Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 7/06
-
TSCA Risk Evaluation Final Rule Submitted to OMB
Jun 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted its final rule on risk evaluation under the new TSCA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. -
Preparing for the Inventory Reset: It Is Not That Easy
| The National Law Review
By Bergeson & Campbell, P.C
With the recent release of the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) dataset and the initial interim list of active substances released with the February 2017 copy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory (Inventory), the magnitude of effort that will be needed... -
(ACC Mentioned) Foam Ban Narrowly Fails in California Senate
Jun 7, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
A statewide ban on expanded polystyrene food-service products was rejected in the California Senate last week, falling only a handful of votes short of passing. -
9th Circuit Ruling Could Slow EPA Nanomaterial Conditional Registrations
Jun 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and industry sources agree that an appellate court's striking down EPA's conditional registration of a pesticide containing nanosilver could slow future registrations, as it raises the bar for granting such approvals and could also prompt the agency to revisit prior policy... -
No Higher Incidence of Cancer in Village with Tainted Water
Jun 7, 2017 | Associated Press (In The Wall Street Journal)
No higher incidences of certain types of cancer linked to the toxic chemical PFOA were found in an upstate New York village whose water supplies were contaminated by the chemical, state health officials said in a report released Wednesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Opponents of Nevada’s Anti-Fracking Bill Say It Will Hurt Education in State
Jun 7, 2017 | Watchdog.org
By Michael Carroll
A proposal to ban fracking in Nevada has been panned as politically driven and shortsighted economically, but the bill’s sponsor says it will protect residents’ health and cap risks to sparse groundwater supplies. -
Committee Sends 11 Bills to House Floor
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced 11 energy-related bills this morning with unanimous suppor -
Would-Be No. 2 Vague on Energy Ahead of Senate Confirmation
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
President Trump's pick to lead the Interior Department's daily operations has committed to reviewing the agency's oil and gas programs but offered few details on actions he would take to change the way energy is developed on federal land -
After Successful Test Well, Halcon Options More Permian Delaware Acreage
Jun 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Halcon Resources Corp. said it will exercise an option to acquire more than 6,000 net acres in West Texas within the Permian Basin’s Delaware sub-basin and drill at least two wells in the near future, after determining that its first operated well in the play was a success. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt's Quick Strike on Ozone Roils Greens, Delights GOP
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Earlier this year, Scott Pruitt had little to say about U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standard during his Senate confirmation process for becoming the agency's administrator. -
States Take Lead on Climate Amid Swirling Legal Questions
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of states determined to act aggressively to combat climate change despite President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement has drawn a side-eye from legal scholars who say the group risks treading on federal turf. -
The Mayors of Pittsburgh and Paris: We Have Our Own Climate Deal
Jun 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Anne Hidalgo & William Peduto
Last week, President Donald Trump tried to pit our two cities against each other when he announced, in pulling out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” As the mayors of Pittsburgh and Paris, we’re here to say that we’re more united than ever. -
Ditching Paris had Nothing to do with Science
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Ever since U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt helped orchestrate the United States' withdrawal from an international climate accord backed by decades of scientific research, he has spent days deflecting dozens of questions about science. -
Paris Climate Agreement Was a Bad Economic Deal
Jun 7, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lamar Smith
President Trump recently made good on a campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. I support his decision. -
Business Must Lobby Congress in Order to Get Action on Climate Change
Jun 7, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sheldon Whitehouse
President Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change — a decision that may be one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation’s history.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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
-
TSCA Risk Evaluation Final Rule Submitted to OMB
Jun 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has submitted its final rule on risk evaluation under the new TSCA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
The rulemaking on the procedures for evaluating existing chemical risks is one of three ‘framework’ TSCA rules that the Lautenberg Act directs the agency to finalise by 22 June – one year after the law’s passage.
The OMB reviews drafts of proposed and final regulations under several statutory and executive order authorities. The final prioritisation rule was submitted to it late last month, but the ‘inventory reset’ rule has yet to be posted as pending review.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56683/tsca-risk-evaluation-final-rule-submitted-to-omb
-
Preparing for the Inventory Reset: It Is Not That Easy
| The National Law Review
By Bergeson & Campbell, P.C
With the recent release of the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) dataset and the initial interim list of active substances released with the February 2017 copy of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory (Inventory), the magnitude of effort that will be needed for the Section 8(b)(4) Inventory Reset is becoming clear. Stakeholders should waste no time in preparing to meet their obligations.Non-confidential Portion of the Inventory
We reviewed the substances listed as ACTIVE in the February 2017 Inventory dataset. As you know, this list was based on the substances that were reported under the 2012 CDR. Of the 67,748 substances on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory, 7,291 are listed as active (10.7%). Of the remaining non-active substances, 18,637 (30.8%) are exempt from CDR reporting (mostly polymers).
In the 2016 CDR dataset, submitters reported 7,949 non-confidential substances. Of those, 1,511 were not listed as active on the February 2017 interim active list. As in years past, some submitters reported substances that are exempt from CDR reporting. In 2016, 200 substances (again mostly polymers) that are flagged as exempt from CDR reporting were reported; 135 of those were already listed as active on the February interim active list.
In the proposed reset rule on active-inactive notification, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed including both 2012 and 2016 CDR reporting as sources for active status for the interim active list. Combining these brings the total of active substances on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory up to 8,802 non-confidential substances. This is still a very small proportion (13%) of the 67,748 substances listed on the non-confidential portion of the Inventory as of February.Confidential Portion of the Inventory
Of the 17,758 substances on the confidential portion of the Inventory in February 2017, only 472 (2.7%) were listed as active. This percentage is quite small, but note that 11,025 (62.1%) of all the chemicals listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory are flagged as exempt from CDR reporting.
In the 2016 CDR dataset, submitters reported that 718 confidential substances were manufactured or imported. Of those, 350 were not listed as active on the February interim active list.
The vast majority (17,286 or 97.3%) of the substances listed on the confidential portion of the Inventory are not included on the interim active list. If EPA decides to identify as active those substances that were commenced during the look-back period, this total will decrease substantially. At least 12,790 (72.0%) of the substances with confidential identities could be added to the interim active list because they were the subject of premanufacture notifications (PMN) in Fiscal Year 2006 or later and, therefore, must have been commenced during the look-back period to appear on the Inventory. This would bring the total of interim active substances up to 13,612, which would represent 76.7% of the substances on the confidential portion of the Inventory.
In any event, this analysis suggests the confidential portion of the Inventory presents a number of challenges to submitters:
Substantiating confidentiality claims;
Ensuring that confidential substances have appropriate generic names; and
Ensuring that confidential substances from suppliers are properly identified as active so that supply is not interrupted.
Even if EPA adds the many recent PMN substances to the interim active list, if any substances were claimed as confidential business information (CBI) prior to the updated substantiation requirements, EPA will have to require re-substantiation and descriptive generic names.Commentary and Points to Consider
In all, of the 85,506 substances listed on the Inventory, there should be at least 9,080 substances (10.6%) listed as active when EPA publishes the updated interim active list considering both the 2012 and 2016 CDR reporting. This number would increase to 21,870 if EPA decides to identify 2006-present commenced PMNs as active and adds them to the interim active list. While the current interim active list is a good start in the Inventory reset process, and would be significantly improved if the commenced PMNs were added, the status of the remaining nearly 64% (54,556 substances) of the Inventory is unknown and there are many, perhaps tens of thousands, more substances that will need to be considered and, if needed, notified as active. Clearly, manufacturers, importers, and processors must carefully review records to determine which of the over 75,000 substances not included on the current interim active list were manufactured, imported, or processed in the ten-year look-back period and prepare Form A “active” notices.
Manufacturers and importers should pay careful attention to substances that are exempt from CDR reporting, notably polymers, naturally occurring substances, and chemicals manufactured or imported below the CDR reporting thresholds. Processors should review their records and/or work with their suppliers to ensure that active chemicals are not missed. Of particular concern are infrequently made or purchased batch chemicals that were nonetheless manufactured, imported, or processed during the look-back period. Searching records and preparing notices will be a significant challenge. Similarly, the burdens of managing confidential identities, including providing a structurally descriptive generic name and substantiating confidentiality claims, will add to that burden significantly. The endeavor promises to require an enormous effort on industry’s part and, once the reporting process is complete, on EPA’s part to review the thousands of submissions and, in so doing, populate the active list.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/preparing-inventory-reset-it-not-easy
-
(ACC Mentioned) Foam Ban Narrowly Fails in California Senate
Jun 7, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
A statewide ban on expanded polystyrene food-service products was rejected in the California Senate last week, falling only a handful of votes short of passing.
Senate Bill 705, titled the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act, prohibited food vendors from using EPS food service packaging beginning in 2020. The bill started out as a prohibition on materials not accepted in local recycling programs but was amended several times and turned into the EPS ban.
On May 31, the Senate took a floor vote on the bill, and it failed 15-19. An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times says the legislation failed not because a majority of the Senate voted against it, but because six senators chose to abstain from voting. If all six had cast votes in favor, it would have passed by two.
Ban proponent Californians Against Waste (CAW), in a message to supporters, likened the current foam battle to previous legislative debates over plastic bags and microbeads and said the push for a ban would continue. CAW says it will advocate for more local EPS bans, mimicking the strategy plastic bag opponents followed before the bag ban was passed statewide.
A Senate analysis of the bill indicates CAW was joined in supporting the bill by a host of environmental organizations, municipal recycling programs and other entities.
Opponents of the ban included the American Chemistry Council (ACC); Plastics Industry Association; Dart Container Corporation; California restaurants, retailers and manufacturers associations and more. The California Chamber of Commerce described the EPS ban as a “job killer” that would increase costs for businesses.
In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times contrasted the senators’ rejection of the EPS ban and California lawmakers’ public dismay, on the same day as the EPS vote, at President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.
The foam battle in the most-populated U.S. state comes as the nation’s largest city also deliberates over EPS products. New York City’s controversial foam ban is scheduled to take effect in November, after an earlier version was defeated in court. Meanwhile, two proposals under consideration by the New York City Council would take alternative steps to deal with the material. One would impose a new ban on EPS products, while the other would require them to be accepted in the city’s curbside recycling program.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/06/07/foam-ban-narrowly-fails-california-senate/
-
9th Circuit Ruling Could Slow EPA Nanomaterial Conditional Registrations
Jun 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and industry sources agree that an appellate court's striking down EPA's conditional registration of a pesticide containing nanosilver could slow future registrations, as it raises the bar for granting such approvals and could also prompt the agency to revisit prior policy choices for how it handles nano registrations.
EPA could still seek en banc review by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit of the May 30 decision by a three-judge panel of the court, but in an email to Inside EPA, an agency spokesman declined to say whether the agency would appeal, noting that the court has yet to issue its mandate and so the registration technically remains in effect.
The panel in its unanimous opinion vacated EPA's May 2015 conditional registration of NSPW-L30SS, formerly known as Nanosilva, faulting EPA's claim that conditionally-registering the product was in the public interest because the product's use had the potential to reduce silver releases to the environment.
"The larger issue is whether the 9th Circuit has changed the test, in a fundamental way, of what EPA has to show in order for these new active ingredients to be conditionally approved as in the public interest," says James Votaw, of Keller and Heckman LLP in a May 31 interview with Inside EPA. "It raises the bar."
Environmental plaintiffs are hailing the ruling as raising a new hurdle for EPA to conditionally register pesticides at a time when they feared the Trump administration would fast-track new products to market.
Environmental plaintiffs in the case Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), et al. v. EPA, are touting the panel's opinion as requiring stronger review for EPA's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act conditional registration process. Advocates have long criticized the process as a "loophole" that allows pesticides onto the market without adequate health and safety data.
"This court decision should be seen by the EPA Pesticide Office as a loud warning to stop its abuse of this registration loophole, and end its current practice of ushering in over half the pesticides onto market as conditional registrations," NRDC's Jennifer Sass says in a May 30 blog post.
The panel's unanimous ruling backed EPA's findings that NSPW-L30SS has a lower application rate and lower mobility in the environment than existing products containing conventional silver, but found that the agency lacks sufficient evidence for its assertion that the product is in the public interest because it may reduce silver releases overall.
Judges faulted EPA's claim that the product could lower overall silver releases as based on two unsupported assumptions -- that current users of pesticides containing conventional silver would switch to NSPW-L30SS and / or that the new pesticide would not be incorporated into new products.
In the ruling, judges also said that nanosilver brings new risks, citing a 2009 EPA Scientific Advisory Panel finding that found that "the hazard profile of silver nanomaterials may differ from other forms of silver."
'Novel Risks'
The environmentalist plaintiffs in the case, NRDC and Center for Food Safety (CFS), argue that the ruling backs their long-standing assertions that nanomaterials pose new risks, and that the agency's conditional registration process allows new pesticide products onto the market with inadequate review.
"We applaud the court for recognizing that these novel materials have different properties and can create novel risks compared with conventional materials," CFS' Jaydee Hanson says in a May 30 statement. "This important decision will improve regulation of pesticides and nanomaterials."
In a May 31 interview with Inside EPA, Hanson argues that the ruling requiring that EPA provide substantial evidence showing a pesticide's use is in the public interest throws up a roadblock to a pesticides office that advocates fear will seek to fast track conditional registrations under the Trump administration.
"You don't get to do a conditional registration unless you have enough data that demonstrates it really is in the public interest, and you can't just wish that it would be in the public interest," he says. "It's good timing. It means that EPA has to do its job or these products can't be on the market."
But industry attorneys say that EPA may seek to tamp down the ruling's effect. Votaw, who represents producers and users of nanomaterials, says that EPA may appeal the ruling for review by the full 9th Circuit.
In a May 31 blog post, the law firm Bergeson & Campbell P.C., which represents industry clients, says the ruling could prompt the nano industry to press EPA to revisit its position that every pesticide containing nanosilver is a new active ingredient, requiring conditional registration, rather than viewing all nanosilver in all pesticides as one ingredient.
"EPA's decision to classify each new nanosilver product as a new active ingredient means that EPA must satisfy the more stringent 'public interest' criterion to grant a conditional registration for any new nanosilver product," the law firm says. "Stakeholders may wish to consider urging EPA to reconsider its policy of classifying each new nanosilver formulation as a new active ingredient or otherwise amending its current position to ensure innovation is not impeded."
While Votaw and Bergeson & Campbell agree that the ruling strengthens the public interest requirement, the pesticide producers association CropLife America in a statement to Inside EPA emphasizes the importance of the agency's conditional registration process and downplays the ruling's potential impact.
"The law has always required EPA to determine that the use of a pesticide granted a conditional registration is in the public interest," the statement says. "The court's decision here does not change that requirement."
Public Interest
But Votaw and Bergeson & Campbell agree with environmentalists that the ruling bolsters the public interest requirement and so could have a chilling effect on future conditional registrations and stall innovation if it stands.
Votaw argues that the court generally backed EPA's risk assessment of nanosilver, and called that a good thing for the industry. But he argues the court's "very aggressive view of what EPA has to show" to find a product in the public interest, inappropriately requires EPA to predict whether companies will substitute the new pesticide for existing ones.
"I think it would be enough for EPA to say, 'If it's used, it would be beneficial, and therefore it's in the public interest," Votaw says. He adds, "EPA can't make people switch, and can't know that people will switch. The court got it wrong about what the right test is."
Bergeson & Campbell says the court's more-stringent public interest requirement "discourages applicants to register innovative new nanosilver products, even where such products would supplant existing nanosilver or conventional silver products that may entail greater human or environmental exposures."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/9th-circuit-ruling-could-slow-epa-nanomaterial-conditional-registrations
-
No Higher Incidence of Cancer in Village with Tainted Water
Jun 7, 2017 | Associated Press (In The Wall Street Journal)
No higher incidences of certain types of cancer linked to the toxic chemical PFOA were found in an upstate New York village whose water supplies were contaminated by the chemical, state health officials said in a report released Wednesday.
The Department of Health said its investigation in Hoosick Falls found lower-than-normal rates of certain types of cancer linked to exposure to PFOA, a toxic chemical long used in the manufacture of Teflon and similar materials.
Health officials said researchers analyzed results from the state's cancer registry from 1995 through 2014, the same year elevated levels of PFOA were found in the village's public water system.
"No statistically significant elevations of cancer were found for any of the cancer types associated with PFOA exposure," the agency said.
The study's findings, first reported by the Times Union of Albany, have been mailed to residents in the Rensselaer County village, located near the Vermont border, 25 miles (40 kilometers) northeast of Albany.
Last month, village residents went to Albany to mark 500 days since they first learned their water was contaminated by PFOA from local manufacturing sites. The state has installed more than 800 filtration treatment systems in houses since it acknowledged the high levels of PFOA in local water supplies. Residents who came to the state Capitol in May to seek a new water supply for the community said they remain wary of the filtrated water and consider it a temporary fix.
The state has said exposure to PFOA from the village's drinking water dates back more than 40 years.
One critic of the study questioned the state's methodology, saying researchers failed to take into account residents diagnosed with cancer after moving away from the village, even those who moved to the neighboring town.
"In a little village like Hoosick Falls, moving a mile away after you drank contaminated water for 40 years but before you get diagnosed means you are out of the study," said David Hassel, a former employee of the local plant that used PFOA in manufacturing.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/APa8371c6c361f4bd99fcccf5888282b13
-
(ACC Mentioned) Opponents of Nevada’s Anti-Fracking Bill Say It Will Hurt Education in State
Jun 7, 2017 | Watchdog.org
By Michael Carroll
A proposal to ban fracking in Nevada has been panned as politically driven and shortsighted economically, but the bill’s sponsor says it will protect residents’ health and cap risks to sparse groundwater supplies.
Assembly Bill 159, authored by Assemblyman Justin Watkins, D-Las Vegas, would ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in oil and gas exploration and development. The technique pumps large amounts of pressurized fluids into wellbores, creating fractures in rock formations that allow oil and gas to be extracted.
Watkins didn’t respond to Watchdog.org’s request for an interview, but he explained his support for a fracking ban in a recent column in the Las Vegas Sun. He pointed to a federal Environmental Protection Agency study released in 2016, as well as some studies done in Texas, that found evidence of groundwater contamination due to fracking.
The American Petroleum Institute has disputed such conclusions in the past and has pointed to other research showing no correlations between groundwater contamination and fracking.
Calling Nevada the most arid state in the nation, Watkins cited research saying that recycled fracking wastewater containing volatile organic compounds has been used to irrigate crops in California, generating health concerns.
“Nevada must learn from the issues uncovered in California,” he said in the April opinion piece.
Banning fracking would pose little in the way of economic impacts in Nevada, according to the assemblyman. That’s because only a small percentage of the state’s oil and gas deposits have been developed using fracking technology, he said.
“In fact, less than 20,000 barrels of oil have ever been extracted by way of fracking in the history of Nevada (and all from one well outside Elko),” Watkins said.
Industry representatives, however, have been critical of AB 159 as it has advanced in the legislature. The bill has passed the Assembly and is now in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
“Nevada is a new frontier in hydraulic fracturing,” Paul Enos, a lobbyist for the Nevada Petroleum and Geothermal Society, told Watchdog.org.
Enos conceded that fracking is not in widespread use in Nevada, with only about five wells currently employing the technology. But there are proven oil reserves in the eastern part of that state that can only be extracted using fracking, he said.
“A lot of the folks that have leases would abandon them” if the state were to ban fracking, Enos said. That, in turn, could disrupt the $3 million generated through oil lease fees that go to Nevada schools, he said
The state has also already taken steps to reduce health and safety risks from fracking, according to Enos. Nevada enacted some of the most stringent fracking regulations in the nation in 2014, he said, including baseline monitoring of groundwater before any drilling is done, predisclosure of chemicals used in fracking fluids and added wellhead construction requirements.
“Our hope is that our legislators, especially in the Nevada State Senate, see the issues and understand that the regulations in place are very balanced,” Enos said.
Another opponent who testified before the Nevada legislature is Tim Shestek, the senior director of state affairs for the American Chemical Council. Chemical companies in the United States have been enjoying a wave of prosperity largely thanks to stable, low-cost supplies of natural gas to power factories and serve as raw materials in chemical manufacturing, Shestek told lawmakers.
“While natural gas and oil production in Nevada may be limited today, imposing a blanket prohibition on hydraulic fracturing could unnecessarily stifle future economic growth opportunities,” he said.
Conservation groups, however, have supported AB 159 as a way to protect the state’s limited groundwater. Opponents have also pointed to seismic activities, primarily in Oklahoma, that have been associated with fracking activities, particularly when water from fracking operations is injected back into the ground.
But Assemblyman Chris Edwards, R-Las Vegas, dismisses many of those arguments as exaggerated.
“There’s always a huge amount of fear mongering in order to make a case that can’t be made,” Edwards told Watchdog.org.
It doesn’t make sense to simply cut out a new industry in the state that could eventually generate additional revenues for government services such as education, he said.
Like Enos, Edwards predicted that oil companies would pull out of the state if it decided to ban fracking. But he added that there is a good chance that Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval would veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
“People need to spend more time coming up with policies that are well thought out,” the assemblyman said, rather than simply pushing a policy that’s purely partisan.
It’s possible for Nevada to safely tap into its natural resources to help pay for education and other services, according to Edwards.
“But if you set a bad trend toward business, then businesses are not going to come here,” he said.
http://watchdog.org/293487/opponents-nevadas-anti-fracking-bill-say-will-hurt-education-state/
-
Committee Sends 11 Bills to House Floor
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced 11 energy-related bills this morning with unanimous support. Many of them had already passed the House last Congress.
The bills:H.R. 627, led by Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), would direct the Energy secretary to establish an outreach program for efficiency projects at schools.H.R. 723, from Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), would amend the National Energy Conservation Policy Act to encourage increased use of performance contracting at federal facilities.H.R. 338, from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), is meant to improve education and training for energy-related jobs.H.R. 1109, from Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), would put in place a minimum monetary threshold of $10 million for mergers and acquisitions of public utility facilities to be subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction.H.R. 2274, from Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), would ease hydropower permitting by extending construction deadlines.
Six of the bills would extend construction deadlines for specific hydropower projects in the lawmakers' home state:H.R. 446, from Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), for the Gathright Dam.H.R. 447, also from Griffith, for the John W. Flannagan Dam.H.R. 951, from Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), for the W. Kerr Scott Dam.H.R. 2292, from Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.), for the Cannonsville Dam.H.R. 2457, from Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.H.R. 2122, from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), for the Jennings Randolph Dam.
The committee's top Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, said that the bills passed were worthwhile and had bipartisan support but that the committee should be "thinking bigger" in the wake of President Trump's decision to remove the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.
"We can't just recycle energy proposals from last Congress; we need an energy policy that embraces the deployment of newer, cleaner and cheaper technology," Pallone said.
He also suggested interest in reviving comprehensive energy legislation, which stalled during the final weeks of the last Congress (E&E Daily, May 4).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/07/stories/1060055683
-
Would-Be No. 2 Vague on Energy Ahead of Senate Confirmation
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
President Trump's pick to lead the Interior Department's daily operations has committed to reviewing the agency's oil and gas programs but offered few details on actions he would take to change the way energy is developed on federal land.
Democrats and green groups have questioned David Bernhardt's ties to the oil and gas companies he would be charged with regulating as Interior's deputy secretary. Bernhardt is chairman of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP's natural resources practice, whose clients include the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, Noble Energy Inc., and WPX Energy Inc.
"Bernhardt is a consummate insider who will turn America's public lands into an industrial zone for fracking, mining and drilling, harming wildlife and waters to benefit billionaire corporate polluters," Randi Spivak, the Center for Biological Diversity's public lands program coordinator, said in a statement yesterday.
Republicans have pointed to Bernhardt's Western roots and prior Interior experience as critical qualifications. In 2001, he left his position as a Brownstein associate to serve as Interior solicitor under President George W. Bush.
"I believe Mr. Bernhardt is an excellent choice for Deputy Secretary," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a May 18 statement. "He grew up in the West, and during his previous time at Interior, he gained significant expertise about a range of Alaska and western issues. I am confident he understands how critically important Alaska is to the Department, and how consequential the Department's decisions are to my home state."
Murkowski's panel yesterday approved Bernhardt's nomination (Greenwire, June 6). He awaits confirmation from the full Senate.Following Zinke
In response to questions from the committee, Bernhardt committed to review Interior's environmental oversight and revenue collection.
As for how he will carry out those goals, Bernhardt mostly deferred to the vision of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
"If confirmed as deputy secretary, I would support the secretary's efforts to foster responsible development of coal, oil, gas, and renewable energy on federal and tribal lands," Bernhardt wrote in response to an inquiry from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) as to whether Interior should open additional land for production.
After a string of questions from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in which he acknowledged that man — and the oil and gas industry — has an influence on climate change, Bernhardt said he is "not aware that Congress has ever provided" direction to Interior to reduce fossil fuel extraction.
He wrote that the United States needs to produce renewable energy, even as the Trump administration proposed cutting Interior's renewables program in fiscal 2018.
Bernhardt stopped short of committing to publicizing data from the U.S. Geological Survey, which has played a leading role in federal studies of hydraulic fracturing.
"Will you commit to maintaining the integrity and public accessibility of data sets produced by Interior staff?" asked Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
"The integrity of scientific data and its application in decision making on behalf of the public are of paramount importance to me," Bernhardt wrote in reply. "Should I be confirmed, I commit to continuing this commitment and applying it to policy recommendations."BLM
When pressed by Heinrich to address staffing shortages in the Bureau of Land Management's New Mexico field offices, Bernhardt said he was not aware of job vacancies or efforts to fill open positions but reiterated Zinke's priorities to equip the bureau with the necessary tools and resources to conduct its jobs.
Trump's budget proposes reducing BLM staff by 1,062 positions.
Bernhardt pledged to review Government Accountability Office recommendations to rectify insufficiencies in BLM's regulatory practices for oil and gas operators.
Those recommendations would be incorporated "as appropriate," he said in response to questions from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's ranking Democrat, Maria Cantwell of Washington.
Bernhardt indicated to Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that he would support an overhaul of BLM's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, which Congress failed to kill this year under the Congressional Review Act.
"I have not yet had any substantive interaction with the department on implementing the president's America First Energy Plan," Bernhardt said. "However, closely examining regulations to eliminate those that are duplicative and burdensome will be a start."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/07/stories/1060055638
-
After Successful Test Well, Halcon Options More Permian Delaware Acreage
Jun 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Halcon Resources Corp. said it will exercise an option to acquire more than 6,000 net acres in West Texas within the Permian Basin’s Delaware sub-basin and drill at least two wells in the near future, after determining that its first operated well in the play was a success.
Meanwhile, the Houston-based company said it recently closed on the acquisition of more than 3,000 net acres in the Delaware and is currently looking for more bolt-on opportunities in two Texas counties, as it looks to sell its nonoperated assets in the Williston Basin.
Halcon said the CRMWD 79 No. 1H well in Ward County, TX, was online in early May and completed with a 5,167-foot lateral targeting the Wolfcamp A interval. The well's peak 10-day average production rate recently was 1,235 boe/d, 84% weighted to oil, despite flowing back on a restricted choke. The well's recent 20-day average production rate is 1,038 boe/d.
"Both the 10- and 20- day peak rates are continuing to increase as the productivity of the well continues to be very strong," management said, adding that the well's latest 24-hour production rate was 1,519 boe/d, 82% oil, with a 28/64-inch choke and wellhead pressure of 2,016 psi.
After adjusting for lateral length, the well, in which it has a 100% working interest, exceeded Halcon’s type curve estimates for its Ward County acreage of about 1.26 million boe for a 10,000-foot lateral.
Halcon said in response to the well's success, it will acquire by next week (June 15) 6,720 net acres in the southern portion of its Ward County acreage for $11,000/acre. The company plans to spud a vertical well in 3Q2017 on the northern portion of its position in the county, which totals 8,320 net acres, and follow up with a horizontal well "shortly thereafter." The option to acquire the acreage expires at the end of the year.
The company recently closed an acquisition of 3,634 net acres in Pecos County, TX, from an undisclosed seller for $88 million. The acreage represents a partner's interest in Halcon’s operated units. Current production associated with the Pecos acquisition is about 790 boe/d. After adjusting for current production at an assumed value of $40,000/flowing boe/d, the Pecos acquisition was estimated to cost about $15,520/acre net.
Halcon plans to continue to add acreage near its existing positions in both Pecos and Ward counties. The company currently holds about 41,555 net acres in the Delaware sub-basin, with net production of about 4,500 boe/d. Halcon said it would continue to run two rigs on its properties in the basin for the remainder of 2017 and begin completion activities on the first Pecos well in mid-June. One dedicated fracture crew also is to be deployed for the rest of the year.
In the Williston Basin, Halcon expects to sell its nonoperated assets later this summer, provided the company receives an acceptable offer, it said. The company said the properties up for sale -- including 15,600 net acres and more than 1,000 gross undeveloped locations -- had 2,350 boe/d of production, 91% weighted to oil.
Halcon would use proceeds from a Williston sale and debt to fund the option acquisition in Ward County and future acquisitions in Pecos County.
Last January, Halcon acquired 20,748 net acres in Pecos and Reeves County, TX, from an undisclosed seller for $705 million. The company also agreed to sell its Eagle Ford Shale assets in East Texas, known as the El Halcon, for $500 million.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110703-after-successful-test-well-halcon-options-more-permian-delaware-acreage
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt's Quick Strike on Ozone Roils Greens, Delights GOP
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Earlier this year, Scott Pruitt had little to say about U.S. EPA's 2015 ozone standard during his Senate confirmation process for becoming the agency's administrator.
But he made his position clear late yesterday by abruptly announcing his decision to delay for a year attainment designations with the 70 parts per billion threshold, accompanied by a suggestion that more changes are in the works.
"I have determined that there is insufficient information, and taking additional time is appropriate in order to consider completely all designation recommendations provided by state governors ... and to rely fully on the most recent air quality data," Pruitt wrote in a letter to states.
In response to congressional direction, Pruitt has also created an Ozone Cooperative Compliance Task Force that will develop "additional flexibilities" for states to comply with the standard for the precursor of smog.
The delay, which environmental groups quickly denounced as an illegal breach of Clean Air Act deadlines, means EPA won't make final attainment designations for the 2015 standard until next year, instead of this October. For areas deemed in "nonattainment," the designation starts the clock on regulatory efforts to bring them into compliance, often by curbing emissions from factories, cars and other sources.
For green organizations, Pruitt's decision also represents a broader attack on the pollution law's emphasis on protecting public health. Ozone is a lung irritant that can trigger asthma attacks in children and worsen emphysema symptoms.
"The most important thing is the crass lack of care about what happens with your kids, with my kids," Ann Weeks, legal director for the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based advocacy group, said in an interview.
Applauding Pruitt's move were industry trade groups who have long lobbied for a delay, partly on the grounds that significant chunks of the country have not yet met the previous 75 ppb standard, set in 2008.
"This is welcome regulatory relief for manufacturers, who are working hard to comply with the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards but run the risk of falling into "no grow zones" if their states do not reach the 2015 levels quickly enough," Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, wrote on the group's blog.
Also on board were members of Congress who have introduced legislation to push back implementation of the 2015 standard even further.
"Clean air is critically important, but we need to get this right," Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) said in a statement. Olson is the lead sponsor of H.R. 806, which would postpone attainment designations until 2025. His bill, awaiting action by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is still needed, he added.
Ozone forms when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds combine in sunlight. Key sources of those "precursor" chemicals are motor vehicles, coal-fired power plants and refineries. In opting to tighten the standard to 70 ppb in October 2015, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy cited the need to protect public health, based on the latest research on ozone's effects.
Her decision was challenged in a battery of competing lawsuits brought by industry trade groups, states and environmental organizations on the grounds that it was either needlessly strict or unlawfully weak.
At the Trump administration's request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit froze action on the consolidated litigation in April to give EPA officials the chance to reconsider their position. That review is continuing.
In his letter, Pruitt cited the review as another factor in the decision to delay implementation. In his prior job as Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt, a Republican, had been among the challengers to the 70 ppb standard. While now recused from involvement in the lawsuit, he remains involved in administrative rulemaking activities.Legal deadlines
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is generally supposed to make attainment decisions within two years after a new air quality standard is set.
Although the law allows for a year's extension when there is "insufficient information," that doesn't appear to be the case on ozone, said Janet McCabe, who served as EPA's acting air chief during the final years of the Obama administration, in an email this morning.
"There are numerous areas around the country where data from 2014-2016 show that millions of people are breathing unhealthy air and the states (which are responsible for protecting their citizens from unhealthy air) have made recommendations for those designations," McCabe wrote.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Pruitt had given no indication of how he would proceed with implementation of the 2015 standard.
And since taking over as EPA administrator in February, he had also made no formal announcement that he was mulling a delay in the implementation timetable. It was not immediately clear whether EPA career employees were involved in the decision.
Steve Page, director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in Research Triangle Park, N.C., was out of the office today on travel, according to an employee who referred questions to the agency's press office. A spokeswoman there didn't reply to emails sent late yesterday and this morning seeking an interview with Pruitt and answers to a half-dozen written questions, such as who is on the ozone task force and whether Pruitt had consulted with lawyers in EPA's Office of General Counsel.
Kevin Minoli, who is listed on EPA's website as acting general counsel, could not be reached this morning.
Pruitt's letter also alludes to concerns raised by industry groups and some scientists about the effect of naturally occurring "background ozone," or ozone originating from foreign sources, on states' ability to comply. EPA is "evaluating those issues," he said, with a focus on fully understanding them.
Another complication cited by critics of the 2015 standard was EPA's slow issuance of implementation guidance for the 2008 threshold.
That guidance came out in March 2015, seven months before the agency tightened the standard and prompted complaints that states will have to juggle compliance with the two benchmarks.
"We are hopeful that EPA will also be able to address the overlap with the 2008 standards and reform the implementation process to provide greater regulatory certainty to state air-quality agencies and businesses alike," the American Chemistry Council said in a statement this morning.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/07/stories/1060055691
-
States Take Lead on Climate Amid Swirling Legal Questions
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of states determined to act aggressively to combat climate change despite President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement has drawn a side-eye from legal scholars who say the group risks treading on federal turf.
New York, California and Washington state launched the U.S. Climate Alliance last week following Trump's announcement of plans to exit the climate accord and have since attracted support from nine other states and Puerto Rico. An even broader "We Are Still In" coalition formed this week, with nine states and hundreds of cities, businesses and universities pledging to meet emission-slashing targets set under the international agreement.
While backers have praised the alliances for filling a "leadership void" on climate action, some skeptics have raised eyebrows at potential legal issues with the arrangement.
The first to sound the alarm last week was Eugene Kontorovich, a Northwestern University law professor who frequently contributes to The Washington Post's right-leaning Volokh Conspiracy legal blog. In posts there and for the New York Daily News, the constitutional law scholar cautioned that the coalitions, depending on how they operate, could run afoul of legal limits on state action.
Kontorovich says the alliances could clash with two constitutional doctrines — foreign affairs pre-emption and the compact clause — that are designed to keep states from stepping on the federal government's toes.
"Here, the federal government decided to go in one direction and the states are going in another direction, and they're specifically saying that we want to substitute the federal government's foreign affairs views," he told E&E News.
But, he added, his analysis comes with an important disclaimer: "The question mark is it all depends on what this actual rebel alliance does.
"Simply saying, 'We think Trump is stupid, and we think his policies are stupid, and we're going to get together and have a group where we talk about how stupid it is and how the environment is good,' would not be enough," he said.
Many say the U.S. Climate Alliance and similar efforts are in the clear for that reason.
"These general, unsigned press releases stating an affiliation with one or more foreign causes, it gets a little bit harder to say they're engaged in unconstitutional behavior," said Duncan Hollis, an international law professor and associate dean at Temple Law School.
Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, largely agreed, noting that the alliances simply promote policy decisions that are already within individual states' authority.
"None of these state agreements that we're seeing emerge are mandatory," he said. "In each case, they're just matters of voluntary cooperation."Constitutional questions
As a general rule, Kontorovich said, the more aggressive a state coalition becomes, the more likely it is to run afoul of constitutional limits on its power.
Under the constitutional doctrine known as foreign affairs pre-emption, he noted, courts have sometimes struck down otherwise valid state laws that are in tension with the foreign affairs policy of the United States.
In 2000, for example, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law that banned state agencies from buying goods from companies doing business with Myanmar. The court ruled that the state's action was pre-empted by the U.S. government, which established federal sanctions on the Southeast Asian nation. The high court tossed a California insurance law on similar grounds three years later.
Kontorovich disagrees with the cases and said foreign affairs pre-emption can be "a bit erratic in its application," but warned that states could find themselves in hot water if their work conflicts with the Trump administration's policies.
"They're saying, 'The federal government had this treaty, and they're not going to implement the treaty,'" he said, describing the states' approach. "'So we want to do it instead. So, listen, countries of the world, we're going to fulfill this obligation.' That makes it a matter of foreign affairs."
Hollis, the Temple professor, noted that it's unclear whether the current Supreme Court justices would follow the approach taken in the Massachusetts and California cases.
A second potential angle for a challenge to a state climate coalition, Kontorovich said, lies in the Constitution's compact clause, which sets limits on states' ability to enter into formal compacts with one another or with foreign powers without congressional consent.
Then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) faced some academic scrutiny under the compact clause in 2006 when he announced an agreement with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to collaborate on market-based solutions to climate change. His office maintained that the effort was a permissible information-sharing agreement.
Just yesterday, current California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) announced a nonbinding commitment with China to cooperate on clean energy issues (see related story).
Regional systems including the Western Climate Initiative Inc. and the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative also attracted some criticism in their early years but never faced serious constitutional challenges.
Compact law expert Jeff Litwak, an adjunct professor at Lewis and Clark Law School, said courts have typically been highly deferential on such questions, finding that "the Constitution doesn't really limit the creativity that states have in developing ways of cooperating with each other."
He noted that states routinely work together on substantive issues without creating formal compacts, which involve binding contracts between states. If the U.S. Climate Alliance states opted to create a formal compact, they would need congressional consent if the group's actions affected the supremacy of the federal government or disadvantaged non-member states.
But so long as they steer clear of compact status, Litwak said, they will avoid constitutional questions under the compact clause.
"If they really want to take over federal policy, they obviously cannot negotiate directly with foreign nations — that requires consent," he said. "But there's no reason that they can't just voluntarily step up to the plate and say, 'We are going to cap our gases, and we're going to do it even though the federal government might not do it.'
"The devil's going to be in the details there."Plan of action
In the days since the state coalitions formed, details of how they will operate remain hazy.
A spokeswoman for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) yesterday told E&E News "it is too early to weigh in on" constitutional questions because the U.S. Climate Alliance "is working to establish its operational model."
In a news conference, an adviser to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted that the "We Are Still In" coalition does not intend to submit formal pledges to the United Nations and will instead develop a "societal nationally determined contribution" (Greenwire, June 6).
Gerrard, of the Columbia Law School, said he expects states involved in the coalitions to be mindful of potential limits on their powers — both to avoid constitutional challenges and to maintain their own independence and flexibility to set policy within their borders.
"I just can't imagine that California or New York state or anybody is going to sign something that allows France or whoever to go to court to compel them to do anything," he said. "That's just not going to happen. I don't see that as a plausible scenario."
That hasn't stopped Paris supporters from using lofty language to describe their efforts. Kontorovich noted that the message of the "We Are Still In" moniker is particularly problematic, as it suggests the members are actually party to the Paris Agreement.
Individual political leaders, too, have taken a bold approach. A press release from the office of Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, for example, announced an executive order "binding the District to the Paris Climate Accord."
"When they actually start to say, 'We want to bind ourselves to it,' I do think that's where you wonder if they've actually talked to the State Department or actually really lawyered the issues," said Hollis, the Temple professor. "Because I do think there are questions about how much they can bind themselves.
"But," he added, "I'm not seeing states sitting down at a negotiating table with France or the U.K. signing on to anything. When you actually start to see signed agreements, then you really do start to wonder, are we testing the limits of this compact clause?"
University of Colorado Law School professor Mark Squillace said states would be better off focusing on policy over bluster.
"I understand the sentiments and where they're coming from on this stuff — and I guess I'm sympathetic somewhat — but it's a little bit extreme to be talking about actually joining the Paris Agreement or that kind of thing," he said.
"Better that we take the commitment that the United States made seriously and each do our part," he said. "But I don't think it goes much beyond that."
Kontorovich argued that with the constitutional limits on what the coalitions can do, they are left offering empty promises.
"Anything that would be constitutional would be purely symbolic," he said. "The only thing that would be OK would be a nonbinding agreement to enforce a nonbinding agreement of a non-treaty. There's an obvious kind of preening and grandstanding involved in these states."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/07/stories/1060055636
-
The Mayors of Pittsburgh and Paris: We Have Our Own Climate Deal
Jun 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Anne Hidalgo & William Peduto
Last week, President Donald Trump tried to pit our two cities against each other when he announced, in pulling out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” As the mayors of Pittsburgh and Paris, we’re here to say that we’re more united than ever.
Though separated by an ocean and a language, we share a desire to do what is best for our citizens and our planet. That means putting aside parochial politics and embracing the global challenge of fighting climate change. In doing so, we can create a cleaner, healthier, more prosperous world for Parisians, Pittsburghers and everyone else on the planet.
As the sun sets each evening on the Allegheny River, Pittsburgh’s Rachel Carson Bridge lights up with 27,000 multi-colored bulbs. This nightly display downtown in the City of Bridges is powered entirely by 16 wind turbines attached to the arches of the bridge. It’s just one example of how a city once famous for its steel mills has emerged as a trailblazer in environmental innovation.
The experience of Pittsburgh in the three decades since the collapse of the steel industry reveals how a commitment to science, research and green technology can transform our cities. As late as the 1940s, the air hung heavy with pollution from steel mills. Streetlights were needed 24 hours a day to see through the smog. Today, 13,000 Pittsburghers are employed in the renewable energy industry. The city’s Phipps Conservatory is recognized as one of the world’s greenest buildings, generating all of its own energy and treating and reusing all water captured on site. Investments in smart infrastructure, bike sharing programs, new mass transit options and building efficiency means Pittsburgh is on track to meet our goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2023. While the majority of electricity in the state of Pennsylvania is still generated from fossil fuels, Pittsburgh will be 100 percent powered by renewable energy by 2035.
We Pittsburghers are proud of our industrial history, but we are preparing for a prosperous future. That means addressing our air quality, which remains among the worst in the nation. That means ensuring that the shift to sustainable infrastructure tackles inequality between communities. And that means taking climate change seriously.
In Paris — another city famous for its bridges — we are inspired by the resolve of Pittsburgh to deliver on the ambition of the Paris Agreement by building an ever more sustainable and thriving city. In the City of Lights, we’re taking big steps to boost our economy, encourage social mobility and improve the health of our citizens. In recent years, we reclaimed the right bank of the River Seine — an iconic part of the city that was previously dominated by polluting vehicles — for pedestrian use.
In the absence of executive leadership in the United States, an unprecedented alliance is emerging among cities like ours to push progress forward. We are both members of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, which represents more than 7,400 cities around the world committed to local climate action. Pittsburgh is one of nearly 250 cities in the United States, representing 56 million Americans, whose mayors have committed to honor and uphold the goals of the Paris Agreement. We are being joined by business leaders, governors, university presidents and millions of citizens across the United States to pledge “We Are Still In” — and we will achieve and exceed America’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. And through C40 Cities, the global network of 91 cities, of which I, Mayor Hidalgo, serve as chairwoman, mayors representing 650 million citizens are pledging their determination to deliver on the Paris Agreement.
As Mayor of Pittsburgh, I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.
As Mayor of Paris, I was elected to represent the citizens of Paris, not Pittsburgh.
But the only way to do right by Pittsburghers and Parisians is to abide by the principles of the Paris Agreement, which guarantees the future health and prosperity of both of our cities — and every other city in the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/opinion/the-mayors-of-pittsburgh-and-paris-we-have-our-own-climate-deal.html
-
Ditching Paris had Nothing to do with Science
Jun 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Ever since U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt helped orchestrate the United States' withdrawal from an international climate accord backed by decades of scientific research, he has spent days deflecting dozens of questions about science.
The hosts of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" yesterday tried more than 10 times to get Pruitt to answer whether or not President Trump believes in climate change and whether that played any role in his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
"So the conversation about Paris — which at its core is about climate change and the world's impact, and human impact on it — you never raised that with president Trump in a meeting?" host Willie Geist asked Pruitt.
"The focus of the discussion was on the merits and demerits of what Paris sought to achieve," the EPA chief answered, adding, "The reason you're asking this question is to get away from the merits and demerits of the climate accord."
It was the closest any administration official has come to acknowledging what many observers have suspected: Science did not play any role in the Paris withdrawal decision.
Asking if the president believes what hundreds of federal climate scientists across multiple agencies could easily summarize is not an insignificant question. The Paris accord was crafted around the best current understanding of rising global temperatures, with dozens of peer-reviewed studies underpinning the agreement. But Trump didn't mention science once in his Rose Garden speech announcing America's withdrawal, even to dismiss it as a "hoax" as he has in the past. Administration officials in subsequent interviews also dodged questions on the science.
John Holdren, the former science adviser to President Obama, described it as avoidance with a purpose.
"I think they have found they haven't been doing that well in attacking the science," he said, adding, "I think they have probably decided to keep ignoring the science and just keep hammering on this notion that Paris was a bad deal."Are 'red teams' around the corner?
There is no public indication that scientists were involved at all with the administration's decision to walk away from the Paris Agreement, said Rush Holt, CEO of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and a former Democratic congressman.
"Traditionally, when politicians or ordinary folks ignore science, they do it with a certain amount of embarrassment because they know they shouldn't ignore it," he said. "I don't hear any sense of embarrassment; they don't seem to have any sense of what they're missing by not having scientific evidence presented to them."
In another interview, Pruitt suggested he wants to go further than simply ignoring science. Appearing on conservative Breitbart radio on Monday, the EPA chief seemed to agree with host Joel Pollak's assertion that carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant that should be regulated by Pruitt's agency. He also brought up the notion of a federal science review, called "red teams," a concept that is supported by climate skeptics seeking to introduce more doubt around the science and is used for military maneuvers at the Department of Defense.
Pruitt said the country needs a "true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2."
"The American people need to have that type of honest, open discussion, and it's something we hope to provide as part of our leadership," he said.
The notion of red teams was first broached in March by two prominent skeptics who were invited to testify before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Conservative lawmakers embraced the concept, which critics say is intended only to create a false sense of uncertainty around basic climate science.
Pruitt's comments are the first time a Trump Cabinet member has voiced public support for deploying red teams in science.
The notion that the climate science underpinning the Paris Agreement needs to be reviewed shows the ignorance of politicians who don't care how science works, said Holdren, who noted that all legitimate science is already peer-reviewed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments faced what was essentially the most significant red team ever, which is intense scrutiny among the world's top scientists and industry officials.
"Nobody has been able to find a major flaw in mainstream climate science; nobody has been able to find an alternative explanation for what's changing the climate other than the buildup of greenhouse gases produced by human activities in the atmosphere, which perfectly fit in magnitude, in fingerprint and in timing what is being observed," Holdren said.Happer: White House 'could use' science advice
The administration has not simply ignored science in the last 100 days, however. Trump's budget proposal suggested cutting billions of dollars in federal research, with a particular emphasis on climate science.
The rationale goes beyond any argument for greater efficiency and actually suggests cutting off the Earth-observing functions of satellites already in orbit.
Of 46 key federal science posts, Trump has nominated people for seven, The Washington Post reported yesterday. That includes, most notably, the science adviser and the leader of the Council on Environmental Quality, even though the names floated publicly for both of those positions include climate skeptics with links to the fossil fuel industry.
Even Trump's possible science adviser, Princeton University physics professor William Happer, said the president needs to incorporate science into his decision.
Happer is a staunch critic of the Paris deal and praised the president's "leadership" in dropping out, but said science also plays a role in numerous parts of the federal bureaucracy, including defense and innovation.
"I think they could use some science advice," said Happer, who met with Trump before his inauguration. "There are many areas in the U.S. where science and technology are important, and I believe this administration understands that."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/07/stories/1060055666
-
Paris Climate Agreement Was a Bad Economic Deal
Jun 7, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Lamar Smith
President Trump recently made good on a campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. I support his decision. The president’s action simply puts America’s economy first. The president recognizes the importance of protecting the environment, but in a responsible way.
The Paris agreement, committed to by the previous administration without Senate approval, set unreasonably harsh regulatory requirements at the expense of the American economy. Had the U.S. remained in the agreement, the outcome would have been shocking. Numerous studies have found that the burden of complying fell primarily on the American people with results ranging from job losses to increased electricity prices. In fact, some studies determined that the deal would have cost Americans nine million jobs and three trillion dollars.
These tremendous costs would have resulted in only a negligible benefit to the environment. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology calculated that if all 195 countries abided by the Paris agreement it would have reduced global warming only 0.16 degree Celsius by 2100! Furthermore, President Obama’s signature domestic climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, would have lowered temperatures just 0.03 degrees Celsius and would have prevented sea level rise by only the thickness of three sheets of paper. This is the definition of all pain and no gain.
China and India, countries responsible for the greatest amount of carbon dioxide emissions, were exempt from taking action until 2030. These countries would continue to increase carbon emissions while the U.S. would bear the burden of compliance with the agreement. If this global agreement was fairly negotiated on behalf of the U.S., why were some countries allowed to delay their compliance for years? President Trump’s assessment is correct – this agreement was a “bad deal.” The U.S. would have to impose huge burdens on its residents while other countries would not.
Climate is changing and humans have an impact. We should focus on future generations and the planet we leave for them but it is equally important to consider the quality of life of those living right now. The Paris agreement would stifle the U.S. economy and slow innovation. It would have forced America to comply with costly environmental regulations that have no significant benefit. Instead, we should focus on what our great nation does best – technological innovation.
What will make an impact on the environment are the same initiatives that will secure America’s economy: private sector research and innovation. To overcome the inevitable challenges of an ever-changing world, we need to encourage technological advancements rather than subject Americans to more regulations, higher taxes and excessive government control.
Technology has solved every major problem that the U.S. has faced – from transportation to communication to healthcare. Climate change should be no different. If we let innovation lead the way, the U.S. will discover the technologies needed to effectively combat climate change.
We have already reaped the benefits of this technological innovation. Total U.S. carbon emissions have decreased by 10 percent over the last decade even as other countries have increased their emissions. This result wasn’t due to federal regulations. On the contrary, it had no connection to President Obama’s climate policies. Imagine the possibilities when the private sector is free to innovate without regulatory red tape holding it back.
By boosting energy innovation, Americans can benefit from lower energy costs and still address environmental concerns. Already, advancements in technology, such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, have enabled the U.S. to harness natural resources, reduce the cost of energy, and provide thousands of jobs. The American energy revolution is sadly under-reported while climate alarmism is readily promoted.
We must continue to make strides in innovation. Technology will solve environmental challenges. And America will set an example for the rest of the world of how to reduce carbon emissions without job-killing regulations and government mandates.
Smith is chairman of the House Science Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/336633-paris-climate-agreement-bad-economic-deal
-
Business Must Lobby Congress in Order to Get Action on Climate Change
Jun 7, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Sheldon Whitehouse
President Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change — a decision that may be one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation’s history. There is no denying the mounting threat of climate change. We observe rising seas, warming global temperatures, and melting glaciers and ice sheets. Yet the president cast aside a historic global agreement forged through American leadership.
Americans now ask what to do next. For individual citizens, my answer is simple: Commit yourself to ending climate denial and take action. Join an environmental group. Support and validate science and scientists. Organize in your community. Make climate change an issue your lawmakers cannot ignore. Every action, big and small, counts.
American corporations must also act and, unfortunately, they have been AWOL in the politics of climate change. That is why, corporate America, I have a separate message for you: First, know that you are hugely influential. You touch every corner of American society and command extraordinary attention in our political system. This gives you a unique power against the Breitbart fake news spigot, the shameless fossil fuel industry, and Charles and David Kochs’ climate denial operation, all of which enabled the president’s fateful decision.
Job one is to reconsider your decision to take no action, or virtually no action, to engage politically on climate change. So many of you — from Apple to Facebook, Pepsi to Coca-Cola, General Mills to Cargill — have sound positions on climate change. Clearly, you know this is serious. Trump has betrayed you, so now is the time to align your industry’s political engagement with your position on climate and come off the sidelines. Engage collectively in strength commensurate with the seriousness of this issue.
If we pitch ourselves and the world into the present worst-case climate change scenarios, it will become hard to defend our American system of democratic government against charges of corruption, and our system of market capitalism against charges of indifference, particularly as global suffering mounts. For companies that benefit from a world order where liberal democracies prevail, the stakes are very high.
For too long the American business community has stood idly by while your fossil fuel compatriots worked their wicked way with Congress. They have suborned your major trade and business policy organizations to their purposes. You have tolerated their dark-money machinery. Your silence has been deafening.
Now it is necessary that you organize with other like-minded corporations and use your collective political strength to press our political discourse toward a solution. There are many Republicans in Congress who will notice and react if they see the business community make a convincing effort. Absent that, the government of the United States will remain under the controlling thumb of the fossil fuel industry, whose conflicts of interest in this question are obvious and enormous.
The political mischief of the fossil fuel industry and its front groups will leave a lasting stain on the democracy we treasure. It is time the decent and honorable business community played a meaningful role in setting this right.
Whitehouse is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/336711-business-must-lobby-congress-in-order-to-get-action-on
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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