Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 28/06
-
Dow Investor Glenview Calls for Changes in Post-DuPont Merger Breakup
Jun 27, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By David Benoit
Another big investor is calling for revisions to the landmark proposed merger of Dow Chemical Co. DOW +1.29% and DuPont Co. DD +0.95% -
EPA Releases the Final TSCA Inventory Reset Rule
Jun 28, 2017 | Lexology
By Warren Lehrenbaum & Preetha Chakrabarti
Last week EPA issued the pre-publication version of its much-anticipated final TSCA Inventory re-set rule. Because the new regulation affects every company that manufactures, imports or processes chemical substances in the U.S., a wide swath of industry will be impacted by the rule including almost every company in the manufacturing sector. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA Chief Met with Dow Chemical Exec Before Rolling Back a Ban on Pesticides
Jun 28, 2017 | AP (in Business Inside)
By Michael Biesecker
The Trump administration’s top environmental official met privately with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency’s push to ban a widely used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children’s brains, according to records obtained by The Associated Press. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Met With Dow CEO Just Before Killing Effort to Ban Toxic Pesticide
Jun 28, 2017 | Common Dreams
By Andrea Germanos
The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head, Scott Pruitt, sparked outrage in March when he rejected his agency's proposed ban on a pesticide shown to harm children's brains. -
Echa Publishes Updated Guidance on Substances in Articles
Jun 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published the long awaited revision of its guidance on substances in articles. -
Paint Stripper Threatens Ozone Layer
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Efforts to restore the Earth's ozone shield could be pushed back by decades if chemical emissions from paint strippers are not curbed, according to new research. -
Industry Group Wants DOE to Hit Pause on Exports
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
An industry group that represents large domestic consumers of natural gas is calling on the Trump administration to halt exports while developing new criteria for shipments to nations that lack free-trade deals with the United States. -
Court Schedules Surprise Arguments Over Obama Rule
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A legal battle over Obama-era standards for hydraulic fracturing on public lands may see new life in federal court next month. -
At Offshore Drilling Regulator, Focus On "Economic Development"
Jun 28, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
The U.S. Bureau of Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement was created in the aftermath of 2010's Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill to police offshore drilling rigs and their operators. -
Okla. Officials Say Efforts to Curb Fracking-Linked Quakes Appear to Work
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oklahoma officials say they are cautiously optimistic that their protocols have reduced the risk of man-made earthquakes from the specific practice of hydraulic fracturing. -
Ford Chemical Spill Leaks into Lake Erie
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A chemical spill from a Ford Motor Co. plant near Avon Lake, Ohio, leaked into Lake Erie but isn't considered a health hazard, officials said. -
Global Computer Networks Blitzed by New 'Ransomware' Attack
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A fast-spreading cyberattack hit manufacturers, banking companies and energy firms across the globe yesterday, including the Ukrainian agency monitoring the cleanup of the Chernobyl nuclear site. -
EPA Announces New Cleanup Effort At Former Mich. Chemical Plant
Jun 28, 2017 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The Environmental Protection Agency will begin a nearly $10 million cleanup effort at one of the nation's largest superfund sites in coming weeks. -
Big Legal Question: Is Trump's WOTUS Repeal 'Reasoned'?
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Trump administration's 42-page proposal for repealing former President Obama's Clean Water Rule largely builds its case on a 2009 split decision by the Supreme Court on federal regulation of swear words on television. -
White House Meets with Greens, Unions on Rollback
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The White House has begun meetings to discuss pulling back on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Pruitt: Courts Didn't Give EPA 'Tools' for Carbon
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt says the federal government's process for regulating carbon dioxide is not yet settled by the courts. -
Judge Postpones Briefs in Legal Fight Over BLM Rule
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E ENergywire
By Pamela King
Citing uncertainty around the fate of a slowly disappearing regulation governing methane emissions from oil and gas operations on public land, a federal judge yesterday extended briefing deadlines in litigation launched last year to kill the rule.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Dow Investor Glenview Calls for Changes in Post-DuPont Merger Breakup
Jun 27, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By David Benoit
Another big investor is calling for revisions to the landmark proposed merger of Dow Chemical Co. DOW +1.29% and DuPont Co. DD +0.95%
Glenview Capital Management LLC recently met with leaders of both companies and pushed for changes in a plan to break the combined group into three parts, according to a letter the hedge fund sent to its investors late Tuesday.
The fund also criticized Dow’s decision to delay the retirement of Chief Executive Andrew Liveris, who was originally supposed to step down around now but now plans to stay on longer, according to the letter, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Glenview believes the delay and the current split plan will impact Dow’s ability to find a new leader.
The chemical giants announced their roughly $60 billion merger in December 2015. Shareholders approved it last July and after a delay winning regulatory approval are now expected to complete the deal in August. Within 18 months of completion, the behemoth is supposed to split into three companies: one agricultural, one focused on materials and another on specialty-chemical products.
Investors have grown wary of the details of the breakup plan and the companies said in May they would review it. Dow and DuPont have said they “are fully aligned regarding the objective of the review” and would consult with investors.
In a statement, the two companies said Mr. Liveris and DuPont Chief Executive Edward Breen are in “daily communication working collaboratively along with the companies’ lead independent directors to advance a strategic review of the portfolio mix and alignment across divisions.”
The companies added the boards were committed to maximizing the value of all the spinoffs and welcomed investor feedback.
Glenview’s letter says it owns about $1 billion of Dow stock, amounting to less than 1% of the company’s total value. The fund, which isn’t typically a public activist, said in the letter that it largely supports the roadmap Daniel Loeb’s Third Point LLC detailed last month in a presentation. The activist, another Dow investor, called for shifting nearly a third of the earnings from the proposed materials business to the specialty-products operation.
Trian Fund Management LP, another activist that’s a big DuPont shareholder, has also privately pushed for changes, as have other investors and analysts, people familiar with the matter have said.
In general, the investors argue that the materials company should be a more commodity-focused business that would trade at lower multiples, while the specialty business could comprise a mix of higher-margin chemical and other products.
Glenview’s letter raises Mr. Liveris’s tenure as a concern too, saying it voted for the deal in part because Dow had announced he would step down this month. Earlier this year, Dow said Mr. Liveris would stay on as CEO until next year as a way to see the deal through and help with the formation of the materials business.
“The change in the committed timeline that was clear prior to shareholder approval of the transaction is inappropriate and creates the appearance of conflict between personal and communal goals,” Glenview wrote.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dow-investor-glenview-calls-for-changes-in-post-dupont-merger-breakup-1498604008
-
EPA Releases the Final TSCA Inventory Reset Rule
Jun 28, 2017 | Lexology
By Warren Lehrenbaum & Preetha Chakrabarti
What Every Company Needs to Know to Avoid Disruption
Last week EPA issued the pre-publication version of its much-anticipated final TSCA Inventory re-set rule. Because the new regulation affects every company that manufactures, imports or processes chemical substances in the U.S., a wide swath of industry will be impacted by the rule including almost every company in the manufacturing sector. Although the reporting requirements appear to be straightforward, the rule creates several potential traps for the unwary. This Alert is intended to help you understand how your company may be affected by the rule and to identify specific steps you can take to minimize disruption caused by the rule.
Key Features of the Rule
The main purpose of the Inventory Reset rule is to provide EPA with a clear picture of all chemical substances that are active in commerce in the U.S. To accomplish this, the rule establishes both “retrospective” and “forward-looking” reporting requirements for manufacturers, importers and processors of chemical substances that are listed on the TSCA Inventory. Substances that are reported during the “retrospective” reporting period will be designated as “active.” Substances that are not reported during the “retrospective” reporting period will be designated as “inactive.” Once a substance has been designated as inactive it can no longer be manufactured or processed in the U.S. until the forward-looking reporting requirements are satisfied.
Retrospective Reporting
Any person who manufactured or imported an Inventory-listed substance for a commercial purpose during the ten year period ending June 21, 2016 is required to report to EPA on those past activities. Substances that are reported in this manner will be designated as “active.”Under the new rule, manufacturers (including importers) of chemical substances must report to the Agency not later than 180 days after the final regulation is published in the Federal Register.To address the disruption that would result if a manufacturer or importer fails to report a chemical used by downstream industry, the rule allows processors to report on the substances they utilize not later than 420 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. This provision is intended to give processors sufficient time to search the interim “active” and “inactive” designations EPA makes based on submissions from the manufacturers.
Forward-looking reporting commences once EPA completes its review of the retrospective reports submitted by manufacturers and processors, and determines that certain chemical substances are “inactive.” Specifically, the rule requires forward-looking reporting by any company that intends to manufacture or process an “inactive” substance. The notice is required to be submitted within 90 days of a company’s intended date of initiating manufacture or processing of the “inactive” chemical for nonexempt commercial purposes.
How Companies Can Avoid Disruptions
Companies that fail to adequately prepare for the Inventory Reset rule may find their operations disrupted in one of several ways. A few of these potential pitfalls are highlighted below.
Interruption of Production Activities
If a substance critical to a company’s operations is not reported or is incorrectly reported during the retrospective reporting period - so that EPA designates the substance as “inactive” - the company will have to discontinue its operations involving that chemical until the company submits a “forward-looking” report to EPA. This concern will manifest itself differently depending on whether a company is a domestic manufacturer of chemical products, an importer of chemical substances, or a company that processes chemical products (for example, companies that utilize coatings or adhesives as part of their manufacturing operations).For a domestic chemical manufacturer it will be essential to get an early start at identifying all of the substances the company manufactured for a non-exempt commercial purpose since June 2006. This task may be complicated for companies that have undergone mergers, acquisitions or other reorganizations since 2006. In addition, this effort might be especially complex for companies that manufacture “class 2” or “UVCB” substances, if their manufacturing processes have changed in the intervening years.Companies that import or process chemical products (e.g., companies that use lubricants or adhesives in their manufacturing operations) may find compliance with the Inventory Reset rule to be problematic unless their suppliers are willing to share specific information on the composition / chemical identities of those products. Although the regulations include mechanisms to facilitate cooperation between importers/processors and their suppliers, these mechanisms ultimately depend on the cooperation of suppliers as well as the suppliers’ familiarity with TSCA nomenclature rules.
Enforcement Liability
The Reset Rule requires reporting of information to the extent that it is known to or “reasonably ascertainable by” companies subject to the rule. In order to assure compliance with the rule, and to avoid interruption of critical business operations, manufacturers and processors will have to conduct a thorough review of their chemical processing and manufacture/import activities over the past ten years. Companies that conduct these types of reviews often find anomalies in how they have reported (or failed to report) on their chemical-related activities in the past. This is especially true for companies that have undergone mergers or acquisitions as well as companies that have changed their manufacturing processes over the years. For this reason, and because of the large penalties that are often assessed for TSCA violations, it is strongly advised that as part of their preparations for compliance with the Reset rule, companies undertake a systematic review of their operations in a manner that will allow them to avail themselves of EPA’s Audit Policy - and potentially obtain complete forgiveness of any penalties - if any reporting or other compliance anomalies are discovered as a result of conducting the type of investigation that’s required to comply with the Reset Rule.
Loss of CBI Protection
The Reset Rule includes provisions for asserting and substantiating claims that certain reported information (e.g., specific chemical identity information) should be protected against public disclosure, as Confidential Business Information (CBI). However, the rule also contains several potential traps that might cause an unwary company to inadvertently lose CBI protection. Perhaps most significantly, the rule includes several exemptions from reporting for certain chemicals that will be deemed to be “active.” For example, substances that were reported for the Chemical Data Reporting rule in 2016 or 2012 are exempt from reporting under the Reset Rule. However, if a company takes advantage of this exemption and decides not to report a substance for the reset, the substance may lose any CBI protection it had previously.
As these examples illustrate, while the Inventory Reset Rule’s reporting requirements appear to be straightforward, the rule raises a number of complex compliance challenges. Companies that fail to adequately plan for, and execute, their obligations under the rule may face significant disruptions in their operations.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=91dfab04-a7e1-47a0-8ad9-02ea34054255
-
Jun 28, 2017 | AP (in Business Inside)
By Michael Biesecker
The Trump administration’s top environmental official met privately with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency’s push to ban a widely used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children’s brains, according to records obtained by The Associated Press.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s schedule shows he met with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on March 9 for about a half hour at a Houston hotel. Both men were featured speakers at an energy industry conference.
Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said Tuesday that Pruitt was “briefly introduced” to Liveris at the conference.
“They did not discuss chlorpyrifos,” Bowman said. “During the same trip he also met with the Canadian minister of natural resources, and CEOs and executives from other companies attending the trade show.”
EPA released a copy of Pruitt’s March meeting schedule earlier this month following several Freedom of Information Act requests. Though his schedule for the intervening months has not yet been released, Bowman said Pruitt has had no other meetings with the Dow CEO. There was a larger group meeting that Pruitt attended which also included two other Dow executives, but she said that didn’t involve chlorpyrifos.
Dow, which spent more than $13.6 million on lobbying in 2016, has long wielded substantial political power in the nation’s capital.
When President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations, he handed the pen to Dow’s chief executive, who was standing at his side. Liveris heads a White House manufacturing working group. His company also wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities.
The American Academy of Pediatrics urged Pruitt on Tuesday to take chlorpyrifos off the market. The group representing more than 66,000 pediatricians and pediatric surgeons said it is “deeply alarmed” by Pruitt’s decision to allow the pesticide’s continued use.
“There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women,” the academy said in a letter to Pruitt. “The risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous.”
The AP reported in April that Dow is also lobbying the Trump administration to “set aside” the findings of federal scientists that organophosphate pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, are harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species.
The chemical is similar to one developed as a weapon in World War II. Dow has been selling Chlorpyrifos for spraying on citrus fruits, apples, cherries and other crops since the 1960s. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States. Dow sells about 5 million pounds domestically each year.
As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos.
Dow, which sells chlorpyrifos through its subsidiary Dow AgroSciences, contends it helps American farmers feed the world “with full respect for human health and the environment.”
Under pressure from federal regulators over safety concerns, Dow voluntarily withdrew chlorpyrifos for use as a home insecticide in 2000. EPA also placed “no-spray” buffer zones around sensitive sites, such as schools, in 2012. But environmental and public health groups said those proposals don’t go far enough and filed a federal lawsuit seeking a national ban on the pesticide.
In October 2015, the Obama administration proposed banning the pesticide’s use on food. A risk assessment memo issued in November by nine EPA scientists concluded: “There is a breadth of information available on the potential adverse neurodevelopmental effects in infants and children as a result of prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos.”
The law requires EPA to ensure that pesticides used on food in the United States are safe for human consumption — especially children, who are typically far more sensitive to the negative effects of poisons.
Pressed at a congressional hearing this month to cite evidence that chlorpyrifos is safe, Pruitt said his decision was based on “meaningful data and meaningful science.”
Asked by AP to provide details, Pruitt’s office responded with quotes from media releases from trade groups and the U.S. Department of Agriculture attesting to the chemicals usefulness to farmers, but did not offer scientific studies on its safety.
“Despite several years of study, EPA has concluded that the science addressing chlorpyrifos remains unresolved,” Bowman said Tuesday. We will make a decision based on the science, not on real — or perceived — pressure from companies or environmental activists.”
Before coming to EPA in March, Bowman directed issue advocacy and communications for the American Chemical Council, an industry trade group of which Dow is a member.
At a hearing Tuesday, Sen. Tom Udall again challenged Pruitt to cite a single peer-reviewed study showing chlorpyrifos is safe. Pruitt responded that he had relied on “interagency dialogue” with USDA before denying the petition to ban the chemical.
EPA says its next review of the chemical’s safety will occur by October 2022, the next statutory deadline for the agency to perform a legally mandated review of chlorpyrifos’ safety. That would mean Dow’s product will potentially remain on the market well after the expiration of President Trump’s current term.
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-pruitt-trumps-epa-chief-met-with-dow-chemical-exec-before-rolling-back-a-ban-on-pesticides-2017-6
-
Jun 28, 2017 | Common Dreams
By Andrea Germanos
The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head, Scott Pruitt, sparked outrage in March when he rejected his agency's proposed ban on a pesticide shown to harm children's brains.
New reporting by the Associated Press Wednesday prompts further question about his decisions to ignore the EPA's own science and then greenlight the Dow Chemical-manufactured pesticide, chlorpyrifos, as the company had requested.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a frequent Trump critic, weighed in on the new reporting, tweeting: "I heard this pesticide helps growth in the swamp."
Records obtained by AP show that Pruitt had a 30-minute meeting with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on March 9. That's just three weeks before he denied a petition from two environmental groups, initiated a decade ago, calling for a total ban on the harmful pesticide—a decision, wrote Kristin Schafer, program and policy director at Pesticide Action Network, that "clearly and publicly puts the interests of a chemical corporation above both scientific evidence and children's health."
AP's Michael Biesecker writes that the meeting took place in Houston at a hotel where Pruitt and Liveris were speakers at an energy industry conference. According to EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman, the men were only "briefly introduced" and "did not discuss chlorpyrifos." (Bowman, for her part, came to the EPA from the American Chemistry Council, an industry group of which Dow is a member.)
Biesecker continues:
EPA released a copy of Pruitt's March meeting schedule earlier this month following several Freedom of Information Act requests. Though his schedule for the intervening months has not yet been released, Bowman said Pruitt has had no other meetings with the Dow CEO. There was a larger group meeting that Pruitt attended which also included two other Dow executives, but she said that didn't involve chlorpyrifos.
Liveris's coziness to the administration was on display in February when he stood beside Trump and was given the president's pen after he signed an executive order aimed at slashing regulations, and Biesecker points out that Dow "wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump's inaugural festivities."
The new reporting comes a day after the American Academy for Pediatrics and advocacy organization Environmental Working Group (EWG) sent a letter to Pruitt urging him to ban the chemical, expressing "deep alarm" that the agency's "decision to allow the continued use of chlorpyrifos contradicts the agency's own science and puts developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women at risk."
It also comes as the EPA "accelerates its purge of scientists."
ThinkProgress wrote:According to an email sent to EPA scientists and obtained by the Washington Post, the EPA has decided not to renew the posts of any scientists working for the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). The BOSC functions as an advisory board for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and helps the office make sure that it is using sufficiently rigorous science in its research and development programs. [...]
The new wave of dismissals brings the total number of BOSC members who will be out of a job in August to 47, which will leave just 11 members serving on the BOSC and its five subcommittees. None of the subcommittees will have a chair or vice chair, and all committee meetings scheduled for late summer and fall have been cancelled.
"By sacking dozens of scientific counselors, Pruitt is showing that he doesn't value scientific input and the benefits it offers the public," said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Echoing some of the concerns raised when Pruitt rejected the chlorpyrifos ban, Kimmell continued: "The administrator has an important job to do—and this includes listening to the best independent science and to make decisions that protect our health, our safety, and our environment. Instead, he's delaying important public protections, denying the facts of climate change, and now, dismissing expert researchers who could help EPA do its best work. It's appalling to see an administrator so directly attack the effectiveness of his own agency," he said.
AP also reported in April that "Dow Chemical is pushing a Trump administration open to scrapping regulations to ignore the findings of federal scientists who point to a family of widely used pesticides [organophosphates] as harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/06/28/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-met-dow-ceo-just-killing-effort-ban-toxic-pesticide#
-
Echa Publishes Updated Guidance on Substances in Articles
Jun 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published the long awaited revision of its guidance on substances in articles.
The agency says the "comprehensive update", which was expected in 2016, gives more clarity on communication and notification obligations when articles contain SVHCs.
It has included new examples, which it says are in line with the judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in 2015. This said the 0.1% threshold for notifying SVHCs in articles applies to "each of the articles incorporated as a component of a complex product" rather than to the entire item.
Amendments to existing examples have been made as a result of consultation with member states, the European Commission and Echa’s accredited stakeholders. Members at the Partner Expert Group (PEG) meeting in October last year submitted almost 700 comments.
Echa published a "quick update" of the guidance in December 2015 after the ECJ ruling. The agency said this was done to "correct the parts" that were not consistent with the conclusions of the judgement.Article 33
The guidance now features an illustrative example to check if requirements under REACH Articles 7 and 33 apply.
Article 7(2) says producers and importers of articles must notify Echa if an SVHC is present at over one tonne per producer, or importer, per year, in a concentration higher than 0.1% by weight.
While Article 33 requires companies to reply within 45 days if asked by consumers about the presence – above 0.1% concentration – of SVHCs in their products.
In a letter to Echa and the European Commission at the end of 2016, secretary general of SME trade body Ueapme, Peter Faross, said the ECJ had not taken into account the practical efforts needed to ascertain whether a substance is present in an article or not. And therefore, he said: "Article 33 cannot be implemented and it seems its enforcement is not possible to a sufficient extent."
Ueapme has asked the European Commission to reassess the Article in its next REACH Review, due at the end of the year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57256/echa-publishes-updated-guidance-on-substances-in-articles
-
Paint Stripper Threatens Ozone Layer
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Efforts to restore the Earth's ozone shield could be pushed back by decades if chemical emissions from paint strippers are not curbed, according to new research.
The ozone-depleting chemical is called dichloromethane and is used as an industrial solvent, aerosol spray propellant and a blowing agent for polyurethane foams.
It is not clear where the chemical is leaking from or why emissions have increased so rapidly.
The research, published in Nature Communications, found that the level of dichloromethane in the atmosphere rose by 8 percent a year between 2004 and 2014.
If that rate continues, researchers say, the recovery of the ozone layer will be pushed back by 30 years, until roughly 2090.
The chemical was not included in the 1987 Montreal Protocol because it breaks down usually within six months in the atmosphere and was not expected to build up.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056717
-
Industry Group Wants DOE to Hit Pause on Exports
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
An industry group that represents large domestic consumers of natural gas is calling on the Trump administration to halt exports while developing new criteria for shipments to nations that lack free-trade deals with the United States.
In a letter to Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America says the Energy Department should halt liquefied natural gas exports to non-free trade partners.
"Excessive LNG export approvals by [DOE] to countries with which the U.S. does not have a free trade agreement is inconsistent with President Trump's 'America First' and 'fair-trade' policies, and poses a significant long-term threat to energy-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries' competitiveness and jobs," wrote IECA President Paul Cicio today.
The letter notes that current DOE-approved volumes of 20.6 billion cubic feet a day to non-trade partners is equal to 170 percent of current total residential demand. Citing long-term U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates, IECA additionally contends that 56 percent of all natural gas resources will be consumed by 2050.
That threatens U.S. manufacturing, which the group says creates eight times more jobs than exporting the resource.
As a result, IECA argues that DOE should adopt five new criteria for meeting its legal obligations to weigh whether exports to non-free trade nations are in the "public interest." Exports to nations that have trade deals with the United States automatically qualify for approval.
"The American Petroleum Institute (API) and some members of Congress from natural gas producing states have said in the past that safeguards are not needed. We hope that they are correct," the industry group says. However, trillions of dollars of manufacturing assets would be at risk, if the assumptions are wrong. This is not an acceptable gamble. It is better to have safeguards in place."
IECA wants DOE to create a "rational LNG export policy" for non-trade nations that reflects President Trump's "America First" trade policy, while also implementing a moratorium on exports to non-trade countries.
The moratorium would allow already approved exports to "become operational and determine if the natural gas industry has the capability to increase production, pipeline transportation, and storage capacity without price increases and/or supply shortages that damage the U.S. economy."
The group additionally wants a rulemaking to "define public interest with a priority on maximizing domestic job creation, not just GDP."
DOE should also establish a process for monitoring the economic impacts of LNG export volumes, with the inclusion of a "safety valve" to protect U.S. consumers.
IECA also wants all approved exports to go through the permitting process again if operations do not commence in five years, while also calling on the Trump administration to bar foreign governments from holding ownership in LNG export facilities or U.S. natural gas resources.
DOE didn't respond to a request for comment, but the push comes amid "Energy Week," where Trump officials have talked up exports (Energywire, June 27).
It also comes as a pair of Republican senators are floating legislation that would limit DOE's role in approving LNG exports.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056736
-
Court Schedules Surprise Arguments Over Obama Rule
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A legal battle over Obama-era standards for hydraulic fracturing on public lands may see new life in federal court next month.
In a surprise notice last night, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments in litigation over the Interior Department's fracking rule — the Obama administration's marquee effort to address impacts from the oil and gas production process.
It was not immediately clear whether the arguments, set for July 27 in Denver, would address the broad merits of the case or narrower legal questions of whether or how the litigation should move forward.
The fracking rule was tossed by a lower court last summer, and an appeal was moving forward in the 10th Circuit earlier this year until the Trump administration announced plans to reconsider the regulation.
In March, the court postponed scheduled oral arguments and asked the Trump administration, states and environmental groups to submit supplemental briefs discussing whether or how the appeal should proceed.
Government lawyers maintained that Interior's Bureau of Land Management has authority over fracking — authority that was called into question by the lower court — but urged the 10th Circuit to freeze the case anyway while the Trump administration rethinks the regulation (Energywire, May 8).
Interior last week sent the White House its proposal for rescinding the rule (Energywire, June 21).
Last night's oral argument announcement came in the form of a standard calendar notice, with no further explanation. Attorneys in the case said they were awaiting clarification from the court.
Several Western states and oil and gas industry groups have pushed the court to keep the case on hold indefinitely, arguing that continued litigation would be inappropriate in light of the administration's plans to scrap or change the rule.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, have pushed to move forward in the case. They say the fundamental question of federal authority over fracking should be answered regardless of Interior's current regulatory plans.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056689
-
At Offshore Drilling Regulator, Focus On "Economic Development"
Jun 28, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
The U.S. Bureau of Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement was created in the aftermath of 2010's Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill to police offshore drilling rigs and their operators.
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, the agency has put a new priority on "economic development," Lars Herbst, Gulf of Mexico Region Director at BSEE, said in an interview Tuesday.
"Our mission has not changed. I don't want folks to think we're just looking at the economic development," he said. "We always had a conservation mission as well, which was not very well understood, about the effective and efficient development of offshore resources. This administration is looking at it as it's not 'either or,' it's 'and.'"
The driver, Herbst said, is oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico stands to go into decline over the next decade if investment in offshore fields does not increase quickly,
"Right now what may surprise some people is we're at a record level of oil production offshore," he said. "That's only because of past investments companies have made. If we don't see some capitol investment that production will start dropping off."
The agency is is in the process of reviewing federal policies to increase offshore drilling, following an executive order from the White House in April.
Among the actions underway is a review of the Obama administration's well control rule, which placed strict requirements on how oil companies drill offshore wells and the equipment they use in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon.
"We're still working those recommendations," Herbst said. "We're looking to what degree safety is improved versus the economic impact. The fact industry has already implemented some of the rule, we're probably not going back on those."
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/BSEE-official-warns-Gulf-production-could-go-into-11251236.php
-
Okla. Officials Say Efforts to Curb Fracking-Linked Quakes Appear to Work
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Oklahoma officials say they are cautiously optimistic that their protocols have reduced the risk of man-made earthquakes from the specific practice of hydraulic fracturing.
The system "has thus far yielded some good results," Tim Baker, director of the Oil and Gas Division at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), said in a news release issued yesterday.
The majority of the earthquakes in Oklahoma have been linked to deep underground injection of wastewater from oil and gas production, not hydraulic fracturing.
But last year, officials started linking some relatively small earthquakes west of Oklahoma City to the fracturing, or "fracking," portion of the well construction process.
So, in December, OCC officials developed a new system calling for companies to take certain steps if quakes are detected near their "frack jobs" (Energywire, Dec. 21). If there's a magnitude 2.5 quake, OCC is to call operators within 2 kilometers of the center, and they should implement their earthquake plans. If the quake is magnitude 3, the operator should shut down for at least six hours. If it's bigger than magnitude 3.5, the company is to shut down until company and state officials confer.
Since then, OCC has contacted operators on 27 events of 2.5 magnitude or greater.
"In the cases where companies have taken mitigation actions, the earthquake activity either stopped quickly or tapered off and stopped soon after," said Jeremy Boak, director of the Oklahoma Geological Survey.
The guidelines are voluntary, but OCC has the power to shut down an operation to address earthquake problems. And OCC officials stressed that companies are cooperating. Often the operators detected quakes on their own seismic arrays and took action, officials said.
Before the measures were put in place, there had been about 35 quakes in 2016 in the area where quakes have been linked to the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Seven of them were magnitude 3 or greater.
The area, south and west of Oklahoma City, is home to the state's two hot new plays, called the SCOOP and the STACK. SCOOP stands for South Central Oklahoma Oil Province, and STACK stands for Sooner Trend Anadarko Basin Canadian and Kingfisher Counties. State officials say the area accounts for the vast majority of new drilling in the state.
Many people have attributed man-made quakes in the United States to "fracking," although nearly all of the ones strong enough to be felt have been linked instead to the disposal of wastewater associated with drilling. While many people use the term "fracking" to describe nearly all of oil and gas production process, it actually refers to a specific part of well development when large volumes of chemical-laced water and sand are injected underground at high pressure to break open deep rock formations and release oil or gas.
When it comes to the risk of large, damaging quakes, Oklahoma officials are still far more concerned about the quakes linked to disposal.
"Based on the present data, wastewater disposal into the Arbuckle Group, not hydraulic fracturing operations, poses the highest risk when it comes to induced earthquake activity," Boak said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056707
-
Ford Chemical Spill Leaks into Lake Erie
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A chemical spill from a Ford Motor Co. plant near Avon Lake, Ohio, leaked into Lake Erie but isn't considered a health hazard, officials said.
Ford spilled about 5,000 gallons of a rust-proofing solution over the weekend, and an unknown amount was discharged into the lake through a storm sewer, according to Ohio EPA.
The chemical is a skin irritant, but the spill is not expected to affect public beach areas or city water intakes.
Ford is coordinating with environmental crews to clean up the spill, company representatives said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056729
-
Global Computer Networks Blitzed by New 'Ransomware' Attack
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A fast-spreading cyberattack hit manufacturers, banking companies and energy firms across the globe yesterday, including the Ukrainian agency monitoring the cleanup of the Chernobyl nuclear site.
The State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management, which oversees a vast radioactive area surrounding the site of a deadly 1986 nuclear explosion, said yesterday that a cyber incident had forced workers to manually check radiation levels after they were effectively locked out of their normal workstations.
"Due to the temporary shutdown of Windows, industrial site radiation monitoring is performed manually," the agency said in a Ukrainian language news announcement, adding that a site of a state-owned nuclear operator was temporarily pulled offline "in connection with the cyberattack."
Representatives from the agency did not respond to requests for comment, but the online press release noted that other safety technologies at the Chernobyl "exclusion zone" in northern Ukraine were functioning normally. A spokeswoman told Agence France-Presse that workers were patrolling parts of the site with hand-held radiation meters "like it was decades ago."
Ukraine has been steadily recovering from the Soviet-era nuclear disaster, though fully cleaning up the site is still set to take nearly 50 years. Authorities last year managed to slide a massive steel shelter over one of the contaminated reactors to curb further leaks (Greenwire, Nov. 29, 2016).
The same cyberattack that roiled Chernobyl, along with several Ukrainian media, banking and utility firms, also appears to have infected dozens of organizations worldwide, from Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft OAO to American pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. The incident involved a new "ransomware" variant — so called because the malware locks up important files on infected computers and holds the key hostage.
Rosneft said on Twitter that no oil production or preparation processes had been stopped by the attack, though it noted that the incident "could lead to serious consequences." The oil company added that it had contacted law enforcement authorities and switched to a reserve control system for some of its operations as a precaution.
"The big worry that a lot of us have is that [ransomware is] going to jump to control systems," said Page Stoutland, vice president for scientific and technical affairs at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. "You can imagine the difficulty if all of a sudden you're blind to your control system because it's taken over by ransomware."
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security posted an alert yesterday about the widespread attacks, which it said appeared to be linked to the previously known "Petya" threat. Cybersecurity experts say the new samples appear to take advantage of a flaw in a proprietary Microsoft Corp. server messaging protocol. Microsoft published a fix for the vulnerability earlier this year, though many organizations haven't applied it.
A DHS spokesman said the agency is ready to assist U.S. companies potentially affected by the malware, adding that the agency "is monitoring reports of cyberattacks affecting multiple global entities and is coordinating with our international and domestic cyber partners."
The new attack appears to have hit Ukraine and Russia hardest in terms of the number of machines infected, based on early research from Russia-based cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab.
It comes mere weeks after a similarly contagious ransomware variant, dubbed "WannaCry," quickly wormed its way into computer networks worldwide (Energywire, May 15). Experts say the latest variant appears to have been crafted to spread more effectively than WannaCry.
Mike Assante, a former U.S grid security official who now leads industrial control system security at the SANS Institute cyber training group, urged infrastructure operators yesterday to "think pretty broadly" about what ransomware could potentially do to their most sensitive systems.
"You could lose access to key files that could interrupt or disrupt the control system," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056708
-
EPA Announces New Cleanup Effort At Former Mich. Chemical Plant
Jun 28, 2017 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The Environmental Protection Agency will begin a nearly $10 million cleanup effort at one of the nation's largest superfund sites in coming weeks.
The agency on Monday said that the thermal treatment of soil at the former Velsicol Chemical Corp. plant in St. Louis, Mich., would take about 18 months. During that process, cleanup workers will use special equipment to heat the soil and capture and treat contaminants on-site.
The Velsicol plant produced chemicals — including the fire retardant PBB and the pesticide DDT — for more than four decades before shutting down in 1978.
Those materials and others contaminated the nearby soil and groundwater, including the neighboring Pine River, with hundreds of chemicals in subsequent decades. The EPA said that the groundwater, in particular, contains elevated levels of benzene and 1,2 dichloroethane.
More than $100 million was spent to clean the river over the past two decades, and additional funding will be needed in coming years.
The Velsicol plant was famously the site of a mix-up of Firemaster flame retardant and cattle feed supplement Nutrimaster more than four decades ago. The incident tainted much of Michigan's meat and dairy supply with PBB, an endocrine-disrupting chemical linked to reproductive issues and thyroid problems.
Researchers from Emory University found last year that six in 10 people tested in the state had traces of PBB in their blood at levels above the national average.
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/06/epa-announces-new-cleanup-effort-former-mich-chemical-plant
-
Big Legal Question: Is Trump's WOTUS Repeal 'Reasoned'?
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Trump administration's 42-page proposal for repealing former President Obama's Clean Water Rule largely builds its case on a 2009 split decision by the Supreme Court on federal regulation of swear words on television.
In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, the high court ruled, 5-4, that an agency can change regulations without the move being considered arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act as long as it provides a "reasoned explanation" for the change.
An agency, the majority ruled, "need not demonstrate to a court's satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one."
"It suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better, which the conscious change of course adequately indicates," says the majority opinion penned by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Obama's Clean Water Rule — also known as the Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS — sought to clarify which wetlands and small, isolate waterways get protected under the landmark 1972 environmental law, the Clean Water Act.
The final version of WOTUS, which was released in 2015, came packaged with an economic analysis and a 408-page technical report offering scientific justification for what streams and other water features were included or excluded from the regulation (Greenwire, Feb. 10).
Released yesterday, the Trump administration's proposed rule that would repeal WOTUS doesn't dispute or even mention the Obama EPA's technical report.
Instead, the 42-page Trump proposal, which will be accompanied by an economic analysis that hasn't been released yet, makes policy arguments for repealing WOTUS.
The proposal cites FCC v. Fox to justify avoiding a scientific debate about the merits of WOTUS and its repeal.
"This is a strategic way for them not to have to argue on the science," said Larry Liebesman, a former Department of Justice attorney who's now a senior adviser with the Washington water resources firm Dawson & Associates.Trump EPA's arguments
The proposed repeal makes two major policy arguments.
The first focuses on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' stay on WOTUS. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether challenges to the rule belong in circuit or district courts and that stay could dissolve if the high court rules in favor of district courts.
Though the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota had preliminarily enjoined WOTUS in 13 states, such a result could lead to "inconsistencies, uncertainty and confusion," the proposed repeal says.
Rescinding WOTUS and reverting back to the 1986 regulation would maintain the status quo and avoid that confusion, the Trump EPA proposal argues.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers also argue that WOTUS didn't adequately consider Section 101(b) of the Clean Water Act, which describes the role that states play in regulating water quality.
The 31 lawsuits filed against WOTUS, one of which was filed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt when he was Oklahoma's attorney general, "raised concerns" about the scope and authority of the regulation, particularly as it pertains to states' rights, according to the proposed repeal.
Although the proposal acknowledges the 2015 rule includes some discussion of the role of states' rights in implementing the Clean Water Act, it faults WOTUS for not including "a discussion in the 2015 rule preamble of the meaning and importance of section 101(b) in guiding the choices the agencies make in setting the outer bounds of jurisdiction of the Act."
The proposed repeal doesn't dispute the reasoning behind which waterbodies are considered protected by the Clean Water Act under the 2015 rule.
Instead, the repeal quotes WOTUS to explain why the Trump administration is trying to avoid a scientific debate, noting a section of the 2015 regulation says, "Science does not provide bright line boundaries with respect to where 'water ends' for purpose of the [Clean Water Act]." The proposed repeal also cites WOTUS saying that determining which waterways count under federal jurisdiction "is not a purely scientific determination."
The proposed repeal then raises FCC v. Fox to explain that a "reasoned explanation" for a new regulation can be based on only policy changes and "need not be based upon a change of facts or circumstances." It argues that President Trump's February executive order directing EPA and the Army Corps to repeal WOTUS constitutes a policy change.Lawyers debate the proposal
Legal experts who have reviewed the proposed repeal differ on whether it would constitute a "reasoned explanation" under Fox, and thus whether it could withstand a legal challenge if unchanged.
Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler said the Trump administration is "right that they don't have to show that the old rule was wrong or that something has changed."
He said EPA and the corps adequately justify their position "in discussing the need to account for state prerogatives."
And Liebesman called relying on Fox a "strategic way" to avoid contending with the 2015 regulation's scientific record.
He said the agencies' argument that rescinding WOTUS would be "business as usual" because the regulation is stayed could be considered "reasoned."
"They are saying, 'No harm no foul,'" he said.
Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau disagreed.
"Their explanation basically comes down to, 'Why not?'" he said about the explanation that repealing WOTUS would maintain the status quo. "You could just as easily argue that there is no reason to repeal the regulation because of the stay."
He noted that while Fox says a "reasoned explanation" is required, it also says agencies must have a "good reason."
Parenteau said the explanation that WOTUS failed to give enough consideration to states' rights is not "reasoned" because WOTUS did discuss state roles and because the proposed repeal does not explain how a potential lack of consideration affected the resulting regulation and would justify repealing it.
"I thought they would provide a flaw," he said. "It's not like they are saying, 'Oh, my God, we had a math error. They left out a zero and the impacts are different than they thought.' They don't deal with the content of the 2015 regulation at all."
Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Jon Devine characterized the administration's reliance on Fox as an attempt to avoid contending with "the science that underlies the Clean Water Rule."
"They can't make it a fight about the science because the science supports the 2015 regulation," he said.
Devine also noted that one reason the Obama administration decided to write the 2015 regulation was to answer complaints from industry and environmentalists alike that the 1986 regulations were too confusing to follow.
That's a point that the proposed repeal acknowledges, even as it says repealing WOTUS would limit confusion.
"The notion of returning rules to the messy state they were in prior to the Clean Water Rule as a remedy for some alleged confusion is pretty weird," Devine said.
But Donald Kochan, a lawyer with the Regulatory Transparency Project, says a "reasoned" explanation is not the same as a "reasonable" one.
While stakeholders may debate whether or not a regulatory change is "a good course of action" or a reasonable one, "those are not the inquiries available to a judge questioning whether or not it is a reasoned explanation."
Fox, he said, only requires "an acknowledgement that you are changing position and a statement of some reason why."
"Given the low bar," he said, the repeal "is a reasoned explanation."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056742
-
White House Meets with Greens, Unions on Rollback
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The White House has begun meetings to discuss pulling back on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Officials with EPA and the Office of Management and Budget have held meetings with environmental organizations as well as with several labor unions on President Trump's move to rescind the EPA rule designed to reduce power plants' carbon emissions, according to records posted online by OMB.
OMB received official notice this month from EPA for a proposed rulemaking to pull back from the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, June 9).
Trump signed an executive order in March directing EPA to review the Clean Power Plan. A federal court has also paused litigation over the regulation.
As part of its reviews, OMB typically holds meetings with interested parties before issuing a draft rule. It's not clear how or whether EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will replace the Clean Power Plan, considering he has questioned in the past whether the agency has the tools to regulate greenhouse gases.
Environmental groups have pledged to fight back against the rollback of the Clean Power Plan.
Last Thursday, Trump administration officials met with officials from the Natural Resources Defense Council and E2, a business group that pushes for clean energy.
They shared several documents with OMB and EPA officials, such as an NRDC report on the Clean Power Plan as well as other studies from E2 and M.J. Bradley & Associates on the regulation.
On Monday, the Trump administration met with officials from several unions, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the United Mine Workers of America and the SMART Transportation Division as well as the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation.
Union officials shared handouts that were more critical of the Clean Power Plan, including one document that said "The CPP is a job killer" as well as a chart of jobs and household income attributable to coal power generation.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056739
-
Pruitt: Courts Didn't Give EPA 'Tools' for Carbon
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt says the federal government's process for regulating carbon dioxide is not yet settled by the courts.
The U.S. EPA administrator told the Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday that EPA's endangerment finding, which established that carbon emissions were harmful to human health, did not end the debate about how the agency should regulate greenhouse gases.
"Massachusetts v. EPA simply said to the EPA that it had to make a decision on whether it had to regulate, whether it posed a risk to health, and there was an endangerment finding that followed that in 2009. It did not address whether the tools were in the toolbox," Pruitt said.
He noted that when Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, there was a "great question" over whether greenhouse gases should be regulated. The overhaul of the landmark 1970 environmental legislation focused on reducing urban smog, acid rain, toxic air pollutants and depletion of the ozone layer. The amendments also established stricter standards for vehicle emissions.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the panel, asked Pruitt how EPA could continue to have a positive impact on climate even as the agency shifts its focus to Pruitt's "Back-to-Basics" agenda.
Pruitt touted EPA's corporate average fuel economy standards regulating vehicle emissions, saying they represent the "greatest progress" the United States had made toward controlling greenhouse gas emissions. He also credited technological innovations such as horizontal drilling and clean coal technology for voluntary reductions in the nation's CO2 levels.
"I think what's important is that we are responding to the CO2 issue through the regulation of mobile sources, we're also evaluating the steps or the tools we have in the toolbox with respect to stationary sources, and that's our focus," he said.
John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, challenged Pruitt's assertion that the Clean Air Act did not give EPA clear authority to regulate carbon emissions. He pointed to the Supreme Court cases American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, both of which affirmed that EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act.
"The thing is, it's not his job to determine whether the legal authorities are ideal, his job is to enforce the laws of the United States. The Supreme Court has said that it's a pollutant," Walke said.
He questioned whether Pruitt may have another motivation for challenging the process of regulating greenhouse gas emissions at stationary sources, like power plants.
"I think someone should see his testimony as flirtation with notions that could lead him to try, and fail, to reverse the endangerment finding. Otherwise, his wrongheaded musings are nonsense that flies in the face of two Supreme Court decisions," Walke said.
Pruitt faced a number of questions from senators over how the agency would address climate change under President Trump. The agency has begun to roll back the Clean Power Plan and halted the implementation of regulations to limit methane emissions from new and modified sources.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) called the administration's overall budgetary approach anti-science and "Know Nothingism."
"You are at the heart of our nation's abandonment of the role as the global leader addressing the adverse effects of climate change," said Leahy. "As an American, I liked the fact that America was the world leader in the environment and climate change. We just gave it away. We gave it away."
Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the panel, called out Pruitt for announcing plans to halt the implementation of New Source Performance Standards for regulating methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry.
"EPA acknowledges that children are disproportionately susceptible to air quality pollution and that they will continue to be exposed to harmful emissions for two years during this delay," Udall said.
The administrator stated that the agency "absolutely had a role" in regulating methane. The stay was meant to clear up concerns about how the rule would be implemented and did not signal that the agency planned to either rewrite regulations or that EPA was planning to rescind the rule. That decision hadn't yet been determined, he said.
Udall repeatedly pressed Pruitt on the administration's position on climate change. Pruitt would not answer directly and instead pivoted to EPA's legal obligations.
"The agency that I lead is responsible for responding to the endangerment finding," he replied.
As for his own views on climate change, Pruitt said he had been consistent in his responses since his confirmation hearing.
"Global warming and CO2 is impacting the climate, that CO2 contributes to it in some measure. Measuring that with precision is very difficult," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056684
-
Judge Postpones Briefs in Legal Fight Over BLM Rule
Jun 28, 2017 | E&E ENergywire
By Pamela King
Citing uncertainty around the fate of a slowly disappearing regulation governing methane emissions from oil and gas operations on public land, a federal judge yesterday extended briefing deadlines in litigation launched last year to kill the rule.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming granted a request by the states of Wyoming and Montana to delay briefing dates until the fall (Energywire, Jan. 17). The original schedule would have required opening briefs by next week, according to Holland & Hart LLP attorney Eric Waeckerlin, a lawyer for two industry groups supporting an expedited schedule.
"To move forward on the present schedule would be inefficient and a waste of both the judiciary's and the parties' resources in light of the shifting sands surrounding the Rule and certain of its provisions, making it impossible to set a foundation upon which the Court can base its review under the Administrative Procedures Act," Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote in his decision yesterday.
Justice Department attorneys revealed in a legal filing last week that they would soon propose to scrap provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's Methane and Waste Prevention Rule that had taken effect earlier this year (Energywire, June 22). The week before, BLM announced a plan to do away with elements of the rule that go into effect next year (Greenwire, June 14).
BLM has said that it plans to rewrite the regulation, which lawmakers failed to undo with the controversial Congressional Review Act (Energywire, June 21).
Waeckerlin said last week that his clients — the Western Energy Alliance and Independent Petroleum Association of America — favored a faster briefing schedule due to the murky outlook on the rollback of the current rule.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/28/stories/1060056706
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested