Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 5/9/2017
-
Spokesman Defends Removal of 12 Scientists
May 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Twelve members of U.S. EPA's advisory board of scientists have been dismissed, and some of the mostly university-based academics who now make up its membership could be replaced by researchers from the industry that the agency is tasked with overseeing... -
Trump Taps McConnell Aide, Pa. Regulator to Serve on Commission
May 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump last night announced his intent to nominate a top adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a Pennsylvania regulator to be members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. -
EPA Reopens Consultation on TSCA Small Business Definition
May 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has reopened its consultation on the definition of a small manufacturer under the new TSCA, in order to review feedback from the US Small Business Administration (SBA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto Tells California Not to Worry About Roundup
May 9, 2017 | Truth-Out
By Caroline Cornell
Monsanto is at it again. Rather than admitting defeat after California labeled glyphosate (commonly marketed as Roundup) as a carcinogen, the company still claims that the herbicide is completely safe. -
Canadian NGO Wants Changes to Endocrine Disruptor Controls
May 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Canadian Environmental Law Association (Cela) has submitted a proposal recommending changes to the country’s approach to regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
Audit Faults BLM Oversight of Lease Restrictions
May 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management is failing to track the oil and gas industry's compliance with lease stipulations designed to protect natural and cultural resources on public lands, according to a new Government Accountability Office report... -
White House Memo Gives More Detail on Trump's Energy Order
May 9, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Energywire
By Alex Guillen
A new memo from the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs includes new guidance for agencies to carry out President Donald Trump's energy executive order. -
Colorado House GOP Filibusters Bill Linked to Fatal NatGas Explosion
May 9, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Colorado House Republicans late Monday blocked a bill that would have required operators to provide the location of all their oil and gas subsurface systems in the state. -
EU Encourages Trump Administration to Support Climate Deal
May 9, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Emre Peker
European officials have unleashed a diplomatic offensive to dissuade President Donald Trump from pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, a move that would threaten to derail the 2015 global deal against climate change. -
Paris Agreement in Brackets as Arctic Council Meets
May 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson and Jean Chemnick,
The Trump administration's potential rejection of the Paris climate accord is overshadowing an international Arctic Council ministerial conference this week marking the end of the United States' two-year council chairmanship. -
The Business Case for the Paris Climate Accord
May 9, 2017 | New York Times
By George P. Shultz and Ted Halstead
President Trump faces a choice that will echo across his presidency and beyond: whether to remain in the Paris climate agreement. -
EPA Seeks Governors’ Input in Rewriting Obama Water Rule
May 9, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is reaching out to state governors for help in rewriting former President Barack Obama’s controversial water pollution rule.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Spokesman Defends Removal of 12 Scientists
May 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Twelve members of U.S. EPA's advisory board of scientists have been dismissed, and some of the mostly university-based academics who now make up its membership could be replaced by researchers from the industry that the agency is tasked with overseeing, a spokesman confirmed yesterday.
Members of the Board of Scientific Counselors who were removed had three-year terms that expired April 27, said EPA spokesman J.P. Freire. A 13th member had a term that expired in March, but her status was unclear. In the past, however, members said they were typically appointed to at least two terms and that EPA officials had assured them recently that they would continue on with the agency.
Yesterday, top Democrats seized on the dismissal of the scientists as a political issue. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez called President Trump's environmental policy an example of "aggressive stupidity."
"The scientists he just fired have been working on nothing more political than making sure our water is safe to drink and our air is safe to breathe," Perez said in a statement. "All Trump cares about is giving corporations free reign to pump up their bottom line, even if they're pumping hazardous waste into the environment to do it."
Freire said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt believes it is necessary to increase "diversity" on the board, which he acknowledged would include an increased industry presence. He said it was the normal prerogative for an incoming administration to shape its own board, and said at least two members have already served two terms. EPA has received hundreds of applications for the open positions, he said.
"We just didn't want to do a rubber-stamp process," he said.
The Board of Scientific Counselors, as the EPA's Science Advisory Board, serves as checks and balances on the agency's science and makes it stronger, said Judith Enck, a former EPA Region 2 administrator under President Obama. She said the key to such boards is their independence, particularly from the industry the agency regulates. Stocking the boards with industry representatives could face ethics issues, if their expertise is being used to guide science that's related to the companies for which they once worked, she said.
Enck said changing the makeup of EPA's science advisory boards fits in the administration's goals to "deconstruct" the administrative state, as Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, said earlier this year.
"Everything crumbles if you don't rely on science at EPA," she said. "That is the foundation of the agency's work."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said it's no accident that Pruitt, who has been criticized by Democrats for his cozy relationship with industry, would cut the voice of independent scientists in favor of those the agency is regulating.
"It looks like Scott Pruitt wants to turn the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors into a Pollution Permission Board," he said in a statement. "While I believe that entities which are affected by EPA decisions deserve to have their viewpoints heard, increasing the influence of industry at the EPA at the expense of science diverts the Board from its mission to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA based on sound science."
The science advisory boards at EPA have included industry representatives for years, but they are typically a minority, said Christine Todd Whitman, the former EPA administrator under President George W. Bush. Still, she said it was unusual to dismiss all of the science advisers at once, even during a change of administrations. She said it sends a bad message because it means the work they've been doing collectively is lost, and it could send a chilling message to scientists that they must have an industry bias to be taken seriously.
"This is just one more reminder that perhaps the pure scientists and pure science is not held in the same esteem as that that comes from a particular angle and bias," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/09/stories/1060054232
-
Trump Taps McConnell Aide, Pa. Regulator to Serve on Commission
May 9, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump last night announced his intent to nominate a top adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a Pennsylvania regulator to be members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Neil Chatterjee, a longtime energy aide to McConnell, and Robert Powelson, a Pennsylvania regulator who is serving this year as president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, will need approval from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee before moving to the full chamber.
Chatterjee was nominated for a term expiring June 30, 2021, while Powelson's term would expire at the end of June 2020.
Absent from Trump's announcement last night was Kevin McIntyre, a co-head of the law firm Jones Day's global energy practice — rumored to be in line for a third Republican vacancy on FERC and possibly the chairmanship.
Sources last night speculated that McIntyre is being held to pair with a Democratic nominee to replace Commissioner Colette Honorable, who announced last week that she would not seek a second term. But a former transition source said it's possible McIntyre's paperwork is not yet complete.
Honorable's current stint expires at the end of June, but she can stay until Congress adjourns at the year's end.
Trump's nominations address a gaping hole in the energy sector that threatened to create a bottleneck in approvals of natural gas pipelines, compressor stations, export terminals and hydropower projects, as well as complex energy rate cases.
Confirmation of Trump's picks will also shift the agency from Democratic hands to Republican leadership.
The commission is currently being led by acting Chairwoman Cheryl LaFleur and Honorable, both Democrats, who have been unable to make high-profile decisions since former FERC Chairman Norman Bay, a Democrat, abruptly left in February, depriving the panel of a quorum.
FERC in February took the rare step of granting agency staff more authority to address matters after Bay's departure.
Under the order, FERC staff was able to address tariffs and rate filings, waiver requests, and uncontested settlements, and extend the time on some actions where statute permits.
The order also spelled out that "limited commission operations" would continue, including inspecting and responding to incidents at liquefied natural gas facilities and hydropower projects, as well as activities tied to safety or human life and protection of property.
This story also appears in E&E Daily.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/09/stories/1060054239
-
EPA Reopens Consultation on TSCA Small Business Definition
May 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has reopened its consultation on the definition of a small manufacturer under the new TSCA, in order to review feedback from the US Small Business Administration (SBA).
In December, the agency issued for public comment a preliminary determination that the existing size standard for determining an SME under the law merits revision. It also requested a consultation with the SBA to review the definition.
Comments submitted in January, including those from the SBA, largely supported the agency opening a rulemaking to revise the standard. The SME agency encouraged the EPA to discard its existing definition, rather than adjusting it for inflation.
On 5 April, it submitted additional feedback, completing its consultation with the EPA. The agency is accepting further comment on this until 24 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55708/epa-reopens-consultation-on-tsca-small-business-definition
-
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto Tells California Not to Worry About Roundup
May 9, 2017 | Truth-Out
By Caroline Cornell
Monsanto is at it again. Rather than admitting defeat after California labeled glyphosate (commonly marketed as Roundup) as a carcinogen, the company still claims that the herbicide is completely safe.
Two op-eds published back-to-back in California newspapers -- the Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times -- argue that glyphosate is harmless, and that the state "got it wrong" by listing the herbicide under California's Prop 65, which requires warning labels on cancer-causing products.
The Los Angeles Times op-ed -- though not published by Monsanto, it oddly ran on the same day as Monsanto's Sacramento Bee piece -- even trivializes the plight of the more than 700 agricultural laborers and gardeners who allege their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was caused by glyphosate.
"Since [the International Agency for Research on Cancer's] report was published, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto as lawyers in the 'environmental justice' industry seek to profit from so-called glyphosate victims," write Julie Kelly and Henry I. Miller.
In addition to questionable rhetoric (as seen above) and recycled short-sighted arguments for glyphosate's safety, the op-eds underscore the questionable PR tactics of the behemoth corporation.
Readers can expect a degree of bias in the arguments posed by Jen Listello, who identifies herself as a molecular biologist for Monsanto Regulatory Affairs. But what's more troubling is when Monsanto colludes with "independent" experts.
"Monsanto has a long track record of providing industry-funded studies and corporate influence to justify getting cancer-causing products like Roundup on the market," Jonathan Evans said, who fired back against the pro-Monsanto article by publishing a letter of his own in the Los Angeles Times. He has witnessed Monsanto's duplicitous PR tactics firsthand as the environmental health legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity.
Kelly and Miller Share Questionable Links to Big Ag
Well-known GMO advocates Julie Kelly and Henry I. Miller co-wrote the Los Angeles Times call to arms. In their op-ed, the duo proclaim that California is run by "chemophobes" who are suffering from an "anti-glyphosate mania."
The authors do not disclose a relationship with Monsanto, and there isn't any evidence they've been directly paid by the company. However, they still share questionable ties to Big Agriculture.
Kelly's husband is an agribusiness lobbyist for food processing company ADM, and she is a frequent contributor to publications like The National Review and The Federalist, advocating in support of everything from GMOs to defunding the International Agency of Cancer Research (IARC).
But Miller's history is more dubious. He was the face of the opposition to California’s Prop 37, a measure that would have required companies to label GMO ingredients. Monsanto was the top contributor to the No on Prop 37 campaign, spending $8 million to kill it.
Henry Miller has also served on a number of think tanks and foundations like the American Council on Science and Health, which is so immersed in corporate funding that Ralph Nader once said that "its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."
Currently, Miller works for the Stanford Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank that also relies on corporate funding, including from organizations like the American Chemistry Council which represents Monsanto.
Supporters Claim Glyphosate Is Safe if You Compare It to Other Carcinogens
But what's even more troubling than the backgrounds of Julie Kelly and Henry Miller are the arguments they published to lull Californians into a false sense of security with glyphosate.
Like many other glyphosate supporters, they argue glyphosate's safety by comparing it to other herbicides on the market.
"It is not carcinogenic, and it is lower in overall toxicity than many other weed killers," they claim.
But if we're comparing glyphosate to other herbicides, we're setting a pretty low bar for our safety.
Atrazine, for example, which is used on 90 percent of sugarcane and half of corn crops, was shown to change the sex of frogs in one UC Berkeley study, and has even been associated with incidents of hairy-cell leukemia in some humans. Europe banned the herbicide in 2004.
And there's2,4-D, which is used for corn and soybeans, and has been linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and sarcoma. The IARC declared it as a possible human carcinogen in 2015. The chemical is also an endocrine disruptor -- it inhibits hormones in the body -- which can cause cancerous tumors and developmental disorders.
Not too long ago, Miller even advocated for the use of DDT, a common pesticide that was banned by the US in 1972. It was linked to cancer, male infertility and developmental delays, not to mention a host of environmental side effects.
Amid Allegations of Influence, Monsanto Still Uses EPA's Pro-Glyphosate Conclusions
But, it's the arguments that still rest on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) conclusions that glyphosate is safe that crack the reliability of the pro-glyphosate camp.
"Court documents released this spring indicate that the chair of the EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee on glyphosate had a cozy and collaborative relationship with Monsanto and was someone the company thought might be 'useful' in defending glyphosate safety," Evans said.
"The records include discussion of how the chair of the EPA committee may be able to thwart a Department of Health and Human Services' review of glyphosate's safety, saying that if he was successful he deserved a medal. The department never did review glyphosate's safety."
And when an "independent" scientific panel was assembled to assess the clean bill of health the EPA issued for glyphosate, CropLife America (who represents Monsanto) allegedly influenced the list of panelists.
"Dr. Peter Infante, a respected researcher with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, was removed from the panel after CropLife accused the highly credentialed scientist of bias," Evans shared.
WHO's International Association of Cancer Research Still on Defense
Unlike the EPA, the IARC -- which is the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) -- proved itself immune to Monsanto's influence when it became the first regulatory agency to declare glyphosate as a carcinogen. Not surprisingly, the IARC continue to face accusations of producing "shoddy science."
In his editorial, Evans attacks claims from Kelly and Miller that the IARC "cherry-picked" the studies they used in their assessment of glyphosate. The IARC did "cherry-pick," he writes, by only relying on transparent, publicly available studies from "independent researchers rather than those who receive money from agribusiness."
It isn't the first time the IARC has had to fight off attacks from Monsanto. Earlier this year, the American Chemistry Council launched the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research, whose sole purpose is to undermine and defund the IARC's research. The IARC even called their campaign "reminiscent of the strategies used by Big Tobacco to spread doubt about scientific conclusions" in an emailed statement.
It's no surprise then to learn that Monsanto is a member of a club that no corporation would want to find itself in.
"In 2015, the Center for Biological Diversity awarded Monsanto the 2015 Rubber Dodo Award, given annually to those who have done the most to destroy wild places, species and biological diversity," Evans said.
Caroline Cornell is a writer for ClassAction.com, a go-to source for consumers with information on the products, services and medications they depend on.
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/monsanto-tells-california-not-to-worry-about-roundup
-
Canadian NGO Wants Changes to Endocrine Disruptor Controls
May 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The Canadian Environmental Law Association (Cela) has submitted a proposal recommending changes to the country’s approach to regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
The NGO’s proposal, entitled Scientific Justification to Address Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: A Roadmap for Action, includes six specific recommendations and was submitted under the government’s ongoing review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa).
Cela says that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (Envi), which is in charge of the Cepa review, should look at current approaches to EDCs and propose amendments along the lines of its roadmap.
It says the committee should review the definition of EDCs in Cepa, and include principles to identify endocrine properties of chemicals in amendments to the regulation. It also wants the process of hazard identification and risk assessment of the chemicals to be revisited.
Cela says Canada’s regulatory approach is inadequate to address their unique attributes, most notably the non-monotonic dose response of the substances.
Meg Sears, chair of Prevent Cancer Now and one of the co-authors of the report, says EDCs can result in different responses depending on the exposure. However, manufacturers traditionally provide data for regulators at higher doses.
"Low-dose data has not even been on the table," Dr Sears tells Chemical Watch. "Since some EDCs are more toxic in smaller doses, there is an inconsistency in how these substances are ultimately regulated."
Envi is currently reviewing Cepa, the law’s first review since 2006. The committee is expected to issue a report in the near future.
Cela recommends that Canada look again at the processes of hazard identification of EDCs and consider the substances to be ‘inherently toxic’.
Under the current iteration of Cepa, any substance determined to be inherently toxic must be recommended for addition to the country’s:
· List of Toxic Substances; and
· Virtual Elimination List.
