the Fifth Circuit to strike down EPA's ban on asbestos in 1991.
The Lautenberg Act removed these requirements, but Denison says that S. 951 “requires consideration of 'substantial alternatives or other responses identified by interested persons' and provides for judicial challenge of EPA’s selection of alternatives,” though it does try to limit the number of alternatives considered.
Similarly, while the Lautenberg Act struck the original TSCA's requirement that EPA choose the least burdensome regulatory option, S. 951 would generally require that for major rules, EPA must “adopt the 'most cost-effective' rule and prove that no more cost-efficient option is sufficient, unless it could demonstrate that the additional benefits of a more costly rule justify the additional costs.”
Denison says that S. 951 would also alter the risk standard that any TSCA rule would have to meet. The Lautenberg Act re-wrote the original statute to require that final rules “must impose conditions 'to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents' an unreasonable risk” and bars rules that do not eliminate unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. By contrast, S. 951 “Generally indicates a rule and alternatives considered are to 'meet relevant statutory objectives.' This term is not defined and is ambiguous at best,” Denison charges.
Policy Objectives
In addition, Denison says that policy objectives in TSCA section 2 -- which describes Congress' findings and intent in crafting TSCA -- and requirements in TSCA Section 6, which governs how EPA can regulate chemicals, could lead to conflict “if the most cost-effective rule met TSCA’s statutory objectives but failed to meet section 6(a) requirements -- which requirement would trump?”
Among other, broader concerns with the bill, Denison says that it contains language similar to the secret science bill the house passed in March. That bill, H.R. 1430, has yet to gain a Senate companion, but Denison says some of its provisions are in S. 951. It would require that “All studies, models, etc., considered by the agency would have to be made public at each stage of the process,” though the Senate bill does contain important exemptions for trade secret information and medical records not included in the House bill, Denison says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/edf-warns-senate-regulatory-reform-bill-would-undo-key-tsca-changes
-
FDA Denies Petition to Ban Rocket Fuel Chemical in Food
May 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The Food and Drug Administration has denied a two-year old petition to ban a chemical best known as a component of rocket fuel, saying the request seeks to end uses that no longer exist and questions science that the industry considers robust.
The FDA announced May 3 it would not pursue the petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, and other environmental groups to revoke the legal exemption of perchlorate compounds as anti-static agents on food storage bags and closure-sealing gaskets for food containers.
Perchlorate can block the thyroid gland's uptake of iodine, which affects hormone production. The chemical also has been linked to defects in fetal and child brain development.
The denial was published in the May 4 edition of the Federal Register. NRDC is now mulling legal options to challenge the decision, said Erik Olson, director of the organization's health program.
“This decision ignores the science and the law. It's an affront to all Americans, who expect that when they buy food, it won't harm them,” Olson said in a statement.
Suit Filed to Act on Petition
NRDC and the Center for Food Safety sued FDA in 2016.
A recent FDA study suggested that babies and children are ingesting more perchlorate in their foods than they were 10 to 15 years ago, although the level in food is well below the Environmental Protection Agency's risk limit for perchlorate.
Manufacturers no longer use potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers, FDA said in its denial. NRDC's scientific calculations, it said, “do not support a conclusion” that exempting uses for perchlorate is no longer supportable.
The FDA's exemption, grant in 2005 to the now-defunct Ciba Specialty Chemical Corp., allowed as much as 12,000 parts per million of the chemical to be added as an anti-static agent to plastic packaging. Perchlorate is best known as an oxidizing agent in rocket and missile fuel, but is also used to manufacture fireworks and some plastics. It also can form when bleach breaks down.
The EPA also is set to issue a proposed rule to regulate perchlorate in drinking water next year.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110759917&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110759917&jd=110759917
-
Protecting Industry or People? FDA Refuses to Ban Toxic Chemical in Packaging for Baby Cereal.
May 4, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today rejected a petition to ban perchlorate from our food, a chemical known to impair brain development in infants.
While best known as a rocket fuel component, perchlorate is approved for use in packaging for dry food such as baby rice cereal, flour and spices. Unfortunately, it also winds up in the food we eat.
Since the FDA approved the use in 2005, the amount of perchlorate that infants and toddlers ingest has increased significantly and more types of food have become contaminated. The use may have contributed to today’s high levels of perchlorate in infant rice cereal – often the first solid food infants eat.
A group of health and environmental organizations petitioned the FDA to ban the chemical as a food additive, pointing to the fact that it impairs infant brain development. This concern doesn’t end with infants and toddlers: A pregnant woman’s fetus is also at risk if the mother eats food tainted with perchlorate – especially in the first trimester – if she is among the 20 percent of women who do not get enough iodine.
The agency’s decision today, clearly, puts our kids needlessly at risk and should be reversed.
Consumers can’t avoid perchlorate
As the case with perchlorate shows, there is much more to our food than what is listed as ingredients on the label. Chemicals are also used to flavor, color, preserve, package, process and store our food and some of these additives are bad for our health.
Perchlorate is used by food companies to reduce static in dry food packaging, but today, scientists know that perchlorate threatens fetal and infant brain development even at lower levels than previously understood.
The packaging can be used for final products or raw materials such as rice, flour and dyes, before or during processing.Flawed assumptions paved way for use
Documents obtained from the FDA show that the agency’s original approval for using perchlorate in food packaging was based on a flawed and outdated assumption that it would not migrate into food at significant levels.
Tests provided by the chemical’s manufacturer late in 2015 showed that perchlorate did in fact migrate into food. The agency discounted the migration as “insignificant” and used flawed assumptions that were inconsistent with the law.
That makes the FDA’s denial so much more troubling.
Parents already have a lot to deal with trying to get their kids healthy food. The FDA should be removing this unnecessary use that contaminates food, not increasing the threats to kids’ health.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/04/protecting-industry-or-people-fda-refuses-ban-toxic-chemical-packaging-baby-cereal
-
America’s Tap Water: Too Much Contamination, Not Enough Reporting, Study Finds
May 4, 2017 | New York Times
By Jacey Fortin
If you live in the United States, there is a nearly one-in-four chance your tap water is either unsafe to drink or has not been properly monitored for contaminants in accordance with federal law, a new study has found.
In 2015, nearly 77 million Americans lived in places where the water systems were in some violation of safety regulations, including the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act, according to the report released on Tuesday from the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental advocacy group.
It’s not only that some tap water has high levels of lead, nitrates, arsenic or other pollutants, said Mae Wu, a senior attorney with the council’s health program. It is that too often, a lack of reporting means residents cannot be sure whether their drinking water is contaminated or not.
The issue is not new; tap water safety violations across the United States have been reported again and again and again. The new study is an attempt to tell the big-picture story, Ms. Wu said, as a backdrop to the piecemeal reports coming out of towns and cities across the country.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEUnsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint FEB. 8, 2016Michigan Allots $87 Million to Replace Flint’s Tainted Water Pipes MARCH 27, 2017New York Changes How It Tests for Lead in Schools’ Water, and Finds More MetalFEB. 3, 2017In Flint, Overdue Bills for Unsafe Water Could Lead to Foreclosures MAY 4, 2017
These include the story of a sinkhole outside Tampa, Fla., which opened up in September, leaking contaminated water and endangering a major aquifer; Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection took weeks to notify nearby residents.
Or Jim Hogg County, Tex., where thousands of people were exposed to high levels of arsenic in their drinking water for years, according to a report last year from the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit group based in Washington.
Or Flint, Mich., where sky-high levels of lead in tap water were widely publicized in 2015 — led not by the E.P.A., but by Flint residents who enlisted allies including Marc Edwards, a scientist at Virginia Tech, who played a major role in bringing the crisis to national attention.
Mr. Edwards said he agreed with the resources defense council’s conclusion that the government has not done enough to enforce regulations on drinking water safety.
“This has been tolerated so long, and it is so ingrained in the E.P.A. culture to look the other way,” he said. “They’re going to need outside pressure to act and enforce existing laws.”
The council’s report found that there were around 80,000 reported violations of drinking water safety regulations in 2015. Of those, more than 12,000 were “health-based” violations, or cases that involved actual contamination problems. In addition, the N.R.D.C. said, “repercussions for violations were virtually nonexistent. Nearly nine in 10 violations were subject to no formal action.”
Ms. Wu said that data is “not sexy,” making it hard to use in pushing for meaningful actions like investment in national infrastructure maintenance. “For drinking water infrastructure, like the pipes and the mains, it’s out of sight, out of mind — until the main breaks outside your house, and you can’t drink your own water,” she said.
She added that part of the difficulty in fixing these problems comes down to a complicated regulatory system, in which the responsibility to monitor adherence to federal laws falls largely to states. The report, which relied on data collected by the E.P.A. itself, includes a list of 12 states with the most water safety violations based on population; it is topped by Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said the state has been in charge of enforcing the Safe Water Drinking Act since 1977. Asked about cases like the high arsenic levels documented in some parts of the state, she said that Texas was working with finite amounts of groundwater, adding that “as of March 2017, 96 percent of Texas’ population is served by public water systems that are meeting drinking-water standards.”
President Trump has said he is in favor of infrastructure investment, and he told The Times last year on the campaign trail that “crystal clear water” was important to him. But both he and the new E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, support proposals to cut the E.P.A. budget by as much as 31 percent, something the N.R.D.C. says represents “a new threat to the nation’s water supplies.”
And if the report did not shy away from politics, neither did the E.P.A.
“Under the new leadership, the E.P.A. has made clear it is getting back to its core mission, which includes protecting America’s drinking water. Unfortunately, this is an area in which the past administration failed,” said Lincoln Ferguson, an E.P.A. spokesman, in an emailed statement responding to the report.
“Administrator Pruitt is committed to helping modernize our country’s outdated water infrastructure in order to ensure we maintain safe drinking water for the more than 300 million people that depend on it daily.”
That is not entirely off the mark, said Mr. Edwards, adding that the water problem is partly a result of what he called misplaced priorities. “I think the E.P.A. has taken their eye off the ball when it comes to clean water and air, and they were focused on other things,” he said, offering climate change as an example.
E.P.A. documents like the 2014-2018 strategic plan put climate change first on the list of priorities — a worthy cause, in Mr. Edwards’ view, but one that is often politicized and has difficulty attracting funding. He said water safety regulation and infrastructure maintenance are basic needs that have been neglected by officials — and poor Americans are suffering the most.
“I am hopeful that this is something we can have bipartisan agreement on,” he said. “This is un-American, what’s happening.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/tapwater-drinking-water-study.html?_r=0
-
Echa Biocides Committee Supports Six Substance Approvals
May 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) has adopted six opinions that support the approval of active substances.
They are:
· L(+) lactic acid for use in disinfectants and algaecides not intended for direct application to humans or animals (product-type two); veterinary hygiene products (product-type three); and food and feed disinfectants (product-type four); and
· propan-1-ol for use in human hygiene disinfectants; product-type two; and product-type four.
Last week's committee also considered the latest news regarding the proposed scientific criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
Discussions centred on how the criteria should be implemented in the approval processes for biocidal active substances. Committee chair, Erik van de Plassche said that once adopted, the criteria will have to be included in Echa's substance approval process. Here they will be used to assess whether an active substance meets them or not.
This would be accompanied by an Echa working group discussion on whether the criteria are met for human or environmental health, and if this implies the substance falls under the BPR's exclusion or substitution criteria, he added.
Echa and the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) have sent a first draft of their guidance on hazard identification to the Echa expert group on endocrine disruptors. They are expecting to send a draft out for public consultation before the summer, Mr van de Plassche said.
The CAs have also started discussing a paper on how the criteria should affect active substances currently under assessment. They are due to continue the discussion at their next meeting, in May, when all member states have given their views on it.
Another paper on how the criteria should affect ongoing applications for biocidal products is also expected.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55650/echa-biocides-committee-supports-six-substance-approvals
-
EU Could Further Restrict Chemicals Left on Skin, Used in Wipes
May 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency called for information on two hazardous chemicals used in skin products, tissues and wipes, a step that could lead to further restrictions in the European Union.
The agency said it was seeking information through Aug. 3 on the uses of the chemicals—octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5)—in preparation for a possible restriction under the European Union's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals).
The European Commission, the EU's executive, has already drafted a REACH restriction that would limit to 0.1 percent by weight the presence of D4 and D5 in hair conditioners, shower gels and similar wash-off products. The commission circulated a draft regulation containing the restriction in March to World Trade Organization members.
D4 and D5 are used as hair and skin-conditioning agents. D4 is classified in the EU as reprotoxic and harmful to aquatic life, while D5 is considered very persistent and very bioaccumulative.
The chemicals agency told Bloomberg BNA May 4 that an extension of that restriction was now being considered to products designed to be left on the skin and to other products containing D4 and D5, such as tissues and wipes. Information on other uses of the chemicals, such as in electronics and textiles, can also be submitted, according to the call for information.
The substances also are used in the manufacture of silicone polymers, and are produced in, or imported into, the EU in annual volumes of up to 1 million metric tons.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110759902&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110759902&jd=110759902
-
Rubio Introduces Bill to Extend Drilling Moratorium, Share Revenue with Florida
May 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation today to extend a drilling moratorium off Florida's coast to 2027, and to bring the state into a lucrative revenue sharing deal for offshore drilling.
The bill comes a week President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. The order directed the Interior Department to review ways to expand drilling in several areas, including waters off Florida's southern coast, but it did not mention the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, which Rubio's bill would keep off limits.
“As the tragic Deepwater Horizon disaster demonstrated, Florida’s environment and economies are in danger of being affected by rare but major drilling accidents in the Gulf —even with the 125-mile ban in the current moratorium,” Rubio said in a statement.
The existing ban for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico extends 125 miles off Florida's coast and will expire in 2022. Rubio's bill would add 5 years to that time. In this respect, his bill mirrors one introduced in the House by Reps. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
But Rubio's bill also would add Florida to the revenue sharing agreement Gulf states enjoy — a provision that alarms environmentalists.
"You start feeding in a source of money — they (state officials) get a few sips, they want the whole bottle," said Mark Ferrulo, executive director of Progress Florida. "In this case the whole bottle would mean opening up the eastern Gulf of Mexico some day to drilling."
Bruce Ritchie contributed to this story
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Senators Revisit the Strategic Puzzle of the EMP Threat
May 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Peter Behr
As senators drifted in and out of a hearing yesterday, they heard conflicting testimony about a potential electromagnetic pulse attack. Is it now an existential threat by North Korea demanding immediate action, or a complex technology puzzle that researchers are hoping to solve in several years?
Rob Manning, vice president for transmission and distribution of the Electric Power Research Institute, reviewed the organization's industry-backed research on the effects on high-voltage grid transformers of a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (EMP) explosion. EPRI's initial report, in February, concluded that only a small number — three to 14 — out of thousands of U.S. grid transformers are at risk of "hot spot" damage from one set of rogue EMP currents coursing through the grid following a high-altitude nuclear explosion over North America.
"We believe what we have done is correct, and we have the evidence," Manning said following the hearing by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Although the study's first phase on one of three types of shock waves from an EMP attack showed minimal risk, the threat cannot be dismissed until the full study is done in April 2019, he said.
Henry "Hank" Cooper, a longtime strategic defense official who is now an advocate for EMP defense, says he has given up on Washington and the electric power industry to do what is necessary to protect the power grid. A congressionally appointed EMP Commission has attacked the EPRI studies as "misleading and erroneous" research that "grossly underestimate" the nuclear EMP threat. The commission says the damaged transformers could number in the hundreds, crippling the U.S. electricity networks and everything that depends on them.
"I concluded several years ago that I would never see major progress in dealing with the EMP existential threat in my lifetime, especially if the current conditions remain," said Cooper, 80, former head of the Strategic Defense Initiative for missile defense launched by President Reagan and shelved by President Clinton.
So he has begun a "bottoms up" pilot project, he said, with a Clemson University professor and several Duke Energy engineers to design EMP defenses for three Duke Energy power plants on Lake Wylie, which straddles North and South Carolina. He hopes this will be a model that other states and utilities will follow.
"There is a wide array of potential ideas of exactly what the threat looks like and how serious it is. I think it's a difference of opinions on the assumptions that go into the calculations," Manning said after the hearing. "There are disagreements among scientists about what the numbers tell you."
Asked if he saw any sign in yesterday's discussion of consensus that would create a platform for new policy, he said, "I don't see a clear pathway for that right now, to be honest."
So another hearing came and went in a debate over EMP policy that began over a decade ago. The issue is now the property of President Trump's administration, which was not represented at yesterday's hearing. Cheryl LaFleur, acting chairwoman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in one of the Democratic commission seats, was the only federal official on hand.
The current confrontation with North Korea over its ballistic missile program elevates the threat, Cooper and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told senators.
In his prepared testimony, Cooper said North Korea could develop a successful EMP weapon with a low-yield nuclear device, which it has tested, he said. An EMP attack could be launched from a North Korean satellite passing over the United States — a hardened re-entry vehicle and sophisticated guidance system would not be required, he added.
The impenetrable intentions of the North Korean regime have thwarted normal risk assessments, Manning said.
In her testimony, LaFleur noted that the commission has approved a two-step security regulation directed at massive solar flares that could also threaten U.S. power grids, but not in as many dimensions as an EMP attack.
"By comparison, large-scale EMP attacks pose a very different threat to the grid, and one that, to date, FERC has not determined is well-suited to a mandatory reliability standard," she said.
"Although much work has been done, there remains a significant amount of scientific research underway about EMP threats," LaFleur said, mentioning the EPRI project and several DOE projects with national laboratories. "I'm confident that if FERC determines a reliability standard is warranted, it will exercise its authority" and create one, she said.
"I think, in large part, there is certain criticism to be had," said Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho). "There is also frustration over what appears to be inaction by government," he said. But that picture isn't complete, he added. "There isn't a lot out there about what the government is doing. I can tell you these issues have not been ignored by the U.S. Most of what we are doing about it can't be discussed."
Other witnesses emphasized unknowns that they said are holding up responses, and the costs of a strategy of shielding the universe of power plants, transmission nodes, substations and control rooms.
Caitlin Durkovich, former assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at the Department of Homeland Security, said it is beyond government's capacity to "protect against every threat or secure every building, system and network. This country is too big, our infrastructure is too interdependent, the cost too expensive. This is why we are in the business of risk management.
"There are finite resources in a world where you have a business to operate, shareholder obligations, regulatory policy and rate recovery, to name a few," she said. "I want to be clear. This is not ignoring the threat of EMP. Industry and government are working hand in hand to better understand the impact of EMP. The work that EPRI is doing is critical to understanding how the systems and its parts will be affected."
Kevin Wailes, CEO of the Lincoln Electric System and co-chair of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, the power industry's CEO-level cyberthreat sharing partnership with government, also said more information is needed.
"Some propose that to address EMP events, the electric industry install their particular 'protective device' or fully 'gold plate' the entire grid so that it could, theoretically, at least partially survive a high-altitude nuclear event," he said. "However, there is no consensus on precisely what measures should be taken, the unintended effects they might have on the system, how much such an effort would cost, or how successful such efforts would be."
Cooper, who got the last word yesterday, disagreed. "I don't believe there is an absence of technology to deal with the issues in an affordable way."
This story also appears in Energywire.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/05/stories/1060054104
-
Eco-right Searching for Lessons from Health Care Fight
May 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
With the addition of New York Reps. Dan Donovan and Peter King, 20 lawmakers have now endorsed the House GOP resolution that calls for action to combat climate change, H. Res. 195.
Donovan, New York City's lone Republican congressman, whose district includes Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, was mobbed by reporters yesterday outside the Speaker's Lobby who wanted to hear about his opposition to the party's health care bill. "I live in a district that's two Democrats to every one Republican," Donovan told the scrum at one point, in response to a question about his political calculations.
King voted "yes" after heavy lobbying from both sides.
Among the 20 Republican "no" votes on legislation to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act — mostly centrists who represent swing districts — were nine backers of the GOP climate resolution.
The 24 House Republicans who have shown interest in climate, either by co-sponsoring the resolution or by joining the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus, include 11 members in seats that are considered competitive races for the 2018 election cycle, according to The Cook Political Report.
Donovan told reporters he was not sure if his opposition to the contentious health care bill would help him hang onto his seat.
The former Staten Island district attorney easily won a 2015 special election to replace former Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), defeating a Democrat on the New York City Council (E&E Daily, May 6, 2015). His district was listed as one of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's initial targets for 2018.
"I don't know if it's helpful. I don't think about this politically," Donovan said. "I think about what's right for the 740,000 people that sent me here."
Similarly, Republicans who have shown support for climate action often say it's a moral imperative. But those closely tracking Republican support for climate action speculate that for some vulnerable lawmakers, it's emerged as an easy way to distance themselves from President Trump (E&E Daily, March 10).
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) joined Trump in the White House Rose Garden to celebrate in the wake of the narrow, high-stakes 217-213 vote to pass the health care bill. Meanwhile, progressive groups announced they would target Republicans who voted for the bill with renewed vigor.
NextGen Climate President Tom Steyer announced a new ad campaign focused on seven California Republicans who would be "held accountable" for the vote.
Green-tinted conservatives suggest Ryan might need to throw a bone to GOP climate advocates who backed the bill if he wants to hold onto the House majority in 2018. Those include Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Carlos Curbelo of Florida, John Faso and John Katko of New York, and Don Bacon of Nebraska. All are part of the National Republican Congressional Committee's "Patriot Program," designed to protect vulnerable incumbents (E&E News PM, May 4).
"Similar to health care, American energy policy is complicated and wrought with generations of market failure and government failure. Similar to health care, it takes time and voter pressure for members to switch from broad opposition to focused proposition," said Alex Bozmoski, director of strategy and operations for republicEn, a grass-roots conservation group that emerged in late 2014.
RepublicEn, headed by former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis (R), has bucked GOP leaders in the House by making a case in support of a carbon tax as the "lowest cost, most transparent, least burdensome" approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and confronting climate change.
"Climate is harder than health care because fewer voters call their Member about it, but easier because no one likes the status quo so fixing it will be bipartisan," Bozmoski said in an email.
More bipartisan momentum
The latest sign of bipartisan momentum behind efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions emerged midweek. Legislation introduced by Faso and Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.), backed by five Republicans and five Democrats, earned accolades from climate advocates (E&E Daily, May 4).
It would establish a commission with 10 members — five appointed by Republicans and five appointed by Democrats — to undertake a comprehensive review of "economically viable" government and private-sector actions that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That would be a moderate step, but one its sponsors say would help build the bipartisan consensus needed for action.
"The only way, as we see with health care, the only way to do something really big in this country is bipartisan, ultimately," Delaney told E&E News yesterday between votes.
Academic and civic leaders with expertise in energy, climate or public health would be eligible to serve on the panel. So would the heads of industry organizations and small businesses involved in oil and gas drilling, chemical manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, or fossil fuels more broadly.
"We're not going to do something big on climate unless we have industry at the table, and so we tried to do that," said Delaney, the former CEO of a publicly traded company. He said he believes the solution will ultimately be pricing carbon and has proposed a national carbon tax coupled with corporate tax rate cuts, aid for displaced coal workers and dividends for low-income households (E&E Daily, April 7).
"I think this commission could happen. I don't think in this Congress we're going to pass a carbon tax," Delaney said.
Leaders at the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank, have taken a different approach to laying the foundation for climate action in the Trump era. This spring, they launched a new set of educational materials on climate science aimed at center-right Republicans.
Joseph Majkut, Niskanen's director of climate science, wrote the inaugural report.
Majkut said yesterday in an interview that the series provides a base for Republicans who see the impacts of climate change in their district, or those who want to reshape their party's policy on the problem, to be able to talk about it more broadly.
"Why it affects their constituents, why they are confident they should be able to act on it, and in the face of the Trump administration that is actively hostile, yeah, sure I suppose it provides ... support," Majkut said. "But really we want them to have good information and make informed choices."
Green groups that backed Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election have already written off Trump as a failure in the fight against global warming, citing his embrace of coal, the appointment of Scott Pruitt to head U.S. EPA and efforts to expand drilling. Few buy the idea of Republican strategy for cutting emissions.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a climate action supporter who has denounced Trump's energy agenda, said the challenge for the GOP now is to find conservative, market-based solutions.
"It is not hard to imagine an alternative universe in which they acknowledge that the problem exists and that they just tell us that our policy is garbage. And then we can have a fair fight about their policy prescriptions versus ours," Schatz said yesterday.
"That's where we have to get in order to solve the problem. But there's no reason to think that you couldn't be a solid conservative member, even a right-wing conservative member, and want to do something about climate," he said. "Why that's a liberal cause is beyond me."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/05/stories/1060054098
-
Omnibus Seeks State Flexibility to Meet Ozone Standard
May 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA will have to explore the possibility of granting states more flexibility to meet its 2015 ground-level ozone standard, according to a provision from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) attached to the newly passed omnibus spending bill.
"We need a more collaborative process — one that sets attainable air quality standards and gives credit to communities that invest in air quality improvement," Hatch said in a statement to E&E News, confirming that he was responsible for adding the language to the "explanatory statement" accompanying the bill.
The provision gives EPA 90 days to report to Congress on administrative options for letting states enter into "cooperative agreements with the agency that provide regulatory relief and meaningfully clean up the air."
Although a spokesman did not reply to a request yesterday for confirmation, Hatch appears to be hoping for a revival of "early action compacts," which EPA used under the George W. Bush administration to delay nonattainment designations for the 1997 ozone standard in return for states meeting other milestones laid out in the agreements, according to an archived agency fact sheet.
Two years ago, Hatch and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) introduced S. 2072, which would have required EPA to offer the compacts. Although the measure never got out of committee, Hatch at the time hailed the compacts as "a great success" that allowed 13 out of 14 participating areas to improve air quality while skirting nonattainment designations for the 1997 standard. Hatched blamed the program's demise on a court's finding that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to create it; as a result, he said, EPA ended the compacts after an initial wave running from 2002 to 2007.
At the Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Air Director John Walke agreed in an interview that the compacts were contrary to the "plain language" of the act, which spells out precise timetables for states and local governments to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and other pollutants or else land in the nonattainment category.
But Walke also recalled the program's results as underwhelming. While there were emissions reductions in some of the areas that signed up for compacts, he said, those "corresponded to a period of reduced economic activity."
For states like Utah, the issue is not academic. Following EPA's 2015 decision to tighten the ozone standard to 70 parts per billion, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) last fall recommended that all or parts of seven counties, including all of Salt Lake County, be classified as in nonattainment, a step that can entail stricter permitting requirements and other sanctions.
EPA officials are supposed to make a final decision by this October. Under the Trump administration, however, the agency is reviewing its stance on the 2015 standard, according to a recent court filing (Greenwire, April 12).
Other air quality provisions
Hatch's language is among several provisions related to air quality tucked into either the explanatory statement or the actual fiscal 2017 appropriations bill, which won Senate approval yesterday after passing the House on Wednesday (see related story).
Topping the list is language in the legislation requiring the federal government to treat emissions from forest biomass as carbon-neutral. The wood products industry, which had been seeking the mandate for years, embraced its inclusion in the final bill.
"Thanks to congressional action, federal agencies can now ensure the U.S. is no longer out of step with our global competitors," Donna Harman, president and CEO of the American Forest and Paper Association, said in a news release after the Senate vote. "Today's action is the type of policy that can foster growth in U.S. manufacturing," she said in a nod to one of President Trump's favorite themes.
Opposition from environmentalists has been equally intense. Earlier this week, former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), whose firm lobbies on biomass issues, attacked the provision as an incentive for "dirty energy" that would "disadvantage truly clean renewables like wind and solar" (Greenwire, May 1).
Other provisions in the explanatory statement, which lacks the force of law, urge EPA to leave air pollution standards for small glass manufacturers unchanged and warn the agency that lawmakers are monitoring its response to court orders stemming from the Clean Air Act's requirement to keep track of the potential for regulation-related job losses.
On a separate front, lawmakers also want EPA to come up with streamlined procedures for approving states' applications to run their own coal ash disposal programs, an option now allowed under a water projects bill signed in December (E&E Daily, May 2).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/05/stories/1060054097
-
State, Local Groups Raise Questions over EPA's Regulatory Reform Push
May 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Groups representing state and local environmental regulators at a recent meeting with EPA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Officials (OCIR) raised questions over how the agency will conduct its regulatory reform push, and the groups plan on suggesting "tweaks and minor revisions" to rules rather than major overhauls.
OCIR held the April 26 meeting with the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), National Association of Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors and others as part of its effort to implement President Donald Trump's executive orders (EOs) on regulating regulatory burdens. Other EPA offices including the air, toxics, and waste divisions have held or soon will hold similar meetings.
At the OCIR meeting "some of the groups that were there did have specific things that I think they will ultimately be commenting on. . . . But we really had more questions than anything else," says one source.
The source says those questions focused largely on how Trump's EOs on regulatory reform will affect the agency -- and about the interaction between EO 13377, which requires EPA and other agencies to set up a process for identifying existing rules for rewriting or repeal, and EO 13771, which says agencies must both balance new rules by designating older policies for repeal, and limit the total compliance costs of newly issued regulations.
"There's an interplay between those two executive orders. How is that going to be facilitated?" the source says.
OCIR's meeting was part of a three-week series of meetings aimed at taking comments from stakeholders and the public on which rules to target. The sources say the groups at the OCIR meeting only signaled what rules they might ask EPA to revisit, rather than making concrete requests for changes.
"Several of the organizations present did identify regulations they would like some changes to," a second source says. That list includes a host of Clean Water Act (CWA) policies that affect small governments, such as compliance measures for sewer overflows, total maximum daily load (TMDL) waterbody cleanup plans, and restrictions on wastewater treatment plants' use of "bypass" technology to avoid overflows in wet-weather conditions.
"[T]hese are city and county organizations raising these issues," the second source says.
That source continues that attendees raised fewer air issues compared to CWA policies, but EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM) "did come up" as possible targets for revision. EPA is already formally weighing reconsideration of the Obama-era decision to tighten the ozone NAAQS from the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb.
And critics of the current PM NAAQS have urged the Trump administration to reconsider that standard as well -- including in their remarks on the air office's April 26 regulatory reform call.
Policy Requests
Still, the sources say that the governmental groups who attended the OCIR meeting will wait to make substantive policy requests until they submit their written comments -- which are due May 15 -- and will likely avoid calling for sweeping changes to Obama-era rules.
"We're focusing on making some tweaks and minor revisions rather than outright repeal," the first source says, adding that many requests from the groups will focus on "Administrative or paperwork revisions."
Both sources say the groups are focusing as much on EPA's process for revising prior administrations' rules as on their own requests -- in part since no matter what reforms the government groups seek, industry is certain to ask for major cuts or wholesale repeal of a host of major rules.
"We need to know, how do you guys envision engaging with the states on any of these regulation or guidance documents that have been proposed for removal? As co-regulators we really feel that we should be involved in that process," the second source says.
But the sources say EPA staff were reluctant to commit to any path forward on the reforms. The first source says EPA staff at the intergovernmental meeting said, "'Oh, yes, we intend to engage with our partners. We're committed to cooperative federalism.' But they didn't give real specifics."
The second source says staff "acknowledged" concerns over federalism, but "they didn't promise" any particular course of action.
And the first source says a major, still-unresolved question is how rules targeted for revision or withdrawal under the EO 13377 regulatory-reform effort will play into the "2-for-1" process for issuing new rules that was established by EO 13771 and requires EPA to identify two rules for possible elimination for every new rule it issues.
"They're getting wish lists from certain folks who want to see certain regulations taken away, so to my mind it becomes part of that list for the 2-for-1," the source says, referring to the list of regulations designated for repeal that can offset new rulemakings. But EPA officials at the meeting "couldn't answer that question," leaving the issue uncertain.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/state-local-groups-raise-questions-over-epas-regulatory-reform-push
-
This Is the Pivotal Moment in the Fight Against Climate Change
May 4, 2017 | TIME Magazine
By Justin Worland
Momentum is building in the Trump administration to leave the Paris Agreement on climate change in the coming weeks — which would put the global climate deal in danger of becoming a largely symbolic pact, rather than a meaningful move that slows the pace of global warming.
Reports that the U.S. might soon leave the Paris Agreement — the decision is far from final, but the Trump administration appears closer to leaving than it had previously — have prompted an outcry from government officials around the world, including the European Union and NATO, along with environmental groups, just as diplomats are set to meet to discuss climate change in Bonn next week. A U.S. exit would not necessarily doom the deal, but it would significantly undermine its credibility and further diminish the chances the world will meet the agreement's target of keeping global temperatures from rising more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100.
"If one nation, especially the biggest nation ... if they do not recognize a problem, then we will have trouble dealing" with climate change, General Denis Mercier, NATO's supreme allied commander for transformation, told Reuters.
In the White House, the exit camp has argued that remaining in the deal would threaten Trump's domestic energy agenda. The Paris Agreement relies on voluntary non-binding commitments, and countries face no explicit penalty for failing to meet them, but lawyers in the Trump administration disagree about whether the countries can weaken their commitments. Some Trump administration officials believe it's better to withdraw than to be stuck with commitments that conflict with Trump's energy plans, since falling short of commitments without formally exiting the deal could leave the federal government vulnerable to legal challenges.
Read More: Meet the Republicans Taking On Climate Change
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that a decision would come before the G7 summit at the end of this month, and Trump teased an announcement at a Pennsylvania rally last weekend.
The debate over whether the target can be weakened under the terms of the Paris Agreement centers on a single sentence: "A party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition." The interpretation of that sentence has divided lawyers and policy experts, including within the Trump administration. State Department lawyers have said that the U.S. faces few legal obligations under the agreement and can revise commitments downward. White House counsel Don McGahn reportedly believes otherwise.
The confusion over the sentence has left many environmentalists taking the surprising view that the U.S. is in fact able to revise its commitment downward, even if that's not in keeping with the spirit of the deal — because, to them, anything is better than the U.S. withdrawing entirely. The Sierra Club argued in a leaked memo that it would be "extremely difficult" to challenge a move to weaken U.S. commitments in court. Former French climate change envoy Laurence Tubiana, a key framer of the Paris Agreement, said in a tweet that "of course US government CAN legally downsize its contribution but SHOULD Not."
President Obama committed the U.S. to a 26-28% reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 from 2005 levels and instituted a number of measures to try to meet that goal, including the Clean Power Plan, which would have required states to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Trump has targeted that regulation, along with a slew of others. An analysis of the policies Trump has enacted, from the Resources for the Future think tank, shows that the U.S. is likely to see no more than a 12.6% decline in greenhouse gas emissions.
Diplomats hammered out the Paris Agreement over decades of negotiation and officials across the globe say they will not abandon it if the U.S. leaves, but a lack of American involvement would weaken the deal's credibility and undermine its objective. "I don’t think the Paris Agreement is going to fall apart even if the U.S. walks away from it," Todd Stern, the chief U.S. climate change negotiator under Obama, said earlier this year. "They wouldn’t want to give the Trump administration the satisfaction of being able to kill Paris."
But nonetheless, the withdrawal of the world's second-largest emitter and largest economy would inevitably disrupt progress at cutting global greenhouse emissions. Moreover, it would create an awkward dynamic at high-level international gatherings like the G7 and G20 summits. Last month, the U.S. position on climate change doomed a joint statement from the G7 countries at an energy summit, an unusual sign of discord on an issue that had been key to international collaboration.
"The U.S. will be fighting the rest of the world at all of these meetings and it will get in the way," says John Coequyt, the Sierra Club's global climate policy director.
In Bonn, where diplomats from around the globe will gather next week for their biannual climate change meeting, the uncertainty will distract from discussions about how to implement the agreement. The U.S. will be represented by State Department diplomats and will continue to play a leadership role — at least in theory — in discussions on transparency, a key provision of the agreement. "The question [is] whether this creates a difficult backdrop for the negotiations," says Paula Caballero, global director at the climate program at World Resources Institute. "The answer is clearly yes."
http://time.com/4766881/paris-agreement-climate-change-trump/
-
Europe to Trump: Don't Abandon Paris Climate Deal
May 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia, Kalina Oroschakoff, and Sara Stefanini
European leaders are working to persuade President Donald Trump to remain in the Paris climate change agreement, warning of dire diplomatic consequences if the United States withdraws and stressing that the administration would not be bound by Barack Obama's plan to tackle global warming.
But they’re also uncertain how best to influence the unpredictable U.S. president — and fearful of angering him if they overplay their hand. So the European officials are mixing diplomacy with quiet attempts to get their message into news coverage and social media, while avoiding any mentions of the retaliation that some angry foreign leaders might pursue if Trump exits the deal.
The coordinated, behind-the-scenes campaign includes efforts by the European Commission and key European Union countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom, diplomats told POLITICO. They said they're underscoring the harm that would result if the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases were to abandon the most extensive global deal ever reached for addressing climate change.
"Almost anyone that is aware of this debate and is politically engaged in climate is trying to influence this outcome in any way possible," said an international diplomat who, like others quoted in this story, requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive campaign.
Trump's top advisers are set to huddle Tuesday to discuss the fate of the 2015 agreement, and a final decision could come soon afterward.
The debate has divided his most senior aides, with his daughter Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in favor of remaining in the pact. Others, including senior White House adviser Steve Bannon and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, support leaving the deal, as Trump pledged while campaigning on his nationalist "America First" platform.
Seeking to press their case, European officials have had regular conversations in recent days and weeks with White House and administration advisers, including aides at the State Department, NSC and National Economic Council.
Western diplomats say they fear that a U.S. withdrawal could result in a "domino effect" prompting other countries to follow suit, in the words of one official. “We are trying to clarify that politically, legally, economically, it does make sense for the U.S. to remain," the official said.
European diplomats have largely avoided playing hardball, deliberately eschewing any mention of possible retaliation if the U.S. withdraws, sources said. While the Paris agreement does not include any punitive measures if a country withdraws, individual countries could impose trade-related measures that make it more difficult to do business with nations that pull out of the deal. But international officials insist they are not considering such steps.
But not all the European governments are certain to whom they should make their case. Not only is the White House divided, but the State Department has few, if any, political appointees focused on climate change. And while diplomats stressed that they understand where individual Trump advisers stand on Paris, they are sometimes unsure about the best way to directly influence the president, short of a one-on-one conversation with a head of government.
It's unclear whether foreign leaders will take their case directly to Trump, but diplomats didn't rule out that option. Fijian President George Konrote asked Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to press Trump on the issue when Turnbull and Trump meet Thursday in New York, said Jake Schmidt, director of the international program for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Lacking insider information about Trump's plans, international officials have sometimes relied on the abundant media reports about the closed-door dispute. Diplomats focused on international climate change issues told POLITICO they had never seen inner deliberations leaked to the media as regularly as they have been during the Trump administration's internal debate over Paris.
Administration advocates for withdrawing from the pact argue that remaining would present legal complications for Trump's efforts to undo Obama's domestic climate agenda — a fear that State Department lawyers who helped negotiate the agreement call unfounded. Trump's White House counsel has echoed those concerns in recent days, which some administration officials see as an indication that Trump will ultimately decide to withdraw.
Even so, several administration officials cautioned that things could change, pointing to Trump's last-minute decision last month to remain in NAFTA.
European diplomats increasingly see the media as a character in the drama surrounding Trump's Paris decision, hoping that news coverage of their arguments will make its way to the media-obsessed president.
In doing so, international officials and environmentalists have found themselves in the bizarre position of insisting that Trump has the flexibility to weaken the carbon-reduction commitments that the Obama administration made in Paris — despite their strong desire to see them strengthened over time.
EU Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete released a statement Wednesday saying the Paris agreement contains room "for a new U.S. Administration to chart its own path." The statement appeared intended to rebut the internal arguments by some Trump advisers who contend the deal prevents countries from weakening their domestic climate targets.
Sources said Arias Cañete has reached out to senior White House and administration officials this week to raise concerns about the possibility of a withdrawal and to persuade the U.S. of the political and economic advantages of staying in the deal.
Laurence Tubiana, who in her capacity as France's climate ambassador played a key role in clinching the Paris deal, took to Twitter on Wednesday to say the American people will lose if the "US government denies them clean energy, green jobs clean air and water and abandons" the pact.
In an interview with POLITICO, she also said the U.S. is not legally bound to stick with Obama's pledge to cut domestic carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. "That's totally fair from the point of view of the legal aspect of the agreement," she said when asked whether the U.S. could alter its target, adding, "This is not a binding element of the agreement."
She stressed nonetheless that she hopes the U.S. doesn't change its target, saying that doing so isn't in the "spirit" of the deal.
On Thursday, European Council President Donald Tusk took a stab at coaxing the U.S. to stay, urging Washington to look at Norway as an example of a country that’s tackling climate change and developing renewable energy while still benefiting from big fossil fuel exports.
“The Norwegian example should provide encouragement to our American friends, as the climate challenge we all face can only be addressed by common global action,” Tusk said during a news conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg in Brussels.
Frank Bainimarama, the prime minister of Fiji and incoming president of the ongoing international climate talks, joined in the chorus warning Trump not to withdraw. "Stay the course," he said on Tuesday. "Listen to those around you who are encouraging you to do so."
Separately, a coalition of small island nations that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change said in a Thursday statement that the Paris deal is their "last hope for the survival."
An international diplomat who declined to be named said it is "very clear which country we had in mind when" the small island nations adopted their statement.
"The bad feeling generated among the other 143 countries that have ratified the Paris agreement would infect all areas of U.S. diplomatic interests — not just climate change," the diplomat added. "Everybody would lose."
Indeed, a withdrawal would infuriate the international community, which took pains to ensure that the Paris deal was largely not legally binding at the insistence of the Obama administration. Many world leaders who had preferred a more stringent agreement would see a U.S. pullback as a slap in the face.
Diplomats said a withdrawal would also revive decades-long distrust of the United States that reached a fever pitch when George W. Bush refused to back the Kyoto Protocol that the Clinton administration signed in 1998.
Meanwhile, major corporations are also weighing in.
Jessica Uhl, Shell’s chief financial officer, underscored the company's support for the Paris agreement on Thursday, saying it's the "right path forward for society." Asked if the company has discussed the issue with the Trump administration, Uhl said: "I think Mr. Trump has enough advisers, but we certainly do engage with the administration to ensure that we can grow our business appropriately in the U.S., which is a very important market for us, and influence where appropriate."
Other companies — including Exxon Mobil, which Tillerson led for more than a decade as CEO — have also called on Trump to remain in the agreement.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/europe-to-trump-dont-abandon-paris-climate-deal-156367
-
We’ll Always Have Paris, Unless the Senate Has Its Say
May 5, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Rupert Darwall
Expect some clarity soon on America’s future participation in the Paris Agreement on climate. Several cabinet members, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, want to stay in, but at a rally in Pennsylvania Saturday, President Trump called Paris a one-sided deal that would shrink the economy by $2.5 trillion over 10 years.
According to reports this week, Mr. Trump is leaning toward withdrawal, but aides warn that he could face trouble in U.S. courts if he fails to uphold the Obama administration’s commitments under Paris. But there is a third approach—submitting the agreement to the Senate for ratification.
Some advocates of staying in argue that America’s moral and political commitment under the agreement is not legally binding because the accord doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. But neither the North Atlantic Treaty nor the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has an enforcement provision, and both were submitted to the Senate. Neither of them have a compliance mechanism either—unlike the Paris Agreement, which provides for one in Article 15.
But does an international agreement have legal force at all if the Senate hasn’t ratified it? That’s unclear. During Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the 1992 U.N. climate convention, the administration of George H.W. Bush pledged to submit future climate protocols to the Senate. Senior Senate Republicans might now wish Paris would go away, but letting it stand without Senate consent would create a standard that would have permitted “accepting”—the word President Obama used for joining the Paris Agreement—the U.N. climate convention and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol without Senate consent. A senatorial prerogative written into the Constitution would be lost.
And an administration that has already had three executive orders blocked by the courts should assume it will face litigation over any loosening of emissions regulations. Will judges view Paris as legally binding? No one disputes that under some circumstances, the president can bind the U.S. by a unilateral executive agreement. The conundrum is determining at the outset whether the Paris Agreement falls into that category. Sending it to the Senate would provide an answer; not doing so cannot guarantee that it is not binding.
In U.S. v. Belmont (1937), the Supreme Court ruled that an international compact—in that instance one requiring the federal government to seize assets on behalf of the Soviet Union—“is not always a treaty which requires the participation of the Senate.” Ultimately the legal standing of the agreement depends on what the British legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart called “the internal point of view” of those applying and interpreting the law, one that lies outside the law itself.
In deciding what to do about the Paris Agreement, the president faces a more extreme situation than George W. Bush when he repudiated the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. Four years earlier, the Senate had unanimously adopted the Byrd-Hagel resolution effectively vetoing Kyoto. By not allowing the Senate to administer the protocol’s coup de grâce, Mr. Bush brought all the political opprobrium on himself.
In joining the Paris Agreement without Senate consent, Mr. Obama unilaterally nullified precedent and extinguished specific executive-branch pledges. Mr. Trump can restore the constitutional balance and further his own policies by submitting the Paris Agreement to the Senate. Tell senators why it is such a bad deal for the U.S.—and then let the Democratic senators, especially the 10 who are up for re-election next year in states he carried, explain why they support shrinking the economy.
Mr. Darwall is author of “The Age of Global Warming: A History” (2013).
Appeared in the May. 05, 2017, print edition.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-always-have-paris-unless-the-senate-has-its-say-1493939314
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested