Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 31/5/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Faces Decision On Ethics Waivers For Officials
May 30, 2017 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
The names of former lobbyists and industry officials working in the Trump administration may soon become public, now that sparring between the White House and the independent ethics office has come to an end. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Insider Tapped For Chemical Oversight At EPA
May 30, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The White House budget proposal released this week would reportedly bolster funding for the nation's new chemical oversight law amid otherwise steep cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) North American PE And PP Resin Prices Both Slide In May
May 30, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin prices slipped for the second straight month in May, while prices for polyethylene resin also decreased after a flat month. -
EPA Regulatory Review Floodgates Open, Leaving Pruitt to Mop Up
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
When asked which EPA regulations stifle economic growth and should be reconsidered or rescinded, industry groups responded, “All of them.” -
Industry Cautions EPA Against OSHA Overlap In Chemical Reporting Rule
May 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A petrochemical industry official serving on a panel convened to inform a future EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule limiting reporting requirements on certain substances is urging the agency not to encroach on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) authority to protect workers and suggesting reduced reporting for substances with no consumer exposure. -
Industry Argues EPA's Draft TSCA Bans Do Not Meet Law's Requirements
May 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Chemical industry groups are arguing that the Obama EPA's proposed restrictions on certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) and two paint stripping chemicals do not meet legal requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and should be withdrawn, while environmentalists are urging the Trump administration to finalize the rules. -
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council: Obstructing Formaldehyde Safeguards Then and Now
May 30, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists (blog)
By Genna Reed
The chemical industry has once again staved off federal action that would protect public health, as the EPA announced last week that it would be delaying compliance dates for the long-awaited formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products—standards that were finalized in December 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Rules Under Attack
May 29, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
In keeping with his campaign promise to reduce regulatory burdens, U.S. President Donald J. Trump ordered federal agencies in late February to ferret out regulations that can be “repealed, replaced, or modified to make them less burdensome.” -
(ACC Mentioned) EU Struggles To Define What Constitutes An Endocrine Disruptor
May 29, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Paula Dupraz-Dobias
-
Magnetek PCB Coverage Dispute Belongs in State Court
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A state trial court will decide whether technology company Magnetek is owed insurance coverage for PCB claims it took on under an agreement with the former Monsanto Co., the Northern District if Illinois ruled (Velsicol Chem. LLC v. Magnetek, Inc., 2017 BL 178009, N.D. Ill., 17 C 2092, 5/26/17). -
EPA Won't Have to Disclose How Power Plants Handle Wastewater
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Power plants won't have to disclose how they remove pollutants from wastewater and how much they remove, what it costs them, and what equipment they use, a federal court affirmed. -
EPA May Soon Seek Inter-Agency Review For CPP Repeal
May 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA says it may soon seek interagency review for a “proposed regulatory action” that is expected to repeal the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP), moving the agency one step closer to complying with requirements in President Donald Trump's energy independence order to review and “if appropriate” rescind or revise the rule. -
EPA Appeals Deadlines for Toxic Air Pollution Reviews
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency wants more time to evaluate 13 air pollution standards that are overdue for review and is appealing the deadlines set by a federal judge (Blue Ridge Envtl. Def. League v. Pruitt, D.C. Cir., No. 17-5124, 5/30/17). -
Barrasso Agenda Heavy on Public Works, Light on Environment
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
In the weeks ahead the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hopes to be deeply enmeshed in the Trump administration's vision of a $1 trillion upgrade to U.S. infrastructure—and there will be plenty of reason for its chairman to boast that the panel is meeting its responsibilities on public works. -
World Carbon Price Seen Needing to Increase Sevenfold by 2020
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
Carbon prices need to jump sevenfold by 2020 from current rates in the world's biggest market to meet climate goals cost-effectively, according to a commission of economists and scientists. -
Climate ‘Danger Zone’ Seen If Trump Pulls U.S. Out of Paris Deal
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
Donald Trump wasn't exaggerating when he said during his election campaign that the U.S. could “cancel” the Paris Accord on climate change. -
Trump And Pruitt Meet As Decision Looms
May 31, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with President Trump today, ahead of a decision on how to approach the Paris climate accord. -
Trump’s Climate Conundrum Nears A Verdict
May 30, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Donald Trump’s advisers have sent wildly different messages to U.S. allies about the president’s willingness to remain in the Paris climate agreement — adding to the confusion as he appears set to render a verdict this week.
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Faces Decision On Ethics Waivers For Officials
May 30, 2017 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
The names of former lobbyists and industry officials working in the Trump administration may soon become public, now that sparring between the White House and the independent ethics office has come to an end.
The White House on Friday announced that it would be posting any waivers to the administration’s ethics pledge by the deadline on June 1, ending a standoff with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) over their release. Those waivers could include former lobbyists who are now working in the administration.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer, however, cautioned on Tuesday that President Trump had not yet signed off on any of the ethics waivers.
“We’ll let you know” when he has made those decisions, Spicer said.
Here’s what you need to know about the waivers and who might receive them.
Who could be affected by the waivers?
The Trump administration has appointed several people who have recently worked as registered lobbyists. While a handful have been reported, it’s likely that there are others whose roles have not been publicized.
Within the White House specifically, Michael Catanzaro, a former lobbyist from CGCN Group who represented a slew of energy industry clients, is now working as Trump’s top energy adviser.
Trump’s adviser on retirement policy is Shahira Knight, who previously worked as a lobbyist for Fidelity, which offers financial planning advice, retirement accounts and other investing tools.
Who might need a waiver?
A waiver can be granted to former lobbyists appointed to the executive branch if their job entails working on policy issues that came up in their former jobs.
That situation is common, as a lobbyist’s expertise in a policy area is often the reason they’re hired. As an alternative to a waiver, officials can recuse themselves from working on matters involving former clients or employers.
Copies of the waiver documents are due by June 1, though the files may not fully capture the extent of former lobbyists now working in Trump’s administration.
Although the White House has several former lobbyists and industry executives nominated for jobs, several of them have yet to be unconfirmed by the Senate, including David Bernhardt, a former energy lobbyist at top K Street firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, who has been chosen to be the No. 2 official at the Interior Department.
Since the waivers are granted as a way around the administration's ethics pledge, they cannot be granted until a person joins the administration.
Why are the waivers granted?
Ex-lobbyists and other industry executives have been part of presidential administrations going back decades, but their role was curtailed somewhat by President Obama’s executive order in 2009.
Obama set a benchmark for White House and executive branch hires that was unprecedented at the time: Anyone who had worked as a registered lobbyist within the prior year was banned from having a job in the administration. To get around that restriction, a lobbyist would have to be granted a waiver.
Obama intended the rules as a check against conflicts of interests. Critics argued, though, among other things, that they kept qualified candidates out of the government and drove the influence industry underground by encouraging lobbyists to de-register.
Being a registered lobbyist, which carries its own legal requirements, is key to the tougher conflict-of-interest restrictions.
Nancy Beck, a senior official within the EPA office that regulates chemicals, for example, came from the American Chemistry Council, an industry group. Although she served as its senior director of regulatory science policy, Beck likely does not need a waiver to handle chemical industry issues because she was not a registered lobbyist.
Officials who did not work as lobbyists before joining the government only need a waiver if policy decisions would inordinately effect a former employer or client, as opposed to an industry as a whole.
How does Trump’s policy differ?
Trump borrowed large chunks of Obama’s ethics executive order while making some key changes.
Within the provision on ethics waivers, Trump nixed the ban on former lobbyists taking jobs in the administration, but kept the tightened ethics rules for appointees who had been registered lobbyists within the last two years.
The Obama administration put the Office of Management and Budget in charge of signing, or designating someone to approve, waivers to the ethics pledge. Now, Trump himself — or a person of his choosing — makes the call.
Trump’s executive order also removes the Obama-era requirement that officials explain why a waiver was issued and eliminates the oversight mechanism carried out by the OGE. During the last administration, the ethics office would conduct an annual evaluation of how each agency was complying with the ethics pledge.
Why did the White House and the OGE clash?
The OGE and the White House feuded over whether the ethics office had the authority to ask for all the waivers executed within the federal government.
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said in a letter that the OGE’s request for the waivers “appears to raise legal questions regarding the scope of OGE’s authorities … I therefore request that you stay the data call until these questions are resolved.”
Walter Shaub, the director of the OGE, denied the request in a reply to Mulvaney, calling it “unusual.”
“The unusual nature of your letter highlights OGE's responsibility to lead the executive branch ethics program with independence, free from political pressure,” Shaub wrote in the letter, which was sent to key members of Congress that lead committees on government oversight and the judiciary, along with the hundreds of pages of supporting documents.
“Accordingly, OGE declines your request to suspend its ethics inquiry and reiterates its expectation that agencies will fully comply with its directive by June 1, 2017,” Shaub continued. “Public confidence in the integrity of government decisionmaking demands no less.”
Members of Congress weighed in on the matter, pressuring the administration for the release of the documents.
On Friday, Mulvaney wrote back, saying that Shaub had misinterpreted his letter, and OMB had not intended to scuttle the request for the forms.
“OMB shares the belief that the executive branch must uphold the highest ethical standards in accordance with the law,” Mulvaney wrote. “Contrary to your assertions, OMB has never sought to impede OGE nor to prevent others, including agencies from acting as required by law.”
Its legal concerns surrounded “protecting the process related to the data call," he continued. "We have no objection to the substance."
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/335685-trump-faces-decision-on-ethics-waivers-for-officials
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Insider Tapped For Chemical Oversight At EPA
May 30, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
The White House budget proposal released this week would reportedly bolster funding for the nation's new chemical oversight law amid otherwise steep cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency.
But the division charged with implementing that law will be headed by a prominent critic of the EPA's chemical evaluation practices.
Bloomberg noted this week that Nancy Beck was tapped to lead the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention last month. That office continues to oversee the rollout of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, a long-sought revision of decades-old chemical standards largely supported by both industry and environmental advocates.
The new law, in part, updates the EPA's procedures for testing potentially high-risk substances and requires the agency to make affirmative safety determinations for new chemicals.
But Beck, in her previous role as a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, sharply criticized some aspects of the law just weeks before taking a position at the EPA.
Bloomberg reported that Beck told a Senate panel in March that the EPA's decision to include 1-bromopropane — commonly used in adhesives, foam and dry cleaning — among its top priorities for study was "not consistent with the best available science."
She also said that the EPA's system for assessing chemical toxicity was outdated and led to "overly conservative" estimates.
The ACC — which represents some of the largest chemical producers in the world — told Bloomberg that Beck was "a dedicated scientist who brings with her to the agency extensive expertise in chemical management policy."
But environmental advocates and former EPA officials criticized the appointment, which followed President Trump's nomination of frequent EPA critic Scott Pruitt to serve as its administrator.
"There’s no one who has done more to delay and ultimately deny protection from chemicals linked to cancer than Nancy Beck," Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group told Bloomberg. "Trump’s EPA has completely abdicated its responsibility to keep us safe.”
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/05/industry-insider-tapped-chemical-oversight-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) North American PE And PP Resin Prices Both Slide In May
May 30, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin prices slipped for the second straight month in May, while prices for polyethylene resin also decreased after a flat month.
The PP drop averaged 7.5 cents per pound, market sources said. Prices for the material had dropped 5.5 cents in April. This two-month, 13-cent decline comes after prices rose an average of 20.5 cents in the first three months of the year.
North American PP sales haven't been strong in the first four months of 2017, dropping more than 1 percent vs. the same period in 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington. Domestic PP sales fell almost 2 percent in that period, while export sales jumped 21 percent.
A 3-cent PE drop for May came after prices had been flat in April and wiped out a 3-cent hike that had taken hold in March. "All the drivers that influenced the first quarter increases have been reversed in April and May," market analyst Mike Burns said in a May 30 email.
Burns, who is with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas, said PE export volumes were back to average in May and North American processors had built 360 million pounds of inventory. Production disruptions also have been resolved, he added, and there was little or no pre-buying from announced increases.
The regional PE market also is under pressure from low-priced finished PE bags coming in from China, Burns said.
As in the PP market, regional sales of PE weren't robust in early 2017. U.S./Canadian sales of high density PE were down almost 6 percent in the first four months of the year, as a domestic sales gain of 1.5 percent was wiped out by a drop of almost 30 percent in export sales.
Low density PE sales in the region slipped almost 1 percent in that period, with a domestic sales drop of more than 2 percent lessened by an export sales gain of almost 4 percent. In linear LDPE, regional sales grew almost 1 percent, as domestic growth of almost 4 percent was lowered by a 9 percent drop in export sales.
In PE feedstocks, West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices began May around $49 per barrel and were at $49.50 in late trading May 30, for a gain of only 1 percent. Regional prices for natural gas — used as a feedstock in most North American PE — started the month at $3.30 per million BTUs but were at $3.15 in late trading May 30 for a decline of 4.5 percent.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170530/NEWS/170539988/north-american-pe-and-pp-resin-prices-both-slide-in-may
-
EPA Regulatory Review Floodgates Open, Leaving Pruitt to Mop Up
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
When asked which EPA regulations stifle economic growth and should be reconsidered or rescinded, industry groups responded, “All of them.”
High-profile Obama-era regulations limiting carbon dioxide from power plants or establishing the reach of the Clean Water Act, which Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt had opposed, will certainly be targeted. However, businesses are left wondering whether the agency, which so far lacks political appointees to run the EPA's water, chemicals and air pollution offices, will have bandwidth to tackle a host of other, less splashy regulatory fixes that could reduce costs or ease burdens.
“We're in new territory. It's a process that has no clear precedent within the federal system,” Randall Lutter, a professor of public policy at the University of Virginia and a former senior economist at White House Office of Management and Budget under President Barack Obama, told Bloomberg BNA.
Open the Floodgates
The EPA has received a barrage of requests from regulated industries to open and reconsider regulations from every sector the agency touches. The requests range from drastic changes to the way the agency regulates air pollution—Ameren suggested replacing the agency's ambient air standards with pollution trading programs—to the more targeted—the American Water Works Association recommended that the EPA streamline its application process for loans to improve drinking water systems.
While a host of industries are looking ease their regulatory burdens, chemical manufacturer Chemours Co. actually went to bat for Obama-era rules that approved new chemicals to replace ozone depleting substances and clamped down on leaks from refrigeration equipment. The chemical company recommended that Pruitt retain those rules.
Environmental and public health groups, of course, vow to fight any attempt to weaken EPA protections, with Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, and Clean Air Task Force calling the regulatory review process “an illegal and arbitrary sham.”
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P.Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
The Waterkeeper Alliance also dismissed the process as rushed and opaque, calling on the EPA to provide more details about how it will manage the review process and decide which regulations will be reevaluated.
Who's Driving the Process?
Every new administration takes office vowing to streamline the regulatory process, but Trump has taken that further than ever before, requiring agencies to repeal two regulations for every new directive issued and capping costs that can be imposed on industries. It's an ambitious plan to transform the regulatory state, but seeing that process through will require coordination and planning. Right now the EPA is short of the political appointees necessary to make those decisions.
“In any one of these big rulemakings, there are dozens of intermediate decisions made along the way,” Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell LLP in Washington, D.C., who previously served as the EPA's assistant administrator for air pollution in the George W. Bush administration, told Bloomberg BNA. “If you have the administrator sign off on every one, you can only do two or three.”
Trump lags behind his predecessors in staffing the EPA, according to data provided by the Center for Presidential Transition. So far only Pruitt has been confirmed, and Susan Parker Bodine, Trump's pick for the agency's enforcement office, is awaiting confirmation. The Trump EPA lacks nominees to head the water, air and chemicals offices who will be central to the regulatory review process.
Unlike past administrations, though, Trump has made easing burdens on businesses central to his domestic priorities.
“The biggest single difference is that Trump has appointed someone to be EPA administrator whose primary focus is on reducing the regulatory burden,” Holmstead said.
When President George W. Bush took office, his EPA preferred legislative rather than regulatory approaches, Holmstead said. But when bills such as the Clear Skies Act faltered in Congress, that's when the Bush administration attempted to regulate pollutants such as mercury emissions from power plants.
“In the air office, we were not as ambitious as the Trump administration when it comes to regulatory reform,” Holmstead said.
What's unknown is how the EPA will make decisions on which regulations it will target and when that process will get started. An EPA spokesman could not be reached for comment.
Without assistant administrators to guide the process, Pruitt has appointed a regulatory reform task force of Ryan Jackson, the chief of staff; Byron Brown, the deputy chief of staff for policy; and Brittany Bolen, deputy associate administrator of the Office of Policy, to oversee the effort. All three previously served on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with past Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who was a vocal critic of the Obama EPA's regulations.
“They are certainly knowledgeable enough to be looking for more regulations to be going after,” Inhofe told Bloomberg BNA. “And they are doing the job pretty well.”
While agencies are tasked with implementing the regulatory reform efforts, the White House will still play a significant role in reducing compliance costs through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which reviews regulations, said Tracy Mehan, executive director of the American Water Works Association's government affairs office.
“No doubt in a Republican administration, OIRA is very much empowered—not that they were pushovers in the Obama administration, but it's fair to say they're going to be more empowered,” Mehan, who previously served as the EPA assistant administrator for water under President George W. Bush, told Bloomberg BNA.
However, Neomi Rao, Trump's pick to head that office, also hasn't been confirmed.
Smaller Fixes Have Big Benefits
While rolling back the Clean Power Plan and replacing the Waters of the U.S. rule are top priorities for Pruitt, more modest updates to the EPA's various regulations could provide the biggest long-term boons for businesses. Many industry groups in their comments are targeting smaller adjustments to existing regulations that they say can be quickly updated to reduce costs and make them more efficient.
For example, the Class of ’85 Regulatory Response Group, a coalition of 30 utility companies, suggested the agency eliminate unnecessary air pollution monitoring requirements. The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies recommended streamlining a variety of air pollution permitting provisions to ease burdens on both businesses and state permitting officials.
“Those [smaller fixes] would be valuable investments of time,” Megan Berge, a partner at Baker Botts LLP who represents utilities and other industries, told Bloomberg BNA. “Those are the investments that have the possibility of having a lasting good in terms of making these programs efficient.”
Taking on the EPA's largest regulations will spark an inevitable battle with environmental groups, which could bog down the entire effort. But tackling some of the smaller changes sought by businesses could be a way for the Trump administration to claim some quick victories.
“The good news is that, at least from EPA and the administration's perspective, these slight deregulatory acts are somewhat quicker than the big rules,” Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, which has argued many EPA regulations have costs that exceed benefits, told Bloomberg BNA. “Maybe to some extent they can prioritize the small, minor tweaks to the rules and generate some savings.”
—With assistance from Dean Scott in Washington.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113064743&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113064743&jd=113064743
-
Industry Cautions EPA Against OSHA Overlap In Chemical Reporting Rule
May 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A petrochemical industry official serving on a panel convened to inform a future EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule limiting reporting requirements on certain substances is urging the agency not to encroach on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) authority to protect workers and suggesting reduced reporting for substances with no consumer exposure.
EPA has convened the stakeholder committee charged with negotiating a proposed rule to limit existing chemical data reporting rule requirements on manufacturers of inorganic byproducts when those products are recycled, reused, or reprocessed.
Section 8(a)(6) of the revised TSCA enacted in June directs EPA to convene the negotiated rulemaking, though in the initial meeting industry panelists and EPA officials clashed over whether the law requires the agency pursue a rule even if the panel fails to reach a consensus recommendation.
During the panel's first meeting May 9-10 in Washington, D.C., James Cooper of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) urged EPA to reduce reporting requirements on chemicals solely used as intermediates, arguing consumers are not exposed to the substances and that OSHA limits protect any exposed workers.
“Every time you go into the workplace you're expanding your authority into where OSHA authority is and that is something you don't need to be doing,” Cooper told EPA staff, acknowledging that EPA has some authority to study the workplace.
“If you're not going to have exposure to the general public why would that be a priority over something that would be used in skin lotion?” he added. “If it's just a worker issue, why is that a bigger priority than something that could reach the general public?”
AFPM's call to exempt or limit chemical reporting requirements on inorganic byproducts used as intermediates is one of a host of possible reductions the stakeholder panel will consider in meetings scheduled for the coming months.
The panel also will weigh how to better align chemical reporting requirements of different agency programs, such as the CDR and the Toxics Release Inventory, limit disincentives for reporting, and ensure that data collected is accurate and relevant to agency risk assessments, among others.
Rulemaking Panel
The revised TSCA charged EPA with convening the negotiated rulemaking panel to weigh a rule reducing the burden of reporting requirements after past administrations' regulatory updates to the CDR caused confusion in the chemical industry. The concerns led lawmakers to include the requirement for the rulemaking committee in the updated toxics law.
The George W. Bush EPA in 2006 changed CDR requirements to require for the first time reporting on inorganic chemicals' use and disposal, including metals, in volumes greater than 25,000 pounds.
In the rule, EPA subjected inorganic metals to the same reporting requirements as organic chemicals, failing to take into account what sources say are the nuances of the materials. Problematic for metals are the byproduct recycling requirements of the Obama administration's subsequent chemical data reporting rule that require a manufacturer to report the fate of any substance that has to be removed from a byproduct by a reaction -- chemicals simply extracted are exempt from reporting -- which EPA then considers the manufacturing of a new chemical.
During the meeting, Cooper argued that EPA's CDR should inform the agency's effort to protect human health and the environment, and so in looking to reduce burdens the agency should limit or exempt reporting on substances that are either non-hazardous or lack exposure.
In a May 15 interview with Inside EPA, Cooper said that intermediates used in manufacturing chemicals generally do not pose risk of consumer exposures and that their use in closed production systems also limits worker exposures.
“The public isn't going to come into contact with these things -- these are industrial chemicals that are used to make other chemicals,” he said. EPA “could reduce the reporting burden with a partial exemption.”
OSHA permissible exposure limits protect workers in most cases where workers are exposed to chemical intermediates, Cooper said. In other situations, EPA may seek to collect data on substances that pose risk to workers, though when doing so it should still consider exposures, he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-cautions-epa-against-osha-overlap-chemical-reporting-rule
-
Industry Argues EPA's Draft TSCA Bans Do Not Meet Law's Requirements
May 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Chemical industry groups are arguing that the Obama EPA's proposed restrictions on certain uses of the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) and two paint stripping chemicals do not meet legal requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and should be withdrawn, while environmentalists are urging the Trump administration to finalize the rules.
The remarks come in comments that the groups filed by a May 19 deadline regarding two of the three TSCA Section 6(a) rules that the Obama administration proposed -- the first such rules proposed since 1991, when a federal court threw out EPA's Section 6 ban of asbestos. That ruling, and its effective muting of EPA's ability under the original TSCA to end uses of a problematic chemical, has been credited with the impetus behind the bipartisan reform of the law last summer.
One of the rules would ban uses of TCE as a vapor degreaser, and the second would ban consumer uses of methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) as paint strippers, while also restricting their commercial uses.
But the industry groups are urging EPA to repeal the rules, arguing that EPA's underlying risk analyses are flawed, and that the agency has failed to meet a number of requirements, some of them the result of the reform of TSCA in 2016.
In contrast, environmentalists argue that the rules should go forward, to show the agency's continued advancement of implementing the updated TSCA. Further, they say that EPA has amassed sufficient evidence to meet the law's requirements, and they rebut industry arguments that EPA should have reported the chemicals' risks to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) rather than undertake its own rulemakings on the chemicals.
The 2016 reforms to TSCA allow EPA to propose and finalize TSCA Section 6(a) rules that are consistent with the scope of the completed risk assessment for the chemical substance. "Regrettably, the proposal to ban TCE in vapor degreasing addresses a broader scope of uses than considered in the Work Plan Assessment," Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) says in its May 19 comments.
The work plan assessment included only analysis of exposures in small commercial settings, but the rule "would prohibit use of TCE in all vapor degreasing operations, large or small, as well as its manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce for this use," which are uses that are beyond the scope of the risk assessment, HSIA says. Therefore, the proposed rule does not comply with TSCA, the group says.
'Best Available' Science
HSIA argues that while the TSCA reform legislation, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, adds language to TSCA Sections 6 and 26 requiring that EPA use "the best available science" in conducting its analyses and making regulatory decisions, "EPA proposes to rely on a remarkably sketchy and inadequate assessment in its inaugural rulemaking under TSCA Section 6."
HSIA concludes its arguments by asking that EPA include this analysis in its broader assessment of TCE, underway after the agency announced last December the first 10 existing chemicals whose risks that agency will assess per its new authorities to assess and regulate the risks of existing chemicals under TSCA. Existing chemicals are those that were on the market when the original TSCA was enacted in 1976. Under the original law, these chemicals were largely grandfathered, a concern that critics sought to address in the updates to the statute which former President Barack Obama signed into law last June.
The group makes similar arguments in its comments on methylene chloride and NMP, which EPA has also selected for inclusion in the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk assessment per EPA's new TSCA authorities, and says EPA should wait until that broader analysis is completed before contemplating banning or restricting methylene chloride and NMP.
HSIA also argues that, like TCE, methylene chloride and NMP are already well controlled by existing OSHA, CPSC and EPA rules, and questions the need for the Section 6(a) rule on these two chemicals as well.
HSIA's arguments are echoed and amplified by the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy and the Chemical Users Coalition (CUC), a group of downstream companies that use chemicals to make their products such as Procter & Gamble Co., General Electric Co. and the Boeing Co. This group takes on EPA's decision not to consult with OSHA or CPSC, as specified in TSCA Section 9(a) before proposing TSCA rules on the chemicals.
"The rationale EPA has offered for this decision does not withstand scrutiny," CUC writes in its undated comments on TCE. "EPA should reconsider its decision on this matter, focusing on whether the unreasonable risks identified in the rulemaking 'may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent' by these agencies, in the areas of their jurisdiction and expertise, based on the specific facts in the rulemaking record. EPA should not . . . rely on a set of generic arguments that would essentially dismiss these agencies from ever being appropriate agencies for a Section 9(a) referral under TSCA. Such an approach would effectively write Section 9 out of the statute."
CUC also raises concerns that EPA has not met the standards that TSCA Section 6 requires for risk assessments. The group argues that this flaw is magnified by the rules' position as among the first three bans undertaken since TSCA's reform, saying the TCE rule "presents a precedential issue regarding how the new TSCA Section 6 risk management provisions will be implemented. Specifically, the record supporting this proposed rule indicates EPA has received substantial information questioning whether it is technically and economically feasible to replace TCE with water-based cleaners, EPA's recommended alternatives. In failing to respond adequately to this information, EPA has not addressed its statutory obligations for assessing the feasibility of alternatives."
SBA, too, argues in its April 17 comments that EPA does not meet certain statutory requirements in its Section 6(a) proposals and should withdraw the rules. Like HSIA, the government's small business advocate argues that EPA should instead reconsider the chemicals more broadly through the ongoing, overall assessments.
Environmentalists' Claims
But the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in its May 19 comments urges EPA to continue with the rules, arguing that EPA has presented compelling scientific evidence of the chemicals' human health risks. In the case of the paint-stripping rule, EDF urges EPA to select the most restrictive of the options presented for NMP.
HSIA sought a longer extension of the comment period on the TCE rule from its earlier April deadline in order to re-do its effort to replicate a controversial study known as the Johnson study showing fetal cardiac heart defects after the exposure of pregnant mice to TCE. The trade group learned in March that the contract lab conducting its replication study erred in dosing the lab rats and so invalidated the study, requiring them to repeat it.
But EDF insists that EPA has made a good scientific case for its concerns over TCE exposure, particularly to the very young. "The 2003 Johnson study has been a source of contention in the toxicological evaluations of TCE, given certain limitations. However, it is important to recognize that, while the Johnson study has been used to derive the RfC, it is wholly consistent with the findings of many other studies--including human, animal, and mechanistic studies--that also indicate fetal cardiac effects resulting from TCE exposure."
Further, EDF notes that EPA's risk assessment practice is in accordance with established risk assessment practices, where "the most sensitive health endpoint is used to ensure the most health-protective evaluation of chemical risk."
EDF also defends EPA's decision not to make TSCA Section 9 risk referrals to OSHA or CPSC and instead proceed with the rules. "As elaborated on in EPA's proposed rule, existing federal regulations for TCE do not address the specific serious health risks EPA is seeking to address in the proposed TSCA section 6 rule," EDF writes in its TCE comments.
The group argues that neither OSHA's 1971 permissible exposure limit (PEL) for TCE, nor EPA's existing Clean Air Act rule on haolgenated solvents is sufficient to fully mitigate TCE's risk. The group makes the same arguments for the other two chemicals, and notes that for NMP, "there are no existing federal regulations."
The group argues that Section 9 requires the EPA administrator to determine that another law outside EPA's purview can reduce the risk a chemical poses -- a determination that EPA cannot make in this case. "EPA reasonably determined that the unreasonable risks presented by TCE would not be prevented or reduced to a 'sufficient extent' by action taken under a Federal law administered by another agency. That determination was not only well within EPA's discretion, but on this factual record, a contrary conclusion would not be justified."
EDF also points to the letters that EPA received from OSHA and CPSC on the chemicals, indicating that they were not in a position to address the chemicals' risks in the comprehensive way that EPA could under TSCA.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-argues-epas-draft-tsca-bans-do-not-meet-laws-requirements
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council: Obstructing Formaldehyde Safeguards Then and Now
May 30, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists (blog)
By Genna Reed
The chemical industry has once again staved off federal action that would protect public health, as the EPA announced last week that it would be delaying compliance dates for the long-awaited formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products—standards that were finalized in December 2016. This is the latest move brought to you by an industry with a long history of attacking science and an administration willing to do its bidding.
It’s no surprise that industry employs tactics like manufacturing doubt, attacking scientists, and influencing policymakers in a calculated effort to delay or halt science-based safeguards. Under the Trump administration, we have already seen a host of important policies rooted in strong science rolled back or delayed, including stronger beryllium, silica, ozone, and methane standards, stream protection requirements for mining operations, vehicle fuel economy standards, coal plant wastewater standards, risk management program amendments, and mercury and air toxics standards.
Last week, The New York Times reported on the way in which Administrator Scott Pruitt’s EPA has loosened its regulatory grip on the business community, and especially the oil and gas industry with which Pruitt has longstanding financial ties. The President of the Western Energy Alliance, an association of oil and gas companies, told the NYT, “We are so used to not being able to move an agenda forward that it has been very surprising how quickly things have changed.”
But what does it mean for us when industry moves its agenda forward—especially when that agenda involves stopping the creation of evidence-based limits for chemicals, proven unsafe, that will make their way into our homes or drinking water?Formaldehyde health risks and why emission standards matter Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable chemical widely used in building materials, medicinal and personal care products, and furnishings. Fumes from these products can be harmful to human health, especially when they accumulate indoors at high concentrations. Acute exposure can lead to nausea, headaches, and eye, nose, throat and skin irritation, even asthma exacerbation. Chronic exposure has been linked to cancers in humans, including cancers of the nose and throat, lymphomas, and leukemia. In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that formaldehyde is a human carcinogen, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services listed it is as a known human carcinogen in 2011.
Health impacts have been understood since the 1980s, and yet over thirty years later, there are no federal restrictions on formaldehyde emissions in the home. Without standards in place, public health is at risk. Back in 2005, the cheaply constructed emergency trailers that housed Hurricane Katrina refugees were found to have unsafe levels of formaldehyde, earning them the “toxic trailers” nickname, while inhabitants already dealing with displacement in the midst of an environmental disaster suffered from respiratory problems, burning eyes, and other ailments. Without controls on formaldehyde emissions, these trailers have been resold and some were even used as temporary housing for workers cleaning up the BP oil spill in the gulf in 2010. Wood products used to build and remodel homes across the country can still contain formaldehyde at potentially unsafe levels.Chemical industry continues to sow doubt about established formaldehyde risks
Then…
The trade organization representing chemical companies including the makers of formaldehyde, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), worked to downplay the risks of the chemical and to delay and otherwise thwart the formaldehyde emissions rule as it was first being proposed and finalized by the EPA. The ACC created a website that touts the environmental benefits of formaldehyde, casts doubt on established health studies linking exposure to a range of ailments, and assures consumers that voluntary industry standards were strong enough to protect them. The ACC also persuaded Congress to commission the National Academies of Science to reevaluate EPA science on formaldehyde, resulting in a delay in the process lasting 3 years and reaching the same conclusion that formaldehyde should be listed as “known to be a human carcinogen.”
The ACC even got involved with White House-level review. In 2012, the White House Office of Management and Budget meeting record shows that it had at least five meetings with industry executives, their lobbyists, and ACC-financed lawmakers (like Senator Vitter), asking them to halt the EPA proposal, which apparently worked. After OMB-review, the EPA deleted from its cost-benefit analysis the benefits of reduced health ailments like asthma and fertility issues that a formaldehyde standard would have prevented, dropping the benefits from $278 million to $48 million annually.
Now…
The formaldehyde emissions rule was issued by the EPA in December 2016, and the ACC has continued to deny the science used by the EPA and to lobby the EPA and Congress on the issue. The ACC spent nearly $1.5 million lobbying agencies and Congress on a host of issues in just the first quarter of 2017 (January to March), including on formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, the nomination of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, EPA’s Science Advisory Board, the HONEST Act, the Regulatory Accountability Act, Risk Management Program amendments, and even FY 2018 appropriations for the EPA.
Just this month, a study was issued that was funded by the Foundation for Chemistry Research and Initiatives (FCRI), a nonprofit organization established by the ACC. According to its financial filings the nonprofit works to “address uncertainties and answer questions on health and environmental issues,” taking on projects that “will furnish crucial information, peer-reviewed scientific research, expert panels, and workshops” to inform policy. FCRI granted a total of $425,294 of its revenue (which comes entirely from ACC) to study formaldehyde in 2012 and $425,114 to Environ International Corporation (now Ramboll Environ) and other consulting firms and research institutions to reevaluate formaldehyde data in 2014. Environ International has been called a “hired gun” by former OSHA administrator David Michaels, and the firm has been commissioned by several corporations to contribute to the scientific literature, including notorious tobacco company R.J. Reynolds (now Reynolds American Incorporated Services Company) and the Industrial Health Foundation (a former trade organization for industrial facilities), conducting studies with conclusions that downplayed the risks of menthol cigarettes and hexavalent chromium.
This FCRI issued grants led to several studies that helped to sow uncertainty about the potential of long-term exposure to formaldehyde to cause myeloid leukemia. A 2013 study by Environ authors funded by the FCRI and Momentive Special Chemicals Inc. (now Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.), a formaldehyde-producing chemical company, used FOIA-obtained data to refute findings suggesting a link between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia. Earlier this month, the ACC touted another FCRI-funded study with the headline “new study challenges formaldehyde cancer findings,” after the study built upon its 2013 work and concluded that there was no causal association between formaldehyde and leukemia, of course not mentioning the very clear conflict of interest at hand. The ACC has used this study to urge the EPA not to characterize formaldehyde as linked to leukemia development.
For years now, no matter how strong the scientific consensus around an issue is, the ACC has continuously worked to obscure scientific findings and obstruct policies that are designed to protect public health and safety, all to save chemical companies time and money.Lives depend on science-based protections
For people like Becky Gillette, this rule’s enforcement cannot come soon enough. She told the New York Times, “People think that just because Congress passed the legislation five years ago, the problem has been fixed,” said Becky Gillette, a Mississippi resident affected by Hurricane Katrina who was one of the first people to notice that the FEMA trailers were causing health problems. “Real people’s faces and names come up in front of me when I think of the thousands of people who could get sick if this rule is not done right.”
The EPA’s final formaldehyde emissions rule estimates that 132 million individuals will be living in housing units where composite wood products have been installed within the past 11 years. Considering that population, the implementation of this rule will help prevent 26 to 64 nasopharyngeal cancer cases and 92,218 to 604,155 cases of eye irritation annually. These counts don’t even take into consideration other health ailments and types of cancer. A delay of just three months in implementation could mean the difference between cancer diagnoses and clean bills of health for at least eight Americans with faces and names.
There’s still a chance to tell EPA to leave the compliance dates alone and move forward with the rule. The EPA is accepting comments on its decision until June 8.
For more on the American Chemistry Council’s history of fighting policies that regulate chemicals produced by its member companies (think BPA, silica, and flame retardants), even when scientific evidence points to adverse health or environmental impacts, check out our 2015 report Bad Chemistry: How the Chemical Industry’s Trade Association Undermines the Policies that Protect Us.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Rules Under Attack
May 29, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
In keeping with his campaign promise to reduce regulatory burdens, U.S. President Donald J. Trump ordered federal agencies in late February to ferret out regulations that can be “repealed, replaced, or modified to make them less burdensome.” Trump’s order requires federal agencies to identify rules that, at a minimum, “eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; or impose costs that exceed benefits.”
The Environmental Protection Agency is . . .
.... The North American industry has complied with the rule for many years, they noted. The American ChemistryCouncil’s formaldehyde panel, which represents chemical manufacturers, claims that for wood products “there is no alternative that can provide a better combination of technical performance and economic value than formaldehyde-based resins.” Asbestos in schools, chlorine production EPA asked the public for feedback on whether any regulations have achieved their o...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. For full story:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i22/Environmental-rules-under-attack.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
(ACC Mentioned) EU Struggles To Define What Constitutes An Endocrine Disruptor
May 29, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Paula Dupraz-Dobias
Nearly a year after the European Commission (EC) proposed criteria to define endocrine disruptors, experts say talks aimed at ultimately banning toxic chemical substances continue to be bogged down by a mix of politics and science...
... Horel claims that the European Chemical Industry Council and the European Crop Protection Association sponsored a 2016 EC impact assessment that invalidated a World Health Organization/United Nations Environment Programme scientific report on the health effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Joining the European groups were the American Chemistry Council, which is an association of U.S. chemical makers, and the pesticide makers’ organizations CropLife America, CropLife Canada, and CropLife International, Horel asserts...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. For full story:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i22/EU-struggles-define-constitutes-endocrine.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Magnetek PCB Coverage Dispute Belongs in State Court
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A state trial court will decide whether technology company Magnetek is owed insurance coverage for PCB claims it took on under an agreement with the former Monsanto Co., the Northern District if Illinois ruled (Velsicol Chem. LLC v. Magnetek, Inc., 2017 BL 178009, N.D. Ill., 17 C 2092, 5/26/17).
The case doesn't belong in federal court under a theory the parties are from different states because one of the plaintiffs—Velsicol Chem.— is a “citizen” of the same state as Magnetek, the court said.
Magnetek failed to convince the court Velsicol was only added to keep the case in state court.
After successors and affiliates of the former Monsanto Co. asked Magnetek to indemnify them under an old agreement, Magnetek sought insurance coverage from Transportation Insurance Co. over polychlorinated biphenyl contamination.
PCBs were used in electrical equipment until they were banned in the 1970s as harmful to humans and the environment.
Has an Interest
TIC tendered the claim to Velsicol under a separate indemnification agreement.
Velsicol and TIC filed suit in state court, seeking a ruling that they owe no coverage to Magnetek.
Magnetek transferred the case to federal court, claiming Velsicol was improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction.
Magnetek argued that Velsicol lacks standing because it doesn't owe coverage to Magnetek.
The court found Velsicol has an interest in the action because Velsicol will be impacted if TIC is found liable.
Magnetek manufactures digital power and motion control systems for material handling, elevators, mobile hydraulics and mining.
Judge John Z. Lee issued the ruling.
Much Shelist, P.C. in Chicago, represents Velsicol and Transportation Insurance Co.
Phillips Lytle LLP in New York, NY represents Magnetek.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113064763&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113064763&jd=113064763
-
EPA Won't Have to Disclose How Power Plants Handle Wastewater
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Power plants won't have to disclose how they remove pollutants from wastewater and how much they remove, what it costs them, and what equipment they use, a federal court affirmed.
The Environmental Protection Agency was within its right to bar the release of confidential business information about how power plants handle wastewater discharges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled May 30, affirming a lower court (Env'tl. Integrity Project v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-5109, 5/30/17).
The three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit had been asked to decide whether a Freedom of Information Act provision barring the confidential business information disclosure is superseded by a vague Clean Water Act provision requiring its release.
The panel agreed with the EPA and dismissed the arguments made by Earthjustice attorney Thomas Cmar that Section 308 of the Clean Water Act doesn't supersede Exemption 4 of FOIA, which forbids public disclosure of data that is deemed a “trade secret.”
Earthjustice represented the Environmental Integrity Project, which sought the data to understand how the EPA used it to write final power plant effluent limitation guidelines (RIN:2040-AF14). The EPA is now reconsidering those effluent limits as part of the Trump administration's effort to review regulations and revise or kill those deemed to impede economic growth. The EPA obtained the power plant data from a 2010 survey of 733 steam-driven power plants.
“If Congress had wanted Section 308 to supersede Exemption 4, Congress could have drafted express language to that effect, as it has in other statutes,” the appellate judges wrote, affirming the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Section 308(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that information the agency obtains to help in developing new effluent limitations “shall be available to the public” unless disclosure of the information “would divulge methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets.”
In contrast, Exemption 4 under FOIA protects “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.”
Cmar, of Earthjustice, said the groups were disappointed with the decision and are still evaluating whether to pursue this case further. In this instance, it would mean asking the full court to reconsider the panel's decision.
“We continue to believe that EPA did not have a valid basis to withhold the information about power plant wastewater treatment that we have been seeking in this case,” Cmar told Bloomberg BNA in a May 30 email.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113064761&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113064761&jd=113064761
-
EPA May Soon Seek Inter-Agency Review For CPP Repeal
May 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA says it may soon seek interagency review for a “proposed regulatory action” that is expected to repeal the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan (CPP), moving the agency one step closer to complying with requirements in President Donald Trump's energy independence order to review and “if appropriate” rescind or revise the rule.
“EPA continues to review the Rule, as required by the Executive Order, and may be prepared to begin the interagency review process of a resulting proposed regulatory action in the near future. We will update the Court as EPA takes further steps,” the agency said in a May 30 status report to a federal appellate court on the rule's review.
While the status report is not specific about the details of any forthcoming proposal, the language largely confirms reports that EPA is close to floating a draft rule to repeal the CPP, which sought to regulate greenhouse gases from existing power plants.
An administration official told E&E News May 25 that EPA officials could soon submit to the White House Office of Management & Budget a draft proposed rule that provides a legal justification for rolling back the CPP, accompanied by draft economic analysis.
But it is still unclear whether EPA will pursue a replacement of the CPP or simply repeal the measure. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in May 24 remarks to an energy and environment forum hosted by Faegre Baker Daniels hedged on the issue, indicating he has not yet decided on how to proceed and whether the agency would issue a substitute.
“I think that that is yet to be determined,” he said, noting that he is planning to review EPA's Clean Air Act authority.
EPA's status report also reiterates it believes litigation over the CPP, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA et al., should be held in abeyance while the agency reviews the rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in an April 28 order temporarily paused the lawsuit, as well as a suit over EPA's power plant GHG rule for new sources, though the court has not yet determined whether to rule on the merits, remand the rule to EPA or hold the legal dispute over the regulation in abeyance.
The issue is complicated because if the court remands the rule to EPA, it would have the effect of lifting the Supreme Court's stay, requiring the agency to take additional steps to delay its implementation.
EPA also submitted a nearly identical status report on its review of the power plant new source performance standards (NSPS), though that report omitted the language about a potential proposed regulatory action -- suggesting the agency is not as close to taking action on that regulation.
“At this time, EPA continues to review the 111(b) Rule, as required under the Executive Order. EPA will update the Court as it takes further steps,” the agency writes. It also underscores it believes litigation over the NSPS rule, North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al., should be put on hold pending conclusion of EPA's review of the rule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-may-soon-seek-inter-agency-review-cpp-repeal
-
EPA Appeals Deadlines for Toxic Air Pollution Reviews
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency wants more time to evaluate 13 air pollution standards that are overdue for review and is appealing the deadlines set by a federal judge (Blue Ridge Envtl. Def. League v. Pruitt, D.C. Cir., No. 17-5124, 5/30/17).
The EPA faces a Dec. 31, 2018, deadline to complete the review for seven standards for hazardous air pollutants with the remainder to be completed by June 30, 2020. The Clean Air Act requires the agency to periodically review its toxic air pollution standards to determine whether any residual risks remain that must be addressed, but the agency missed the deadlines for those evaluations, drawing lawsuits from environmental groups.
The deadlines set by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in March did not allow the EPA enough time to complete the required reviews, the agency had said, citing inadequate staffing. The EPA is now appealing the case in which the deadlines were set to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113064760&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113064760&jd=113064760
-
Barrasso Agenda Heavy on Public Works, Light on Environment
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
In the weeks ahead the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hopes to be deeply enmeshed in the Trump administration's vision of a $1 trillion upgrade to U.S. infrastructure—and there will be plenty of reason for its chairman to boast that the panel is meeting its responsibilities on public works.
But on the environment? Not so much.
Republicans now firmly in control of Congress and the White House do have an environmental agenda of sorts, but it's one focused mostly on rolling back regulations rather than strengthening environmental protections. The committee's new chairman, Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, has often led the Senate campaign to rescind Obama-era environmental and other rules under the Congressional Review Act, which allows the Senate to vote down regulations with a simple majority vote.
But since taking the gavel from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) in January, Barrasso has made clear that his top priority is moving President Donald Trump's infrastructure package—or moving the chairman's own plan if the president doesn't pick up the pace—while his panel lays the groundwork for a Republican environmental agenda that includes delaying an update of EPA ozone limits and revamping the Endangered Species Act.
The Wyoming Republican for now sees the infrastructure package as his best hope for making a lasting impression as chairman. Asked about his priorities, Barrasso was succinct: “We have infrastructure. After that, we'll see,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
But the environment committee has little if anything on its agenda to strengthen environmental protections and is silent on climate change—even Barrasso's predecessor Inhofe held hearings to debate climate science. Environmental advocates and climate scientists said that is a glaring omission given the global environmental challenge that is climate change.
The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), said committee Republicans can't be expected to make climate change a priority if they don't believe in it.
“The 800-pound gorilla, in terms of environmental issues, is climate change,” Carper told Bloomberg BNA. “But we have leadership on our committee with John Barrasso, and before that Jim Inhofe, [and] they don't believe in the science.”
Climate change “is the most important environmental issue that we face, maybe of our lifetime,” Carper said.
Last year was the hottest year on record and 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Committee Republicans in recent days have in a sense taken up the climate issue, though it's not exactly what environmental groups had in mind.
Twenty Senate Republicans sent a May 25 letter to Trump, urging U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the global climate pact reached by nearly 200 nations in December 2015. Six were environment committee Republicans: Barrasso and Inhofe and Sens. John Boozman (Ark.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), and Mike Rounds (S.D.).
Republicans Ready Different Priorities
Some Republicans don't necessarily see the need to offer environmental legislation just because they sit on the committee. Take EPW's newest member: Alabama's Shelby, who joined the committee in February and is focused mostly on the public works half of the committee's name.
“My priority for EPW would be a very good infrastructure bill for the country—you know, a lot of it would come out of that committee,” Shelby told Bloomberg BNA. “We have to figure out how it would work and the administration should lead on that,” he said, adding that the committee will have a say in how it's paid for.
But asked what environmental bills he'd like to move, Shelby said he had none. “Well, I don't have any of that,” he said, adding that the committee needs to remain “cognizant” of environmental issues.
Environment committee majority aides were quick to dispute the notion that the Republican legislative menu leans toward lighter fare or that it has a modest workload beyond preparing for an actual legislative proposal on infrastructure.
“On the contrary, under Chairman Barrasso's leadership, the committee is off to a fast start,” Mike Danylak, the committee's majority spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
Modest Progress on Confirmations
Republican committee aides said Barrasso has kept his committee plenty busy in its first five months with multiple hearings on infrastructure, as well as on environmental issues ranging from endangered species and conservation to revamping the EPA's air pollution limits for ozone.
Danylak highlighted two Barrasso-authored bills that the committee approved this year with backing from Democrats: the WILD Act (S. 826) to provide prize competitions to prevent wildlife poaching and trafficking; and Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (S. 512), which sets out licensing for new reactors and addresses transparency concerns at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Three others have been passed by voice vote: the Small and Rural Community Clean Water Technical Assistance Act (S. 518); Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act (S. 692); and Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act (S. 675).
But beyond moving EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to confirmation in February, the committee hasn't spent much time considering EPA nominations, because there haven't been many.Trump has only one EPA nominee—Susan Bodine, to head EPA enforcement—pending before the environment panel even though there are multiple agency positions requiring Senate confirmation. Dean Scott
No hearing has been scheduled for Bodine, who has served as chief majority counsel for the environmental committee, but Barrasso is “committed to moving nominations quickly,” Danylak said.
There is grumbling among some committee Republicans that committee Democrats may be slowing that nomination, but Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who sits on the committee, denied the suggestion. “There's certainly not a specific organized plan” to do so, he told Bloomberg BNA.
Environmental Groups Disheartened
Barrasso is not exactly drawing rave reviews from environmental groups, which complain the new chairman rushed Pruitt's confirmation to head the EPA and see the Wyoming Republican as hostile to climate action and environmental protections. For their part, Barrasso and many Republicans accused Democrats of slow walking the Pruitt vote over lingering resentment over Trump's election.
“I think the public should be extremely concerned that Senator Barrasso is trying to take the committee in a very dangerous direction, favoring polluter profits at the expense of public health at every step of the way,” Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president of government affairs, told Bloomberg BNA. “The one bright spot,” she said, has been Carper's willingness to do battle as the panel's ranking minority.
To have the committee ignore the climate issue is particularly disheartening for climate action advocates, according to Anna Aurilio, director of Environment America's Washington D.C., office.
“What should an environment committee be doing in the Senate when 2016 was the hottest year on record and beating 2015 the year before that?” she told Bloomberg BNA. “And there are drinking water quality problems around the country, not just in Flint, Mich. I would think this is the committee that would work on tackling these problems and moving us forward, but the only thing I have seen on this committee's agenda this year is to roll back progress.”
Barrasso's criticisms of the EPA go well beyond what he views as regulatory overreach by the Obama administration, telling colleagues on the Senate floor April 4 that Obama's environmental agenda “has harmed families and the American economy, not by accident but intentionally.”
The chairman blames the agency for what he labeled “two of the biggest environmental scandals we have seen in a long time”—lead contamination of the Flint, Mich., water supply and the 2015 Gold King Mine disaster in Colorado, where an EPA contractor was blamed for discharging 3 million gallons of mine wastewater upstream from the San Juan River.
Microcosm of a Polarized Senate
There is little dispute that Republicans and Democrats have moved increasingly apart in recent decades, and that is particularly obvious in the environment committee. During the Bush administration, the panel included Republican backers of climate legislation including former Virginia Sen. John Warner and Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords.
Jeffords famously abandoned the Republican Party in 2001, handing Senate control over to Democrats. Moderate Democrats on the environment committee such as former Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.) today are just as rare.
“We have the most conservative of Republicans and most liberal of the Democrats,” Inhofe, who preceded Barrasso as the committee's chairman, told Bloomberg BNA.
Inhofe fell short in his effort to move a significant environmental package—a Bush administration-backed bill to revamp Clean Air Act regulation of power plants known as the Clear Skies bill. The bill went down to defeat in 2005 when Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and Jeffords—the former Republican turned Independent—voted no.
Inhofe said it's unclear whether his successor will try to take on a similar multiyear effort to broadly rewrite environmental law, but attributed that to more of a difference in style than ideology.
“Our styles are different. My tendency has always been to start on something and finish it before I start something else,” the former chairman said.
‘Must-Pass’ Vehicles Eyed
Committee Republicans such as Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (W. Va.) have environmental legislation ready to move—her air pollution bill (S. 263) would delay implementation of the EPA's 2015 ozone standards to 2025.
Her challenge is one faced by any committee Republican pushing legislation deemed as anti-environment by Democrats: The majority party likely has the votes to force Capito's bill through committee but not the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster threat on the floor, given Republicans’ slim 52–48 majority.
“Compromise would be a tough one,” Capito told Bloomberg BNA after a May 23 hearing on her bill in the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety.
Rather than seek compromise with Democrats, Capito said she'd try to get the measure wrapped into must-pass legislation—such as the next spending measure needed to keep the government open after the current omnibus funding measure expires Sept. 30. That approach is perhaps the only playbook for Republicans who want to move other sweeping legislation targeting environmental protections.
Some Signs of Compromise
Many Democrats on the committee see room for compromise on at least some issues.
Carper, known for striking deals with Republicans on issues such as reducing environmental permitting burdens, harkened back to what Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi once referred to as the “80-20” rule.
Enzi acknowledged he wouldn't always agree with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) when they were the senior Republican and Democrat on the Health, Education and Labor Committee, Carper said. Enzi would say “we focus on the 80 percent where we agree—and set aside the other 20 percent for another day,” Carper said.
“Now I don't know that Sen. John Barrasso and I agree on 80 percent of this stuff, but there are things that we agree on,” Carper said.
Carper said compromise is possible as long as policies meant to foster economic growth don't come at the expense of environmental protection. “As long as we can hold that sort of as our true north, we'll be able to work on some things,” he said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said there have been glimmers of compromise on the conservation prize legislation and there's room for bipartisan oversight of Trump administration implementation of a 2016 law that revamped the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is among the committee Democrats who are optimistic about the prospect of finding common ground with Republican members on nuclear power but also to advance Trump administration nominations.
“There's a lot of goodwill on both sides,” Booker told Bloomberg BNA. “And look, we're never going to agree on climate change and the like. But as far as getting the work of the committee done on things that may not make that national headline but are actually really important for the country—I have found a lot of great partnerships at EPW.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113064746&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113064746&jd=113064746
-
World Carbon Price Seen Needing to Increase Sevenfold by 2020
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
Carbon prices need to jump sevenfold by 2020 from current rates in the world's biggest market to meet climate goals cost-effectively, according to a commission of economists and scientists.
A price of about $40 a ton along with adoption of other policies that encourage emission cuts would achieve targets in the 2015 climate deal agreed in Paris, according to a report published May 29 by a commission of economists and scientists. Under the Paris agreement, almost 200 countries will try to limit the global temperature increase to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
Costs from the higher carbon prices would not hurt ordinary consumers much, said Joseph Stiglitz from Columbia University, who led the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices with fellow economist Nicholas Stern.
“Businesses are already using prices in the range that we're talking about,” Stiglitz said on a call with reporters.
New carbon prices in seven jurisdictions including China and South Africa will take the portion of global emissions covered to more than 20 percent in 2017, the World Bank said last week in a separate report. In Europe, which has the world's biggest greenhouse-gas market, lawmakers are meeting May 30 to deal with an accumulated glut that's driven down prices by more than four-fifths in the past decade.
The commission concluded that a $40 to $80 a ton range in 2020, rising to $50 to $100 a ton by 2030, would be consistent with the Paris target.
From the report:
• “Carbon pricing makes sense in all countries, but low-income countries, which may be more challenged to protect the people vulnerable to the initial economic impacts, may decide to start pricing carbon at a lower level and gradually increase over time”: commission member Harald Winkler of the University of Cape Town, South Africa
• Commission analyzed national emissions and development pathways, technological road maps and global economic models to reach its conclusions
• Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies would mean lower carbon prices are needed
• “A well-designed carbon price is an indispensable part of a strategy for efficiently reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also fostering growth.”
• Report was put together starting last year by The Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, a voluntary partnership of national and sub-national governments, businesses, and civil society organizations that agree to advance carbon pricing through the global economy. It's housed in the Washington-based World Bank Group.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113064762&vname=dennotallissues&fn=11
-
Climate ‘Danger Zone’ Seen If Trump Pulls U.S. Out of Paris Deal
May 31, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
Donald Trump wasn't exaggerating when he said during his election campaign that the U.S. could “cancel” the Paris Accord on climate change.
A decision due from the president this week on whether to pull the U.S. out of the deal involving almost 200 nations could have a domino effect on the participation of other countries in limiting fossil-fuel pollution, making it almost impossible and extremely expensive to stop catastrophic climate change.
That's the conclusion of researchers and scientists evaluating the impact of Trump on the health of the climate. While forecasting the state of the environment more than 80 years into the future is a notoriously inexact exercise, academics gathered by the the United Nations at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are concerned the world is headed for “extensive” species extinctions, serious crop damage and irreversible increases in sea levels even before Trump started to unpick the fight against global warming.
“Four years of the Trump administration may have only modest consequences, but eight years of bad policy would probably wreck the world's chances of keeping warming below the international target of 2 degrees Celsius,” Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, said by email. “The odds of our avoiding the climate-danger zone would fade to zero.”
While a 2-degree shift wouldn't be noticeable during the course of a day, it would represent a historic change for the Earth as a whole that's faster than any change in the climate since the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago. The scenarios that scientists are looking at depend on measurements of air and water temperatures taken at hundreds of sites around the world, as well as complex models about how trends will evolve in the coming decades.
Trump's move would clearly make the outlook worse, according to Climate Interactive, a team of modelers backed by institutions such as MIT Sloan School of Management and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. They estimate that the world would warm by 3.6 degrees Celsius (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 when compared with pre-industrial levels if Trump quits Paris, more than the 3.3-degree baseline scenario.
As the world's second-biggest polluter after China, a move by the U.S. to scrap the accord involving almost 200 nations would pour hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and speed up the warming trend already taking place. It also would threaten a $100 billion-a-year stream of funds that industrial nations have pledged to persuade developing nations to cut back their own emissions, endangering the political foundations of the global fight against climate change.
“The loss of U.S. finance would be the biggest headache, and of course the symbolism is not good,” said Michael Grubb, a professor at University College London who has advised the European Union on climate policy.
The Paris Agreement sealed in 2015 brought together the U.S. and European Union with big developing nations from China to India to Brazil in pledging limits on fossil-fuel pollution and funds to help poorer countries adapt to climate change.
Longer term, the impact of a U.S. withdrawl depends on how other countries and investors respond. Trump, who for months has delayed a decision on the climate agreement, told his almost 31 million Twitter followers to expect his verdict this week, and the signs are pointing toward a withdrawal.
G-7 Statement
In an unprecedented step, the U.S. broke from the other six nations May 27 in a joint statement issued at the Group of 7 summit, saying America is reviewing its policy. The political news website Axios reported that he'd told confidants he plans to pull the U.S. out of the deal.
“The big question is whether a U.S. withdrawal would lead to U.S. investors and utilities actually starting to build new plants that commit to high future emissions,” Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford's Environmental Change Institute, said by phone.
So far, no other country, not even China or India, has said they'd follow the U.S. in pulling out of Paris. Instead, it's catalyzed support for the deal.
The key variables are what policies Trump enacts and how long they remain in force. The targets agreed on global warming through the UN are for 2100, and shifts in the energy industry take decades to play out. U.S. inaction on greenhouse gases may eventually discourage other countries from continuing their own efforts to cut back, said Oppenheimer at Princeton.
The Paris agreement was designed in such a way that legally, no other country's action would be impacted by a withdrawal. Paris effectively sets up the reporting framework and the temperature goals, but each country's individual target is voluntary.
In reality, an eight-year delay on climate action would be accompanied by cuts to renewable energy research that could, in turn, harm emissions reductions rates. Those policies may encourage the use of polluting fuels such as coal.
All told, each of these changes could add a total of 350 billion to 450 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, if the rest of the world followed Trump, according to climate modelers, Ben Sanderson of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and Reto Knutti of ETH, Zurich. The chances of meeting the UN target of staying well below 2 degrees of warming would drop to about 10 percent, from two-thirds now, they say.
“Delay is the worst enemy for any climate target and can only be made worse by cutting research and energy technologies that would be crucial to get back on track again for target,” they wrote in the journal Nature earlier this year.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113064759&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113064759&jd=113064759
-
Trump And Pruitt Meet As Decision Looms
May 31, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with President Trump today, ahead of a decision on how to approach the Paris climate accord.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters the decision is one Trump "has spent a great deal of time on" and spoke about with Group of Seven members during his recent overseas trip.
"Ultimately, he wants a fair deal for the American people, and he will have an announcement coming on that shortly," Spicer said.
Trump offered no final decision on whether the United States would withdraw from the international pact in his conversations with foreign leaders over the course of the nine-day trip. European leaders and environmental groups had hoped Trump would be convinced by allies.
Pruitt is among the voices in the administration arguing for an exit, but others have advocated staying in the agreement in an attempt to modify its terms. Pruitt recently called the agreement a "bumper sticker" for the Obama administration and said it was "mostly talk and little action" (E&E News PM, May 24).
Spicer was asked today whether Trump believes human activity is contributing to the warming of the planet.
"Honestly, I haven't asked him," Spicer said. "I can get back to you on that."U.N. chief urges climate action
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres today declared implementation of the deal forged in Paris "absolutely essential" and called for increased ambition from the nearly 200 participating countries, according to prepared remarks of a speech.
"The sustainability train has left the station," Guterres said. "Get on board or get left behind."
Addressing a crowd of students, business leaders and academics at the New York University Stern School of Business, Guterres described the increasing risks posed by climbing temperatures and spoke about the potential for climate action to create jobs. He noted that corporations, including major oil and gas companies, are taking their own action.
"Those who fail to bet on the green economy will be living in a gray future," he said. "Those who embrace green technologies will set the gold standard for economic leadership in the 21st century."
Guterres laid out a five-point action plan that included stepping up political engagement on climate and mobilizing more funds for adaptation and resilience.
Guterres intends to convene a climate summit in 2019, and he's already been outspoken about the need for global action.
Earlier this year, in the first daylong climate event since the former Portuguese prime minister took the top U.N. job, Guterres hosted a panel of national leaders on climate. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) was invited to represent the United States (Climatewire, March 23).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/30/stories/1060055307
-
Trump’s Climate Conundrum Nears A Verdict
May 30, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Donald Trump’s advisers have sent wildly different messages to U.S. allies about the president’s willingness to remain in the Paris climate agreement — adding to the confusion as he appears set to render a verdict this week.
Shortly before the G-7 summit in Italy last week, U.S. officials had private conversations with foreign diplomats that seemed to suggest Trump was open to staying in the landmark 2015 pact, two people briefed on the discussions told POLITICO. But then, to their frustration, the U.S. backed away, instead becoming the lone holdout from a declaration expressing “strong commitment" to the agreement.
The administration’s public statements have been no less mixed. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, who supports staying in the agreement, told reporters last week that Trump’s "views are evolving." But allies of EPA chief Scott Pruitt, who wants the U.S. to leave, made it known that Trump privately agrees with them. Administration officials on both sides of the issue are increasingly convinced that he will withdraw, though they stressed late Tuesday that the decision is not yet final.
For all the mystery, though, Trump has only a few main options for dealing with the non-binding climate deal, one of former President Barack Obama’s proudest diplomatic achievements.
He can stick with the deal, while unwinding most of Obama’s climate policies and pledges for reducing greenhouse gas pollution. He can use the threat of leaving to push other countries for concessions that benefit U.S. fossil fuels. He can even try to renegotiate the agreement — highly implausible, given that nearly 200 governments took part in crafting it.
Or he can do nothing.
This is POLITICO’s breakdown of the possibilities:
Withdraw
Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to "cancel" the Paris agreement, portraying it as a threat to U.S. jobs and energy production, and conservatives are convinced he’ll make good on that promise.
Pruitt and White House chief strategist Steve Bannon have emerged in recent months as the administration’s biggest opponents of the Paris agreement, and both men have made their case for withdrawal directly to Trump.
Pruitt and Trump discussed the issue again on Tuesday, a possible indication that he’s preparing to withdraw. Sources confirmed that Trump indicated in recent conversations with Pruitt that he was leaning toward pulling out of the agreement, as Axios reported last weekend.
But the climate discussions at the G-7, paired with a lobbying campaign from Pope Francis and other leaders, could have changed Trump’s mind. Other U.S. officials were convinced as recently as last week that Trump would remain in Paris.
Others are just uncertain. "I’ve stopped trying to figure it out," said one longtime climate negotiator.
A withdrawal would strain U.S. relations with countries in Europe and elsewhere, and it could destabilize the foundation of the Paris deal. Such considerations have helped persuade even Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to support staying — as well as GOP lawmakers like North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer, an energy adviser to the the president.
If Trump decides to pull out, though, the text of the deal would prevent a U.S. exit from formally taking effect until at least Nov. 4, 2020 — a little over two months before the end of his first term. But Trump's public disavowal of the pact would certainly have an immediate impact on the global effort to tackle climate change.
In addition, Trump would have one speedier option for pulling out: He could withdraw the U.S. from the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the treaty that undergirds the entire regime of international climate negotiations. According to the Paris text: "Any party that withdraws from the convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this agreement."
Remain, but win concessions
Administration officials who support remaining in the agreement have been working for months to try to flesh out a middle ground.
One option that has won support from some the White House aides: weakening Obama’s pledges for cutting U.S. carbon emissions, and persuading world leaders to offer greater support for technologies to reduce pollution from fossil fuels like coal.
The first part is entirely within Trump’s power: Obama’s pledges were nonbinding, and the current administration would be free to substitute its own, less-ambitious promises if it chooses to — even as Trump seeks to undo Obama’s domestic climate regulations and slash EPA’s budget. Winning concessions from other countries would require some high-stakes dealmaking, however.
Before the summit in Italy, U.S. officials discussed those options with representatives from other G-7 countries, in conversations that gave diplomats hope that the Trump was open to staying in the agreement if he could be reassured the U.S. has flexibility, according to two people briefed on the issue. But the U.S. ultimately backed away from pro-Paris language in the G-7’s closing joint communique, breaking with the six other countries that participated in the meeting.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry attempted a similar gambit during an April meeting of G-7 energy ministers in April. But the other countries rebuffed his attempt to place stronger pro-coal, pro-nuclear language into a proposed joint statement on energy policy, which wound up being scuttled.
If Trump decides to remain in the agreement, he’d probably cast the decision as a sign of his dealmaking prowess, and a wholesale repudiation of Obama’s climate pledge.
But it comes with political risks: Conservative groups would probably bash Trump if he decides to stay in the Paris deal, even if many people who voted for him probably don’t view the issue as a top priority.
Renegotiate the agreement — but that’s unlikely
Some in Trump’s orbit have urged the president to renegotiate the agreement, an option that is seen as all but impossible among international climate negotiators.
The 2015 Paris talks were the culmination of years of preparations, and it’s unlikely that Trump could convince negotiators from nearly 200 nations to reopen the underlying text.
Some closely tracking the issue suspect that "renegotiate" is just shorthand for ensuring that the U.S. gets a better deal in future discussions arising from Paris. That could be accomplished through bilateral and multilateral negotiations with individual countries, or by influencing the discussions at subsequent climate conferences over how to implement the agreement.
Do nothing
Trump could also delay a decision for months or even years, avoiding the political fallout of withdrawing or remaining.
Instead of issuing a firm verdict this week, the president could announce he’ll tentatively remain in the agreement, but continue to review his options and reserve the right to withdraw at a future date.
Some who follow the issue think that could be his most politically savvy option.
"What good does it do to announce your intention to leave 2½ years early?" asked one longtime climate negotiator. "You’ve given up all your leverage."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/trumps-climate-conundrum-nears-a-verdict-157472
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