Both of these mechanisms aim to minimise exposures. "There should be mechanisms that trigger much greater care about this kind of chemical," Dr Sears says.
Cela makes a number of other recommendations, including:
· focused and increased sampling of at-risk populations, for body burden of environmental toxicants including EDCs and related biological endpoints;
· conducting economic cost analyses on EDCs, following the efforts in the EU and the US; and
· reflecting the public health costs in overall regulatory analyses in Canada, including in the process of their identification, assessment and management.
Additional authors of the report are from the University of Windsor, The Halifax Project, National Network on Environments and Women’s Health and a retired economist who worked for Environment Canada.
The European Commission has been working on a proposal for criteria to identify EDCs in the EU, but NGOs and industry groups have regularly criticised its work. The Commission has delayed votes on the draft proposal as it takes numerous comments into consideration.
The US EPA published a summary workplan in 2011 to overhaul its EDC programme, with an approach that incorporated less animal-intensive toxicity testing methods. The agency finalised tier 2 test guidelines in 2015. The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), though, has been a target of President Trump, who proposed eliminating it in a "budget blueprint" released in March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55706/canadian-ngo-wants-changes-to-endocrine-disruptor-controls
-
Audit Faults BLM Oversight of Lease Restrictions
May 9, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management is failing to track the oil and gas industry's compliance with lease stipulations designed to protect natural and cultural resources on public lands, according to a new Government Accountability Office report that concludes BLM cannot assure the public "that it is meeting its environmental responsibilities."
Specifically, the GAO report found the agency could not accurately determine how many times it approved industry requests for exemptions from specific lease stipulations because it has no systematic method for tracking exemptions among the various field offices across the West.
The industry exemptions at issue include seasonal timing restrictions on drilling activity and minimum setback distances from wildlife habitat, according to the report circulated today by Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the House Natural Resources Committee's ranking Democrat and a vocal critic of Trump administration efforts to increase fossil fuel development on federal lands.
BLM acknowledged in the report that improvements in tracking the exception request approvals are needed; an oil and gas industry representative blamed the problems on the Obama administration's overly complicated regulatory system.
Nevertheless, GAO's survey of 42 BLM field offices, from fiscal 2005 through 2015, "found that fewer than half tracked data on exception requests," the report said.
"BLM does not have a policy requiring field offices to consistently track exception data or documented procedures specifying how requests should be considered and documented," the report adds.
The result is that "BLM may be unable to provide reasonable assurance that it is meeting its environmental responsibilities," according to the report.
What's more, BLM has largely kept the public in the dark on exception request approvals, the report says.
"According to BLM's policy, public notification of an exception is not required unless granting it would result in a substantial modification or waiver of a lease requirement, which, according to BLM officials, rarely occurs," the report says.
GAO made six recommendations for improvement, including developing policies to "consistently" track exception approvals and to make that data available to the public.
For Grijalva, who requested that GAO study BLM's efforts to mitigate the environmental impacts of oil and gas development, the report's conclusions are troubling.
"The BLM is simply not keeping the public informed about what oil and gas companies are doing to our public lands," he said in a statement
"We can't make it this easy for companies extracting public resources to ignore their environmental responsibilities. The American people have almost no way to know when BLM simply winks and gives oil and gas drillers a green light," he added. "We're dealing with one of the least transparent and most oil- and gas-industry-friendly administrations in my lifetime, and we need agencies to take these protections seriously now more than ever."
GAO shared a draft of the report last month with the Interior Department.
BLM acting Director Mike Nedd wrote in a two-page response that the agency concurs with five of the six recommendations "and plans to take actions addressing these recommendations."
But Nedd wrote that BLM only "partially concurs" with the recommendation that the exemption data be made public, noting that the "case file" for each project with exception decisions "can be made available to the public upon request."
Nedd also wrote that BLM is updating the agency's database "to provide for greater transparency and accountability, ensure consistent data quality, standardize the permit process, and provide the vehicle for addressing specific shortcomings identified in the report."
Mixed reaction
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, said the report's conclusions are "not surprising" considering that the Obama administration "kept BLM sidetracked on several very complex new regulations and policies that kept its resources tied up in generating new red tape rather than effectively managing environmental protection."
Sgamma also noted that the problems in the report represent "a data tracking issue, not a lapse in environmental protection."
"BLM only approves exceptions to lease stipulations after careful review because either the operations will not affect a resource value governed by a stipulation, or because a company has demonstrated a better way to protect that resource," she added.
President Trump in the last month has signed a number of executive orders, including one requiring the review of all policies that may "potentially burden" energy production activity on federal lands.
"We look forward to more rational policies at BLM that will keep staff focused on monitoring and tracking what's actually happening in the field rather than on generating yet more red tape," Sgamma said.
But Chris Saeger, executive director of the Western Values Project, said the GAO report foreshadows troubling things to come under the Trump administration and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
"The BLM apparently had a head start on Secretary Zinke's plans to keep the American public in the dark about its plan to drill some of the most important places in America, at the expense of public lands users and the outdoor economy," Saeger said. "Secretary Zinke is certain to make sure the Bureau of Logging and Mining lives up to its name over the years to come."
Report details
GAO visited six BLM field offices — selected because of "geographic variability" and the volume of "leasing and permitting activity" — and interviewed agency staff.
At the six field offices it visited, GAO reviewed "a nongeneralizable sample" of 54 exception requests from fiscal 2009 through 2015 "and reviewed the supporting documentation."
It also sent surveys to 52 BLM field and district offices, focusing on "BLM approved requests for exceptions to lease and permit requirements" from fiscal 2005 through 2015.
GAO received responses from 42 offices, the report says.
Of the 42, six were excluded "because officials stated that they had received few or no exception requests" for lease requirements. Among the remaining 36, "24 responded that they did not track these data, and two responded that they were unsure whether they tracked these data."
As for exceptions to permit requirements, 21 of the BLM offices "responded that they did not track these data, and one responded that it was unsure whether it tracked these data."
At the six field offices that were visited, the GAO report says, five "tracked exception data."
"However, officials from 3 of the 5 offices stated that the data were not consistently tracked, raising concerns about the data's reliability," the report says.
On the plus side, the report says BLM "consistently involved the public" when developing lease requirements. It also "involved the public to some extent" on drilling permit requirements.
"However, BLM generally did not involve the public when considering an operator's request for an exception to a lease or permit requirement," the report says.
BLM, the report says, "does not currently require field offices to make the results of its exception decisions available to the public. Without access to this information, the public may not be able to provide substantive input into BLM's future land use planning processes."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/09/stories/1060054274
-
White House Memo Gives More Detail on Trump's Energy Order
May 9, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Energywire
By Alex Guillen
A new memo from the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs includes new guidance for agencies to carry out President Donald Trump's energy executive order.
Trump's order gave agencies until this Friday, May 12, to submit to the White House a plan to carry out their regulatory reviews. It includes independent agencies with energy oversight, including FERC, and specifies that agencies should identify rules or actions that directly impact energy production, as well as those actions that "limit the use of certain sources of energy, such that the development of domestically produced energy resources from a certain sector may be negatively affected."
The new memo, dated Monday, identifies five specific aspects such plans should contain, starting with identifying actions that "potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources" and ending with recommendations to "alleviate or eliminate the potential burden."
The memo also provides seven guidelines for a draft report due by July 26, per Trump's order. That report should include further information on how long regulatory reforms might take and what those actions' costs and savings are.
The final reports, due Sept. 24, are to be published in the Federal Register.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Colorado House GOP Filibusters Bill Linked to Fatal NatGas Explosion
May 9, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Colorado House Republicans late Monday blocked a bill that would have required operators to provide the location of all their oil and gas subsurface systems in the state.
House Bill 1372, introduced last week by state Democrats Steve Lebsock and Mike Foote, followed a fatal house explosion in Firestone last month. The explosion, linked to a severed gas flowline from a vertically drilled well about 170 feet from the house, killed two men and critically injured the wife of one man.
In response, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which owns the well, shut in more than 3,000 vertical wells in the northeastern part of the state; Great Western Oil and Gas Co. followed suit, shutting in 61 wells pending inspections.
The late session bill in the House, which is controlled by Democrats, needed to be approved before midnight Monday to make it to Gov. John Hickenlooper's desk in time for a signature before the legislature is adjourned for the year. However, the bill was filibustered by House Republicans. It also would have faced likely opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate.
As written, the legislation would have required oil and gas operators to provide the location of each flowline, gathering pipeline and transmission pipeline installed, owned or operated. The information was to be submitted under deadlines set by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and each local government affected. The COGCC also was to establish a searchable database of the subsurface equipment.
Although there is no central database of subsurface systems, critics argue access to well information is available using geographic information systems, or GIS.
"You'd have to go back to the '50s to find lines that aren't mapped out," Republican Rep. Phil Covarrubias said, according to the Associated Press. "It's ridiculous to say we don't know where they are."
Opponents also argued that a safety review of Colorado's wells, which number close to 54,000, already has begun. Hickenlooper on May 2 ordered operators to inspect and pressure test oil and gas flowlines located within 1,000 feet of occupied buildings. The existing flowlines have to be tested within 30 days, while the integrity tests are required within 60 days. Lines abandoned or not in use have to be inspected within 30 days and abandoned within 60 days.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110395-colorado-house-gop-filibusters-bill-linked-to-fatal-natgas-explosion
-
EU Encourages Trump Administration to Support Climate Deal
May 9, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Emre Peker
European officials have unleashed a diplomatic offensive to dissuade President Donald Trump from pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, a move that would threaten to derail the 2015 global deal against climate change.
The push, spearheaded by the European Union, comes as thousands of government, environment and business representatives gathered this week in Germany for United Nations talks on guidelines to implement the landmark accord. The White House is preparing soon to set out its position.
In a series of high-level conversations with White House counterparts since last week, the EU and some individual European governments, including the U.K., have sought to convince Mr. Trump that sticking with the Paris deal would better serve American interests, an EU official said.
Europe’s effort highlights a growing urgency to maintain participation by the U.S., the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind China. Mr. Trump is poised to decide this month whether to deliver on a campaign promise to scrap a pledge by former President Barack Obama to fight climate-change, which Mr. Trump called a hoax crippling America’s economy.
“We all continue to hope the U.S. will find a way to remain within the Paris Agreement,” European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Canete said, following a weekend of phone diplomacy.
To sway the U.S. president, the agreement’s supporters have proposed that the U.S. could roll back emissions cuts without risking punishment under the accord, a senior European lawyer who helped draft the deal said.
“The Paris Agreement is sufficiently flexible to allow the U.S. to chart its own path,” a senior EU negotiator said.
A spokeswoman at the U.S. mission to the EU didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Trump’s decision on the accord will impact the global effort to fight climate change and serve as a barometer of his approach toward international agreements.
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from a 12-nation Pacific trade pact, initiated efforts to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, and shelved negotiations to deepen economic and regulatory ties with the EU. The president has also called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization obsolete, raising concern among U.S. allies over Washington’s dedication to security obligations, although he later backpedaled on NATO.
“Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement would mark a new era of isolationism for the United States and signal to the rest of the world that America does not honor its commitments,” Paula Caballero, climate-program director at World Resources Institute, said on Monday at the U.N. gathering in Bonn.
The European attempt to sway Mr. Trump in favor of the accord is centered on providing the White House with room to scale back U.S. commitments on greenhouse-gas emissions in exchange for its long-term participation in the deal. Each country has set its own targets to help limit global warming, measured since the beginning of the industrial age, to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Mr. Trump has already started to roll back the Obama administration’s clean-energy policies, raising questions on America’s ability to meet its goals. The U.S. had pledged to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025.
Some in Mr. Trump’s cabinet, led by chief strategist Steve Bannon and Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, have argued that the U.S. can’t weaken emissions targets under the Paris Agreement. They say enacting the president’s energy policies, such as reversing a push to replace coal with cleaner-burning fuels at power plants, would expose the U.S. to lawsuits.
White House officials are now poring over a clause about adjusting commitments, which the accord says should be done “with a view to enhancing its level of ambition.”
But EU officials—and some of Messrs. Bannon and Pruitt’s rivals in the White House,—are seeking to persuade the U.S. that upward revisions aren’t the only option.
“While parties are encouraged to make changes in the more ambitious direction, there is no prohibition on changing in the other direction,” the senior European lawyer said.
European officials are also trying to steer Mr. Trump’s deliberations away from ideological battles over the environment. Instead, they are promoting business opportunities in industries led by clean energy, arguing that preventing climate-change is integral to security, and suggesting continued U.S. participation in the Paris deal would burnish Washington’s diplomatic credentials.
“There are different ways to engage in these discussions,” the EU official said. “Now, we’re in full diplomatic offensive, we’re trying to do our best.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-encourages-trump-administration-to-support-climate-deal-1494315967
-
Paris Agreement in Brackets as Arctic Council Meets
May 9, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson and Jean Chemnick,
The Trump administration's potential rejection of the Paris climate accord is overshadowing an international Arctic Council ministerial conference this week marking the end of the United States' two-year council chairmanship.
Climate change dominated the agenda laid out by President Obama when the United States took the lead of the Arctic Council in 2015. Obama elevated his Arctic policies in a historic trip to Alaska, and former Secretary of State John Kerry made climate change the centerpiece of his time at the department.
But since winning the November election, President Trump has sidelined Arctic policy issues and failed to appoint top State Department officials to work on Arctic Council programs.
Trump has largely ignored the Arctic Council climate priorities of his predecessor, while focusing on national security and geopolitical issues in the far north. He has dismissed the science backing climate change and proposed to open the American Arctic to oil and gas drilling.
Now the Trump administration is writing an Arctic Council ministerial statement, due to be signed at this week's meeting, that is expected to downplay climate change action. As of late last week, the Arctic countries continued to negotiate the wording of the ministerial statement to include references to climate change.
At a press briefing yesterday, State Department Ambassador David Balton said that the Trump administration is continuing to debate whether the U.S. should remain in the Paris accord.
"The question of the U.S. view of the Paris Agreement is still under consideration within the U.S. Government," Balton said. "The last thing I heard is that the president, our president, has indicated he plans to make a decision sometime over the next couple of weeks, but not this week, and that Arctic Council ministerial will not be the venue for that."
As scientists, foreign diplomats and international Arctic experts assemble in Fairbanks this week, all eyes will be on Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who will take part in the Arctic Council ministerial meeting tomorrow and Thursday.
"Secretary Tillerson's comments in Fairbanks will be the closest thing we have to a U.S. Arctic policy for this new administration," said Heather Conley, senior vice president for Europe, Eurasia and the Arctic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "So we will all be following very closely."
Tillerson: Friend or foe of climate action?
The State Department said Tillerson will also hold bilateral talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, as well as with leaders from the other Arctic Council nations: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway. Finland will begin its two-year leadership of the council at Thursday's conference.
Since coming to the State Department, Tillerson has said human-caused emissions are contributing to climate change, though he has cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus about that link. And in the ongoing Trump administration tug of war over whether to leave the Paris pact, Tillerson has been an advocate for remaining.
Still, some fear that the former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO will prioritize new access to petroleum resources in the Arctic over protection of the fragile northern region, which is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet.
Rafe Pomerance, a former State Department official who now chairs the advocacy group Arctic 21, said he hopes Tillerson won't let climate change slip from the agenda entirely.
"He will have to understand or may already understand what is happening to the Arctic," Pomerance observed. "The question is, what does he bring back to Trump, to the president, on this, and where do they go with it?
"The Arctic is in such steep decline that you would hope that Tillerson, who [has] kind of that technical competence, would be able to kind of share those insights with the president and maybe something will change," he said.
"That is kind of an outside hope."
Paris decision reverberates in the Arctic
A Trump decision to leave the Paris Agreement, if it comes this week, could have profound reverberations not only at the Fairbanks meeting but at another gathering more than 4,000 miles away in Bonn, Germany, where negotiators are working on the Paris rulebook (Climatewire, May 8).
State Department officials headed to Fairbanks have been prepared with talking points about Paris that emphasize the Trump administration's focus on energy independence and U.S. competitiveness, one source said. Officials have been advised to deflect questions about the future of U.S. involvement in the accord and simply note that it is currently under review.
For the Arctic Council, which requires a consensus vote for all decisions, the State Department may seek to delete any direct mention of the Paris accord from the Fairbanks Declaration. That action could also jeopardize other climate objectives in the text, including a proposed regional target for black carbon mitigation that has been two years in the making.
It is not expected to impact a binding Arctic Council scientific cooperation agreement that is due to be signed by the member countries this week. That pact, which has been spearheaded by Russia and the United States, would be the third legal agreement reached by the Arctic nations.
U.S. rejection of the Paris pact could also scuttle the incoming Finnish chairmanship's plans to prioritize Paris implementation in the Arctic during the next two years.
"If the Trump administration has a more hard line on climate change or on eliminating the narrative on climate change, it's going to be more difficult for other nations to work in that environment when it's pretty clear that the Finnish agenda is highlighted by climate," noted Mike Sfraga, director of the Polar Initiative at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Sfraga said he doubts that the State Department will cut all language on the Arctic Council climate initiatives. "There might be some refinement in language or new language," he said. "But it's not my feeling that there's going to be a dramatic change.
"To simply take a different course I think would be incredibly disruptive, not helpful and not in the spirit of the work that's been done for this administration," argued Sfraga, who heads the University of the Arctic's delegation to the Arctic Council. The university is an official observer to the Arctic Council meetings.
Will allies buck Trump?
Even if the Trump administration cuts the climate change language in the Arctic Council ministerial statement, the other members of the council aren't likely to back down. Nordic members, including Finland, joined a statement last week strongly affirming Paris and calling climate change "one of the greatest challenges facing humanity" (Climatewire, May 3).
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also supported the Paris Agreement on the floor of the Parliament in Ottawa, Ontario, last week, and called climate action "particularly important amongst Arctic nations."
"Arctic populations and ecosystems are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change than just about anywhere else in the world," he said.
Trudeau, who has frequently clashed with the Trump administration of late, said Canada would continue working on the issue "beyond our nation's borders."
But it's not clear whether Canada and the Nordic countries will issue a joint informal statement on Paris and climate if Tillerson and Trump jettison it from a formal declaration. The Arctic Council has a history of friendly cooperation, and observers say such a move would be a noted departure.
At an April meeting of the Group of Seven nations, the Italian head opted for a less formal chair's summary that allowed member energy ministers — except U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry — to declare support for the Paris accord (Climatewire, April 11).
Trump is expected to announce his Paris decision before he travels to Sicily on May 26 for the G-7 leaders' summit.
Will U.S. be a 'laughingstock'?
But while the G-7 process and the larger Group of 20 major economies have historically included references to climate change in their communiqués, the issue permeates all aspects of the Arctic Council's work, from the welfare of communities in the far north to coastal erosion, infrastructure and economic development.
"There's just really no ignoring climate in any conversation that world leaders would have about the Arctic," noted Cathleen Kelly, a senior fellow for energy and environment at the Center for American Progress. "I can't imagine a declaration that wouldn't acknowledge rapid climate change in the region and the consequences in some way."
Margaret Williams, managing director of the World Wildlife Fund's Arctic Program, added that "there are seven other countries in the Arctic Council, and they recognize that there is climate change. If the U.S. wants to pretend there's not climate change, then it will be the laughingstock of the world in the Arctic."
During this week's Arctic Council ministerial meeting, the Arctic nations are expected to sign off on a series of reports written by the council's working groups, including the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme's recent report showing that the worst effects of climate change are already happening in the Arctic, and could have significant implications across the globe (Climatewire, April 25).
That report, which has already been accepted by the Arctic Council senior officials, recommends that the Arctic nations lead global efforts "for an early, ambitious, and full implementation" of the Paris Agreement and calls for larger cuts in global greenhouse gases.
The top Arctic diplomats will also decide whether to grant observer status to Turkey, Mongolia and Switzerland. As observers, diplomats from those nations would be allowed to sit in on Arctic Council debates, but not join the conversation. So far, 12 nations have been approved for observer status, including China, India, Singapore and South Korea.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/09/stories/1060054221
-
The Business Case for the Paris Climate Accord
May 9, 2017 | New York Times
By George P. Shultz and Ted Halstead
President Trump faces a choice that will echo across his presidency and beyond: whether to remain in the Paris climate agreement. Although most Americans, his own secretaries of state and energy, and heads of state from around the globe are urging the president to stay, he remains undecided. Let us hope that a newly invigorated pro-Paris campaign by many of America’s top C.E.O.s will sway him.
In a recent barrage of public letters and full-page ads, Fortune 100 companies are voicing strong support for remaining in the Paris accord. The breadth of this coalition is remarkable: industries from oil and gas to retail, mining, utilities, agriculture, chemicals, information and automotive. This is as close as big business gets to a consensus position.
American business leaders understand that remaining in the agreement would spur new investment, strengthen American competitiveness, create jobs, ensure American access to global markets and help reduce future business risks associated with the changing climate. Leaving Paris would yield the opposite.
Our companies are best served by a stable and predictable international framework that commits all nations to climate-change mitigation. The Paris agreement overcame one of the longest-standing hurdles to international climate negotiations: getting the developing world, including China and India, onboard. If America backs away now, decades of diplomatic progress could be jeopardized.
Global statecraft relies on trust, reputation and credibility, which can be all too easily squandered. The United States is far better off maintaining a seat at the head of the table rather than standing outside. If America fails to honor a global agreement that it helped forge, the repercussions will undercut our diplomatic priorities across the globe, not to mention the country’s global standing and the market access of our firms.
Staying in Paris in no way binds the president to Obama-era climate regulations. Indeed, the only risk Mr. Trump faces from altering or weakening domestic climate policy under Paris is in the court of public opinion, not in federal courts. Seventy-one percent of Americans favor remaining in the Paris agreement, according to a survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and an even larger number favor clean energy.
What’s more, there’s nothing in the Paris agreement to prevent the administration from adopting more cost-effective, market-based and business-friendly climate policies. For all their good intent, the Obama administration’s climate regulations — most prominently the Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants — saddle industry with cumbersome requirements, inhibit business investment and have proved highly divisive. President Trump’s recent executive order to withdraw or rewrite these regulations is but the beginning of a multiyear legal battle that leaves American industry facing significant regulatory and pricing uncertainty, the worst of all worlds.
The only quick and sure path to undo these regulations is through legislation. This offers the president a potent negotiating strategy: Propose a meaningful price on carbon in exchange for a rollback of Obama-era climate rules. This could pave the way for a bipartisan climate solution, and a major victory for Mr. Trump. For example, a revenue-neutral carbon tax starting at $40 per ton would meet the high end of America’s commitment under Paris, justifying the elimination of all previous carbon regulations, as we and our co-authors argued in a recent study, “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.”
The president’s Paris verdict will ultimately be about more than climate. It also carries major implications for America’s place in the geoeconomic order. Staying in Paris would advance the president’s priorities not only by creating jobs, but also by leveling the playing field in trade. American companies are well positioned to benefit from growing global markets in clean technologies, generating domestic jobs and growth.
By contrast, pulling out of the agreement could subject the United States to retaliatory trade measures, enabling other countries to leapfrog American industry.
If the president wants to strengthen America’s competitive position, he should combine a price on carbon with border tariffs or rebates based on carbon content. United States exports to countries without comparable carbon pricing systems would receive rebates, while imports from such countries would face tariffs on the carbon content of their products. Not only would this encourage other nations to adopt comparable carbon pricing, but it also would end today’s implicit subsidy for dirty producers overseas, which puts American businesses at a disadvantage.
Businesses supporting the Paris accord are the president’s natural allies. They can help him fashion a conservative climate solution that upholds our commitments and enhances America’s greatness.
George P. Shultz served as secretary of state under Ronald Reagan and as secretary of the Treasury under Richard Nixon. Ted Halstead is the president of the Climate Leadership Council.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/opinion/the-business-case-for-the-paris-climate-accord.html?_r=0
-
EPA Seeks Governors’ Input in Rewriting Obama Water Rule
May 9, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is reaching out to state governors for help in rewriting former President Barack Obama’s controversial water pollution rule.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt, along with acting Assistant Secretary for the Army Douglas Lamont, sent a letter Tuesday to governors asking for their “input and wisdom” on what bodies of water should be regulated by the federal government in the Clean Water Act.
Following an executive order President Trump signed in February, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are working on a two-step process to rewrite the Obama regulation known as the Clean Water Rule, which asserted federal power over small bodies of water such as wetlands and stream headwaters.
The agencies are first formally repealing that rule, and will then write a new version with a smaller reach to define the jurisdiction of the federal Clean Water Act.
The Trump administration officials said they are prioritizing the role of states throughout the process, something they have accused Obama of not emphasizing.
Thirty-one states — mostly led by Republicans — sued the Obama administration to stop the 2015 rule, joining with business and industry groups.
“EPA is restoring states’ important role in the regulation of water,” Pruitt said in a statement.
“Like President Trump, I believe that we need to work with our state governments to understand what they think is the best way to protect their waters, and what actions they are already taking to do so. We want to return to a regulatory partnership, rather than regulate by executive fiat.”
The Tuesday letter went to the governors of each state and U.S. territory.
“We believe this is an important step in the process prior to proposing regulations that may have implications on federalism,” Pruitt and Lamont wrote.
The February executive order asks the agencies to write their new rule in the framework laid out by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, and Pruitt and Lamont told the states they are carrying out that mission.
Scalia said in a 2006 plurality opinion that the Clean Water Act should only cover waterways that are “relatively permanent.”
Scalia’s opinion was only joined by four justices, and subsequent federal court decisions have not relied on that test. So the Obama administration instead followed a separate concurrence by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who concluded that waters with a “significant nexus” to navigable waterways should be covered.
The EPA started the outreach process to states last month in a meeting with state and local environmental regulators, during which EPA officials discussed possible approaches to the new rule under Trump’s executive order.
The administration plans to eventually propose a formal regulation to enforce its new definition, at which point it will invite public comments, making any necessary changes and then make the rule final.
A federal appeals court put a hold on the Obama rule in 2015, blocking its enforcement before it could take effect.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/332515-epa-seeks-governors-input-in-rewriting-obama-water-rule
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested