Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 7/7/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Center for the Polyurethanes Industry Announces Keynote Speaker
Jul 7, 2017 | Adhesives and Sealants Industry
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council recently announced that Mahzarin Banaji, Ph.D., reportedly a renowned Harvard University psychology professor, will deliver the keynote at the 2017 Polyurethanes Technical Conference, taking place Oct. 2-4, in New Orleans. -
EPA Issues TSCA 'Not Likely to Present Unreasonable Risk' Findings
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for five substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
EPA Certifies SCS Global to Test Composite Wood Items for Formaldehyde Emissions
Jul 7, 2017 | Woodworking Network
By Bill Esler
Leading third-party certifier SCS Global Services said that it is now approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Third Party Certifier for the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products, commonly referred to as the EPA Formaldehyde Rule. -
Groups Threaten to Sue 7 Companies over Unreported Imports
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Environmental Health Strategy Center have announced their intent to sue seven companies over accusations they failed to report imports of a harmful chemical to U.S. EPA. -
California Lists PBDE Mixture on Prop 65
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has added pentabromodiphenyl ether mixture [DE-71 (technical grade)] to its Proposition 65 list of carcinogens. -
BPA Use Remains High in US Independent Stores, NGO Finds
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The percentage of canned food that contains bisphenol A (BPA) has dropped significantly at mainstream supermarkets in the past two years. -
EU Moves to Define Endocrine-Disrupting Pesticides
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
European Union member states on July 4 adopted a list of criteria for identifying whether the active ingredient in a pesticide is an endocrine disruptor. -
SME Body Criticises Echa's Guidance on SVHCs in Articles
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Echa’s updated guidance on substances in articles does not provide the clarity companies need, says SME trade body Ueapme. -
Facts, Not Bias, Should Drive Energy Policy
Jul 7, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By William O'Keefe
The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) once observed that we are all entitled to our own opinions — just not our own facts. Yet there are many interest groups, in pursuit of policy goals, that seem bound and determined to believe just the opposite, presenting distortions and opinions as facts not to be challenged. -
Court Blocks U.S. EPA from Delaying Methane Leak Rules
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Jeff Johhnson
A federal appeals court has nixed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to delay implementation of regulations to reduce methane leaks from oil and natural gas drilling and production. -
Trump Strikes Bipartisan Tone on Energy Exports to Europe
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump took aim at Russian energy dominance in Europe yesterday, offering U.S. natural gas exports as a hedge against the over-reliance on Russian supply that has long plagued central and Eastern European countries. -
Trump Sells U.S. Energy, LNG at European Summit
Jul 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
President Trump told representatives of 12 European nations gathered for a summit of the Three Seas Initiative that the United States is eager to build strong trade ties and export energy supplies to them, quipping "if you need energy, just give us a call." -
Zinke's Order Aims to Fulfill Onshore Industry Wish List
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Pamela King
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke yesterday signed his fourth administrative order to align his department with President Trump's goal of reaching U.S. "energy dominance." -
BLM Analyzing Huge Gas Project in Prime Wyo. Grouse Habitat
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Steater
The Bureau of Land Management today released its preliminary analysis of a massive natural gas project in the heart of prime greater sage grouse habitat in Wyoming that calls for using directional drilling to minimize surface disturbance. -
Thai Company Purchases Land for Ohio Ethane Cracker
Jul 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Thailand's state-owned petrochemical and refining company, PTT Global Chemical pcl (PTTGC), has taken another step toward building its proposed multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Belmont County, OH, exercising its purchase option for a 167-acre site there. -
Inside the 'Dirty' Fight to Leave the Paris Deal
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Emily Holden
President Trump was in a tiny room on an Italian hilltop with six world leaders determined to get him to stay in the Paris Agreement. -
Dem States Move to Defend Obama Ozone Rule in D.C. Circuit
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
More than a half-dozen Democratic-led states, worried that U.S. EPA will no longer defend the legality of its 2015 ozone air quality standard, are asking a court's permission to take up the fight.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Center for the Polyurethanes Industry Announces Keynote Speaker
Jul 7, 2017 | Adhesives and Sealants Industry
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council recently announced that Mahzarin Banaji, Ph.D., reportedly a renowned Harvard University psychology professor, will deliver the keynote at the 2017 Polyurethanes Technical Conference, taking place Oct. 2-4, in New Orleans. Banaji will examine the importance of diversity and inclusion in relation to the STEM disciplines, with special relevance to the plastics and polyurethanes industry, and how companies can help plan a course of action to differentiate our industry from others.
“We are excited to have Dr. Banaji share her experience on how the polyurethane industry can drive innovation and attract and retain new talent in this evolving world,” said Lee Salamone, senior director of CPI. “I am grateful to CPI member BASF for its support of this keynote presentation.”
http://www.adhesivesmag.com/articles/95608-center-for-the-polyurethanes-industry-announces-keynote-speaker
-
EPA Issues TSCA 'Not Likely to Present Unreasonable Risk' Findings
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for five substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). In each, the substances were determined not likely to present an unreasonable risk based on low human health and environmental hazard.
Two include a polymer exemption flag. This says the substance must be manufactured such that it meets exemption criteria. They are:generic alkanoic acid, 2-alkyl-, substituted alkyl ester, polymer with alkyl alkenoate, substituted carbomonocycle, substituted alkyl alkenoate and alkyl substituted alkenoate, substituted alkanenitrile-initiated; andgeneric alkyl acrylate polymer.
The remaining three are:generic alkenyl bis-succinimide, intended for use as a lubricating oil additive;galactoarabinoxylan, to be used as a depressant for mineral ore flotation; andgeneric carbomonocyclic dicarboxylic acid, polymer with carbomonocyclic dicarboxylic acid, alkanedioic acid, alkenedioic acid, substituted dioxoheteropolycyclic, substituted dioxoheteropolycyclic, alkanedioic acid, alkoxylated alkylidene dicarbomonocycle and alkoxylated alkylidene dicarbomonocycle, ester; intended for use as an additive in toner.
The agency issued the determinations in June. Three of the reviews began last year – two in June, one in September. The other two started in March of this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57518/epa-issues-tsca-not-likely-to-present-unreasonable-risk-findings
-
EPA Certifies SCS Global to Test Composite Wood Items for Formaldehyde Emissions
Jul 7, 2017 | Woodworking Network
By Bill Esler
Leading third-party certifier SCS Global Services said that it is now approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Third Party Certifier for the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products, commonly referred to as the EPA Formaldehyde Rule. In this role, SCS is now authorized to conduct independent certification assessments of composite wood products under Toxics Substance Control Act (TSCA) Title VI. In addition to being a TPC for the EPA Formaldehyde Rule, SCS has been a TPC for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM 93120) for composite wood products since 2009. The EPA Formaldehyde Rule was published December 12, 2016 and became effective May 22, 2017. An extension on the deadlines that had been proposed has now been withdrawn. The purpose of TSCA Title VI is to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, resulting in decreased health risks. TSCA Title VI mandates that producers selling hardwood plywood (veneer or composite core), particleboard, and medium density fiberboard (MDF) products in the United States comply to the formaldehyde emissions criteria by December 12, 2017. “We are pleased to be an approved TPC for the EPA Formaldehyde Rule,” said Nicole Muñoz, SCS Managing Director, Environmental Certification Services. “SCS has been certifying products to indoor air quality standards for over ten years, and certifying wood products used in the green building and furniture industries for even longer. Becoming an approved certifier for the EPA Formaldehyde Rule allows us to increase our indoor air quality offerings to manufacturers looking to comply with regulations as well as independently verify this health and wellness aspect of their products.” SCS provides third-party indoor air quality (IAQ) certification under a variety of internationally recognized labels, including FloorScore®, SCS Indoor Advantage and Indoor Advantage Gold, and calCOMPliant, SCS’ program for certifying composite wood products to California’s formaldehyde emissions requirements. It partners with independent, ISO-17025-accredited laboratories worldwide, providing testing services convenient for manufacturing facilities located around the globe. SCS Global Services has been providing global leadership in third-party environmental and sustainability certification, auditing, testing, and standards development for over 30 years. Its programs span a wide cross-section of industries, recognizing achievements in green building, product manufacturing, food and agriculture, forestry, retail, and more, addressing a broad range of Sustainable Development Goals. The SCS Kingfisher certification mark is found on an increasing number of products around the world, including products certified for their indoor air quality attributes. SCS is a chartered benefit corporation, reflecting its commitment to socially and environmentally responsible business practices.
http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/epa-certifies-scs-global-test-composite-wood-items-formaldehyde
-
Groups Threaten to Sue 7 Companies over Unreported Imports
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Environmental Health Strategy Center have announced their intent to sue seven companies over accusations they failed to report imports of a harmful chemical to U.S. EPA.
The chemical, n-propyl bromide, or 1-bromopropane, could cause acute risks to women of childbearing age, who could suffer reproductive harm and development issues for their children, according to an EPA draft risk assessment (E&E News PM, March 3, 2016).
The seven companies, which include Chemical Solvents Inc., the Solvents Co. and Dow AgroSciences LLC, are accused of importing a total of at least 1.6 million pounds of the chemical, mostly from China.
The chemical was originally marketed as a safer alternative to cleaning solutions but has since been associated with health impacts.
Under federal chemical data reporting regulations, companies were required to notify EPA by Oct. 31, 2016, if they imported 25,000 pounds or more of the chemical in any of the prior four years.
According to the lawsuit, a commercial database on importation records reported the companies exceeding the legal threshold at least once during those years. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, the two groups found that the companies reported no imports of 1-bromopropane.
"The fact that imported nPB can end up in direct to consumer products with virtually no restrictions speaks to the need for EPA to regulate nPB and other toxic solvents," said Patrick MacRoy, deputy director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center.
The chemical was included in EPA's list of the first 10 chemicals to review under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (E&E News PM, Nov. 29, 2016).
The formal 60-day notice of intent to sue the companies is the first step in a citizen enforcement action under TSCA.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/07/stories/1060057068
-
California Lists PBDE Mixture on Prop 65
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has added pentabromodiphenyl ether mixture [DE-71 (technical grade)] to its Proposition 65 list of carcinogens.
The listing follows a 5 May notice of intent to list (NOIL) the substance through the authoritative bodies mechanism, based on a 2016 National Toxicology Program (NTP) report that concluded it causes cancer.
The NTP found the mixture caused liver cancers in male and female rats and mice. Occurrences of thyroid gland and pituitary gland tumours in male rats, and uterine tumours in female rats, may also have been related to exposure to DE-71.
Oehha did not receive any comments in response to the NOIL. Production and uses of the substance were voluntarily phased out in the US in 2004.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57507/california-lists-pbde-mixture-on-prop-65
-
BPA Use Remains High in US Independent Stores, NGO Finds
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The percentage of canned food that contains bisphenol A (BPA) has dropped significantly at mainstream supermarkets in the past two years. However, cans at independent grocery stores that target Asian shoppers are far more likely to contain the chemical, says a new NGO report.
In its report Kicking the Can, released in May, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found that 38% of cans tested from four large national retail chains – Kroger, Albertsons, Dollar Tree, and 99 Cents Only – had BPA-containing linings. That represents a major improvement over findings in a 2015 report published by several NGOs – before California began to require warnings for BPA exposure. It found the chemical in 67% of the cans that were tested.
However, subsequent investigation by the CEH has found that 71 of 78 canned foods purchased in the ensuing month from California grocery stores marketing to Asian Pacific Islander communities in Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and the San Francisco area contained BPA.
And the NGO reports that only three of the 71 products were listed in a state database intended to warn consumers about affected products.
California's Proposition 65 has required warnings for exposure to BPA – used in the linings of cans and bottles to prevent interaction between the container and contents – since 11 May 2016. However, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has used a series of temporary rules to allow uniform point-of-sale signs, in lieu of traditional on-product labels. The rule's latest iteration extended the compliance option to 30 December.
Some manufacturers insist that BPA's use in can linings is safe, but several NGOs have demanded that the chemical be subject to product-specific Prop 65 warning requirements.
Oehha has said the agency is waiting for the outcome of federal research on the substance before adopting a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for oral exposure to BPA. That is expected in 2017 or 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57506/bpa-use-remains-high-in-us-independent-stores-ngo-finds
-
EU Moves to Define Endocrine-Disrupting Pesticides
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
European Union member states on July 4 adopted a list of criteria for identifying whether the active ingredient in a pesticide is an endocrine disruptor. The benchmarks are expected to set the stage for regulating chemicals that interfere with hormones in products beyond pesticides, including toys, cosmetics, and food packaging.
“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,” says EU Commissioner for Health & Food Safety Vytenis Andriukaitis. “Once implemented, 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.”
Neither the pesticide industry nor environmental groups supported the criteria when they were first proposed by the European Commission last year. Little has changed since then, and both sides are still raising concerns.
The pesticide industry, represented by the European Crop Protection Association, says the criteria could lead to the removal of dozens of pesticide products from the EU market. In a report released earlier this year, the industry group claimed that the criteria would reduce “crop yields, crop value, and the EU’s self-sufficiency in certain staple crops, such as wheat.”
On the other hand, EDC–Free Europe, a coalition of dozens of environmental and health advocacy groups, says the criteria will “require a high burden of proof,” so most endocrine-disrupting substances will be undetected and evade regulation.
Three scientific societies that are focused on endocrinology also oppose the criteria, citing “arbitrary exemptions for chemicals specifically designed to disrupt target insect endocrine systems that have similarities to systems in wildlife and humans.”
Groups on both sides of the issue are urging the European Parliament and Council to reject the criteria. The two bodies must approve the criteria within three months for the benchmarks to be officially adopted.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i28/EU-moves-define-endocrine-disrupting.html
-
SME Body Criticises Echa's Guidance on SVHCs in Articles
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Echa’s updated guidance on substances in articles does not provide the clarity companies need, says SME trade body Ueapme.
The long-awaited revision was published last month to make clearer communication and notification obligations for articles containing SVHCs.
Echa made the changes after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in 2015 that 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 article.
But Marko Susnik of Ueapme told Chemical Watch the document was too general and does not help SMEs to define what a ‘complex article’ is and added that more industry sector specific examples were needed.
"An example which is relevant for the textile industry may not be for the automotive industry, for electronics or domestic furniture," he said.
An Echa spokesperson said it defined a complex object as "any object made up of more than one article (for example, a bank card with chip, mobile phone, aircraft)" and further explained "that a supplier of such an object is also a supplier of its component articles and that the communication and notification obligations apply to candidate list substances present in the component articles."
They added that the guidance also provides advice on how to identify and differentiate articles joined or assembled together. However, they acknowledged that it "does not address challenges which are specific to a certain sector or type of duty holder".
This posed a challenge, they said, because of "the diversity of actors and sectors involved in the production, import and supply of articles, as well as from the lower level of knowledge and experience of REACH of some of these, such as retailers."
The advice contains general principles applicable to all duty holders and "different industrial sectors need to apply these by comparing their own objects/articles with the scenarios and worked examples", they said.
'Unenforceable'
The guidance 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 2016, Ueapme wrote to the European Commission to say that the ECJ’s ruling had not taken into account the practical efforts needed to find out whether a substance is present in an article or not, making Article 33 difficult in practice and impossible to enforce. Other European organisations have also raised concerns with the article since the ECJ ruling, including Orgalime and the European Defence Agency (EDA).
This week, Mr Susnik said: "In our opinion, enforcement is not possible because there are no standard testing methods, there is no strategy on how to implement it."
In response to this, Echa said the updated guidance "gives more clarity on the communication obligations of companies", which would help member states to enforce the obligations.
Echa’s enforcement forum is preparing a pilot project on substances in articles with the intention of initiating inspections before the end of the year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57461/sme-body-criticises-echas-guidance-on-svhcs-in-articles
-
Facts, Not Bias, Should Drive Energy Policy
Jul 7, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By William O'Keefe
The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) once observed that we are all entitled to our own opinions — just not our own facts. Yet there are many interest groups, in pursuit of policy goals, that seem bound and determined to believe just the opposite, presenting distortions and opinions as facts not to be challenged.
This most recent example is exemplified in the recently released report“Talk is Cheap: How G-20 Governments Are Financing a Climate Disaster.”Unfortunately for the groups behind this report, facts are stubborn and persist in spite of advocacy bias.
In their ongoing war against fossil fuels, the report’s authors distort the facts concerning subsidies and the energy industry. They claim that the U.S. government provides “over $5.7 billion in annual average public financing for oil and gas.” This is almost five times as much as they claim goes to renewables — $1.2 billion.
These figures are directly contradicted by the most recently available data from the Energy Information Administration which shows for fiscal 2013 renewable energy received $13.8 billion in subsidies compared with $2.8 billion in tax provisions related to the oil and gas. Significantly, the categorization of subsidies for oil and gas is misleading in that it includes heating assistance for low-income people and tax deductions that are available to all companies, not just oil and gas companies.
Earlier this year, Dr. Pinar Cebi Wilber, chief economist of the American Council for Capital Formation, wrote about attempts to conflate tax deductions available to all companies with subsidies. She was unambiguous in stating, “Traditional energy producers do not receive subsidies from the United States Government — they take tax deductions much like virtually all other manufacturers.”
For example, the “dual capacity rule” applies to all companies so that they avoid double taxation on foreign earnings and the domestic manufacturer’s deduction applies to all U.S. manufacturing. The various allegations of subsidies for oil and gas exploration and development have been refuted over and over but environmental advocacy organizations keep making them in the hope that repeating an untruth over and over will someday make it a fact.
Development banks do not provide financing to oil and gas companies to enrich them, they make loans to developing countries to help them escape the devastation of energy poverty affecting over 1 billion people around the globe. Providing investment funds to bring energy to them is a way of providing potable water, refrigeration for drugs and energy to replace dung for cooking.
Closer to home, the traditional energy sector has catapulted the United States into an era of energy abundance, contributing to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), supporting millions of jobs and resulting in lower energy prices for Americans.
Subsidies, which represent special treatment for specific industries, should be eliminated. They distort investments and promote inefficiency and crony capitalism. What’s worse is that it puts the federal government in the game of picking economic winners and losers. And if debacles such as Solyndra have shown us anything, it’s that the bureaucrats in Washington don’t have the greatest track record on that front. As such, it’s best they stay on the sidelines.
It doesn’t escape notice that these same policy groups seem incapable — or unwilling — to gin up an equal amount of outrage over billions in actual subsidies that the renewable sector receives. Renewables are supposedly acceptable. Fossil fuels are not; hence their ire is solely aimed at the oil and gas industry as they propagate the false subsidies argument.
Fortunately, cooler heads appear to be prevailing in Washington as the head of the National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, said in a recent White House meeting that all “tax preferences” were on the table as part of tax reform. Keeping faith with that commitment will help make the tax code fairer and provide a level playing field, which is good news for Americans and the economy. At the end of the day, actual facts — not opinion disguised as fact — should rule the day.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/340993-facts-not-bias-should-drive-energy-policy
-
Court Blocks U.S. EPA from Delaying Methane Leak Rules
Jul 7, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Jeff Johhnson
A federal appeals court has nixed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to delay implementation of regulations to reduce methane leaks from oil and natural gas drilling and production.
Those Obama Administration regulations were years in preparation and apply only to new and modified oil and gas facilities. When they went into effect in August 2016, they were the first-ever federal regulations to reduce methane from this sector. They would capture some 460,000 metric tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, by 2025, EPA said last year. They do not apply to existing facilities, which number in the hundreds of thousands.
The Trump Administration in March called for a reexamination of these and other energy-related regulations. In April, after complaints from oil and gas producers, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt granted a 90-day delay to reconsider specific provisions of the methane rules. In June, Pruitt extended the delay for two years while EPA reconsiders the regulations in their entirety.
The court, agreeing with environmental groups that challenged EPA’s move, voided the delay on July 3, calling it “arbitrary, capricious, [and] in excess of statutory … authority.” The administrative record makes clear that EPA provided ample opportunities for the public to comment while the agency crafted the regulations, the court found. Putting them on hold during reconsideration is unnecessary, it said.
The court stressed that nothing in its opinion limits EPA’s authority to reconsider the rules and proceed with formal development of new methane leak regulations.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i28/Court-blocks-US-EPA-delaying.html
-
Trump Strikes Bipartisan Tone on Energy Exports to Europe
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump took aim at Russian energy dominance in Europe yesterday, offering U.S. natural gas exports as a hedge against the over-reliance on Russian supply that has long plagued central and Eastern European countries.
In remarks at a meeting of the Three Seas Initiative in Warsaw, Poland, Trump told leaders from those regions that the United States would never do what Russia has done: use its gas resources to control its trading partners.
"You don't want to have a monopoly or a monopolistic situation," Trump said. "The United States is firmly committed to open, fair and competitive markets for global energy trade."
Trump celebrated the first-ever shipment of U.S. liquefied natural gas to Poland last month, congratulating his host country on "a very good deal" with the United States.
"America will be a faithful and dependable partner in the export and sale of our high-quality and low-cost energy resources and technologies," he said, adding that when it comes to the quality of U.S. exports, from fuel to military equipment, "nobody [is] even close, and that's acknowledged."
State Department officials who served during the Obama administration approved of Trump's words. They acknowledged the need for greater diversification of European energy supply and more integrated markets. Those have been U.S. diplomatic objectives since the 1990s, they said, and they are the best way to prevent Russia from abusing its position as Europe's top gas supplier.
"What I had been concerned about beforehand was the question of whether this long-standing bipartisan policy of encouraging Europe to have a competitive integrated gas market would continue," said David Goldwyn, a former U.S. special envoy for international energy affairs in the early Obama years.
In the past, he said, the European Union "has needed the help, and the U.S. has been there to provide it, but we've been pretty silent since Trump came to power."
But Goldwyn said Trump weakened his message yesterday by promoting U.S. gas exports and ignoring the role the E.U. plays in laying the groundwork for a more competitive market. The 28-nation compact's policy directives have helped diverse suppliers gain access to pipelines and other infrastructure, eliminated barriers to the sale of gas between E.U. members, and taken other steps to better integrate European energy markets and undercut Russian control.
"Those things would actually help the U.S. industry more than just asking countries to buy American," he said.
Supporting the E.U. has not always been Trump's strong suit. He seemed to back Britain's exit from the compact last year, and he has repeatedly clashed with the leader of its most powerful country, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, on issues including defense spending, trade and the Paris climate agreement.
The German leader, who hosts Trump and other leaders of the Group of 20 in Hamburg for an annual summit beginning today, told an audience after her last meeting with Trump in May that the United States was no longer a fully "reliable" ally.
Merkel has predicted that "difficult" discussions with Trump will continue at this week's summit, including on climate change. Trump is set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time at the same meeting.
When it comes to diversifying Europe's natural gas supply, German interests are not always aligned with those of Eastern and central Europe, which have experienced the worst effects of Russia's monopoly. Germany backs the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would double Russian gas exports to Germany, bypassing Eastern Europe in the process. Germany presents the project as purely commercial, while Eastern Europeans fear it would solidify Russian dominance as a supplier and further diminish their own leverage.Trump
'seen with suspicion'
Nord Stream 2 has already been a tense spot in U.S.-German relations. The U.S. Senate voted last month to place sanctions on the proposed project, prompting Germany and Austria to complain of U.S. interference in European affairs.
Richard Morningstar, who served as special envoy for Eurasian energy under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, likewise applauded Trump's words but said he saw few changes from the previous administration. He said that even if Nord Stream 2 goes ahead, U.S. LNG exports to Europe could ensure Russia keeps the cost of its gas competitive.
Morningstar expressed little surprise that the president offered to compete with Russian gas despite making some overtures to Russia in the past.
"Exporting LNG to Europe and the rest of the world is consistent with his emphasis on jobs and exports," he said. "I don't think it's a zero-sum game. Whatever the other parts of our relationship will be with Russia, I don't think that this administration would sacrifice the jobs and exports that are created by LNG."
Eric Washburn, an adviser to Bracewell LLP, said it made sense that Trump directed his LNG message to Warsaw and not Brussels.
"It's more of a regional play, I think," he said. "Eastern European nations have a common interest in diversifying their supplies of natural gas and minimizing their reliance on the Russians."
Trump has yet to announce a suite of policies aimed at encouraging LNG exports, but Washburn said they might not be identical to Obama's. "So far, he and his Cabinet have been much more vocal in their support of LNG exports than the Obama administration, although both have supported the approval of U.S. LNG export facilities," Washburn said.
The United States could also help finance the distribution network that will allow its product to get to market. These include import terminals being built in Poland, Lithuania and Croatia.
Wendel Trio, director of the Climate Action Network Europe, said Trump hurt U.S. energy exports by attaching his own brand to them.
"In general, Europeans don't trust Trump at all, and so whatever he does is seen as something that cannot be in the interests of Europeans," he said. "And so, while Obama's efforts to sell gas in Europe were seen, next to a business opportunity for the U.S., as a supportive offer to reduce dependency from Russia, no one believes that Trump has the same intentions, and anything he does is seen with suspicion."
While Trump's support for LNG exports won praise from many who have generally opposed his energy policies, including former Obama officials, some of his usual allies condemned it (Greenwire, July 6).
Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, said Trump shouldn't promote gas exports to countries that haven't signed a free-trade agreement with the United States.
"These countries are getting what they want, U.S. LNG, at the expense of U.S. manufacturing goods that do not have free access to the Poland market," he said. "We are giving away LNG and not getting a level playing field for manufacturing goods to those countries."
IECA wrote to Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross last month demanding that the United States consider domestic supply needs before committing to export gas.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/07/stories/1060057040
-
Trump Sells U.S. Energy, LNG at European Summit
Jul 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
President Trump told representatives of 12 European nations gathered for a summit of the Three Seas Initiative that the United States is eager to build strong trade ties and export energy supplies to them, quipping "if you need energy, just give us a call."
The president particularly emphasized his support for exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, noting recent and potential future natural gas export deals with Poland. Polish President Andrzej Duda followed up during a later press conference saying he was convinced Poland could become a hub for U.S. LNG deliveries to other countries in central Europe, creating a north-south natural gas corridor and an alternative to gas supplies from Russia and Ukraine.
Speaking at the summit Thursday, Trump said the U.S. strongly supports the creation of the Three Seas Business Forum, which the initiative -- so named because its members are in a region bordered by the Adriatic, Baltic and Black seas -- plans to use to create energy infrastructure projects.
"New energy infrastructure is essential to this rebuilding effort," Trump said, adding "greater access to energy markets, fewer barriers to energy trade and development, and strengthening energy security is what we're looking to do. The Three Seas Initiative has the potential to accomplish all of these essential objectives...very quickly."
Trump congratulated the Polish government and its people for receiving their first shipment of LNG from the U.S. last month. Last April, the Polish Oil & Gas Co., a state-controlled oil and gas company, struck a deal for a spot cargo from Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Louisiana.
Two proposed energy infrastructure projects were also lauded by Trump: the Gas Interconnector Greece-Bulgaria, a 32-inch diameter, 182-kilometer (113-mile) pipeline with 3-5 billion cubic meters (105.9-176.6 Bcf) of transportation capacity; and LNG Croatia LLC's floating LNG import terminal on the Croatian island of Krk, which would have 2 billion cubic meters (70.6 Bcf) of import capacity.
"These projects and many others are crucial to ensuring that your nations continue to diversify your energy sources, suppliers, and routes. I also applaud Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Austria for pursuing a pipeline from the Black Sea," Trump said. He drew parallels to the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which he pushed forward with presidential memorandums in January.
In an apparent swipe at Russia, Trump said, "Let me be very clear about one crucial point: The United States will never use energy to coerce your nations, and we cannot allow others to do so. You don't want to have a monopoly or a monopolistic situation. The United States is firmly committed to open, fair, and competitive markets for global energy trade."
Trump repeated the comment on coercion later in the day Thursday to a crowd gathered in Warsaw's Krasinski Square. "America is eager to expand our partnership with you," he said. "We welcome stronger ties of trade and commerce as you grow your economies. And we are committed to securing your access to alternate sources of energy, so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy."
During the press conference question-and-answer session with the Polish president, Trump joked that the U.S. and Poland could enter a long-term LNG contract "within the next 15 minutes." Duda laughed, but countered that such an agreement would be signed between American and Polish companies, not elected officials.
"The most important thing is the green light given by the U.S. government, [and] administration, that there is an incentive given for us to buy gas from the United States," Duda said. "On the Polish side, there is also a green light and interest in those particular things...Negotiations are ongoing, [but] I believe that after the conclusion of those negotiations there will be a long-term contract for U.S. LNG deliveries to our LNG terminals in Świnoujście."
The 12 member countries of the Three Seas Initiative are Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111005-trump-tells-european-nations-us-wants-to-meet-their-energy-needs
-
Zinke's Order Aims to Fulfill Onshore Industry Wish List
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Pamela King
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke yesterday signed his fourth administrative order to align his department with President Trump's goal of reaching U.S. "energy dominance."
Secretarial Order 3354 directs Interior officials to conduct lease sales at least quarterly and to reduce permit processing timelines from 257 days to 30 days (Greenwire, July 6).
"Oil and gas production on federal lands is an important source of revenue and job growth in rural America, but it is hard to envision increased investment on federal lands when a federal permit can take the better part of a year or more in some cases," Zinke said in a statement yesterday. "This is why I'm directing the BLM to conduct quarterly lease sales and address these permitting issues. We are also looking at opportunities to bring support to our front line offices who are facing the brunt of this workload."
The order follows previous secretarial instructions to evaluate the agency's regulatory burden, to develop an "America First" offshore development policy and to jump-start production in Alaska.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) said the order reflects requests the trade group has made in its meetings with the Interior secretary.
"Just last week, IPAA President Barry Russell met with Secretary Zinke and highlighted many of the issues that the secretary addressed today through his secretarial order," Dan Naatz, IPAA's senior vice president of government relations and political affairs, said in a statement.
In 2014, IPAA named as one of its top priorities the reauthorization of a pilot program to help the Bureau of Land Management tackle a backlog of applications for permit to drill (APDs).
"IPAA welcomes today's secretarial order, which will restore certainty and efficiency to the federal permitting process," Naatz said. "Long-term business planning and certainty is a critical component to the leasing process for oil and natural gas producers."
Streamlining the permitting process won't be as simple as issuing a directive to cut the timeline to 30 days, said Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma, while noting that the order addresses two of her organization's "bread and butter issues."
"BLM has a 30-day mandate, but often the agency just puts things on hold by responding to the permit and requiring the companies to do more analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act," she said. "That's the longer pole in the tent as far as permitting goes."
To make real changes, Sgamma said, there needs to be recognition within the agency of the factors that hold up permitting.
"It is not always easy to just get a bureaucracy to change behavior based on an order," she said.Energy to the exclusion of other uses?
Zinke's order stirred the outrage of several environmental and conservation groups, including the Wilderness Society, which says it was disconnected from a call yesterday between the secretary and stakeholders to discuss the order.
Interior held three conference calls yesterday with governors from affected states, reporters and "members of the impacted business community," department spokeswoman Heather Swift wrote in an email to E&E News.
She confirmed that the call was intended to be for energy industry stakeholders, specifically.
"The agency's energy strategy so far seems to be very narrow," said Nada Culver, senior counsel and director of the Wilderness Society's BLM Action Center. "I'm not sure it's addressing the actual problem of low oil and gas prices that seem to be a very important factor that is not being taken into account. While energy is one of the multiple uses of public lands, it's not the only use of public lands."
While Interior yesterday pointed to its APD backlog, Culver said there is a larger pileup of permits that BLM has approved but that industry has yet to use.
BLM's latest data on unused permits date back to fiscal 2015. At that time, the bureau counted7,532 permits that BLM had approved but industry had yet to use.
Interior said yesterday that as of Jan. 31, BLM had 2,802 pending APDs. By April 30, that number had increased to 2,955 APDs but was down from a previous tally of 3,785 APDs at the close of fiscal 2015, according to data BLM previously provided to E&E News (Energywire, May 17).
"What I find frustrating is that for years we've had a backlog of thousands of permits that were approved by BLM at the request of industry, and yet we have thousands of them sitting around," Culver said. "From what we're tracking, we don't think there's been a significant change in that."
In two of the states Interior highlighted as carrying the largest APD backlogs, Culver found that industry is drilling fewer wells than the number of permits BLM is issuing.
Wyoming, where Interior said industry is waiting on 526 APDs, had 626 permits issued in fiscal 2016, but oil and gas companies had drilled only 256 wells, Culver found. In New Mexico, where Interior found a backlog of 388 APDs, BLM approved 891 APDs in fiscal 2016 but drilled only 231 wells.
Those aren't one-to-one comparisons, but overall, the data appear to indicate that there is no "burning need" for new permits, Culver said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/07/stories/1060057038
-
BLM Analyzing Huge Gas Project in Prime Wyo. Grouse Habitat
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Steater
The Bureau of Land Management today released its preliminary analysis of a massive natural gas project in the heart of prime greater sage grouse habitat in Wyoming that calls for using directional drilling to minimize surface disturbance.
Jonah Energy LLC has proposed using directional drilling techniques to drill up to 3,500 wells over a 10-year period as part of the Normally Pressured Lance natural gas development project on nearly 141,000 acres of mostly federal lands in southwest Wyoming.
BLM today published a draft environmental impact statement in the Federal Register. The agency's "preferred alternative" in the document calls for dividing the project into three development areas that would focus "development in the least environmentally sensitive areas."
The preferred alternative would include phased development and density limits of no more than one well pad per square mile in prime sage grouse habitat. Jonah Energy has estimated that a single, multiwell pad could hold 64 wells, and it will bury pipelines "to transport produced water and condensate" outside of priority areas to regional gathering facilities, the draft EIS says.
These and other measures will allow the project to comply with federal greater sage grouse conservation plans, as well as Wyoming's core sage grouse area strategy, according to the draft EIS, which is now open for public comment through Aug. 21.
Using these techniques, BLM estimates, the total surface disturbance would be limited to about 1,700 acres.
But the total project area includes more than 48,000 acres of what BLM classified as "priority habitat management areas" in the sweeping federal sage grouse conservation plans finalized in September 2015.
Another 1,259 acres in the project area is classified in the federal plans as sagebrush focal areas — a subset of the priority habitat management areas that are considered critical to the survival of the grouse.
Complicating matters further, there are more than 27,000 acres of "winter concentration areas" that the grouse use during the snowy season when they feast almost exclusively on sagebrush. Wintering areas offer key forage and are crucial to grouse survival, scientists say.
BLM has said the sage grouse winter concentration areas in and around the project area are among the largest in the West, used by as many as 2,000 birds (Greenwire, June 1, 2015).
BLM acknowledges in the draft EIS that it would need to "defer" development in the winter concentration areas "until additional research is completed to better inform the appropriate level of development, potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation in these areas."
Mark Salvo, vice president for landscape conservation with Defenders of Wildlife, said he was pleased to see that "BLM's preferred alternative for this latest development plan would result in fewer impacts on sage grouse and other wildlife than under previous planning processes."
And Brian Rutledge, who directs the National Audubon Society's Sagebrush Ecosystem Initiative, said Jonah Energy has historically "been one of the most engaged and positive energy developers in the greater sage grouse range."
He added, "We fully expect that they will maintain their past and present course."
Legal fight in the wings?
But despite steps by BLM and Jonah Energy to limit surface impacts, the project is almost certain to set up a legal fight between conservation groups and the Trump administration, which has called on the Interior Department to increase oil and gas production on federal lands and to remove regulatory obstacles that hinder development.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke last month announced that Interior will review the grouse plans to determine in part whether they are hindering energy production on public lands (Greenwire, June 7).
The Normally Pressured Lance project is one of a handful of major drilling projects the Obama administration deferred while it developed the federal grouse plans that amended 98 BLM and Forest Service land-use plans in 10 Western states to incorporate strong grouse conservation measures.
Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, said sage grouse populations "could crash as a result" of proposed activity in the winter concentration areas.
"Secretary Zinke and the Trump administration seem insistent on doing every favor they can for the oil and gas industry that brought them to power," said Chris Saeger, executive director of the Western Values Project. "This is an important test for whether they will continue the collaboration diverse stakeholders have charted on sage grouse, and there are almost no reasons to believe they will pass it."
A BLM press release announcing the draft EIS never mentions the sage grouse issue, instead focusing on the "range of alternatives" in the document that explore "how the project can move forward."
The project "could unlock 5.25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, providing a reliable, long-term energy source for the nation and creating more than 700 full-time jobs and stable employment opportunities for southwestern Wyoming," the press release says. "The project could also create $2.2 billion in royalties, half of which would go to the State of Wyoming."
But the draft EIS acknowledges that the project "could result in decreased quantity and quality of suitable breeding, wintering, and foraging habitat for Sage-Grouse, resulting from surface disturbance, vegetation clearing, and other project-related activity during the 10-year development phase and from long-term facilities that would persist during the duration of the 30-year production phase."
BLM would need to develop a compensatory mitigation strategy for the project, the document says.
Still, the draft EIS is a major milestone for the project, first proposed by Calgary, Alberta-based Encana Oil and Gas Inc. in 2011. Encana sold the leasehold interests to Jonah Energy several years ago.
If built, the Normally Pressured Lance project would be among the nation's largest natural gas fields, tapping into potentially 5.2 trillion of cubic feet of natural gas reserves.
The project is about 35 miles south of Pinedale and south and west of the Jonah Infill gas field, which has about 1,300 wells in place.
Of the 140,859 acres in the project areas, 96 percent, or 135,655 acres, is managed by BLM.
The proposed project area already includes 55 producing natural gas wells "and associated infrastructure, roads, electric transmission lines, stock water wells, and other range improvements," the draft EIS says.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/07/stories/1060057079
-
Thai Company Purchases Land for Ohio Ethane Cracker
Jul 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Thailand's state-owned petrochemical and refining company, PTT Global Chemical pcl (PTTGC), has taken another step toward building its proposed multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Belmont County, OH, exercising its purchase option for a 167-acre site there.
FirstEnergy Corp. spokeswoman Jennifer Young said her company sold the property last month to PTTGC for $13.8 million. FirstEnergy worked most of last year to demolish the Burger Power Plant and cleanup the site along the Ohio River. The plant was retired in 2011, and PTTGC signed the purchase option last summer.
PTTGC spokesman Dan Williamson said the company has not yet exercised its purchase option for another 300-acre property owned by the Ohio-West Virginia Excavating Co. to the south of the Burger site. If the company goes forward with the project, it would need about 500 acres of land.
PTTGC said in 2015 that it would invest $100 million for the cracker's preliminary design work. Affiliate PTTGC America LLC has worked with two engineering firms and in February the company said it would delay a final investment decision (FID) on the facility until later this year. That decision was initially expected in late 2016 or early 2017.
Now that FirstEnergy has completed its demolition and cleanup, Williamson said no other site prep work would take place until after an FID had been made. The facility, which would be located in Shadyside, would consume about 65,000 b/d of ethane to make ethylene -- a key building block for plastics.
FirstEnergy's site is considered critical to the project and PTTGC decided to move forward with the purchase as a result. If the company decides to build the cracker, it would be the second such decision in the region. An affiliate of Royal Dutch Shell plc decided to go aheadwith a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Western Pennsylvania, where that company is nearly finished with the two-year process of preparing a 400-acre site. Shell's facility would be larger, designed with the ability to consume 100,000 b/d of ethane for conversion into ethylene and polyethylene when it comes online sometime in the early 2020s.
Williamson said PTTGC's project is still in the engineering and design process. He reiterated that an FID is expected around the end of this year.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111010-thai-company-purchases-land-for-ohio-ethane-cracker
-
Inside the 'Dirty' Fight to Leave the Paris Deal
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Emily Holden
President Trump was in a tiny room on an Italian hilltop with six world leaders determined to get him to stay in the Paris Agreement.
It was May 26, and the president was said to be using the Group of Seven meeting in Taormina, Sicily, to help shape his final decision on whether to remain in the landmark climate deal. But the other leaders — increasingly referred to in Europe as the G-6 — had come prepared.
They sat around a doughnut-shaped table in the San Domenico Palace Hotel and appealed to Trump's view of himself as a jobs-maker. In earlier bilateral tête-à-têtes, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau all took turns impressing on him that staying in the deal would yield economic dividends in America.
It was a message they hoped would resonate with the businessman-turned-president: that quitting Paris, as Trump had promised on the campaign trail, would isolate the United States and make it less competitive.
They were wrong. But that wouldn't be known for another week. Until then, White House officials would send one signal, then another, about Trump's latest attitudes on the pact.
In forays down the hill from Taormina, to the less-affluent resort town of Giardini Naxos, where the press was kept, Trump's National Economic Council director, Gary Cohn, said Trump was "leaning" to understand his fellow leaders' views. Trump's ideas were "evolving," he added.
That might have never been the case.
European diplomats said there was little evidence of that in San Domenico. Trump seemed to ignore his allies' words, according to European diplomats and others with knowledge of the meetings. Instead, the president uttered his own worried assessment while sitting at the table on the hilltop: "jobs, jobs, jobs."
European leaders, in their turn, were increasingly frustrated that Trump "refused to commit to anything ... [but also] that he did not try to understand complex arguments," said one diplomat.
Trump would "lose interest" when another president, prime minister or chancellor would make a complex argument about climate policy and growth in jobs, the source said. Still, he was polite, and White House staffers took lots of notes.
Some of those staff members had been angling for Trump to reverse his campaign pledge on Paris. In meetings ahead of the leaders' summit, some of Trump's sherpa team considered language that would have affirmed Paris but clarified nations' ability to weaken their emissions targets. The drafts also touted the importance of coal. Some international climate advocates were told to tell their media contacts to look for Trump to sign onto language along those lines. That fed a narrative that Trump might stay in Paris.
But the administration was sending mixed signals. Diplomats were up, then down. Hopes soured when Trump insisted that he was the recipient of environmental awards as a real estate developer. Those claims signaled a lack of seriousness to people working in the climate world.
"To me, the readout there was that he was extremely defensive in the meeting," said Andrew Light, a distinguished senior fellow at the World Resources Institute's Global Climate Program.
"They ended up negotiating all night and came up with nothing the U.S. could sign onto," he added.
The joint statement released the following day saw the G-6 — Italy, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan — double down on its support of Paris. The United States was out of the picture.
Merkel called the climate result "very unsatisfactory." Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, said it was "the most challenging G-7 summit in years."
Six days later, Trump announced plans to depart from the Paris accord. His speech was so strident and unequivocal that many wondered later if he had ever been persuadable.
'Dirty' and 'rough'
The months of palace intrigue over quitting or staying weren't perceptible in Trump's Rose Garden announcement. It was as if he had traveled the circumference of a circle and ended where he started: dumping the deal. Or maybe he never moved away from his original position. His speech struck the same kind of adversarial tone that he took 13 months earlier in a North Dakota oil field. The United States has no use for global agreements that prioritize the environment over jobs.
When Trump first entered office, many expected him to exit the deal with a quick press release. But then the weeks went by. It became a problem. Cabinet members and advisers were openly disagreeing on whether to quit or stay.
One source described the fight as "dirty" and "rough."
"It became incredibly political," the source said. "I've never worked on an issue that evolved this way. You had this huge campaign outside of the confines of the administration and an internal struggle within the administration."
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was particularly active in lobbying to leave.
He went on cable television, asked conservatives to write letters and courted the coal lobby.
In late April, Pruitt attended a meeting of the National Mining Association's executive committee to urge its members to vote for a withdrawal from the Paris deal. NMA initially had intended to stay neutral. Its members were split: Some wanted to stay in and lower U.S. emissions goals. Opponents of the Paris Agreement were "floored" that some fossil fuel interests wanted to stay in.
Pruitt's office also had a hand in drafting a letter from Republican senators. It warned Trump that staying in the Paris accord could leave the door open for a U.S. carbon cap-and-trade program, according to the lead signatory, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) (Climatewire, June 2).
Pruitt found a natural ally in Steve Bannon, Trump's nationalist strategic adviser, and in outside groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which reminded Trump of his electoral obligations.
"This was not just a campaign promise; it was an emphatic campaign promise," said Myron Ebell, a senior adviser for CEI and an early agitator for a Paris exit.
On the other side, Trump's daughter Ivanka reached out to business giants Apple Inc. and Dow Chemical Co. and asked them to talk to her father about staying in the deal, according to The Wall Street Journal. Trump's economic adviser, Gary Cohn, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were on her side, although Tillerson was less active.
The Rose Garden announcement painted a vivid picture of the two sides.
Supporters of the Paris Agreement were absent. Tillerson, the nation's top diplomat, was tucked away in his office — during a major international announcement. Ivanka Trump and husband, Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to the president, weren't there, either. Press aides said they were celebrating a Jewish holiday.
Pruitt, Bannon and their allies were all in attendance. Ebell, who hadn't held a position in Trump's administration since his stint leading the U.S. EPA transition team, sat in the second row.
Two months earlier, it looked as if there would be a very different outcome.
After riding to the White House on a wave of nationalist sentiment, Trump tapped a number of New York "globalists" in positions of prominence, a move that seemed to give some credence to his post-election pronouncement to The New York Times that he had a "totally open mind" on Paris.
Tillerson had joined with other heads of multinational oil companies in backing Paris. Another indicator that Trump might walk back his campaign pledge came when the White House moved the energy and climate policy team into the National Economic Council under director Cohn.
This gave George David Banks, the White House special assistant for international energy and environment and an active proponent of staying in Paris, a senior perch that positioned him to influence the decision. The council was stacked with "remainers" — Banks, Cohn and Cohn's then-deputy, Kenneth Juster, all favored staying in the deal.
"So that whole chain of command on the international side seemed to take a positive attitude to staying in the agreement, and they were running energy and climate policy," said Paul Bodnar, who was Banks' predecessor under President Obama.
Banks had early success in convincing a small cadre of coal companies and Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) to urge Trump to stay in Paris with a weaker target and possible "concessions" for coal.
And then there was Trump's family, who had followed Trump to Washington and seemed to have unique influence with the president. Ivanka Trump unexpectedly made climate change a signature issue, joining with her husband to convince President Trump not to include a Paris exit in a March executive order gutting Obama's domestic climate change policies.
"They kept it alive for a real policy discussion and an outreach campaign," one source said.
'Uh-oh.That's bad'
While the "remain" camp searched for a way for Trump to save face while he stayed in Paris, another flank was emerging within the administration that was determined to withdraw.
Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general with a reputation as an anti-regulatory crusader, was deferential on Paris during his February confirmation process. But a few weeks later, he began a media campaign with a refrain: Paris is a "bad deal for this country."
Meanwhile, Bannon was reaching out to the right-wing media, from which he hailed as a founding board member of Breitbart News, to stoke conservative insistence that Trump make good on his campaign pledge.
By April, it became clear that the Paris decision would not be done quickly and quietly.
"The day I heard, 'We're going to have to have a principals committee,' I thought, 'Uh-oh. That's bad,'" said Light, the former State Department official. It meant, he said, "a bigger conversation that includes people like Bannon and Pruitt" — people who "know how to get stuff done."
"This is where experience pays off," Light said.
The political neophytes from New York City, including investment banker Cohn, were further placed at a disadvantage, Light said, because there were no layers of political appointees to lay the groundwork for the high-level meetings.
When Cabinet members and top aides gathered on April 27, talks broke down around a legal issue concerning the United States' nationally determined contribution, something that had received scant attention beforehand.
Don McGahn, the White House counsel, told attendees that reducing the NDC would trigger lawsuits. He armed Bannon, Pruitt and other proponents of a Paris exit with ammunition they would use throughout the rest of the decisionmaking process. The "remain" crowd would never regain the upper ground.
It did win one more battle, however. The White House announced that the president wouldn't make a decision until after he returned from meeting with world leaders at the G-7 summit in Sicily.
"Remainers" hoped foreign leaders would defend the most important multilateral accomplishment of recent years, and some began circulating rumors that the president would sign the group's communiqué endorsing Paris, which would have been a de facto announcement to stay in.
European diplomats said conditions in the negotiating room were tense. Merkel, Macron and Trudeau all took turns arguing that the Paris deal has economic benefits. But they didn't focus on another line of reasoning that was rising among U.S. officials opposed to the deal: the legality of weakening American emissions commitments.Alienating Trump
In the end, it may have seemed as if the leaders were ganging up on Trump, even though they took care not to embarrass him.
"There was no way to construct this conversation so that he wasn't alienated in that room," said Light.
For a president with an eye on his image, flattery might have gone further than explicit persuasion.
"I don't think that people in other countries sway this president unless they do it by praising his brilliance, as President Putin did," said Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.
Meanwhile, the other leaders' frustration with Trump was apparent. Merkel responded to the growing gloom around Paris, and to Trump's refusal to reaffirm mutual defense commitments with NATO allies, by telling an audience in a beer garden that Europe could no longer "completely depend" on some of its closes allies. She didn't mention Trump, but she might as well have.
Trump would announce his Paris decision one week later.
Might the Rose Garden announcement have gone any other way?
Ebell thought it might have.
"In early April, we were losing," he said, attributing the "remain" camp's early lead to pressure from Ivanka and Kushner. He called McGahn's decision on loosening national commitments the "key intervention" in the process.
"I can't think of a single case where the president ever contradicted the advice he was getting from his own White House counsel," he said. "So I think that that was decisive."
A source familiar with the process said Trump was always skeptical of the Paris deal and searching for support to leave it.
"The burden of proof was on people who wanted to remain," the source said. And while most of the White House staff backed "remain," and Cohn and his team succeeded in showing business support for their case, that didn't prove to be enough, the source said.
The source disagreed with others who said the McGahn intervention was critical.
"I think it was always a political debate, not a substantive debate," the source said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/07/stories/1060057039
-
Dem States Move to Defend Obama Ozone Rule in D.C. Circuit
Jul 7, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
More than a half-dozen Democratic-led states, worried that U.S. EPA will no longer defend the legality of its 2015 ozone air quality standard, are asking a court's permission to take up the fight.
"Recent official statements by EPA indicate that EPA's defense of the 2015 ozone [standard] may no longer be zealous and forceful," attorneys general for California, Massachusetts and five other states wrote in a motion to intervene filed late yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Allowing them to defend the 70-parts-per-billion (ppb) threshold is "the only way" to protect their states' interests in seeing the standard left in place, the motion added.
Undoing the benchmark "would result in more asthma attacks and increased lost school days, among other harms, and would cost up to $1.3 billion in lost net benefits just from controlling ozone in California alone," the filing said.
That rule, published by the Obama administration in October 2015, is entangled in a skein of competing lawsuits. Industry groups call it unlawfully strict, while environmental groups say it should be stricter still.
Under the Trump administration, EPA leaders have signaled second thoughts about continuing their defense. Although no decision has been announced, oral arguments scheduled for April in the consolidated litigation were postponed at the agency's request.
California and most of the other states now seeking to intervene have already weighed to defend the standard, but only on a friend-of-the-court basis.
Prompting yesterday's bid to ratchet up their involvement was EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent decision to roll back enforcement of the standard by a year, the filing indicated.
In announcing that decision, Pruitt cited the need for more information on the impact of ozone resulting from forces outside of regulators' control.
That stance undermines EPA's previous position that those issues were properly addressed in the rulemaking process that led to the benchmark, the filing said.
Other states signing onto the motion are New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Delaware, along with the District of Columbia.
Their bid is likely to set off a fresh round of procedural wrangling. While EPA wants to review the intervention motion before taking a position, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups challenging the 70-ppb rule "do not consent," said the filing. Also opposed are Texas and other Republican-led states that are similarly challenging the Obama administration action.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is produced by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunshine. It has been linked to aggravated symptoms in emphysema sufferers and asthma attacks in children.
The motion marks the latest instance of states located mainly on the nation's coasts pushing back against even the possibility that the administration will seek to delay or reverse existing EPA regulations.
In January, two days before President Trump was sworn in, New York and five other Northeastern states intervened in a separate legal battle over EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update, citing fears that the incoming administration would seek to roll back federal environmental protections (E&ENews PM, Jan. 19). That litigation is pending.
EPA has so far signaled no change in its position in defense of the update, which seeks to curb power plant emissions that waft across state lines.
States are also involved on both sides of the fight over Pruitt's attempt to delay an Obama-era rule limiting emissions from new oil and gas operations. On Monday, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated that decision.
A group of states led by Massachusetts sided with environmental groups in opposing the delay. A separate coalition of states led by West Virginia backed Pruitt's position (Greenwire, July 3).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/07/stories/1060057078
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested