Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/23
-
(ACC Mentioned) White House Seeks to Block Release of Ethics Waivers
May 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
The White House is taking steps to block the release of ethics waivers EPA and other agencies have granted that allow former industry lobbyists to work at those agencies, despite an executive order President Donald Trump signed earlier this year generally barring such work. -
(ACC Mentioned) Turkey Taps Longtime Trump Lobbyist
May 22, 2017 | Politico - Tipsheets
By Mary LeeDavid Beavers, Taylor Gee, Kelsey Tamborrino and Aubree Eliza Weaver
...SPOTTED: At the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center for a panel discussion Thursday: Steve Caldeira, president & CEO of the Consumer Specialty Products Association; Cal Dooley of the American Chemistry Council... -
EPA Gives to Toxics With One Hand What It Takes From Climate
May 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Climate change's loss at the EPA has been a boon to its chemicals work, which has been the recipient of funds previously earmarked for greenhouse gases. -
Faulty Cost Analysis Sinks California's Chromium 6 Tap Water Limit
May 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Is California's 10 parts per billion standard for chromium 6 in drinking water cost prohibitive? -
Toxic Secrets in Our Food? EDF Joins in Lawsuit Aimed at Protecting Food Safety
May 22, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
Today, Environmental Defense Fund joined other groups in challenging a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule that allows chemical and food manufacturers to decide for themselves – in secret – what chemicals and food additives can be added to foods. -
Norwegian Study Identifies PFBS Uses and Risks
May 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Norway's Environment Agency has conducted a study on uses of perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and related substances and their risks in the European Economic Area (EEA). -
Groups Sue FDA Over Food Additives Companies Deem Safe
May 22, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
Consumer safety and green groups today filed a lawsuit alleging that the Food and Drug Administration has allowed "potentially unsafe" chemicals to enter the nation's food supply. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Report Highlights an Appalachia Manufacturing “Field of Dreams” Powered By Shale
May 22, 2017 | Energy in Depth
By Jackie Stewart
When it comes to shale development and manufacturing, Republicans and Democrats continue to see eye-to-eye and are rooting for a manufacturing rebirth — particularly in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. -
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian Storage Hub Discussion Advances
May 22, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Kathy G. Beckett
WV Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher Urges Action. On May 3, 2017 at the WV Manufacturer’s Marcellus and Manufacturing Development Conference, WV Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher spoke of the need for industry professionals to work alongside government officials to realize the full potential of shale gas. -
Trump Seeks to Sell off Half of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
May 22, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Steven Mufson and Chris Mooney
As part of its 2018 budget, the Trump administration is proposing to reduce by half the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a cushion against global price shocks and supply disruptions. -
(ACC Mentioned) Will Labor Secretary R. Alexander Acosta Continue OSHA's Movement Toward More Rigorous Environmental Standards?
May 23, 2017 | Lexology
By David E. Lamm
A recent article in the New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/opinion/americas-toxic-workplace-rules.html, opined with respect to the effect President Trump’s newly confirmed Labor Secretary R. Alexander Acosta may have on America’s toxic workplace rules. -
States Push for Stronger Oil Train Limits
May 22, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Several state attorneys general are asking federal regulators to strengthen rules on trains transporting crude oil. -
California Engages World, and Fights Washington, on Climate Change
May 23, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Adam Nagourney
The environmental ministers of Canada and Mexico went to San Francisco last month to sign a global pact — drafted largely by California — to lower planet-warming greenhouse pollution. -
EPA Remains Top Target with Trump Administration Proposing 31 Percent Budget Cut
May 22, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Candidate Donald Trump vowed to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency “in almost every form,” leaving only “little tidbits” intact. President Trump is making good on his promise to take a sledgehammer to the agency.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) White House Seeks to Block Release of Ethics Waivers
May 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
The White House is taking steps to block the release of ethics waivers EPA and other agencies have granted that allow former industry lobbyists to work at those agencies, despite an executive order President Donald Trump signed earlier this year generally barring such work.
According to the New York Times, the White House is calling on the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to withdraw a request for agencies to deliver copies of all such waivers.
OGE head Walter Shaub on April 28 issued a memo requesting federal agencies submit copies of all ethics waivers they had granted for political appointees by June 1. Once submitted to OGE, Shaub plans to make the waivers public.
But White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney is calling on Shaub to withdraw his request and is questioning OGE's authority to seek such information, according to a May 17 letter the Times obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request.
“Due to the uniqueness of OGE's request and potential legal questions that may exist, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice may need to be consulted . . . on the scope of the authorities underlying OGE's data call,” Mulvaney wrote. “I therefore request that you stay the data call until these questions are resolved.”
The waivers in question exempt certain political appointees from Trump's January order that bans former lobbyists or attorneys from working on “particular” issues involving their former clients for two years.
Former President Barack Obama had issued a similar order and also reserved the right to issue waivers, though Obama made those waivers, along with explanations for why they were granted, public, according to the Times.
But the Trump White House appears to be resisting making such waivers public. “This request, in both in its expansive scope and breathless timetable, demanded that we seek further legal guidance. The very fact that this internal discussion was leaked implies that the data being sought is not being collected to satisfy our mutual high standard of ethics,” the White House said in a statement provided to the Times.
Shaub said the White House request to pause the data collection is “an extraordinary thing. I have never seen anything like it.”
The controversy over the ethics waivers comes as the Trump administration has hired dozens of former lobbyists and industry lawyers to work both in the White House and in federal agencies like EPA. For example, former Devon Energy lobbyist Michael Catanzaro now works as the White House's top adviser on energy policy, the Times reported last month.
Democrats and environmentalists have raised concerns about several EPA appointees who have worked as lobbyists or for industry trade groups.
Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) and Jeff Merkley (OR) in a May 16 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt charge one of his aides, Elizabeth “Tate” Bennett, a deputy in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, is unable to perform virtually any of her duties due to potential conflicts of interest stemming from her work as a former utility lobbyist.
Bennett served as senior principal for government affairs at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) where, according to the senators, she lobbied on issues like EPA's power plant greenhouse gas rules, its ozone standard, enforcement, pesticides, budget resolutions and appropriations bills.
Environmentalists have also raised similar questions about Nancy Beck, a former official at the American Chemistry Council who now serves as EPA's deputy toxics chief. A coalition of environmental groups is now urging Pruitt to seek a broad recusal for Beck, warning that if he fails to do so it could hamper implementation of the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) law.
Pruitt has also faced similar ethics concerns from Democrats and environmentalists, who argue his time as Oklahoma's top litigator during which he brought more than a dozen lawsuits against EPA rules presents significant conflicts of interest.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/white-house-seeks-block-release-ethics-waivers
-
(ACC Mentioned) Turkey Taps Longtime Trump Lobbyist
May 22, 2017 | Politico - Tipsheets
By Mary LeeDavid Beavers, Taylor Gee, Kelsey Tamborrino and Aubree Eliza Weaver
TURKEY TAPS LONGTIME TRUMP LOBBYIST: Brian Ballard, President Donald Trump’s longtime lobbyist, just inked a high-profile contract of $1.5 million with Turkey, adding to Ballard Partners’ trifecta of international clients, including the Dominican Republic and the Socialist Party of Albania. Former Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) will represent the firm’s highest profile foreign client, reports POLITICO’s Marc Caputo. Previously, PI reported Wexler is new to lobbying and is still serving as president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.
WHITE HOUSE BID TO BLOCK ETHICS INQUIRY: A recent letter from OMB Director Mick Mulvaney to Walter M. Shaub Jr., the head of the Office of Government Ethics, has positioned the government’s top ethics watchdog in an escalating standoff against the White House. Shaub had requested copies of ethics waivers granted to former lobbyists and industry lawyers. “The White House, however, tried on Wednesday to stop the process across the entire federal government, even before most agencies had responded to Mr. Shaub’s April 28 request,” Eric Lipton reports for The New York Times. ”Keeping the waivers confidential would make it impossible to know whether any such officials are violating federal ethics rules or have been given a pass to ignore them.” Full story.
— “This is not normal,” Norman Eisen, former ethics czar under President Barack Obama told POLITICO. “It smacks of intimidation under the circumstances, as OMB does not have the right to quash OGE's functioning. Ethics and the rule of law require transparency, and Trump's insistence on hiding lobbyist and other waivers, aided and abetted by OMB, is the latest salvo in this administration's attack on good government.”
FORMER OBAMA APPOINTEE JOINS QUAKER LOBBY: Anthony Wier, former deputy assistant secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs under President Barack Obama, has joined the Quaker lobby Friends Committee on National Legislation as the organization’s lead lobbyist for nuclear disarmament and Pentagon spending. “We’re making a big focus to rein in on mindless increases to military spending and advocate for smarter policies in our foreign policy that make more sense — out of a fundamental belief of our organization that we can’t kill our way to victory,” Wier told POLITICO. Prior to joining FCNL, he worked for 10 years for Congress and the State Department on nuclear nonproliferation issues and international security policy.
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. Mary Lee here, filling in for Theo, who’s on vacation this week. Please send tips to mlee@politico.com or PI’s editor, Emily Stephenson, at estephenson@politico.com. You can follow us on Twitter: @maryjylee and @ewstephe.
CONSERVATIVE GROUPS DING TRUMP’S SCHOOL CHOICE PROPOSALS — Conservative groups are not thrilled with Trump’s plan to funnel an additional $1 billion into expanding school choice, even though they usually support such policies. “Conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute say that ponying up an extra $1 billion in federal Title I funding to promote school choice creates a bigger footprint in education policy — something they cannot abide,” POLITICO’s Caitlin Emma reports. Full story.
SPEAKING OF EDUCATION — The main lobbying association representing for-profit colleges is releasing its wish list today for a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The group, Career Education Colleges and Universities, plans to pitch its ideas as a way to “make the Higher Education Act a jobs bill” and to “modernize” the law for the 21st century. Read the full memo here. (h/t Morning Education)
** A message from the National Confectioners Association – #AlwaysATreat: Leading global chocolate and candy companies are coming together to provide more information, options, and support as consumers enjoy their favorite treats. It’s the first step on our journey to help people manage their sugar intake and ensure that they feel empowered to make informed choices. Learn more at AlwaysATreat.com. **
KUSHNER MUM ON CONFLICTS — The Washington Post’s Amy Brittain and Jonathan O’Connell take a look at White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s vast real estate holdings and the web of potential conflicts they carry. “Kushner, 36, who is emerging as a singularly powerful figure in the Trump White House, is keeping nearly 90 percent of his vast real estate holdings even after resigning from the family business and pledging a clear divide between his private interests and public duties.”
— Among the projects Kushner still owns are properties that receive support from private investors, foreign institutions and federal agencies that Kushner is tasked with helping his father-in-law reshape: “In Maryland, Kushner has retained his stake in several Baltimore-area apartment complexes that rely on federal housing assistance.” Full story.
DRONE LOBBYISTS TO DESCEND ON CAPITOL HILL — “Expect drone groups representing both commercial users and hobbyists to storm the Hill in the coming months to ask for legislative language” after a federal appeals court threw out the FAA’s registration requirement for recreational drone users on Friday, reportsPOLITICO’s Morning Transportation. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International and the Small UAV Coalition have already issued statements pledging to work with lawmakers on the issue.
ENERGY HITS THE HILL: Twenty CEOs from the Large Public Power Council, which represents the 26 largest consumer-owned utilities in the United States, are flying in today and tomorrow for meetings with administration officials and lawmakers on tax reform, infrastructure and cybersecurity. (h/t Morning Energy)
JOBS REPORT:
— International economic policy advisory firm Rock Creek Global Advisors tapped Bruce Andrews, former deputy Commerce secretary in the Obama administration, as a managing director. Previously, he served as general counsel of the Senate Commerce Committee, vice president of government affairs at Ford Motor Company and founding partner at Quinn Gillespie & Associates.
— Sara Decker has been named director of federal government affairs at Wal-Mart. She previously was legislative director for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
— Suzanne Hammelman will become The Hawthorn Group’s president and chief operating officer. She was previously the firm’s chief client officer. Prior to joining Hawthorn, she headed her own public affairs firm and served as political director for the National Association of Homebuilders.
— The Financial Services Roundtable promoted Anthony Cimino to be head of government affairs from his position of senior vice president of risk management, where he oversaw FSR’s advocacy.
— George Ross Parman is joining Altria Group as a manager on their communications team. Previously, Parman was director of crisis communications at kglobal.
— Raffetto Herman Strategic tapped Devin Sears as public affairs manager, where she will focus on cybersecurity and technology issues. She was previously a managing associate at Ervin Hill Strategy.
SPOTTED: At the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center for a panel discussion Thursday: Steve Caldeira, president & CEO of the Consumer Specialty Products Association; Cal Dooley of the American Chemistry Council; Matt Shay of the National Retail Federation; Farah Ahmed of the International Fragrance Association North America; and Consumer Specialty Products Association board member Jerry Porter, head of Procter & Gamble's R&D for Home Care.
NEW PACs:
Barrasso Fischer Victory Fund: Non-Qualified Non-Party, Joint Fundraiser
Northwest Des Moines Democrats: Non-Qualified Non-Party, UnauthorizedNEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS:
American Continental Group: Dentrust Optimized Care Solutions
Banner Public Affairs, LLC: Brewer's Association
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP: Ascension Health Alliance
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP: Financial Service Centers of America, Inc.
CGCN GROUP, LLC (formerly known as Clark Geduldig Cranford & Nielsen, LLC): American Optometric Association
Chambers, Conlon & Hartwell, LLC: Carpi & Clay on behalf of Transbay Joint Powers Authority
Efb Advocacy, LLC: 21st Century Fox
Efb Advocacy, LLC: National Immigration Law Center
Efb Advocacy, LLC: RATE Coalition
Goldstein Policy Solutions: T-Mobile USA, Inc.
M & W Government Affairs, LLC: American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
M & W Government Affairs, LLC: American Suntanning Association
M & W Government Affairs, LLC: Emergent BioSolutions Inc.
M & W Government Affairs, LLC: International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association (IPCPR)
M & W Government Affairs, LLC: LeadsMarket.com
M & W Government Affairs, LLC: Planetary Resources, Inc.
M & W Government Affairs, LLC: Preservation Technologies, L.P.
New Century Government Affairs (f/k/a Terrence C. Wolfe): GDKN Corporation
Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative (Dba Pngc Power): Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative (Dba Pngc Power)
The Furman Group: Lytle Development Company
The Gallagher Group, LLC: Defender Pharmaceuticals, Inc.NEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS:
Bankers Association for Finance and Trade (Formerly Known as BAFT-IFSA): Bankers Association For Finance And Trade (Formerly Known As Baft-Ifsa)
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2017/05/22/turkey-taps-longtime-trump-lobbyist-220444
-
EPA Gives to Toxics With One Hand What It Takes From Climate
May 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Climate change's loss at the EPA has been a boon to its chemicals work, which has been the recipient of funds previously earmarked for greenhouse gases.
A Fiscal Year 2017 Operating Plan memo David Bloom, the Environmental Protection Agency's acting chief financial officer, issued May 17 says the agency made an “adjustment” to the Consolidated Appropriations Act that Trump signed into law May 5. The adjustment was designed to support the agency's efforts to meet deadlines in the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016. The allocation “was offset in the Climate Protection Program reflecting reduced activity,” EPA said.
The memo comes as the Trump administration prepares to release May 23 its full budget proposal for fiscal year 2018, which see further reductions to the EPA's climate change efforts. The proposed budget would cut the EPA's funding by approximately 30 percent and eliminate $100 million annually in climate change programs.
It would also eliminate an annual $500 million U.S. payment to a UN fund and other climate change expenditures spread across the State Department, Treasury Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.
Pruitt Backs Chemicals Law
Unlike climate change, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has said that overseeing toxic substances is “absolutely” among the agency's priorities. Shifting the funds from the climate change program to implementing the updated Toxic Substance Control Act would follow those priorities.
The EPA declined May 22 to elaborate on the amount of money, staff or both for fiscal year 2017 that it has provided the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, which is implementing the amended TSCA.
The additional funds are, however, part of the $49.1 million it is spending in fiscal year 2017 for analytical and other work not related to paying staff in its Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, which regulated both pesticides and chemicals.
That compares to a fiscal year 2016 nonpay budget of 47.79 million. The Office of Air and Radiation, which addressed climate change and other air issues, will receive $164.1 million for activities other than staff in fiscal year 2017. That compares to $176.85 million in fiscal year 2016.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112344937&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112344937&jd=112344937
-
Faulty Cost Analysis Sinks California's Chromium 6 Tap Water Limit
May 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Is California's 10 parts per billion standard for chromium 6 in drinking water cost prohibitive?
That's a question California regulators must revisit in adopting a new maximum contaminant level for the cancer-causing chemical now that a court has found the state failed to consider if meeting the standard is economically feasible—as required by California law.“This is a setback,” Avinash Kar, a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney, told Bloomberg BNA of the court order. “It means we have no standard in place to protect the public against chromium 6. I'm hoping they are going to move as quickly as possible to put something in place.”
California adopted the nation's first drinking water standard for chromium 6, also called hexavalent chromium, in 2014. That was the culmination of 14 years of work, and came a full decade later than state lawmakers wanted. Now, the state may have to start part of the process all over again.
Pervasive Pollutant
Chromium 6 has been found in water supplies in all 50 states, and in 51 of California's 58 counties. While it's a naturally occurring chemical, chromium 6 concentrations have risen in groundwater and, to a lesser extent, surface waters, because of industrial uses of the compound. Exposure to chromium 6 has been linked to adverse health effects, including cancer.
A 2013 study commissioned by the Association of California Water Agencies estimated the 10 ppb standard would cost water utilities about $4 billion. The state's overall estimate was an aggregate cost of $870 million, but it calculated water bills for average households would increase $64 up to $5,630 a year to cover compliance costs. Most of the cost burden would fall on the customers of smaller water agencies, those with less than 1,000 connections, the state said.
The cost impacts to small water systems and their customers was “a compelling factor in the judge's decision that the economic feasibility of the maximum contaminant level needs to be looked at,” Wes Miliband, the Sacramento-based head of Stoel Rives's California water practice, told Bloomberg BNA May 18. “The order is a relief for smaller water agencies and to a lot of public and private stakeholders.”
Appeal an Option
The state could appeal the state court's decision, once the formal judgment and writ of mandate are approved, Miliband said.
Apart from a statement on its website that it “is reviewing the order and its range of impacts,” the State Water Resources Control Board hasn't said how it will respond to the May 5 court order. “It will take some time to prepare a thorough response to the order and more information will be provided as it becomes available,” the water board said.
The ruling comes in a case the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) and Solano County Taxpayers Association (SCTA) filed alleging the state, in setting the standard, violated the California Safe Drinking Water Act and state Administrative Procedures Act (California Manufacturers and Technology Ass'n. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., Cal. Super. Ct., No. 34-2014-80001850, 5/5/17).
California Superior Court Judge Christopher E. Krueger agreed in part, finding that the Department of Public Health didn't provide the economic feasibility analysis required by the state's Safe Drinking Water Act.
Standard Invalidated
The judge did not invalidate the 10 ppb standard per se, but rather the process by which it was reached. He said California failed to determine if the limit was economically and technically feasible, as state law requires.
Krueger ordered the state to withdraw the 10 ppb maximum contaminant level and set a new one as close as economically feasible to the public health goal of 0.02 ppb, the level the state has determined doesn't pose a significant health risk to people. He directed the state to pay “particular attention to small water systems and their users.”
“It may well be that, after properly considering economic feasibility, the Department will, once again, set the MCL at 10 ppb,” Krueger said.
In theory, a new standard could be even tighter—the public health goal is considerably stricter—although the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and the Solano County Taxpayers Association in their suit claimed even meeting the 10 ppb standard would be “massively expensive.”
Lisa Lien-Mager, a spokesperson for the Association of California Water Agencies told Bloomberg BNA in a May 22 email that “It's important that the agency adopting a drinking water standard fully comply with the requirements in state law, including the requirements for evaluating economic feasibility.” She added that the cost of complying with new standards such as the one for chromium-6 can result in significantly higher water rates and affect the affordability of water.
Transfer or Power
Legislation enacted in 2014 transferred the Department of Public Health's drinking water program to the State Water Resources Control Board.
“CMTA and SCTA look forward to providing information to support development of a new drinking water standard that takes economic feasibility into account,” the organizations said in a prepared statement May 9.
Before California adopted the 10 ppb standard, it regulated chromium 6 in drinking water under the state's 50 ppb maximum contaminant level for total chromium, which includes trivalent chromium, a required nutrient, and hexavalent chromium (chromium-6). The federal standard for total chromium is 100 ppb.
California's total chromium standard isn't protective enough, NRDC's Kar said.
Legislation enacted in 2015 gave public water agencies an additional five years, but no later than Jan. 1, 2020, to comply with 10 ppb standard that took effect July 1, 2014.
Andrew Collier, in the Sacramento offices of Downey Brand LLP, and Clifton J. McFarland, Mitchell Chadwick LLP, represented the petitioners.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=112344934&vname=dennotallissues&fn=112344934&jd=112344934
-
Toxic Secrets in Our Food? EDF Joins in Lawsuit Aimed at Protecting Food Safety
May 22, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
Today, Environmental Defense Fund joined other groups in challenging a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule that allows chemical and food manufacturers to decide for themselves – in secret – what chemicals and food additives can be added to foods. The practice puts our health at risk and does not fulfill Congress’ requirement that FDA determine that chemical additives are safe before they can be used in food.
Americans would be shocked to learn that food companies routinely add novel chemicals to our food without first getting FDA approval. In doing so, the companies are exploiting a loophole exempting ingredients “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) from formal FDA review and approval.
Originally intended for ingredients like vinegar and olive oil, industry now abuses the GRAS loophole by bypassing FDA review and making safety determinations in secret. The alarming result: even FDA does not know what is in our food. In fact, FDA has no way to know what chemicals are actually being used in which food or in what quantities—even in baby food.
Last year, the FDA issued a final rule formalizing this outrageous practice. We described this decision as a lost opportunity for safer food additives when the decision was made. Today, EDF and our colleagues at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Environmental Working Group, represented by CFS and the environmental law firm Earthjustice, joined in filing suit against the FDA for unconstitutionally and illegally delegating that authority to self-interested food and chemical manufacturers.
It is disappointing that the groups were forced to take legal action. In addition to being a bad policy that doesn’t comply with law, or protect public health, the FDA is oddly out of touch with public sentiment. Just last week an industry funded survey showed overwhelming consumer concern about chemicals in food, including cancer causing chemicals, while showing diminished confidence in the food supply. This continues a trend that has been building for years. Food companies would be wise to take notice: adding secret chemicals without FDA scientific review to our food is no way to improve confidence in their products.
But with thousands of secret chemicals in our food, we can’t wait for industry or FDA to wise up. Today’s lawsuit seeks to force FDA to do what should be common sense—determine that food additives are safe before they can be added to our food.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/05/22/toxic-secrets-in-our-food-edf-joins-in-lawsuit-aimed-at-protecting-food-safety/
-
Norwegian Study Identifies PFBS Uses and Risks
May 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Norway's Environment Agency has conducted a study on uses of perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and related substances and their risks in the European Economic Area (EEA).
PFBS and related substances are short-chain perfluoroalkyl substances mainly used as surfactants and repellents. Additional applications include: flame retardants, metal plating and pesticides.
According to the study there are many related substances in use. They are produced with perfluorobutane sulfonyl fluoride (PBSF) as the starting material.
This is registered as an intermediate under REACH, and quantitative information about consumption is "deficient" in registration dossiers.
Basic PFBS is not registered under REACH and has limited applications. And, the study says, little information on the use of PFBS-related substances is available.
The study identified 16 PFBS-related substances with confirmed use. The total content of PFBS moieties of mixtures is estimated at 28-77 tonnes/year.
The substances are widely used in the EU, the study says, with the total volume of PFBS-related substances registered under REACH at 22-210+ tonnes/year. Many of the substances are notified by more than 100 companies.
The study says consumers may be exposed to PFBS-based substances through:impregnation of outdoor clothes, shoes and carpets with repellent protection products;spray application of agents for protection of stone and tile or spray application of paints containing PFBS-based surfactants;use of PFBS-impregnated clothing items from weathering and releases of impurities;infants and toddlers may be exposed by sucking on impregnated fabrics;storage of newly impregnated clothes and shows in shops and at home; andrepellent agents used in tile and stone floors indoors may result in dermal exposure.
Use in surfactants in paints and inks is considered to result only in insignificant direct consumer exposure, but could constitute a long-term problem as regards contamination of the environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56041/norwegian-study-identifies-pfbs-uses-and-risks
-
Groups Sue FDA Over Food Additives Companies Deem Safe
May 22, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
Consumer safety and green groups today filed a lawsuit alleging that the Food and Drug Administration has allowed "potentially unsafe" chemicals to enter the nation's food supply.
The suit challenges a 2016 FDA rule that created a procedure for processed food manufacturers and chemical companies to self-certify certain substances that are generally recognized as safe, or "GRAS," for use in human or animal food.
According to the complaint, the rule runs counter to FDA's responsibility to oversee the safety of the food supply.
"Many take it for granted that FDA will make sure our food is safe, but under the current policy, the government is turning this authority over to the very industry it's meant to watch over," Earthjustice attorney and co-counsel Eve Gartner said in a statement.
The Center for Food Safety, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Environmental Working Group filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Under FDA's 2016 rule, substances that are certified as GRAS must meet the same safety standards as approved food additives, but they are not themselves considered additives. The distinction means they're not subject to premarket safety reviews for additives.
Manufacturers are not required to notify FDA that they have self-certified a substance, though FDA said it strongly encourages companies to inform the agency of GRAS conclusions.
FDA called the rule "a step to strengthen its oversight of food ingredients."
But today's lawsuit alleges that, through the rule, FDA unlawfully delegated its statutory authority to private parties.
It also claims violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
"FDA's practice on GRAS additives flouts the law," said EDF chemicals policy director Tom Neltner, "and leaves the agency unaware of what chemicals are being added to our food and with no way to ensure that these additives — and the food that contains them — are safe."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/22/stories/1060054917
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Report Highlights an Appalachia Manufacturing “Field of Dreams” Powered By Shale
May 22, 2017 | Energy in Depth
By Jackie Stewart
When it comes to shale development and manufacturing, Republicans and Democrats continue to see eye-to-eye and are rooting for a manufacturing rebirth — particularly in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. And according to a new report by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), these four states could see 100,000 permanent jobs from shale-powered manufacturing in the near future. At the center of the multi-billion dollar investment detailed in the ACC report is a natural gas liquids (NGLs) and chemicals storage hub that U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has described as a “field of dreams,”
“This is a game-changer for us. It’s a real field of dreams — build it and they shall come.”
The ACC report finds the quad-state region could see a $35.8 billion dollar boost in investment dollars by 2025, which would support 25,700 new chemical and plastic manufacturing jobs, 43,000 supplier industry jobs and 32,000 “payroll-induced” jobs in communities where workers spend their wages. Federal, state and local taxes could yield a whopping $2.9 billion in new revenue as well, according to the report. ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley recently stated how natural gas and ethane from natural gas fuels chemical and plastic manufacturing jobs, explaining it this way,
“Natural gas and ethane is to the chemical industry as flour is to bakery.”
So, how do we get to 100,000 permanent jobs from shale? Perhaps a better question would be how do we get to 100,000 permanent jobs without shale? Take a look at how shale development is quite literally launching an American manufacturing rebirth.
The mere possibility of such economic growth has been made possible by fracking, which has unlocked the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale deposits. These shale deposits have led to vast resources of natural gas liquids (NGLs), which provide the feedstock to the petrochemical industry and manufacturing of plastics. However, there is currently a serious shortage of infrastructure needed to fully capitalize on NGLs in the Appalachian region.
Fortunately, this is an issue members of both Houses in Congress are hoping to change in an effort to unlock the full potential of the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale deposits. As U.S. Senator Shelly Moor Capito (R-WV) has said,
“Energy and manufacturing are critical to growth in our state. With the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale deposits, we have plenty of resources, and we want to keep the value of those resources in our region.”
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) have teamed up with the West Virginia delegation, including Congressmen David McKinley (R-WV) and Evan Jenkins (R-WV), and Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), to form a bipartisan regional effort to bring national awareness to the importance of creating an NGL “hub” and what it would mean for a region of the country that’s been plagued with watching their manufacturing jobs get shipped overseas. Moore Capito introduced the “Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act” in the Senate recently, a bill co-sponsored by Manchin and Portman that would charge the Energy and Commerce departments with determining the feasibility of building a storage and distribution facility. Rep. McKinley and others announced a House companion bill on Friday. Manchin, Moore Capito, McKinley and Cohn all recently wrote National Economic Council (NEC) Director Gary Cohn to express their support of the hub.
Dooley perhaps summed it up best when he said,
“This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to further expand our base by capitalizing on gas formations. We’ve got a competitive advantage globally, and the nice thing about the Appalachia region is that it’s close to the manufacturing center of the U.S., including the auto sector and the upper Midwest.”
In addition to this bipartisan regional effort to bring a “world-class natural gas liquid (NGL) storage and distribution hub (“Hub”) in the Appalachian region,” construction of ethane processing plants — which convert ethane into ethylene, a feedstock source to the petrochemical industry — and further pipeline development will be critical.
Recently litigation and activism aimed at shutting down pipelines has become more prevalent from the “Keep It In the Ground” fringe environmental extremists. If successful, their obstruction would put the equivalent of a monkey wrench into the wheels of progress underway to bring manufacturing jobs back to the region.
The most recent installment of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute Energy Accountability series asked the question “What if pipelines aren’t built into the Northeast?” and finds such a decision would be devastating to residents in the six New England States: Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and West Virginia. In addition to higher electricity and heating costs, it would mean nearly 78,400 jobs lost by 2020, more than $4.4 billion in labor income off the table, and the loss of a whopping nearly $7.6 billion in GDP.
The recipe to support shale-fueled manufacturing and permanent job creation includes pipelines, storage and distribution of NGLs and processing plants of natural gas components, such as ethane crackers. As the ACC report underscores and Dooley rightly stated,
“In the last 10 years, [the United States] has gone from high-cost to being among the lowest-cost producers of chemicals in the world, because of natural gas and hydraulic fracturing. We’ve got 300 new chemical facilities on the board [in the U.S.] with half of them started or completed. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to further expand our base by capitalizing on gas formations. We’ve got a competitive advantage globally, and the nice thing about the Appalachia region is that it’s close to the manufacturing center of the U.S. (Emphasis added)
https://energyindepth.org/national/new-report-highlights-an-appalachia-manufacturing-field-of-dreams-powered-by-shale/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian Storage Hub Discussion Advances
May 22, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Kathy G. Beckett
WV Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher Urges Action. On May 3, 2017 at the WV Manufacturer’s Marcellus and Manufacturing Development Conference, WV Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher spoke of the need for industry professionals to work alongside government officials to realize the full potential of shale gas. “I suggest you have a job to do,” said Thrasher. “Go home and do something to make this really come about.”
With that in mind, the following report is particularly relevant.
Legislation Introduced for Appalachian Storage Hub Study. On May 9, 2017, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) introduced a bill to direct the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage and distribution hub in the United States. Co-sponsors to S. 1075 are Senator Joe Manchin III (D-WV) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH). This legislation is identical to an amendment Senator Capito offered, that was passed by a voice vote, to an energy bill that did not go forward in the 114th Congress. It is also reported that Congressman McKinley (R-WV) plans to introduce similar legislation in the U.S. House.
Letter to the Trump Administration on Appalachian Storage Hub. On May 17, 2017, West Virginia U.S. Senators Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito sent a letter to Gary D. Cohn, Director, National Economic Council the opening statement of which is,
As the White House considers the future of our nation’s energy infrastructure, we encourage you to examine the numerous benefits of the development and construction of the Appalachian Storage Hub, as world-class natural gas liquid (NGL) storage and distribution hub in the Appalachian region.
Citing to the American Chemistry Council (“ACC”) research on the potential economic impact of such a project, the Senators comment that “. . .the creation of such a hub would allow the Appalachian region to seize on opportunities associated with these valuable natural resources, potentially attracting up to $36 billion in new chemical and plastics industry investment and creasing 100,000 new jobs in the area.”
ACC Economic Report on Appalachian Storage Hub. West Virginia has an important representative to the Board of Directors of the ACC, Dean Cordle, President and CEO, AC&S, Inc., of Nitro, West Virginia. Cal Dooley, CEO of the ACC frequently comes to West Virginia to support the chemical industry. On May 18, 2017 an ACC report was released titled, “The Potential Economic Benefits of an Appalachian Petrochemical Industry.” The report is prepared by the lead authors Martha Moore and Dr. Kevin Swift both of the ACC which can be accessed here. Ms. Moore previewed this report at the WV Manufacturer’s Association, Marcellus and Manufacturing Development Conference earlier in the month. Her message was clear there are significant opportunities to be had. The report note there is work to do in the form of tax and energy policy to capture the extraordinary benefits that can be gained from managing the shale gas resources of Appalachia. The ACC report profiles the extraordinary opportunity by highlighting the potential for enhancing employment, diversifying supply, addressing market needs in the Midwest and East Coast, and avoiding missed opportunity through “ethane rejection.” This report provides an important step in promoting the discussion of developing the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub.
Benedum Foundation Research Pending. As the public sector continues to explore its options, a study is underway by private industry players, including Antero Resources Corp., American Electric Power Co., Blue Racer Midstream LLC, Chevron Corp. and XTO Energy Inc., among several others, to investigate NGL storage potential in the basin. The companies came together last year to match a $100,000 grant from the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation. This report is forthcoming.
Key Industry Advocate and Spokesperson. Steve Hedrick, President and CEO of MATRIC, South Charleston, WV has been a steady force behind the efforts to advance the discussion of the development of an Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub. He has taken time to educate government and industry representatives of the opportunities presented by shale development in the region and the potential for revitalization of the petrochemical industry in Appalachian. Hedrick is a West Virginia native who is a chemical engineer holding a B.S. from West Point. He has more than 20 years of experience in the petrochemical industry. He has held numerous roles of increasing responsibility at Bayer CropScience, Bayer MaterialScience, Bayer Polymers and Lyondell. Kevin DiGregorio, Director of the West Virginia-based Chemical Alliance Zone and Dr. Brian Anderson, director of WVU’s Energy Institute, have also been active partners with Hedrick as the discussion continues. It can safely be assumed that behind each headline, meeting, legislation, report, commitment this team has been involved in some fashion.
Other Individual Contributors. All of us have something to contribute and many of us already have. Those contributions include outreach to business and government leaders to make introductions, arrange meetings, prepare materials, conduct research, sponsor conferences, plan and execute. This effort is about economic development and the future. We all have a job to do and based upon the efforts in May 2017 we are having an impact.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/appalachian-storage-hub-discussion-advances
-
Trump Seeks to Sell off Half of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
May 22, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Steven Mufson and Chris Mooney
As part of its 2018 budget, the Trump administration is proposing to reduce by half the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a cushion against global price shocks and supply disruptions. The administration said it expects the drawdown to reduce the federal deficit by $16.6 billion, part of a package of deficit reduction measures over the next 10 years.
The proposal probably will run into sharp differences in Congress and among oil experts, most of whom say that the reserve should remain a buffer in an emergency. As of May 12, the reserve had 688.1 million barrels, equal to about 141 days of net imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products.
The administration included the words “Reduce Strategic Petroleum Reserve by half” among a long list of budget proposals distributed under embargo to journalists.
The sales would start at half a billion dollars in the next fiscal year and climb to $3.9 billion, for a total of $16 billion over the next decade. A policy brief floated by the conservative Heritage Foundation, a group that has exerted a major influence on the Trump budget, suggests selling off the entirety of the SPR over a two-to-three-year period (a more radical proposal than the Trump idea).
“The SPR has not served its purpose, as Presidents have used the SPR as a political tool or failed to release reserves in a timely and impactful manner,” Heritage fellow Nicolas Loris wrote in 2015. “It is time for Congress to recognize it is not the government’s role to respond to high prices. Congress should therefore pull the plug and drain the SPR once and for all.”
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the world’s largest stockpile of emergency crude oil, and lies near the largest U.S. refiners and pipeline networks in four large salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas.
It was established in December 1975 in the wake of the oil embargo imposed on the United States by Arab members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
That cutoff of oil sales to the United States delivered a shock to the U.S. economy. More recently, strategists have defended the reserve as a bulwark against a possible disruption in supplies from Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, or a closure of the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.
Some analysts have argued that the United States no longer needs a big stockpile because of the surge in domestic production resulting from shale oil output over the past decade and the reduction in U.S. imports of crude oil. Economist Philip Verleger has been among the leading advocates of shrinking the reserve. “The reserve was created at a time when the nation was very dependent on imported oil,” he wrote in a blog article for S&P Global Platts in 2014. “The dependency is in the past. The Reserve no longer serves the purpose for which it was developed.”
Other experts say that the reserve is as needed as ever.
“The risk of complete collapse in Venezuela is just one of many reminders that the world remains vulnerable to oil price shocks, and those will be felt by U.S. consumers at the pump just as much today even though we import less oil than we used to because oil is a global commodity,” said Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.
“The SPR is a 40-year-old national security asset that helps to protect the U.S., in partnership with other countries, from potential oil supply disruptions and price spikes. It would be foolish to sell it off just because our imports have fallen or to fill short-term budget holes, especially when oil prices are so low.” (Bordoff was President Barack Obama’s National Security Council adviser on energy and climate.)
This isn’t the first time the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been tapped for revenue. A budget deal in October 2015 included sales of 58 million barrels — 8 percent of the reserve — from 2018 through 2025 to raise $5.1 billion, which would equal 0.125 percent of that year’s budget. In addition, Congress turned to sales of the reserve to meet financing needs of the Highway Trust Fund, which would drain the reserve of another 101 million barrels.
The administration’s plan to shrink the petroleum reserve would come after these earlier drawdowns, leaving the emergency buffer with about 270 million barrels, or less than 40 percent of the current level.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/22/trump-seeks-to-sell-off-half-of-the-strategic-petroleum-reserve/?utm_term=.333c01783a7d
-
May 23, 2017 | Lexology
By David E. Lamm
A recent article in the New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/opinion/americas-toxic-workplace-rules.html, opined with respect to the effect President Trump’s newly confirmed Labor Secretary R. Alexander Acosta may have on America’s toxic workplace rules. The issue is framed through a look at the focus of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration versus that of the Environmental Protection Agency. The former permits greater worker exposure limits than the latter.
The article refers to a nearly 20-year-old case involving IBM as an example. There, former employees had brought more than 200 lawsuits against IBM alleging that it had concealed knowledge of having exposed them to carcinogenic chemicals. While IBM settled the matters, the salient point is that it appeared not to have violated any OSHA regulations. OSHA’s standards permitted workers to be exposed to much higher concentrations of chemicals than those under the EPA. Apparently, this remains true today.
Amanda Hawes, who is an attorney in California, offered one explanation for the disparity between OSHA and EPA standards. She opines that the EPA rules “are supposed to protect the most vulnerable in the population-typically children, fetuses, the elderly and folks with pre-existing health problems”. She added that environmental standards more often focus on chronic effects. Dr. Robert Harrison, who is an occupational medicine specialist at the University of California, explained that cancer and other chronic diseases usually are not recognized as occupational illnesses. The medical field does not always know when patients continually have been exposed to carcinogens.
Epidemiologist David Michaels, who headed OSHA under President Obama, believes that agency chemical standards are too weak, often driven more by economic and technological feasibility rather than by risk assessment. He posits that many chemicals either have no permissible exposure limits, or ones which are out of date.
OSHA, however, encourages companies to comply with limits set by other organizations. Last year, Congress had required that the EPA regulate more chemicals and add populations such as workers to health assessment risks. In addition, trade associations such as the American Chemistry Council, maintain that safety is a core concern of the industry. In addition to strictly adhering to OSHA’S worker health and safety standards, the American Chemistry Council’s members accept recommendations from other organizations.
Secretary Acosta had served on the National Labor Relations Board under President George W. Bush. OSHA was in the process toward equalizing some standards which continued through President Obama’s tenure. As Secretary of Labor, the question begged is whether he will order OSHA to continue toward more rigorous environmental standards.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dcbff239-b1b1-4389-a59b-7fc5cc7facef
-
States Push for Stronger Oil Train Limits
May 22, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Several state attorneys general are asking federal regulators to strengthen rules on trains transporting crude oil.
The six attorneys general, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman, filed comments with regulators Monday insisting the government set a more stringent limit on the volatility of oil that trains are allowed to transport.
The filing with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) says the government should not allow trains to transport oil with a vapor pressure of 9 pounds per square inch or higher.
Vapor pressure is a measure of a liquid’s flammability. The officials argued crude oil with higher pressure is more likely to contribute to explosive accidents, such as the one in Quebec in 2013 that killed 47 people.
“These trains can carry crude oil through some of our most densely populated areas without any limit on explosiveness or flammability — creating ticking time bombs that jeopardize the safety of countless New Yorkers and Americans,” Schneiderman said in a statement.
The attorneys general from California, Illinois, Maryland, Maine and Washington joined New York on the filing.
The request comes two years after the Obama administration finalizednew rules for oil-by-rail operations.
Those standards began a phase-out of existing oil cars and require new, safer cars take their place. The rules also changed train routing procedures and set new speed limits and first-responder requirements.
The standards, though, did not address the volatility of the crude oil within the oil cars. Late last year, the PHMSA asked for comments on whether it should tighten those standards, a move that came after high-profile rail accidents such as one in Mosier, Oregon, last summer.
The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, an oil industry group, told PHMSA on Monday that it doesn’t need to tighten vapor pressure limits because “recent regulatory actions” and other federal rules are more effective at increasing the safety of oil-by-rail.
“Further proceedings based on crude oil characteristics conflict with Congress’ considered judgment to delay further regulation until the completion of ongoing studies on the transport of flammable materials,” the group argued.
“Even if Congress had not done so, PHMSA has every reason to await the results of those studies before crafting any regulation that would impose enormous costs without any corresponding safety benefit.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/334582-states-push-for-stronger-oil-train-limits
-
California Engages World, and Fights Washington, on Climate Change
May 23, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Adam Nagourney
The environmental ministers of Canada and Mexico went to San Francisco last month to sign a global pact — drafted largely by California — to lower planet-warming greenhouse pollution. Gov. Jerry Brown flies to China next month to meet with climate leaders there on a campaign to curb global warming. And a battery of state lawyers is preparing to battle any attempt by Washington to weaken California’s automobile pollution emission standards.
As President Trump moves to reverse the Obama administration’s policies on climate change, California is emerging as the nation’s de facto negotiator with the world on the environment. The state is pushing back on everything from White House efforts to roll back pollution rules on tailpipes and smokestacks, to plans to withdraw or weaken the United States’ commitments under the Paris climate change accord.
In the process, California is not only fighting to protect its legacy of sweeping environmental protection, but also holding itself out as a model to other states — and to nations — on how to fight climate change.
“I want to do everything we can to keep America on track, keep the world on track, and lead in all the ways California has,” said Mr. Brown, who has embraced this fight as he enters what is likely to be the final stretch of a 40-year career in California government. “We’re are looking to do everything we can to advance our program, regardless of whatever happens in Washington.”Continue reading the main story
Since the election, California has stood as the leading edge of the Democratic resistance to the Trump administration, on a range of issues including immigration and health care. Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton here by nearly four million votes. Every statewide elected official is a Democrat, and the party controls both houses of the Legislature by a two-thirds margin. Soon after Mr. Trump was elected, Democratic legislative leaders hired Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general, to represent California in legal fights with the administration.
But of all the battles it is waging with Washington, none have the global implications of the one over climate change.
The aggressive posture on the environment has set the stage for a confrontation between the Trump administration and the largest state in the nation. California has 39 million people, making it more populous than Canada and many other countries. And with an annual economic output of $2.4 trillion, the state is an economic powerhouse and has the sixth-largest economy in the world.
California’s efforts cross party lines. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who served as governor from 2003 to 2011, and led the state in developing the most aggressive pollution-control programs in the nation, has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s biggest Republican critics.
Mr. Trump and his advisers appear ready for the fight.
Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency chief, whom Mr. Trump has charged with rolling back Obama-era environmental policies, speaks often of his belief in the importance of federalism and states’ rights, describing Mr. Trump’s proposals as a way to lift the oppressive yoke of federal regulations and return authority to the states. But of Mr. Brown’s push to expand California’s environmental policies to the country and the world, Mr. Pruitt said, “That’s not federalism — that’s a political agenda hiding behind federalism.”
“Is it federalism to impose your policy on other states?” Mr. Pruitt asked in a recent interview in his office. “It seems to me that Mr. Brown is being the aggressor here,” he said. “But we expect the law will show this.”
In one of his earliest strikes, Mr. Trump signed an executive order in March aimed at dismantling the Clean Power Plan, President Barack Obama’s signature climate policy change. Much of the plan, which Mr. Trump denounced as a “job killer,” was drawn from environmental policies pioneered in California.
Mr. Brown has long been an environmental advocate, including when he first served as governor in the 1970s. He has made this a central focus as he enters his final 18 months in office. In an interview, he said the president’s action was “a colossal mistake and defies science.”
“Erasing climate change may take place in Donald Trump’s mind, but nowhere else,” Mr. Brown said.
The leadership role being embraced by California goes to the heart of what has long been a central part of this state’s identity. For more than three decades, California has been at the vanguard of environmental policy, passing ambitious, first-in-the-nation legislation on pollution control and conservation that have often served as models for national and even international environmental law.
“With Trump indicating that he will withdraw from climate change leadership, the rest of the global community is looking to California, as one of the world’s largest economies, to take the lead,” said Mario Molina, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist from Mexico who advises nations on climate change policy. “California demonstrates to the world that you can have a strong climate policy without hurting your economy.”
The Senate leader, Kevin de Leon, introduced legislation this month that would accelerate, rather than retrench, California’s drive to reduce emissions, requiring that 100 percent of retail electricity in the state come from renewable sources by 2045. Mr. de Leon said it was “important that we send a signal to the rest of the world” at a time of what he described as “blowback” from Washington.
Mr. Schwarzenegger, who tangled with Mr. Trump after the president mocked him for receiving low ratings as his replacement on “The Apprentice,” described Mr. Trump’s environmental policies as a threat to the planet.
“Saying you’ll bring coal plants back is the past,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “It’s like saying you’ll bring Blockbuster back, which is the past. Horses and buggies, which is the past. Pagers back, which is the past.”
He said California had shown it was possible to adopt aggressive environmental policies without hurting the economy. “We’re outdoing the rest of the country on G.D.P.,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said.
Even before Mr. Trump took office, California’s tough regulatory rules had stirred concern among business leaders, who said it had increased their costs. They warned that the situation would become worse if California stood by its regulatory rules while Washington moved in the other direction.
“We’re very concerned about that,” said Robert C. Lapsley, the president of the California Business Roundtable. “If we are 1 percent of the problem, and we have the most far-reaching climate policies on the planet while all the other states are slowing down because Washington is slowing down, that is going to create an absolute imbalance.”
“Washington will create a less competitive environment for California businesses here because businesses in other states will not have to meet the same mandates,” he added. “There is no question that businesses are going to move out.”
The precise contours of this battle will become clear in the months ahead, as Mr. Trump’s environmental policies take shape. For now, the critical questions are whether the United States will withdraw from the Paris agreement, an international compact to reduce greenhouse pollution, and whether the Environmental Protection Agency will revoke a waiver issued by President Richard M. Nixon that permits California to set fuel economy standards exceeding federal requirements.
Revoking the waiver, which was central to a policy that has resulted in noticeably cleaner air in places like Los Angeles, would force the state to lower its tough fuel economy standards, which are also intended to promote the rapid spread of electric cars. As they stand, the rules would force automakers to build fleets of cars that would reach mileage of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
California is preparing for a legal challenge.
“You have to be concerned when anybody talks about going backward,” said Xavier Becerra, the state attorney general. “In this case we think we have a strong case to be made based on the facts and the history.”
Mr. Trump is already moving to weaken federal auto emission standards that were influenced by California’s tougher standards. Automakers, who met with the president in the Oval Office days after he assumed the presidency, have long complained that the standards forced them to build expensive electric vehicles that consumers may not want.
And the companies have lobbied for years to stop the federal government from allowing California to set cleaner tailpipe regulations than the rest of the nation, arguing that the double standard necessitates building two types of cars. In Detroit, those companies see President Trump as their best chance for finally ending onerous California car requirements. But in the meantime, over a dozen other states have adopted California’s auto emissions standards — and Mr. Brown is betting that the sheer size of that market will be enough to make the Trump administration reconsider any effort to roll back the California waiver.
“Because we’re such a big part of the car market, and places like New York and Massachusetts are tied in with the U.S., our standard will prevail,” he said.
Beyond pushing to maintain its state climate laws, California has tried to forge international climate pacts. In particular, Mr. Brown’s government helped draft and gather signatures for a memorandum of understanding whose signers, including heads of state and mayors from around the world, pledged to take actions to lower emissions enough to keep global temperatures from rising over two degrees Celsius. That is the point at which scientists say the planet will tip into a future of irreversible rising seas and melting ice sheets.
That pact is voluntary, but California, Canada and Mexico are starting to carry out a joint climate policy with some teeth.
California’s signature climate change law is the cap-and-trade program. It places a statewide cap on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions, and then allows companies to buy and sell pollution credits. The California measure was the model for a national climate law that Mr. Obama tried unsuccessfully to have passed in 2010.
Given the setbacks in Washington, California environmental officials are working with Mexico and Canada to create what is informally called the “Nafta” of climate change — a carbon-cutting program that spans the region.
“Canada’s all in when it comes to climate action, and we’ll partner with anyone who wants to move forward,” said Catherine McKenna, Canada’s environment minister.
Already, California’s cap-and-trade market is connected to a similar one in Quebec, now valued at about $8 billion, and the Province of Ontario is linking with the joint California-Quebec market this year. Climate policy experts in Sacramento and Mexico City are in the early stages of drafting a plan to link Mexico with that joint market.
In April, a delegation from California traveled to Beijing to meet with Chinese counterparts to help them craft a cap-and-trade plan. “We have people working in China, in their regulatory agencies, consulting with them, speaking fluent Mandarin, working with the Chinese government — giving them advice on cap and trade,” Mr. Brown said.
The Clean Power Plan was central to the United States’ pledge under the 2015 Paris agreement, which commits the nation to cut its emissions about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. Now that Mr. Trump has moved to roll back the plan, it will be almost impossible for the United States to meet its Paris commitments.
That has resonated powerfully in China. The heart of the Paris agreement was a 2014 deal forged by Mr. Obama and President Xi Jinping of China in which the world’s two largest economies and largest greenhouse polluters agreed to act jointly to reduce their emissions.
“China is committed to establishing a cap-and-trade this year, and we are looking for expertise across the world as we design our program — and we are looking closely at the California experience,” said Donquan He, a vice president of Energy Foundation China, an organization that works with the Chinese government on climate change issues.
Mr. Brown recently met with the prime minister of Fiji, who will serve as chairman of this fall’s United Nations climate change meeting in Bonn, Germany, which aims to put the Paris agreement in force, with or without the United States. The governor said he planned to attend as a representative of his state.
“We may not represent Washington, but we will represent the wide swath of American people who will keep the faith on this,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/california-engages-world-and-fights-washington-on-climate-change.html?_r=0
-
EPA Remains Top Target with Trump Administration Proposing 31 Percent Budget Cut
May 22, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Candidate Donald Trump vowed to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency “in almost every form,” leaving only “little tidbits” intact. President Trump is making good on his promise to take a sledgehammer to the agency.
When the White House releases its latest budget proposal on Tuesday, the EPA will fare worse than any other federal agency.
An advance copy of EPA’s budget for fiscal 2018, obtained by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, indicates the administration will proceed with its effort to reduce current funding by more than 31 percent, to $5.65 billion.
The plan would eliminate several major regional programs, including ones aimed at restoring the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, as well as EPA’s lead risk-reduction program. The White House also proposes nearly halving categorical grants, which support state and local efforts to address everything from pesticide exposure to air and water quality, to $597 million. It would slash funding for the Superfund cleanup program, which helps restore some of the nation’s most polluted sites, despite the fact that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt lists it as one of his priorities.
[Trump’s EPA moves to dismantle programs that protect kids from lead paint]
Dozens of other programs also would be zeroed out entirely, including funding for radon detection, lead risk reduction, projects along the U.S.-Mexico border and environmental justice initiatives. The agency would have significantly less money for enforcement of environmental crimes and for research into climate change and other issues.
The budget proposal would maintain funding for “high priority” infrastructure investments such as grants and low-cost financing to states and municipalities for drinking water and wastewater projects. But in the broadest sense, the White House wish list would undoubtedly hobble the EPA, leaving the work of safeguarding the nation’s water and air primarily up to local officials.
EPA officials declined to talk publicly about the specifics of its budget ahead of Tuesday’s planned release of the latest White House proposal. But in a recent email, an agency spokeswoman said the proposal “prioritizes federal funding for work in infrastructure, air and water quality, and ensuring the safety of chemicals in the marketplace. The budget aims to reduce redundancies and inefficiencies and focus on our core statutory mission.”
S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in an interview that he was amazed the administration had not shifted course from its first proposal in March — former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy called it a “scorched earth” budget — despite bipartisan push back in Congress and warnings from many groups that such cuts could hamper state and local work to curb pollution.
“You would think they would have learned something from these trial balloons,” Becker said. “Instead, they’re doubling down. They just don’t care about the reaction.”
Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, echoed the exasperation of many in the environmental community. “This isn’t a budget — it’s a road map for the President, EPA Administrator Pruitt and polluters to see that millions of Americans drink dirtier water, breathe more polluted air and don’t have enough nutritious food to lead healthy lives,” he said in a statement. “With each cut in EPA funding, each regulatory rollback, each special favor for polluters, it becomes more clear that for President Trump, public health protection is not a priority, but a target.”
Trump administration officials, including Pruitt, repeatedly have made clear that they intend to return the agency to its “core responsibilities” of protecting air and water quality. Combating climate change, which was a key focus in the Obama administration, has essentially vanished from the EPA’s mission.
In unveiling its initial proposal, the administration acknowledged that the drastic cuts “will create many challenges” at the agency. But it suggested that, “by looking ahead and focusing on clean water, clean air and other core responsibilities rather than activities that are not required by law, EPA will be able to effectively achieve its mission.”
A deal reached recently by lawmakers to fund the government through September left the EPA largely untouched, reducing its budget $81 million below the current operating level — about a 1 percent cut.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/22/epa-remains-top-target-with-trump-administration-proposing-31-percent-budget-cut/?utm_term=.38199b4e76f2
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested