Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/9/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Deputy EPA Toxics Chief Details Limited Recusal
Aug 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
Nancy Beck, EPA's deputy toxics chief, has agreed to a relatively limited set of recusals to limit any conflict of interest with her prior work for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), though the actions appear to fall short of the broad recusals environmentalists had sought... -
Environmentalists, Udall Fault EPA's TSCA New Chemical Review Process
Aug 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) are faulting EPA's “operating principles” for streamlined review of new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), saying it fails to adequately address “reasonably foreseen uses”... -
EPA Eliminates New Chemical Backlog; Commits to Improvements to New Chemical Safety Reviews
Aug 8, 2017 | NationaL law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On August 7, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a press release stating that it has eliminated the new chemical backlog of over 600 chemicals: “[t]he current caseload is back at the baseline and now in line with the typical active workload." -
House Oversight Committee Advances Cancer Institute Probe
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) is pushing further an investigation into U.S. funding of an international institution criticized for labeling a widely used herbicide as carcinogenic. -
Paint Industry Urges EU: Reject Proposed Titanium Dioxide Carcinogen Classification
Aug 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The paint and coatings industry has called on the European Commission and Echa to reject a proposal to classify titanium dioxide as a carcinogen (category 2) by inhalation. -
D.C. Circuit Suspends Litigation on Climate Policy — Again
Aug 8, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court today granted an additional suspension of litigation over President Obama's signature climate change policy. -
Keystone XL's Path Up for Grabs as Nebraska Commission Weighs In
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Harris
The future of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline could hinge on whether a Nebraska commission believes the project is in the public's interest or is a private land grab as property owners claim. -
Sen. Menendez Plays Same Old Song on Energy Taxation
Aug 8, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By William O'Keefe
Whenever tax reform is brought up in the Senate, Sen. Robert Menendez(D-N.J.) can be counted on to relaunch his punitive, anti-traditional energy industry tax proposal. -
Feds Declare Seismic Testing in Gulf Safe
Aug 9, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Nathanial Gronewold
The Gulf of Mexico is safe for oil and natural gas seismic surveys, a review by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has concluded. -
Industry Will Do 'Whatever is Necessary' to Stop Pennsylvania NatGas Tax
Aug 8, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Another budget season in Pennsylvania again has the natural gas industry playing defense, as production and consumption taxes are being considered by the House amidst a 39-day impasse that could find the state without money to pay its bills by the end of the month. -
Astoria, Ore., Opposes Proposed Vancouver Oil Terminal
Aug 8, 2017 | The Columbian
By Dameon Pesanti
Astoria, Ore., has added itself to the list of cities opposed to the Vancouver Energy oil terminal. -
Judges Give EPA Alternatives to Revive Chemical Coolants Ban
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The same judges who struck down the EPA's ban on refrigerants that are also potent greenhouse gases may have outlined a path forward for the agency should it want to try again. -
Trump's UN Diplomat: White House Won't Hinder Climate Study
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Trump administration is unlikely to interfere in a broad climate studyfocusing on how rising sea level, increasing temperatures, and other factors are already affecting the U.S., the president's United Nations ambassador said. -
Pruitt Climate Science Challenge Splits Conservative Allies
Aug 8, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
EPA chief Scott Pruitt’s attacks on mainstream climate science are causing discomfort in a surprising corner — among many of the conservative and industry groups that have cheered his efforts to dismantle Barack Obama’s environmental regulations. -
Science Report: Who Gets Hotter, Wetter With Climate Change
Aug 8, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Seth Borenstein
A draft federal science report on the effects of global warming breaks down how climate change has already hit different regions of the United States. It also projects expected changes by region. -
Water Rule Analysis Broader Than Critics Contend, EPA Says
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA's economic analysis of the Obama-era Clean Water Rule relied on permitting data from years after the economic recession ended, the agency said countering accusations its analysis was limited to when the downturn occurred.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Deputy EPA Toxics Chief Details Limited Recusal
Aug 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
Nancy Beck, EPA's deputy toxics chief, has agreed to a relatively limited set of recusals to limit any conflict of interest with her prior work for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), though the actions appear to fall short of the broad recusals environmentalists had sought as the agency implements the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
In a June 9 letter, first reported by E&E News, Beck -- for now the top political appointee in the agency's toxics office -- is affirming that she cannot current participate in any “specific matter” involving ACC, though she says she is allowed to participate in particular matters of general applicability, such as a rulemaking, even if ACC is participating.
Beck also confirms reports that first appeared in Inside EPA that she is not required to sign the Trump administration ethics pledge -- which places more stringent limits on administration appointees than generally applicable ethics regulations -- due to her classification as an “administratively determined” employee.
“Because I am in an Administratively Determined position, I have been advised by the Office of General Counsel/Ethics (OGC/Ethics) that I am not subject to Executive Order 13770 and therefore not required to sign the Trump ethics pledge,”Beck says in a recusal statement to the agency.
“But as an executive branch employee I have always understood that I am subject to the conflict of interest statutes . . . “ Beck says.
Her ethics arrangement appears to fall well short of the broad recusals environmentalists had sought to limit any apparent conflict of interest due to her prior advocacy on behalf of the ACC.
Environmentalists continue to raise concerns about Beck's close ties to the chemical sector and are in the midst of litigation alleging EPA has failed to turn over as required under the Freedom of Information Act documents detailing Beck's influence on agency TSCA rulemaking.
Beck's letter includes additional confirmation of of her appointment to EPA under special statutory authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which allows the EPA administrator to fill a limited number of positions under an “administratively determined”position classification exempting appointed staff from some ethics rules.
The designation has been used by multiple administrations to bring on staff, though some observers have suggested the Trump administration is stretching use of the designation to or beyond its limits to appoint staff including Beck to high level posts with significant policymaking and supervisory responsibilities.
But Beck's statement also offers additional detail on her recusal from agency activities -- as well as the limits of that recusal.
Beck writes that she is not allowed until April 21, 2018 to participate in “any specific party matter involving ACC unless I first seek approval from OGC/Ethics.”
However, Beck adds that “I have sought and obtained confirmation from OGC/Ethics that I can participate in particular matters of general applicability, such as rulemaking, even if my former employer has an interest, and that I can participate personally and substantially in any discussions or consideration of comments that ACC submitted with regard to rulemaking or other matters of general applicability.”
In addition, Beck says “I am also now authorized to attend meetings at which ACC is present or represented, provided that the subject matter of the meeting is a matter of general applicability, if other interested nonfederal parties are present, and other EPA personnel attend.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/deputy-epa-toxics-chief-details-limited-recusal
-
Environmentalists, Udall Fault EPA's TSCA New Chemical Review Process
Aug 9, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) are faulting EPA's “operating principles” for streamlined review of new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), saying it fails to adequately address “reasonably foreseen uses” -- the same narrow approach EPA is using for existing chemicals that critics say is unlawful.
EPA Aug. 7 announced that it has taken steps to reduce a backlog of hundreds of pending new chemicals reviews, and outlined the principles that will guide the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics as it writes draft documents on how it makes new chemical determinations and the external data it will use in those findings.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Udall, who led the congressional push for the revised TSCA that former President signed into law June 22, 2016, contend that EPA's new approach emphasizes swift reviews over safety, paying short shrift to the new law's requirements.
“I’m extremely concerned that the EPA is prioritizing speed of approval over public safety -- the opposite of what Congress intended,” Udall says in a Aug. 8 statement. “I will be examining this development in the new chemicals program and will take any steps necessary to prevent it from being weakened.”
In an Aug. 7 blog post, EDF's Richard Denison calls EPA's recent policy shift in new chemical reviews murky, but raises several concerns.
Denison expands EDF's criticism that EPA's process for reviewing existing chemicals fails to consider reasonably foreseen uses to the new operating principles for new chemicals as well.
“EDF is concerned that EPA is moving away from the law's clear requirements that: EPA rigorously review both intended and reasonably foreseen uses of new chemicals,” Denison says.
In June, Denison threatened to sue EPA over its June 22 final risk evaluation rule, one of three framework rules the agency issued for evaluating “existing” chemicals, or those already on the market when the original TSCA law was enacted in 1976.
“EPA’s approach complicates and undermines the clear intent of Congress that EPA examine the full range of exposures to a chemical,” Denison said at the time.
TSCA Reform
The revised TSCA updated the previous 1976 statute with a host of new regulatory requirements. One of the changes was to require that before a “new” chemical -- a substance that was not in use when the law was first enacted in 1976 -- can come to market, EPA must make an affirmative determination that the chemical is safe for use.
The law gives the agency the power to seek additional data from chemical producers if necessary to make the determination.
EPA Aug. 7 announced it will follow several operating principles in conducting the reviews, such as making decisions based on amended submissions if the agency asks companies for more data about possible risks from a chemical; using significant new use rules (SNURs) to address concerns about reasonably forseen uses of chemicals; reducing and replacing animal testing; and making fact-specific decisions on what counts as a reasonably foreseen use.
Denison says that the revised TSCA also requires that EPA order a manufacturer to mitigate any potential risks when the agency either lacks sufficient data for a review or has identified a potential risk. But he argues that “EPA's intent not to issue such orders and merely to promulgate so-called [SNURs] to require notification of reasonably foreseen uses . . . is squarely at odds with what the law requires.”
Additionally, Denison says that EPA is signaling that it will only require testing to address risk concerns, an approach that would revert to a Catch-22 of the old TSCA where EPA could only require testing when it already had evidence of risks.
Denison says EPA staff have faced relentless pressure from the chemical industry, as well as from industry-friendly Trump administration officials, to speed reviews and shirk the requirements of the revised law.
In the Aug. 7 announcement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency has significantly reduced a backlog of new chemical reviews that resulted from the laws' new requirements and emphasized the agency's role in getting new products to market.
“EPA can either be a roadblock to new products, or it can be supporter of innovation and ever-improving chemical safety.” Pruitt said. “With the ongoing commitment of the staff working on TSCA reviews, and input from stakeholders, our goal is to ensure a new chemicals program that is both protective of human health and the environment, while also being supportive of bringing new chemicals to market.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-udall-fault-epas-tsca-new-chemical-review-process
-
EPA Eliminates New Chemical Backlog; Commits to Improvements to New Chemical Safety Reviews
Aug 8, 2017 | NationaL law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On August 7, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a press release stating that it has eliminated the new chemical backlog of over 600 chemicals: “[t]he current caseload is back at the baseline and now in line with the typical active workload.” The press release also announces improvements to new chemical safety reviews, which include operating principles, improvement of EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) new chemicals program, and further transparency, as detailed below.
EPA states it is committing to the following operating principles in its review of new chemicals:
· Where the intended uses in premanufacture notices (PMN) or other TSCA Section 5 notices (such as low volume exemption (LVE) requests) raise risk concerns, EPA will work with submitters, and, if the submitters submit timely amended PMNs addressing those concerns, EPA will generally make determinations based on those amended submissions.
· Where EPA has concerns with reasonably foreseen uses, but not with the intended uses as described in a PMN or LVE application, as a general matter, those concerns can be addressed through significant new use rules.
· As described in the risk evaluation rule released on June 22, 2017, identification of reasonably foreseen conditions of use will be fact-specific. It is reasonable to foresee a condition of use, for example, where facts suggest the activity is not only possible, but, over time under proper conditions, probable.
· The purpose of testing in a Section 5 order is to reduce uncertainty in regard to risk. Specifically, it is to address risk concerns that gave rise to a finding of “may present unreasonable risk” or another Section 5 finding other than “not likely to present unreasonable risk.” In addition, consistent with the statute, any request for testing by EPA will be structured to reduce and replace animal testing as appropriate.
EPA states it will continue to improve of its TSCA new chemicals program in the following ways:
· Redeploying staff to increase the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff working on new chemicals;
· Initiating a LEAN exercise (via EPA’s new time-saving and cost-effective tools) to streamline work processes around new chemicals review; and
· Institutionalizing a voluntary pre-submission consultation process so that submitters have a clear understanding of what information will be most useful for EPA’s review of their new chemical submission, and of what they can expect from EPA during the review process. While such engagement prior to submission is an additional up-front time and resource commitment by submitters and EPA, it should more than pay for itself with faster, better-informed EPA reviews.
EPA states it needs to be more transparent in how it makes decisions on new chemicals under TSCA, and will be instituting the following to implement that goal:
· In Fall 2017, EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) intends to release, for public comment and stakeholder engagement, draft documents that will provide the public with more certainty and clarity regarding how EPA makes new chemical determinations and what external information will help facilitate these determinations;
· EPA will facilitate a public dialogue on its goal of continued improvement in the new chemicals review program; and
· EPA will continue posting weekly web updates of program statistics, so that manufacturers and the public can determine the disposition of cases as quickly as possible.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-eliminates-new-chemical-backlog-commits-to-improvements-to-new-chemical-safety
-
House Oversight Committee Advances Cancer Institute Probe
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) is pushing further an investigation into U.S. funding of an international institution criticized for labeling a widely used herbicide as carcinogenic.
Gowdy sent a letter to Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, Aug. 8 asking for additional documents for an ongoing probe into the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The Lyon, France-based agency in 2015 found that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup, was a “probable” carcinogen.
Gowdy wants NIH to provide documents relating to recent news that retired National Cancer Institute scientist Aaron Blair withheld study results that could have changed IARC's conclusion on glyphosate. Blair, who oversaw a large population study on farmers and their spouses exposed to pesticides, did not hand over to IARC the latest data in the study because it had not been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. That data could have influenced the final report from IARC, Blair said in a court deposition.
The National Institutes of Health did not respond to a request for comment. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) sent a similar letter last week.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118273629&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118273629&jd=118273629
-
Paint Industry Urges EU: Reject Proposed Titanium Dioxide Carcinogen Classification
Aug 9, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The paint and coatings industry has called on the European Commission and Echa to reject a proposal to classify titanium dioxide as a carcinogen (category 2) by inhalation.
If adopted, companies would have to label some consumer and professional products – such as paints – in a manner that will cause "major and unnecessary alarm to users and consumers", the British Coatings Federation says.
The proposed classification is based on evidence of carcinogenicity for titanium dioxide in the form of dust. Under CLP companies would have to label some products containing it as "suspected of causing cancer". But the BCF says this is unnecessary when the dust is suspended in a liquid.
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) expects to publish its Opinion in early September.
If the Commission and Echa do not "see sense and reject" it, the BCF says it will "push to break the link between this opinion and the requirement to label paint products with 'suspected of causing cancer' labels".
It is raising the issue in a letter to Greg Clark, UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which will be signed by industry CEOs and other supply chain organisations.
European paints and inks trade body, Cepe, says that the proposed classification of titanium dioxide under CLP is not justified. "The hazard identified is not a substance specific effect, a chemical effect [or...] a shape effect," technical director Didier Leroy says. He adds that governments do not need legislation to communicate that "too much dust is not good for you" and that "hundreds of dusts’" could be classified similarly.
Cepe wrote to the Commission in mid-May to raise concerns over the scope of CLP, which Mr Leroy says "has limitations when it comes to communicating hazard, especially for consumer products".
UK activity
The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says it understands industry's concerns. However, it adds, classification under CLP and GHS reflects the type and severity of the intrinsic hazards of a substance or mixture.
"It should not be confused with risk, which relates to the actual exposure of humans or the environment to the substance or mixture displaying this hazard in specific circumstances, such as when a paint containing titanium dioxide is applied by brush, roller or by spraying."
The UK government says it will continue to seek to influence the Commission's fitness check of chemicals legislation, excluding REACH, but this work will be affected by activities relating to the country leaving the EU.
Later this year, and after publication of the Rac Opinion, the Commission is expected to make a decision on whether dust is within the scope of CLP. The REACH Committee is slated to discuss the topic at a meeting in 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58106/paint-industry-urges-eu-reject-proposed-titanium-dioxide-carcinogen-classification
-
D.C. Circuit Suspends Litigation on Climate Policy — Again
Aug 8, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A federal court today granted an additional suspension of litigation over President Obama's signature climate change policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order holding the litigation in abeyance for 60 days. The court directed U.S. EPA to file status reports every 30 days.
The full court issued the order, but Chief Judge Merrick Garland did not participate in the decision.
The Obama administration's Clean Power Plan required states to craft plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. More than two dozen states and dozens of industry entities challenged the rule in the D.C. Circuit.
In April, the court granted a 60-day stay of the proceedings and asked parties to weigh in on the future of the litigation (Greenwire, April 28). Since then, the court has not taken any action on the case.
The Justice Department has argued for pausing the lawsuits indefinitely because it would conserve judicial resources and maintain the status quo — including the Supreme Court's February 2016 stay of the rule. The Trump administration, meanwhile, sent a draft rollback to the White House for interagency review in June.
Supporters of the Clean Power Plan, on the other hand, have asked the D.C. Circuit to remand the litigation back to EPA.
They've argued that holding the cases in long-term abeyance would convert the Supreme Court's temporary stay into a "long-term suspension of the Clean Power Plan" and allow EPA to reconsider the rule without first going through the proper steps for rescinding a regulation (E&E News PM, May 15).
Last week, environmentalists urged the court to rule on the case, rather than continue to hold it in abeyance (E&E News PM, Aug. 3).
In today's order, Democratic-appointed Judges David Tatel and Patricia Millett issued a concurring opinion that stated the Supreme Court's stay has had the effect of "relieving EPA of its obligation" to comply with its statutory duty to address greenhouse gases.
But the judges said that all issues regarding the stay should be addressed by the Supreme Court.
Click here to read the court's order.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/08/08/stories/1060058542
-
Keystone XL's Path Up for Grabs as Nebraska Commission Weighs In
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Harris
The future of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline could hinge on whether a Nebraska commission believes the project is in the public's interest or is a private land grab as property owners claim.
More than 90 percent of TransCanada's preferred 270-mile route through the state would cut across privately owned land, as would an alternate route, company project manager Paul Fuhrer testified Aug. 7 during the first day of a hearing in Lincoln, Neb.
To gain approval for one of its proposed paths, Keystone lawyers will need to convince the Public Service Commission--made up of four Republicans and one Democrat--and overcome vehement opposition from dozens of landowners, environmental conservation groups, and Native American tribes.
The elected commission, created under the state's constitution, began hearing testimony in what is scheduled to be a week-long hearing. Much of the Aug. 7 hearing was dominated by testimony from company executives on the pipeline's maintenance details, including responsibility for cleanup, restoration, and removal once the conduit reaches its life expectancy.
A ruling from the panel is due no later than Nov. 23. Whether the pipeline gets built, however, may ultimately rest upon what the state's seven-member Supreme Court decides, as the loser is likely to appeal.
“The pipeline is not in the public interest,” activist Jane Kleeb, president of the environmental advocacy group Bold Alliance who was elected last year as the state's Democratic Party chair, said in an interview prior to the Aug. 7 hearing. “This will be a private, foreign corporation that would be using eminent domain for private gain.”
$8 Billion Project
Keystone XL has been in the planning stages for nearly 10 years. The conduit would carry heavy crude from Canada's oil sands region in Alberta to a terminal more than 1,100 miles away in Steele City, Neb., where it would connect with an already existing network leading to Gulf Coast refineries.
Labor unions are backing the $8 billion project for its promise of jobs.
TransCanada and President Donald Trump have promoted the project as one that will provide employment and boost the state's economy. Nebraska will benefit from as many as 4,500 jobs during the two-year construction period, and $12 million in property tax revenues, according to the Calgary-based company.
Environmental groups sued over its original path through the state because it would have traversed Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region. That route was soon abandoned for one charted by the state's now-former governor, Dave Heineman, and TransCanada, provoking lawsuits contending only the commission could approve its path.
While the pipeline company ultimately agreed to apply to the Public Service Commission, the Obama administration rejected TransCanada's request for permission to cross the U.S.-Canada border, effectively killing the project until Trump revived it earlier this year.
Despite the delays, during which crude oil prices have tumbled, TransCanada maintains that the pipeline still has commercial support.
Eminent Domain
Some landowners who fought the previous pipeline battle have returned for this one. The commission allowed 94 landowners to intervene in the hearing without limitations, ruling in March that they “have real property interests that will be directly impacted” by the pipeline's route.
Kleeb, alongside groups such as the Sierra Club and 350.org, have been working with landowners, highlighting the issue of eminent domain. They argue that it's unnecessary and unfair to take private property for the pipeline using eminent domain, particularly given certain liability provisions the company is putting into landowner easements. TransCanada says 91 percent of landowners in the state have agreed to allow the project on their land.
David Domina, a lawyer for landowners, questioned TransCanada executive Tony Palmer during Monday's hearing about the pipeline's complex corporate ownership structure. Palmer said he's the president of an intermediate entity called TransCanada Keystone General Partner LLC, which holds less than 1 percent of the company seeking the permit. Domina also questioned Palmer on who bears responsibility for maintenance or removal should the conduit become obsolete.
TransCanada still hasn't made a final decision on whether to push ahead with the Keystone XL project. Domina asked Palmer whether that meant the company would use the commission's ruling to “make better investment decisions?”
“No sir,” Palmer replied. Asked if selling the route was an option if the commission approves the application but TransCanada scraps the project, he said, “I don't think that I could fulsomely respond with a yes or no answer.”
—With assistance from Meenal Vamburkar and Kevin Orland.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118273625&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118273625&jd=118273625
-
Sen. Menendez Plays Same Old Song on Energy Taxation
Aug 8, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By William O'Keefe
Whenever tax reform is brought up in the Senate, Sen. Robert Menendez(D-N.J.) can be counted on to relaunch his punitive, anti-traditional energy industry tax proposal. If there was a legislative hall of shame, his legislation would be given top billing, having introduced virtually the same dishonest energy tax legislation this year as he did in 2015, 2013 and 2012.
Menendez claims that his legislation “would put an end to unfair taxpayer handouts to these highly-profitable companies.” Apparently, he said that with a straight face. But his target is just five oil companies, which clearly is a case of discrimination.
In his legislative statement, he not-so-masterfully used alternative facts to assert that these companies — but apparently no other integrated oil firms —unnecessarily benefit from tax code provisions he wants to cut. But the reality is most of these provisions are available to virtually all companies and manufacturers, not just energy companies.
He would eliminate the Foreign Tax Credit, which exists to avoid double taxation by providing a credit for foreign taxes paid on overseas income. He would deny these five companies the Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction, available to all companies engaged in manufacturing, producing, growing or extraction in the United States.
This provision is already less for oil companies than other manufacturers. He would deny them cost recovery for tertiary injectants, which could lead to shutting down older fields. Ironically, companies use carbon dioxide in enhanced oil production, which reduces its release into the atmosphere, an objective the senator supports.
He would deny these five companies Intangible Drilling Costs deductions, which are deductions for labor and related costs in drilling wells. These costs are no different than the operating expenses that all companies incur and deduct.
If these proposed actions did not already reveal a shocking level of economic ignorance, Sen. Menendez would also deny these five companies the depletion allowance that they have been denied since 1975.
The failure of Sen. Menendez and his 21 cosponsors to understand the difference between subsidies — giving taxpayer money to the politically-favored — and normal business deductions may help explain the monstrous tax code that is hampering more robust economic growth and promoting crony capitalism. Sen. Menendez and his Democratic cosponsors always favor tax reform that results in more revenue to the government and the increased political power that comes with it.
If Menendez and his allies sincerely wish to repeal subsidies in the energy sector, they should redirect their sights at renewable energy companies that have been the biggest beneficiaries of political favoritism with tax preferences by far. The Congressional Budget Office found that renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for approximately “three-fourths of the projected cost of tax preferences for energy in 2016.” This total accounted for $13.6 billion out of $18.4 billion in 2016.
Worse, the renewables sector is far less efficient with regard to output. In recent congressional testimony, Robert Murray, of the Institute for Energy Research, cited Energy Information Administration data highlighting that “on a per-megawatt-hour basis, in FY 2013, solar received $231 of support and wind received $35, while natural gas and petroleum received 67 cents and coal received 57 cents.”
Groucho Marx was right when he said that politicians look for problems, find them everywhere, misdiagnose them and apply the wrong solutions.
Since the Great Recession, economic growth has been generally stagnant. Instead of focusing on policies that would lead to the robust growth of past decades, Sen. Menendez and his colleagues want to punish success. The oil and gas industry has been a leading contributor to our economy.
According to a new PriceWaterhouse Coopers study, the industry provided 10.3 million jobs as of 2015. In addition, the study found that capital investment by the energy sector “supports an additional 2.3 million jobs and $134 billion of labor income.”
Attempting to punish success collectively reveals a personal vendetta and pandering to an environmental base that is promoting wrong-headed energy policy. Picking and choosing which companies we deny or allow standard business deductions based upon a clear political agenda is just bad leadership and the senator’s intention is likely to harm competitors of his New Jersey benefactors.
What we need in tax reform is a level playing field for all; not the heavy hand of politicians tipping the scales to favor crony capitalists.
William O'Keefe is the founder and president of Solutions Consulting, a firm that specializes in strategic counseling in public policy and management. He formerly served as CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute and as executive vice president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/345794-sen-menendez-plays-same-old-song-on-energy-tax
-
Feds Declare Seismic Testing in Gulf Safe
Aug 9, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Nathanial Gronewold
The Gulf of Mexico is safe for oil and natural gas seismic surveys, a review by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has concluded.
BOEM announced today the release of its final programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) concerning the impact of geological and geophysical survey technologies on the habitats in the Gulf, home to the world's largest concentration of offshore oil and gas platforms. The Gulf's energy resources continue to be explored with technologies to read the geology of deep rock layers.
Looking at an array of technologies employed by the oil and gas industry, including "deep-penetration, high-resolution geophysical, electromagnetic, deep stratigraphic, and remote sensing," BOEM says its environmental review shows minimal harm to the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. Thus, the agency sees no need to place restrictions on geologic survey activity, deeming existing mitigation methods to be adequate for protecting Gulf species.
"Subject to adequate mitigation," allowing the oil and gas industry to continue its geophysical activities in the Gulf of Mexico "would not result in major impacts to the environment," BOEM's review finds.
BOEM said this new PEIS is the result of a 2013 settlement between the agency and several environmental organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Some Democrats and environmental groups argue that loud sounds from seismic air gun surveying can damage marine mammals (E&E Daily, July 19).
The review was undertaken in conjunction with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and NOAA Fisheries. Drafting a PEIS concerning commercial activities in federal waters meets requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act. BOEM says this final environmental impact statement will also be used by NOAA Fisheries in that agency's review of policies concerning applications for incidental take permits, governed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
In June, the Trump administration recommended authorizing incidental take permits for companies seeking to deploy seismic survey vessels for use in the Atlantic Basin. The administration is determined to open Atlantic waters to offshore drilling, and permitting seismic surveys is the first step toward opening new federal waters to oil and gas leasing (Greenwire, June 5).
Government regulators are reviewing the current five-year federal offshore leasing program, with the intent to add acreage in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans for oil and gas leasing consideration. The Obama administration had incorporated Atlantic and Arctic waters in the original 2017-22 leasing schedule, but later withdrew those tracts from leasing consideration.
During the presidential campaign, President Trump pledged to open more federal onshore and offshore areas to oil and gas activity.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/08/08/stories/1060058537
-
Industry Will Do 'Whatever is Necessary' to Stop Pennsylvania NatGas Tax
Aug 8, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Another budget season in Pennsylvania again has the natural gas industry playing defense, as production and consumption taxes are being considered by the House amidst a 39-day impasse that could find the state without money to pay its bills by the end of the month.
"We wouldn't say it's inevitable, but the fact that this got passed out of the Senate and it's in the House has us taking it very, very seriously," said Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer. He spoke Tuesday during a call with media and was asked how concerned he is about this year's severance tax proposal compared to others in the past.
This year, a coterie of pro-business groups, representing some of the state's largest employers, have joined the gas industry's cause to fend off the Republican-controlled Senate's severance tax proposal, which is part of a larger revenue package to fund spending and plug a $2 billion-plus budget deficit.
"We are highly resolved that this will not pass and that we leave it unto ourselves to take every measure, whether it is Hill visits or town hall meetings, [advertising], smoke signals, or we'll hire a plane to fly down the shore in New Jersey with a banner behind it," said Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association President David Taylor. "We're going to do whatever is necessary to convey the absolute truth of the situation that putting new taxes on this industry is going to sacrifice Pennsylvania's future economic growth. It's a very bad idea and it shouldn't happen."
Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf allowed the state's $32 billion budget pass into law in July without his signature. The General Assembly, however, has yet to agree on a plan to pay for it. In a narrow vote late last month, the state Senate passed a revenue package that would require shale gas producers to pay an effective tax rate of 2 cents/Mcf on produced volumes in fiscal 2017-2018 to generate an estimated $100 million. The annual rate could go up or down after that. The revenue package would implement a 5.7% tax on gas utility service, increase the tax on electricity bills and others for telephone service.
The gross receipts tax on utility bills would generate an estimated $405 million per year, mostly from gas consumption, which would disproportionately affect high energy users in manufacturing, the groups argued Tuesday.
Speakers on the conference call said they don't believe the political will exists in the House to pass the measure, where similar legislation has failed repeatedly in the past. Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry President Gene Barr said the organization's representatives have had "extensive discussions" with House leadership and rank-and-file members. He believes there's "already a lot of concern in the House over new energy taxes."
The rate of economic growth in Pennsylvania has fallen below the national average, and another tax on one of the state's leading industries would hamper its competitive edge and create a ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy, Barr said.
"We're coming back to competitive pressures here. That's what this comes down to. I am so sick and tired of hearing the argument that 'the industry is here, they can afford to pay a severance tax.' At the end of the day, what's affordability?" asked API-Pennsylvania’s Stephanie Catarino Wissman, executive director. "Nobody is listening to the economic realities, the price pressures that we are under as an industry...Capital is movable. All of our companies are looking at their portfolios and deciding where to invest their dollars."
Spigelmyer said that despite the cautious optimism pervading the Marcellus Shale this year, the Appalachian Basin is facing intense competition from other basins across the country, such as the Permian, where investments are soaring and activity has spiked. He cited Noble Energy Inc.'s recent decision to divest its Marcellus assets in favor of oilier ones in the Permian and elsewhere as an example.
Under the Senate's plan, producers would still be required to pay the state impact fee, which is levied annually on all unconventional wells during their first 15 years of operation, as long as they produce more than 90 Mcf. Producers have paid more than $1.2 billion in impact fees since they was established in 2012. But groups like the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center that have long advocated for a severance tax, argue that fee collections have declinedin recent years as production has increased.
Wolf, along with other Democrats, urged House leadership to call lawmakers back into session to approve the Senate's revenue package or come up with a better plan. Democratic Rep. Paul Costa of Allegheny County said this week that each day the impasse drags on, it costs the state more money.
The Senate's package has also faced criticism from environmental groups for including industry concessions that lawmakers hope sweeten the deal for producers. The tax bill would implement faster turnaround times for well, air and earthmoving permits. Industry representatives said Tuesday they are not ready to make that trade-off. Spigelmyer said permit turnaround time in the state has in some cases reached 260 days for earth disturbance permits and more than 100 days for well permits.
"The problem is that [regulators] have yet to prove that they can process the permits in a reliable fashion," said Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association President Dan Weaver.
As the state works to fund the budget, the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation has already filed a lawsuit in the Commonwealth Court for a declaration that part of the budget is unconstitutional after the state Supreme Court ruled that royalties from the Oil and Gas Lease Fund cannot be transferred to cover general budget purposes and instead must be used for conservation.
"There will be challenges through the court systems, some of the environmental groups have already stated this. At the end of the day, it's not a trade," Weaver said of the permitting concessions included in the Senate's proposal. "From our association's standpoint, we're not going to trade for that because at the end of the day we see that component being thrown out and all you're left with is a tax."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111346-industry-will-do-whatever-is-necessary-to-stop-pennsylvania-natgas-tax
-
Astoria, Ore., Opposes Proposed Vancouver Oil Terminal
Aug 8, 2017 | The Columbian
By Dameon Pesanti
Astoria, Ore., has added itself to the list of cities opposed to the Vancouver Energy oil terminal.
On Monday, the city council unanimously passed a resolution that specifically cited the proposed Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos. terminal as a reason to oppose any proposed oil-by-rail projects along the Columbia River.
“I think the benefits of the terminal project to Astoria definitely don’t outweigh the risks,” City Councilor Zetty Nemlowill said in a story by The Daily Astorian.
The resolution also announced Astoria’s supporting stance with other cities, saying “Spokane, Vancouver, Portland and Seattle, the Columbia River Treaty Tribes, and others have expressed profound concerns and opposition to the (terminal).”
The Daily Astorian also reported that the council plans to submit the resolution to the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which is evaluating the terminal project.
The terminal is proposed to be built at the Port of Vancouver. It would be the largest rail-to-marine oil terminal in the United States, capable of handling 360,000 barrels of oil per day.
Unit trains carrying crude would travel through the Columbia River Gorge, then unload the oil in Vancouver.
The oil would then be pumped into tanks and stored before being transferred to marine vessels that would journey down the Columbia bound for refineries along the West Coast.
The resolution pointed to “a series of North American oil train derailments and spills” including the June 2016 derailment in Mosier, Ore., where roughly 42,000 gallons of oil were spilled.
Astoria’s resolution cited studies by the Washington Department of Ecology that outlined possible impacts of crude oil projects and shipping oil by train and over water and offered risk mitigation recommendations.
It also pointed to a rule on enhanced tank car standards by the U.S. Department of Transportation meant to make shipping oil safer.
In spite of those, the resolution describes “serious concerns” about the safety of shipping crude by rail in light of possible maintenance issues on tracks and equipment, among other things.
“These outstanding deficiencies present unacceptable risk levels for spills of crude oil entering the Columbia River and causing significant damage to its ecosystem,” the resolution reads.
Astoria City Councilor Bruce Jones, a retired commander of U.S. Coast Guard Sector Columbia River, said, “I think they ought to work those kinks out somewhere other than these sensitive environmental areas,” The Daily Astorian reported.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/aug/08/astoria-ore-opposes-proposed-vancouver-oil-terminal/
-
Judges Give EPA Alternatives to Revive Chemical Coolants Ban
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The same judges who struck down the EPA's ban on refrigerants that are also potent greenhouse gases may have outlined a path forward for the agency should it want to try again.
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Aug. 8 that the agency's ban on hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, is invalid because it overstepped its authority. However, attorneys following this case say the court pointed out the EPA has other tools at its disposal to ban HFCs, which can trap heat in the atmosphere thousands of times more efficiently than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.
Nonetheless, the Aug. 8 decision is a respite for companies like Arkema and Mexichem Fluor Inc., plaintiffs in the lawsuit, that still want to manufacture the refrigerant chemicals.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, seemed to indicate that the EPA could resurrect its ban on these chemicals by other means if it wants. For example, he said the agency may be able to use its authority through the Toxic Substances Control Act to put the ban on firmer legal footing (Mexichem Fluor Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1328, 8/8/17).
No ‘Blank Check’
“Climate change is not a blank check for the President,” Kavanaugh wrote. “However much we might sympathize or agree with EPA's policy objectives, EPA may act only within the boundaries of its statutory authority.”
Brendan Collins, an environmental attorney and a partner in Ballard Spahr's Philadelphia office, said this may indicate the judges in the majority are sympathetic to the EPA's goals here. “I get the sense that the majority wanted to convey that,” Collins told Bloomberg BNA.
David Doniger, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which intervened in the case on behalf of the EPA, agreed with Collins’ interpretation but said he was still disappointed in the decision.
“It seems like there may be other routes” to ban HFCs, he told Bloomberg BNA. “But we thought that the direct path was perfectly within EPA's authority.”
Both Doniger and Collins also said the opponents of HFCs may fare much better if this case is heard by the entire D.C. Circuit. They said the two judges in the majority on this ruling—Kavanaugh and Janice Rogers Brown—are arguably the most conservative on the 11-judge court. However, the full D.C. Circuit rarely agrees to rehear cases.
EPA spokeswoman Amy Graham told Bloomberg BNA that the agency is still reviewing the decision.
Replacing a Replacement
HFCs were originally developed to serve as a substitute for other refrigerants that harmed the ozone layer. In the 1990s, the EPA added them to its official list of replacement chemicals that were safe for the ozone layer.
Then, it learned that HFCs are potent greenhouse gasses, and the EPA moved in 2015 to ban their use under the same law that authorizes it to ban ozone-depleting chemicals.
By doing this, “EPA has tried to jam a square peg...into a round hole,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The court said the administration can't use a law intended to address the ozone layer to achieve its other, unrelated goals. Forcing companies that adopted HFCs as a replacement for other chemicals to then go ahead and replace HFCs as well would be unfair, according to the opinion.
The decision dealt a blow to Honeywell International and Chemours because they have developed chemicals meant to replace HFCs.
Attorneys for both Arkema and Mexichem Fluor, which were the plaintiffs in this case, and Honeywell and Chemours, which intervened on behalf of the EPA, could not be reached in time for this story.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118273617&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118273617&jd=118273617
-
Trump's UN Diplomat: White House Won't Hinder Climate Study
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Trump administration is unlikely to interfere in a broad climate studyfocusing on how rising sea level, increasing temperatures, and other factors are already affecting the U.S., the president's United Nations ambassador said.
Asked if the administration would embrace the report, Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the UN, said, “I haven't seen the report, but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.” Haley, appearing Aug. 8 on NBC's “Today” show, appeared to push back against reports suggesting scientists are worried President Donald Trump will torpedo the draft report—known as the Fourth National Climate Assessment—given Trump's June withdrawal from the Paris climate pact.
“We're not saying that climate change is not real,” she said. “It is real. It's how do you have that balance between making sure you've got jobs and businesses moving and then also making sure you protect your climate,” she said. “The answer's in the middle.”
One draft portion of the report, known as the climate science special report, said even “stronger evidence” has emerged of “continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean” since the last report in 2014. The report, compiled by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, is required under a 1990 law to be provided to Congress.
Overall, the latest draft report only reiterates findings from earlier assessments as well as those from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that confirm the planet is warming and that humans likely play a significant role in driving climate change, Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado's environmental studies department, told Bloomberg BNA.
“In a sense this isn't a lot of new news but confirms what earlier climate assessment reports, as well as IPCC” found, Pielke said.
“The report is pretty solid,” he said.
Democrats Not Assuaged
Many Democrats, who have already complained that Trump has rolled back climate policies and targeted funding for climate-related research, said they have good reason to worry that the White House might interfere with the report.
“It wouldn't be a surprise if they attempted to suppress it, unfortunately,” Rep. Mike Quigley, (D-Ill.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's New Day Aug. 8.
“Look, it's a familiar pattern” for Trump, Quigley said, noting the president labeled climate change a “hoax” in the 2016 campaign even though scientists have amassed more than 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject. “The Trump administration cannot be allowed to suppress pure science,” the Democrat said.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has a formal role in reviewing the U.S. climate assessment under the 1990 Global Change Research Act, but Trump has yet to nominate someone to head the office. Past OSTP directors, including John Holdren, who served two terms under President Barack Obama, have also typically served as the president's top science adviser.
OSTP spokesman Ross Gillfillan said he could not comment on whether Trump is close to nominating someone to the position.
Final Version Due in 2018
But the spokesman told Bloomberg BNA the draft climate science report should still be viewed as an “interim report” that will be wrapped into a broader National Climate Assessment.
The complete assessment is expected to be made available for public review sometime this fall, or perhaps by end of year, he said; the final version is slated for release in 2018.
The White House refused to respond to questions about the draft assessment, with White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stating that the draft has actually been released online months ago for public comment. Going forward, the White House “will withhold comment on any draft report before its scheduled release date,” according to Sanders’ statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118273614&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118273614&jd=118273614
-
Pruitt Climate Science Challenge Splits Conservative Allies
Aug 8, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
EPA chief Scott Pruitt’s attacks on mainstream climate science are causing discomfort in a surprising corner — among many of the conservative and industry groups that have cheered his efforts to dismantle Barack Obama’s environmental regulations.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, political groups backed by the Koch brothers and the top lobbying organizations for the coal, oil, natural gas and power industries are among those so far declining to back Pruitt’s efforts to undermine the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, according to more than a dozen interviews by POLITICO. Some advocates privately worry that the debate would politically harm moderate Republicans, while wasting time and effort that’s better spent on the EPA’s regulatory rollback.
Nevertheless, the former Oklahoma attorney general is persisting — a stance that could enhance his future political prospects in his deep-red home state.
As with immigration, trade and health care, climate change is one of numerous issues where President Donald Trump’s administration must decide how aggressively to attack the established consensus. And some of Pruitt’s allies worry about the dangers of going too far.
“Policy risks could arise from playing politics,” said Chrissy Harbin, vice president of federal affairs for Americans for Prosperity, a major conservative group backed by the industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch. “If done incorrectly, efforts that are more politically motivated than policy-focused could unintentionally undermine conservatives' ability to roll back overreaching Obama-era regulations.”
Pruitt drew widespread criticism in late June after EPA revealed that he was pushing for government-chosen experts to hold a public “red team, blue team” debate about climate science — a move that environmentalists say would place fringe views on an even playing field with established, peer-reviewed research.
He also hasn’t ruled out trying to overturn EPA’s science-based conclusion that climate change threatens human health and welfare, a 2009 decision that legally requires the agency to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Pruitt is also weighing a crucial policy decision in which science could play a major role — whether EPA should craft a replacement for Obama's landmark 2015 greenhouse gas regulations for power plants, which Pruitt and Trump have vowed to repeal. Most power companies want the agency to replace Obama’s climate standards with a far laxer regulation that would require few changes for coal plants, but doing that would mean acknowledging EPA’s legal authority on climate change.
A riskier alternative would be for EPA to revoke its 2009 scientific conclusions in hopes of forgoing climate regulations altogether.
Pruitt's decision could be influenced by people like West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is challenging Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in 2018 and was involved in lawsuits against Obama's regulations. Morrisey recently pitched options to “permanently kill the Obama Power Plan” to his state’s coal lobby, and he plans to talk through those possibilities with other Republican attorneys general soon.
Pruitt has publicly scoffed at the idea that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to global warming — not too unlike Trump himself, who has dismissed human-caused climate change as a “hoax.”
But not all Republicans support reopening that debate. And the top fossil fuel trade groups have not asked the agency to re-examine its 2009 conclusion about climate science, commonly known as the “endangerment finding.”
“We have neither taken a position on it nor have we been terribly interested in that debate,” said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, which has preferred to attack Obama-era regulations as government overreach and threats to jobs and the economy. “We’re not debating the ‘accept or deny climate science.’ We approach it as a policy issue: How do we deal with this issue, what is the most prudent and rational course for that? … We have much more pressing issues, as you can imagine.”
AFP and the Chamber have also not asked Pruitt to dispute climate science or the legal finding, and neither have the Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the Edison Electric Institute or the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, a major political donor whose members include coal-burning power utilities in rural states. Most of those groups haven’t taken a public stance, but others have privately argued against the effort.
On the other hand, some conservative groups do want Pruitt to contest the endangerment finding — among them, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Energy Alliance, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute. Bob Murray, CEO of the coal company Murray Energy, has also argued that his industry needs Pruitt to rescind the finding, although other coal producers have disagreed with him. Other coal companies are still discussing their positions.
Steve Milloy, a well-known climate critic who is a fellow for the conservative E&E Legal Institute, maintained that “all of the climate skeptics are in favor of this whole thing.” But he added that he thinks the idea for challenging climate science “all came from Scott Pruitt himself.”
“Industry guys are all over the map,” Milloy said. “They're all very confused and don't know what's good for them."
Disputing the endangerment finding would be tough, triggering a legal fight from environmental groups that EPA could easily lose given the vast amount of evidence from scientists that shows man-made greenhouse gas emissions harm the environment. And it could last through the end of the Trump administration.
“The downsides are considerable,” said David Bookbinder, chief counsel for the libertarian Niskanen Center, which believes Pruitt has a legal duty to regulate greenhouse gases. “It would take an enormous amount of work to do it, and then [Pruitt] would get laughed out of court.”
Bookbinder argues Pruitt’s climate debate is a “a political exercise entirely.”
“This is nothing more than to give people a show,” Bookbinder said. “The man’s running for Senate next year. Everything he says is calculated toward securing the Republican nomination in Oklahoma and then winning the general election there.”
Pruitt has not disclosed any plans for a Senate run, although Sen. Jim Inhofe’s term is up in 2020. Democrats and watchdog groups have similarly accused Pruitt of using his EPA post and the climate debate to launch a campaign for Congress. Pruitt has helped fuel those accusations by making frequent trips home — based on a review of travel records, Reuters reported that Pruitt spent almost half his days in Oklahoma this past spring.
Pruitt recently told The Oklahoman that he was not interested in jumping into the state’s open gubernatorial race next year. But he declined to speculate on a possible run for Senate if Inhofe retires before Election Day in 2020, at which point Inhofe would be 85.
EPA did not comment for this story.
Climate change typically doesn’t drive voters to the polls. Still, Oklahomans are more skeptical of the science than most Americans, according to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Inhofe has repeatedly won reelection as one of the chamber’s most vocal critics of climate science, including writing a book on the topic called “The Greatest Hoax.”
Republicans who accept that humans cause climate change but have questions about the best policy response say Pruitt’s enterprise could be helpful but risks becoming overly politicized.
Eli Lehrer, president of the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank that has argued for a congressionally mandated carbon price, said a debate “could be very helpful in clarifying what conservatives should be doing and how conservatives should and should not worry about it.”
“If Republicans, on the other hand, end up going down the rabbit hole of saying that an overwhelming scientific consensus is a hoax or a fraud, then it becomes a problem,” he added.
GOP politicians in swing districts would be forced to defend or denounce the administration, he said.
But that’s inevitable, some of the people pushing for a review of the science say.
“The whole ‘I’m not a scientist’ thing went over like a lead balloon,” said one conservative familiar with polling on the issue — alluding to one recent GOP talking point on climate change. “You’re not a doctor, either, but you vote on health care. [Addressing] the science is unavoidable.”
In addition to potentially stressing moderate Republicans, Pruitt’s plans put industry in a tough spot.
Power companies in particular are against debating the science or reviewing the endangerment finding, but they don’t want to fight Pruitt publicly.
“In the utility world, I couldn’t name anyone who is advocating for that right now,” said one power-sector source who spoke anonymously because he didn’t want to draw attention to his company.
Some want the finding intact because they are continuing to lower their carbon emissions by shutting down coal plants and building more natural gas-fired and renewable electricity. They assume they will face carbon limits in the future, regardless of the Trump administration’s plans. Others don’t think the fight is worth the time and money, the source said.
The source added that most aren’t making their position known because it’s “not worth the risk of being out in front of something like this,” including because they might come under pressure from shareholders for any public comments.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/08/pruitts-climate-debate-alienating-him-from-moderates-business-160502
-
Science Report: Who Gets Hotter, Wetter With Climate Change
Aug 8, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Seth Borenstein
A draft federal science report on the effects of global warming breaks down how climate change has already hit different regions of the United States. It also projects expected changes by region.
OVERALL (contiguous 48 states)
—The annual average temperature is already 1.18 degrees warmer the last 30 years than it was from 1901 to 1960, with daytime highs 1 degree warmer and nighttime lows 1.35 degrees higher.
—If carbon pollution continues unabated, temperatures are projected to rise another 4.83 degrees by mid-century and 8.72 degrees by the end of the century, or a few degrees less if emissions are cut somewhat.
___
NORTHEAST (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia and Washington, D.C.)
—The annual average temperature, which has already risen about 1.37 degrees since 1901-1960, is expected to go up another 5.09 degrees by mid-century and 9.11 degrees by the end of the century if carbon pollution continues unabated. If emissions are somewhat controlled, temperatures would go up another 3.98 degrees by mid-century and 5.27 degrees by late century.Continue reading the main story
—Extreme precipitation — rain and snow — has already gone up 17 percent compared with the first half of the 20th century and is projected to go up another 22 percent by the end of the 21st century if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon dioxide emissions are somewhat reduced, it would only go up 14 percent.
—The northeast heat wave of July 2012 was made worse because of man-made climate change.
___
SOUTHEAST (Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida)
—The annual average temperature has only gone up about 0.4 degrees since 1901-1960, the lowest of any region in the nation. It is projected to rise another 4.3 degrees by mid-century and 7.72 degrees by the end of century, if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced, the annual temperature would rise another 3.4 degrees by mid-century and 4.43 degrees by late century.
—Extreme rain has already increased by 8 percent compared with the first half of the 20th century and is projected to go up another 21 percent by the end of the 21st century if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon pollution is somewhat reduced, it would only go up 13 percent.
___
MIDWEST (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Missouri)
—The annual average temperature has already gone up 1.18 degrees since 1901-1960 and is projected to rise another 5.29 degrees by mid-century and 9.49 degrees by the end of the century, if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced, the annual temperature would go up by 4.21 degrees by mid-century and 5.57 degrees by late century.
—Extreme rainfall has already jumped 9 percent compared with the first half of the 20th century and is projected to go up another 20 percent by the end of the 20th century if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon pollution is somewhat reduced it would only increase 11 percent.
—An extremely wet spring in 2013 and a March 2012 heat wave were found to be connected to man-made climate change.
GREAT PLAINS NORTH (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana)
—The annual average temperature has already gone up 1.62 degrees — the most of any region — since 1901-1960. It is projected to rise another 5.1 degrees by mid-century and 9.37 degrees by the end of the century, if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced, the annual temperature would go up by 4.05 degrees by mid-century and 5.44 degrees by late century.
—Extreme rainfall has already gone up 6 percent since the first half of the 20th century and is projected to go up another 16 percent by late century, if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced it would be 10 percent.
___
GREAT PLAINS SOUTH (Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas)
—The average annual temperature has already gone up 0.7 degrees since 1901-1960 and is projected to rise another 4.61 degrees by mid-century and 8.44 degrees by the end of the century, if carbon emissions continue unabated. If carbon pollution is somewhat reduced, the annual temperature would go up by 3.62 degrees by mid-century and 4.78 degrees by late century.
—Extreme rainfall has already gone up 6 percent since the first half of the 20th century and is projected to go up another 20 percent by late century, if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced it would be 12 percent.
—A hot summer 2011 in Texas and Oklahoma was found to be connected to man-made climate change.
___
SOUTHWEST (California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona)
—The average annual temperature has already gone up 1.56 degrees since 1901-1960 and is projected to rise another 4.8 degrees by mid-century and 8.65 degrees by the end of the century if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced, the annual temperature would go up 3.72 degrees by mid-century and 4.93 degrees by late century.
—Extreme rainfall has only increased 1 percent since the first half of the 20th century and is projected to go up 20 percent by the end of the century if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced it would be 13 percent.
—California's three-year spell of hot dry weather has been connected to climate change.
___
NORTHWEST (Washington, Oregon and Idaho)
—The average annual temperature has already gone up 1.51 degrees since 1901-1960 and is projected to rise another 4.67 degrees by mid-century and 8.51 degrees by the end of the century if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced, the annual temperature would go up 3.66 degrees by mid-century and 4.99 degrees by the end of the century.
—Extreme rainfall has increased 3 percent since the first half of the 20th century and is projected to go up 19 percent by the end of the century if carbon pollution continues unabated. If carbon emissions are somewhat reduced it would be 10 percent.
___
ALASKA
—The average annual temperature in Alaska has gone up 1.52 degrees since 1925-1960 and is projected to increase by 10 degrees by the end of the century if carbon pollution continues unabated. That's the most in the United States.
—The frequency of cold spells will decrease the most in Alaska in the future.
___
HAWAII
—The average annual temperature in Hawaii has gone up 0.75 degrees since 1925-1960.
—The extremely active 2014 Hawaiian hurricane season has been connected to man-made climate change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/science-report-who-gets-hotter-wetter-with-climate-change/2017/08/09/09858fb6-7cd4-11e7-b2b1-aeba62854dfa_story.html?utm_term=.091ee05464a3
-
Water Rule Analysis Broader Than Critics Contend, EPA Says
Aug 9, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA's economic analysis of the Obama-era Clean Water Rule relied on permitting data from years after the economic recession ended, the agency said countering accusations its analysis was limited to when the downturn occurred.
The Environmental Protection Agency study of the 2015 rule's costs and benefits was more comprehensive than critics claimed, Al McGartland, head of the agency's National Center for Environmental Economics, told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
Critics contended the EPA relied on permitting data from two years during the economic recession, when construction and manufacturing would have been at their lowest, to inform its study of costs and benefits of the rule, which determines the reach of federal water permitting requirements. The EPA used that same data when it issued the rule in 2015 and again this year as the administration proposed to roll it back (RIN:2040-AF74).
McGartland acknowledged that the EPA did use the permitting data from fiscal years 2009 and 2010 when it initially proposed the rule, also known as waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS. But the agency relied on five years of data for the economic analysis of the final rule. The updated analysis for the 2015 final rule came in response to criticism from the Waters Advocacy Coalition, an industry-led coalition of manufacturers, farmers, miners, road builders, and businesses that had hired David Sunding, of the University of California, Berkeley, to critique the analysis of the proposal.
“In fact, to ensure EPA did not understate permit activity, EPA looked at the range of permitting activity from 2009 through 2014 and used the maximum number of permits in any given year,” McGartland said.
Specifically, the analysis calculated the overall impact by using the maximum number of individual permits to dredge and fill wetlands and streams that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued in fiscal year 2009 and the maximum number of general permits issued in 2013, McGartland added.
Analysis Still Said to Lack Rigor
Despite the EPA's defense, skeptics of the agencies’ analysis remained unpersuaded.
The use of the recession-era data as an economic baseline was one of a number of problems with the original study and the more recent analysis, William Yeatman, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said.
“It doesn't change the fact that both of these studies were driven by assumptions to control the results,” Yeatman told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 7.
James Goodwin, a senior fellow with the Center for Progressive Reform, said the Trump and Obama administrations “cherry picked” assumptions to reach their respective conclusions. The “cost-benefit analyses are nothing more than administration tools to justify their actions,” he said.
Goodwin noted that permits are a lagging indicator of economic activity because the corps doesn't issue the permits right when the applicants seek them.
Yeatman, who was opposed to the 2015 rulemaking and supports the Trump administration's proposal to withdraw the rule, reiterated that the EPA and the corps are missing an opportunity to do this analysis properly.
At the end of the day, “It's all politics,” Yeatman said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118273619&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118273619&jd=118273619
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested