Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/06
-
Activists May Spoil Clariant and Huntsman’s Chemical Romance
Jul 4, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Stephen Wilmot
Two New York investors have teamed up to overturn the “merger of equals” planned between chemical companies Huntsman andClariant CLZNY 0.90% —but they face a protracted battle for shareholder votes and minds with Clariant’s strong-willed chief executive, Hariolf Kottmann. -
EU Experts Agree On Criteria For Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals In Pesticides
Jul 5, 2017 | Euractiv
By Frédéric Simon
Experts from the 28 EU member states approved on Tuesday (4 July) a proposed list of criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in plant protection products – a move presented by the European Commission as a step towards a broader regulatory system for similar chemicals used in cosmetics, toys and food packaging. -
EU Moves To Regulate Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals
Jul 5, 2017 | AFP (In France 24)
The EU edged closer Tuesday toward a common stand on chemicals which can potentially disrupt the body's hormones and cause a range of serious health problems. -
'Energy Dominance' Starts With Texas Project
Jul 5, 2017 | Bloomberg in (E&E Energywire)
By Laura Blewitt and Catherine Traywick
The Trump administration's path to "energy dominance" begins with a tiny Texas pipeline. -
North Dakota May Halt Rail Inspections Aimed At Derailments
Jul 4, 2017 | AP ( In the Washington Post)
By James MacPherson
The end of the line may be in sight for a North Dakota safety program aimed at lowering the risk of disastrous train derailments involving the state’s crude oil. -
Tillerson Lost Big. Will He Have Clout Under Trump?
Jul 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
In early June, President Trump announced his plans to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement with much fanfare in the White House Rose Garden. -
Dems Who Killed A Carbon Bill Took $1.2M From Industry
Jul 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
A group of California Democrats who helped kill a key climate proposal received $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry and other opponents of the measure. -
Methane Ruling Doesn't Signal Future Court Losses For Pruitt
Jul 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Environmental groups welcomed a ruling from a federal appeals court this week overturning part of U.S. EPA's attempts to halt federal controls on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Activists May Spoil Clariant and Huntsman’s Chemical Romance
Jul 4, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Stephen Wilmot
Two New York investors have teamed up to overturn the “merger of equals” planned between chemical companies Huntsman andClariant CLZNY 0.90% —but they face a protracted battle for shareholder votes and minds with Clariant’s strong-willed chief executive, Hariolf Kottmann.
40 North, the investment arm of privately held Standard Industries, and activist investor Corvex, run by Carl Icahn protégé Keith Meister, have built a $550 million joint stake in Clariant. They have urged shareholders to reject the merger, which they say has “no strategic rationale,” after being required by local stock-exchange rules to disclose their stake in Clariant.
The subtext of their statement is that they want Clariant back in play. The Swiss company, which has an enterprise value of about $9.3 billion, has long been seen as bite-sized in the consolidating chemicals industry. Unlike the merger with Huntsman, a takeover would give investors a premium.
The problem is that Mr. Kottmann has long made clear his opposition to that kind of deal. “The industry knows we won’t be taken over,” he told a Swiss newspaper, shortly after rumors emerged in 2015 that German peer Evonik Industries was considering a bid.
Cynics may interpret the Huntsman tie-up as a poison pill: a way for Clariant to participate in the mergers and acquisitions wave without losing control. Mr. Kottmann is due to become chairman of the combined company. In Switzerland, where HuntsmanClariant would be incorporated, chairmen have more responsibility—and higher pay—than in the U.S. or U.K.
Shareholders can block the deal with one-third of votes, cast at a meeting expected toward the end of 2017. Corvex and 40 North have 7.2% of the votes and may be buying more. But they will need allies. Shareholders have a few months to decide where they stand.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/activists-spoil-clariant-and-huntsmans-chemical-romance-1499181217
-
EU Experts Agree On Criteria For Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals In Pesticides
Jul 5, 2017 | Euractiv
By Frédéric Simon
Experts from the 28 EU member states approved on Tuesday (4 July) a proposed list of criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in plant protection products – a move presented by the European Commission as a step towards a broader regulatory system for similar chemicals used in cosmetics, toys and food packaging.
The scientific criteria determining hormone-disrupting chemicals used in pesticides and biocides was adopted by EU member state representatives sitting in the European Commission’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.
Vytenis Andriukaitis, the EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, described the agreement as “a great success” and called on the European Parliament and the Council, involved in the decision-making process, to ensure its smooth adoption.
The list “will provide a stepping stone for further actions to protect health and the environment by enabling the Commission to start working on a new strategy to minimise exposure of EU citizens to endocrine disruptors, beyond pesticides and biocides”, the Commission said in a statement.
The new strategy will aim to cover for example toys, cosmetics and food packaging, the EU executive added.
The decision is meant to bring to an end a protracted controversy surrounding the definition of endocrine disruptors, which has divided EU member states for years.
The European Commission published its proposed set of scientific criteria to identify chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties in June 2016 – three years later than legally required – prompting Sweden to sue the EU executive.
Hazard vs. potency
Behind the scenes, France – backed by Sweden and Denmark – led a campaign for regulators to adopt a definition “based on the intrinsic properties of hazard, without taking into account the ‘potency’” of the substance – or the amount required for a drug to generate an effect on the human organism.
Based on this definition, Paris suggested establishing three broad sets of criteria based on the level of certainty of the scientific community over their impact on the hormone system – “verified”, “presumed” and “suspected”.
But these three categories were resisted by Germany and its powerful chemicals lobby, which insisted on the need to consider hazard and exposure jointly – as well as potency – in order to evaluate the actual risk for humans.
“Without potency built-in, substances present in everyday food and drinks which are safe for consumption such as caffeine or soybean proteins could be identified as an endocrine disruptor,” warned CEFIC, the EU chemical industry association.
The pesticides industry also underlined the need to consider “potency” as an essential criteria, saying the notion is a fundamental principle of toxicology.
‘Turnaround’ by France
Paris finally bowed to pressure from Berlin and the adopted text doesn’t include the three sets of criteria, making it harder for substances to be classified in broad categories of toxicity.
The French socialist party, which lobbied for strict criteria while in power, condemned the “turnaround” of the government on the issue, and pointed the finger at Nicolas Hulot, a former environmental activist turned ecology minister.
“The text validated today by France is simply unacceptable because it provides for a very high burden of proof” to define harmful substances, said the French socialist delegation in the European Parliament.
The Greens group in Parliament agreed, saying “the European Commission’s criteria will make it very difficult to identify endocrine disruptors, meaning that few if any products would be removed from the market.” It vowed to build a majority in the European Parliament to “veto” the proposed criteria.
“Like the European Commission, most member states have put the interests of a handful of big agrochemical companies ahead of the safety of the public, with negative effects that go well beyond pesticides,” the Greens said in a statement.
Those calls were echoed by the consumer organisation BEUC, which urged the European Parliament and member states to “send this proposal back to the drawing board”.
Others, on the other hand, called on the Parliament to accept the criteria as a basis for future regulation.
“Some, of course, will prefer to see the glass half empty,” said Françoise Grossetête, a French MEP from the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP). “But after so many hurdles and delays, it would be unthinkable for Parliament to obstruct the implementation of these criteria. On the contrary, I believe that, on this basis, we must work on a rapid application of this definition, so as to preserve the health of our fellow citizens. “POSITIONS
The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), representing pesticides manufacturers, called on EU legislators to reject the proposed criteria, saying they "do not allow authorities to clearly separate those substances that have the real potential to cause harm from those that do not".
"By the Commission’s own admission the criteria provide no additional protection for health and the environment and only serve to have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on European farmers who will suffer from yet another arbitrary reduction in the number of tools available to them. In the absence of the derogation, we hope that the Council and EP will reject this proposal," ECPA said in a statement.
EDC-Free Europe, a coalition of more than 70 environmental NGOs, said it "regrets the last-minute change of position of France," on endocrine disruptors and also called on Parliament to reject the proposed definition. "The criteria require a very high burden of proof, which makes the identification of substances as EDCs very difficult and is likely to result in long delays," the coalition said in a statement.
It drew attention to a joint statement by the Endocrine Society, the European Society of Endocrinology and the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, representing the world’s leaders in endocrinology and endocrine science, which expressed serious concern with the European Commission’s proposed criteria.
According to the three scientific societies, "the criteria contain arbitrary exemptions for chemicals specifically designed to disrupt target insect endocrine systems that have similarities to systems in wildlife and humans. Consequently, the criteria cannot be called science‐based," the three societies wrote in a June position paper.
"While the Commission’s current proposal is largely based on the World Health Organization’s definition of an ED, the criteria will not be effective in protecting public health because they do not integrate a process to address those chemicals where additional scientific evidence may be needed," the three societies wrote at the time. As a consequence, "many EDs will not be identified as such via the criteria as currently written," they claimed.
“We regret that a majority of Member State experts have agreed to the Commission’s flawed proposal,” said Monique Goyens, Director General of the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), adding that the proposed criteria “contradicts the precautionary principle, namely that protective action should prevail in the face of scientific uncertainty.”
According to BEUC, an EU definition of endocrine disruptors needs to capture “all chemicals that may disrupt the hormonal system” meaning both substances that are “known” endocrine disruptors and “suspected” ones. BEUC urged the Parliament and Council to adopt criteria that:require a reasonable burden of proof and respect the precautionary principle;introduce multiple classification categories according to the available level of evidence, i.e. known, presumed and suspected endocrine disruptors. This is already the case for chemicals that cause cancer, change DNA or are toxic to reproduction;are applicable to all relevant laws protecting EU citizens and the environment ranging from pesticides to cosmetics and toys.
"This can barely be called a success,” said PAN Europe, a network of over 600 non-governmental organisations working to minimise the negative effects of hazardous pesticides. “The current EDC criteria proposal has repeatedly received criticism from experts in the field of endocrinology because it will fail to efficiently protect human and environmental health,” the NGO recalled.
“Sadly today, we've seen that the European Commission and most EU member states are more concerned about the economic impact of removing endocrine disrupting pesticides from the market than protecting our people, the environment and the future generations. […] Now it is up to the Parliament to demand what the European Commission has refused to carry out, so far."BACKGROUND
Rising levels of cancers and fertility problems have attracted scientists’ attention to endocrine disrupting chemicals, with some calling for strict regulation of the substances, in line with the precautionary principle.
People are exposed to hormone-disrupting chemicals through everyday products including food and drink, medications, pesticides, cosmetics, plastics, detergents, flame retardants, and toys – to name a few. They can even be found in air and dust and can enter our bodies via the skin, breathing, drinking or eating. These chemicals can also be transferred from a woman to her child via the placenta or breast milk.
But others have stressed the worthiness of those chemicals in everyday products such as plastics and pesticides and warned about the economic consequences of banning substances using a precautionary approach.
According to the World Health Organization, an endocrine disruptor is a substance (or a mixture of substances) which disrupts the functions of the hormonal system and consequently is harmful to human health and reproduction, including at very weak levels of exposure.
The European Commission was supposed to define scientific criteria for defining potential endocrine disruptors by December 2013 but delayed its decision because it wanted to make an impact analysis first. Sweden, which backed quick regulatory action on the matter, sued the Commission and eventually won.
In June 2016, the EU executive finally presented its long-awaited set of criteria for identifying substances with endocrine disrupting properties in plant protection products and biocides.
Once adopted, the EU regulatory system will be the first worldwide to define criteria for endocrine disruptors in legislation.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-experts-agreeoncriteria-for-endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-in-pesticides/
-
EU Moves To Regulate Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals
Jul 5, 2017 | AFP (In France 24)
The EU edged closer Tuesday toward a common stand on chemicals which can potentially disrupt the body's hormones and cause a range of serious health problems.Member states approved a European Commission list of criteria to help identify what are known as endocrine disruptors in products used to protect farm animals and plants from disease and insects.
"This is an important step towards greater protection of citizens from harmful substances," said the Commission, the executive arm of the 28-nation European Union.
EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis said the vote represented a real step forward.
"After months of discussion we are advancing in the direction of the first regulatory system in the world with legally binding criteria to define what an endocrine disruptor is. This is a great success," Andriukaitis said in a Commission statement.
"The text will ensure that any active substance used in pesticides which is identified as an endocrine disruptor for people or animals can be assessed and withdrawn from the market."
Endocrine disruptors are believed to have a role in many health conditions, from obesity to infertility, and are found in many common goods such as cosmetics or even toys.
The body's endocrine system -- in the ovaries and testes, as well as the adrenal, pituitary and thyroid glands -- produce hormones that are secreted into the bloodstream to control and coordinate a range of critical body functions.
These hormones help regulate energy levels, reproduction, growth, development, as well as our response to stress and injury.
The disruptors issue has pitted industry and agriculture against consumer and environmental groups for many years.
The EU even announced last year that it had reached broad agreement on what substances were involved but had to go back to the drawing board amid controversy.
Tuesday's decision was made by a Commission technical team but all 28 member states will have to formally endorse within the next three months to take it forward.
The Commission statement gave no details of the criteria agreed.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170705-european-commission-legislation-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-endocrine
-
'Energy Dominance' Starts With Texas Project
Jul 5, 2017 | Bloomberg in (E&E Energywire)
By Laura Blewitt and Catherine Traywick
The Trump administration's path to "energy dominance" begins with a tiny Texas pipeline.
Speaking at the Department of Energy last week, President Trump and other Cabinet officials frequently called for the United States to achieve "energy dominance" (E&E News PM, June 29).
Trump announced several plans for promoting U.S. energy, including the approval of NuStar Energy LP's New Burgos pipeline.
"My administration has just approved the construction of a new petroleum pipeline to Mexico, which will further boost American energy exports, and that will go right under the wall, right?" Trump said. "Have it go down a little deeper in that one section."
Once complete, the 46-mile pipeline will be capable of hauling 108,000 barrels of gasoline a day. That's about 2 percent of the country's current exports of petroleum products (Blewitt/Traywick, Bloomberg, June 29). — MJ
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/05/stories/1060056923
-
North Dakota May Halt Rail Inspections Aimed At Derailments
Jul 4, 2017 | AP ( In the Washington Post)
By James MacPherson
BISMARCK, N.D. — The end of the line may be in sight for a North Dakota safety program aimed at lowering the risk of disastrous train derailments involving the state’s crude oil.
The pilot program, which includes two rail safety inspectors and a manager to supplement inspections by the Federal Railroad Administration, or FRA, is halfway through its four-year run this month and likely will be scrapped in two years, said House Majority Leader Al Carlson and his Republican Senate counterpart, Rich Wardner.
They said the program duplicates federal and industry inspections programs and is not needed as the bulk of the state’s crude oil is now moved by pipelines.
“I think it will run its course, and when it’s done, my gut feeling is we won’t re-up it,” Wardner said.
Carlson said the pilot program was an overreaction following a spate of accidents involving North Dakota crude in the U.S. and Canada, including one in Casselton, the hometown of then-Gov. Jack Dalrymple, who supported the idea.
“Every other program — once you start them, everybody wants to keep them. That’s government,” Carlson said.
The FRA said about 30 other states provide supplemental safety inspections. The agency said it does not reduce its efforts in states that have state rail safety inspectors.
North Dakota’s rail safety program was Republican Public Service Commissioner Julie Fedorchak’s campaign platform when she ran for the position in 2014. Fedorchak continues to defend the program, saying it does not duplicate federal efforts.
The program’s annual budget of about $300,000 is funded by a tax that railroads pay on diesel.
“It’s a very good use of those dollars,” Fedorchak said. “I think it’s doing a lot of important things to improve safety.”
Since its inception, state inspectors have found nearly 2,700 “defects” on tracks and railroad rolling stock, resulting in 50 violations, data show.
North Dakota has produced about 1 million barrels of oil daily since the program started two years ago. At the time, about 75 percent of it was being shipped by rail. Today, oil shipped by rail makes up less than 30 percent of the shipments, as more pipelines have been built, said Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority.
Crude oil shipments are not the only worry on more than 3,000 miles of track in the state and the lines beyond, Fedorchak said. Anhydrous ammonia, a common fertilizer, is seen as the biggest danger, she said. She pointed to a 2002 derailment in Minot that ruptured tanker cars carrying the toxic farm chemical.
The wreck unleashed a cloud of anhydrous ammonia over the city, killing one man and sending hundreds of people to the hospital.
“Inspectors will say that’s their greatest fear,” Fedorchak said.
BNSF Railway Co. is the biggest player in North Dakota, hauling the bulk of the rail-shipped crude out of the region and the inbound freight that supports oil drilling. The company shipped more than 426,000 carloads of products from North Dakota last year — about half of which contained coal or grain. BNSF has said crude oil never makes up more than 5 percent of the railroad’s total volume.
Spokeswoman Amy McBeth said the railroad “doesn’t have a position” on the state-run rail inspections. “We have our own robust track inspections,” she said.
BNSF has invested more than $1 billion in its network in North Dakota since 2013 and plans to put another $80 million into it this year, McBeth said.
“We have every incentive to prevent incidents,” she said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/north-dakota-may-halt-rail-inspections-aimed-at-derailments/2017/07/03/7f962e7a-602a-11e7-80a2-8c226031ac3f_story.html?utm_term=.edff800bbc67
-
Tillerson Lost Big. Will He Have Clout Under Trump?
Jul 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
In early June, President Trump announced his plans to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement with much fanfare in the White House Rose Garden.
His top diplomat was noticeably absent.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was a mile and a half away in his office on Constitution Avenue. It's unclear whether Tillerson even caught it on TV. The State Department declined to provide details of his schedule.
Tillerson wanted Trump to stay in the Paris deal, arguing that it was in the U.S. interest to keep a "seat at the table." He and other foreign policy staff warned Trump that withdrawal would antagonize foreign allies unnecessarily and prevent the United States from influencing how the accord is implemented globally.
But they lost. It was EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — not Tillerson — who made the rounds on cable news and became the face of Trump's decision. And Tillerson's loss on this early high-profile fight has caused some to question whether he will be the force they expected him to be in the administration — particularly on climate change policy.
Tillerson's failure to sway the president on key policy issues like Paris — as well as the proposed evisceration of the State Department and slow pace of political appointments — raises questions about his clout.
The secretary has also struggled against the perception that Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner is a kind of shadow-secretary of State, and the focus on White House protagonists during the run-up to Trump's June 1 decision did little to showcase Tillerson's role within the administration.
Even after Trump's announcement, Tillerson said publicly that he still supported the Paris accord. "My view didn't change," he said. But he appreciated that Trump heard him out, and Tillerson said, "I respect the decision he's taken" (Greenwire, June 13).
Given the snub, some weren't surprised that Tillerson and the rest of the Trump administration's foreign policy top brass, including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, skipped the White House ceremony.
"He didn't win the argument, and I suspect that's probably why he didn't show up in the Rose Garden — he didn't want to sit there and clap for a policy change that he distinctly did not agree with," said Jonathan Finer, who served as chief of staff to then-Secretary of State John Kerry and said he wasn't surprised that Tillerson skipped the announcement.
There was little public indication that Tillerson fought for Paris, a deal he lauded in his previous role as chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., in concert with most other large multinational oil companies.
During his January confirmation process, he reiterated his position that the United States should stay a part of the post-Paris discussion. But he went silent on the issue after he arrived at State Department headquarters, at least in public. He didn't attempt to use media interviews to sway Trump, as Pruitt did repeatedly after appearing to defer to Tillerson on the issue during his own confirmation process.
Tillerson might have raised Paris during his numerous private meetings with the president, but it's hard to know that because he is unusually inaccessible to the media.
Cabinet members don't always win.
That's particularly the case in this administration, where a notable percentage of policy decisions, both foreign and domestic, appear to be based on Trump's personal views and past promises rather than on his advisers' assessment of U.S. interests.Tillerson vs. Pruitt
In the battle over Paris, Pruitt's camp won.
The EPA administrator got a speaking role in Trump's Rose Garden press conference, standing beside the president before delivering his own remarks.
Pruitt made his views on the Paris deal known early on. He took to the airwaves soon after his confirmation to make his case that staying in Paris would be an "America second" strategy that ran counter to the president's foreign policy vision.
The outcome on Paris could mark a shift in climate diplomacy, which has been the purview of the White House and the State Department for 30 years.
EPA has played a supporting role, mainly focused on domestic policies that would deliver White House and State Department commitments.
Joseph Aldy, who served as President Obama's special assistant for energy and the environment, recalled that in the run-up to the Copenhagen, Denmark, summit in 2009, then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was focused on cap-and-trade legislation that had just cleared the House and which the Obama administration hoped would form the backbone of the U.S. commitment. Her successor, Gina McCarthy, traveled to Paris in 2015 to talk about the Clean Power Plan while Kerry led negotiations.
Pruitt stood to gain more from winning, Aldy said, especially if he indeed has future political ambitions in his home state of Oklahoma. He's widely rumored to be considering a Senate run in the Sooner State.
Being the face of the Paris withdrawal might get the former attorney general more political mileage than his day job implementing Trump's domestic deregulatory agenda, particularly if efforts to roll back EPA's Clean Power Plan and other rules run into legal roadblocks that delay them or require the administration to compromise.
By contrast, Trump can disentangle the United States from Paris at the stroke of a pen, though it will take three years before that process is complete.
But Sarah Ladislaw, the director of the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Pruitt's prominence on Paris might not be an indication of how much sway he has over Trump overall. It might simply reflect the fact he agreed with him.
"The president tends to keep people on their toes," she said. "And nobody seems to have a lock hold on the most influential presidential adviser role. And so if they're going to be successful, they have to keep dealing with 'sometimes you're going to win and sometimes you're going to lose.'"Picking his battles?
This may not have been where Tillerson wanted to invest political capital.
"When you're on the inside, you fight battles that either you think you can win or you can't afford to lose," said Aldy, who's now on faculty at Harvard University's Kennedy School. "It could be that Tillerson felt at the end he'd make a case where this is one of those where he could lose, and for him it wouldn't be the end of the world."
Tillerson has a lot on his plate, particularly as he's serving a president who frequently ruffles international feathers. He was deployed with Defense Secretary James Mattis to Australia last month to smooth over Trump's decision to leave not only Paris but the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
The last couple of weeks have seen him struggling to negotiate an evenhanded U.S. position on a conflict between Qatar and Arab neighbors Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain, despite Trump's statements of support for Saudi Arabia.
And Paris, it would seem, wasn't on the top of Tillerson's to-do list.
But if Tillerson is saving his chits for a policy objective that really matters to him, it's not clear yet what that is.
While previous secretaries of State identified signature issues early on and negotiated for resources to support them — for Hillary Clinton it was gender, for John Kerry it was climate and oceans — Tillerson hasn't. He's spent most of his first months at State Department headquarters sequestered in his seventh-floor offices with a small staff that includes many other foreign policy neophytes like Chief of Staff Margaret Peterlin. Career staff and the diplomatic press corps have both complained of lack of access, and Tillerson has not initiated his own travel.
This is all perplexing for those who expected Tillerson to be a dominant force in the administration based on his past career atop Exxon.
Robert Gallucci, former dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, credited the secretary with intelligence and competence but said he did not appear to be seeking the input from policy experts that would give him what his private-sector career lacked — a grounding in U.S. interests abroad.
"If he got briefed, I bet he'd be as good as anybody on two feet, but I don't understand that that's happening," he said.
Tillerson is said to communicate frequently with McMaster and other foreign policy and national security officials, but the frequency with which he states positions that appear to be at odds with Trump's positions on issues like Paris raises questions about the administration's level of coordination overall, Gallucci said.
"If someone in the White House tells you that things are running like a Swiss watch, I mean, sure. From the outside it looks more like a cuckoo clock, I've got to say," he said.
Tillerson has spent the months since arriving at State's headquarters getting to know the president, whom he did not know when he was nominated, and defending the White House's proposals. Those include a cut to the State Department's and the U.S. Agency for International Development's budgets of nearly one-third and plans to reorganize the department to create "efficiencies."
Some critics say it's unclear whether the former oilman even wanted this job. Tillerson told the Independent Journal Review — the conservative outlet that was allowed to send the only reporter to accompany Tillerson on his first foreign trip, raising the hackles of the diplomatic press corps — that his wife told him to take it. He had planned to retire to his ranch.
When asked if he would serve a full term, Tillerson told the publication, "I serve at the pleasure of the president."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/05/stories/1060056934
-
Dems Who Killed A Carbon Bill Took $1.2M From Industry
Jul 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
A group of California Democrats who helped kill a key climate proposal received $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry and other opponents of the measure.
Those 17 Democrats are viewed as an important swing bloc as Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and lawmakers craft another bill that aims to add 10 years to the state's cap-and-trade program for carbon pollution. The group of 17 voted against a similar measure in the Assembly last month.
They received the campaign payments from oil and business groups over the last two election cycles, according to an analysis by E&E News. All 17 lawmakers voted against A.B. 378 or abstained, helping to scuttle a Democratic priority as California and other states elevate themselves as climate leaders.
The measure would have added a decade to the cap-and-trade program, which many believe will expire in 2020 without intervention from the state Legislature or the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Assembly bill also included language that would have allowed CARB to set limits for air emissions at refineries, factories and other locations subject to cap and trade.
Supporters of extending cap and trade suggest the $1.2 million in contributions may have played a role in the bill's demise. And they fear it could again as Brown works with Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D) to get support for another cap-and-trade extension measure. Negotiations on the language for that bill are ongoing.
"These are business lobbies that have a lot of influence in the capital in general because they do give major campaign contributions," said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. "On the cap-and-trade reauthorization, their influence is magnified by the fact that a two-thirds vote is needed.
"That gives a lot of people and interests an essential veto over the bill," Magavern added.
The governor wants to pass a cap-and-trade extension with a two-thirds vote because he believes it would insulate the program against legal challenges. State law says taxes or fees can only be approved with a two-thirds margin. Some argue that the program constitutes a tax because it auctions carbon pollution allowances.
Democrats hold a supermajority in both chambers of the Legislature. But passing a measure with a two-thirds margin means gaining approval from every Democrat in the Senate and all but one in the Assembly. Brown and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D) will have to get "yes" votes from the 17 lawmakers who voted against the climate bill last month or abstained. Otherwise, Brown will need to win over Republican support.
Aware of the hard math, Brown has been trying to get agreement on a cap-and-trade bill from the Western States Petroleum Association, a trade group for oil companies, Magavern said. The group is seeking a provision to prohibit CARB and local air districts from regulating greenhouse gas emissions at refineries, other than through cap and trade, Magavern said.
That could deter some Democrats who want stronger pollution rules for those facilities, because they believe it disproportionately harms lower-income communities nearby, advocates say. It's not clear how much the bill being drafted in the state Senate will incorporate environmental justice language. But it was a key element of the failed bill last month.
A.B. 378 was about "improving air quality in communities that have the worst air pollution in California," Magavern said. "So how could a legislator who represents one of those communities vote against this bill? I think you find the answer in the campaign money that they take from polluters."
Assemblyman Matt Dababneh (D), one of the lawmakers who abstained from voting on A.B. 378, said he thought it gave too much power to the air board.
"Some of the authority they gave to CARB, I would rather see stay with the Assembly and have more checks and balances," Dababneh said. "Members should have more authority over these sorts of programs."Campaign money a 'fraction' of spending
Most of the 17 assemblymembers who voted against the climate bill did not respond to inquiries about their contributions from industry groups. The few that were reached for comment said the contributions did not factor into their vote.
"The assemblymembers' votes are based solely on policy. There's absolutely no correlation between contributions and his vote," said Eric Menjivar, communications director for Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra (D), from the San Fernando Valley north of Los Angeles.
Bocanegra received the second-highest amount of contributions, $156,558 over two campaign cycles.
The 17 Democrats received the combined $1.2 million from political action committees tied to the California Independent Petroleum Association; the California Independent Oil Marketers Association; and oil companies BP Corp. North America Inc., Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Occidental Petroleum Corp., Tesoro Corp., Valero Services Inc., Vaquero Energy Inc. and other smaller petroleum interests.
The California Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and the California Building Industry Association PACs also contributed to those members.
Chevron was the largest contributor. It gave $215,000 to the group of Democrats over two cycles. "We fully comply with all laws and regulations governing political contributions," it said in a statement.
Andy Kelley, communications director at the California League of Conservation Voters, said contributions that are given directly to candidates' campaigns constitute a fraction of what oil companies spend to influence politics in the state.
Heading into the June primary election, petroleum interests spent nearly $20 million on independent expenditures, including giving to PACs, super PACs and funding advertising, Kelley said.
"There's a real threat, I think, many lawmakers feel," he added. "If they fight against Big Oil too loudly or too often, there is a real danger that Big Oil will spend millions of dollars against them."Top recipients
Assemblyman Rudy Salas of Bakersfield received the highest total of the Democratic group, at $167,511. Assemblyman Jim Cooper of suburban Sacramento received $120,788, the third most after Bocanegra. Assemblyman Adam Gray of Merced received $111,174.
Salas, Bocanegra and Gray issued a statement in May outlining their preferences for a cap-and-trade measure. Menjivar in an email said several of the principles from that statement were not in A.B. 378.
Among those missing was that cap and trade "must be the primary greenhouse gas reduction method for California to meet its 2030 goals," and that it "must include cost containment tools like carbon offsets and free allowances that reduce the direct burden on consumers and limit emissions leakage to other states." The three lawmakers also want it to end in 2025, not 2030, in order "to ensure continued legislative oversight."
Menjivar said that Bocanegra liked elements of another climate measure that did not come up for a floor vote, A.B. 151. It dealt with CARB powers as the agency seeks ways to meet the state's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. That bill had a workforce development and retraining component.
Other Democrats who received money from opponents of the cap-and-trade extension measure include Assemblyman Tom Daly, who accepted $94,950; Assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas ($88,950); Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell ($84,889); Assemblyman Jim Frazier ($84,400); and Assemblyman Mike Gipson with $66,400. Others received smaller amounts.
O'Donnell was one of the lawmakers who didn't vote on A.B. 378. Sophia Kwong Kim, his spokeswoman, said that "he had a family emergency and had to leave session to return home just when the bill was taken up. He is supportive of extending the cap and trade program to 2030 through a 2/3 vote bill."Offsets off-putting
Dababneh, one of the Democrats who abstained, said he supports extending cap and trade 15 years instead of 10 because that "builds more stability in marketplace" and allows business planning. He said that a longer extension probably is unlikely, however.
Dababneh said he dislikes how the existing cap-and-trade program lets businesses buy offsets from projects in other states, like tree-planting in Michigan. He said offsets should be limited to projects in California.
Erica Morehouse, senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, said that businesses already prioritize buying offsets from within the state, "but there is not enough supply to meet demand for offsets inside California."
Dababneh said any cap-and-trade extension should include an environmental justice component.
"There are regions of our state who have not benefited from our, I think, really impressive environmental track record," Dababneh said. "They've been left behind. Those are usually inland and poorer communities, often with high immigrant and minority populations. They clearly have not benefited as some of the coastal areas have."
Republicans voted against A.B. 378; they also take campaign money from oil and business groups. But Magavern said those interests sometimes favor Democrats because they're in power in California.
Brown is hoping to win some Republican votes to reach a two-thirds majority. Magavern said that will be difficult.
"It is hard to imagine Republicans voting for a major climate bill without the blessing of the oil lobby, but what it would take to get the blessing of the oil lobby might lose the support of Democrats who are actually trying to reduce pollution," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/05/stories/1060056933
-
Methane Ruling Doesn't Signal Future Court Losses For Pruitt
Jul 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Environmental groups welcomed a ruling from a federal appeals court this week overturning part of U.S. EPA's attempts to halt federal controls on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
The decision, they said, shows that the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit is being "vigilant" about the agency following the law. Yet some questioned how much the case would predict the success of future legal challenges to Administrator Scott Pruitt's plans to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations.
Last month, EPA had placed a 90-day stay on the implementation of parts of a rule finalized under the Obama administration aimed at cutting methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry. On Monday, the D.C. Circuit tossed out EPA's delay, calling it "capricious" (Greenwire, June 3).
"This was a big ruling," said Adam Kron, senior attorney at the Environmental Integrity Project, one of the environmental groups that filed an emergency motion challenging the rule's delay. "The court decided to just throw out EPA's action. We asked the court to put a pause on EPA's stay or to summarily, as a matter of course, throw it out."
Kron suggested a large part of why the court rejected EPA's argument was because the agency claimed that it had inherent authority to issue a brief stay of the rule, even if the Clean Air Act did not give EPA that authority. Previously, the agency unsuccessfully argued that the rule should be stayed because the oil and gas industry did not have an adequate opportunity to comment on portions of the final rule.
The D.C. Circuit tends to give deference to federal agencies, so Pruitt had a lot of basis to expect the court would give EPA the benefit of the doubt in this case, Kron said.
The 2-1 decision by the panel of judges was the first of a number cases on environmental rollbacks attempted by the Trump administration, said David Doniger, senior attorney for Natural Resource Defense Council's climate and clean air program
"It's a good sign that the courts will be vigilant in enforcing the Administrative Procedure Act and the rule of law as Pruitt and Trump attempt to roll back these protections," he said.
"To me all this means this piety about following the rule of law is nonsense," Doniger added.
While the ruling is heartening to those fighting against the Trump administration's regulatory rollbacks, this particular case doesn't significantly weaken Pruitt's ability to unwind other regulations. But it could be relevant to a narrower set of issues, like EPA's stay of a separate rule controlling methane emissions from landfills and another stay of a rule protecting against chemical accidents.
"Nothing here takes away Pruitt's authority to change the rules, provided the new rule is consistent with the law and the factual record to back it up and there were good reasons for the change," Doniger said. "We have always expected the courts to scrutinize the roll back rulemaking quite carefully."
What the court's decision does say is that if EPA invokes a 90 day stay, that stay is immediately reviewable by the court to see if it's legally justified or not, said Ethan Shenkman, partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. Shenkman was previously deputy general counsel at EPA under President Obama.
"Any time there is a 2-1 decision there is always a possibility that a different panel could have come up with a different result. These are not necessarily easy questions of administrative law, they are pretty nuanced," he said.
Ann Weeks, senior counsel at the Clean Air Task Force, called the ruling "pretty case specific."
"The decision that EPA did not meet statutory requirements did not necessarily have much bearing on how future court challenges to EPA's recent actions might turn out," she said.
"We're encouraged about this development and we hope the courts looking at this are as careful and as thoughtful about what the law says and what the administration is doing," Weeks said.
The legal battles over the methane rule for new and modified sources is not over yet. Last month, EPA also proposed staying the methane rule for an additional two years, as the agency reconsiders it.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/05/stories/1060056942
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested