ACC PM 9/22

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) API Chief Gerard on Climate 'Challenge,' Being a Father of 8

   Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Kellie Lunney
   
   
   On paper, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard is a Washington lobbyist straight from central casting.

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

2. From Hair Care to Hamburgers, Companies Get On Board the Transparency Train

   Sep 22, 2017 | Environmental Working Group

   By Paul Pestano
   
   
   Americans want and have a right to know what's in the stuff they buy. Manufacturers and marketers are finally joining the unstoppable movement for product transparency.
3. EPA Issues Direct Final SNURs for Carbon Nanotube (Generic) and Nanocarbon (Generic)

   Sep 22, 2017 | The National Law Review

   By Lynn Bergson & Carla Hutton
   
   
   The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated on September 21, 2017, significant new use rules (SNUR) for 37 chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN).

Energy News

4. (ACC Mentioned) How Exxonn Mobil May Soon Have Greater Sway Over Science Used in EPA Policies

   Sep 22, 2017 | The Intercept

   By Lee Fang
   
   
   EXXON MOBIL MAY soon have a greater hand in shaping the science used to develop major environmental regulations.
5. Administration Officials Meet to Develop Climate Strategy

   Sep 21, 2017 | PoliticoPro

   By Andrew Restuccia & Emily Holden
   
   
   Trump administration officials huddled at the White House on Wednesday in a bid to chart a more cohesive energy and environmental policy strategy, including a game plan for communicating its position on climate change, according to three people familiar with the meeting.
6. Ewire: White House Plots 'Forward-Looking' Climate Strategy

   Sep 22, 2017 | Inside EPA

   More than a dozen deputy-level officials from various corners of the White House met Wednesday to craft a “forward-looking strategy” on climate, energy and environmental issues and a “game plan” for communicating its position on climate change, according to a dispatch from Politico.
7. Appellate Court Tosses Litigation Over BLM Fracking Rule

   Sep 22, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Charlie Passut
   
   
   A divided appellate court panel on Thursday dismissed litigation against an Obama-era rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands, on the grounds that the Trump administration intends to rescind the rule.
8. DowDuPont Fires Up Massive Texas Ethylene Plant

   Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Jordan Blum
   
   
   DowDuPont Inc. has turned on its massive new ethylene and plastics operation in Freeport, Texas, the company said yesterday.
9. Ohio Looks to Rover for Lessons in Regulating

   Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

   By Jenny Mandel
   
   
   Construction of the Rover pipeline through Ohio has been fraught with environmental problems, and state regulators are hoping to avoid a repeat performance for the next big project to cross through the state, Enbridge Inc.'s Nexus pipeline.

Chemical Security News

10. Dispersants Sickened Deepwater Horizon Responders

    Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Tristan Baurick
    
    
    The chemicals used to mitigate the Deepwater Horizon oil spill sickened the workers who responded to the disaster, a new federal study confirmed.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

11. PennEast Hopeful of Fed Approval, But Local Battles Await

    Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By David Iaconangelo
    
    
    A proposed pipeline that would deliver Marcellus-sourced natural gas to consumers in New Jersey is inching through the federal permitting process, but local agencies — and an unusually influential citizen opposition — could prove less amenable to the idea.
12. Letter: Oil Train Safety Bill Due for Veto Override

    Sep 22, 2017 | North Jersey

    By Paula Rogovin
    
    
    A vote to override Governor Christie’s veto of S806, the Oil Train Safety Bill, will take place in the state Senate in early October. A coalition of over 40 groups in northern New Jersey, along with the editorial board of The Record, have called on the state Senate to override the veto.

Environment News

13. (ACC Mentioned) Justices to Weigh Environment Petitions as Term Begins

    Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Amanda Reilly
    
    
    Summer is over for the Supreme Court. Justices return next week for their fall term, kicking things off Monday with an opening conference to consider hundreds of petitions submitted over the past several months.
14. 'Supercharged' States, Cities Vow to Pick Up Trump's Slack

    Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    With the Trump administration keeping noticeably mum on climate change throughout this year's U.N. week, U.S. cities, businesses and states were busy auditioning for understudy.
15. The Energy 202: Climate Change Terms Altered in Another Corner of EPA’s Website

    Sep 22, 2017 | The Washington Post

    By Dino Grandoni
    
    
    Numerous mentions of “climate change,” “greenhouse gasses” and other phrases related to global warming have been found to be altered or deleted from another portion of the Environmental Protection Agency’s website, according to a new environmental watchdog report.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) API Chief Gerard on Climate 'Challenge,' Being a Father of 8

   Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Kellie Lunney

   On paper, American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard is a Washington lobbyist straight from central casting.

   Law school. Experience as a staffer in the House and Senate. Co-founder of a lobby shop. President and CEO of three major industry groups.

   But what Gerard, 59, is most proud of is being a parent. He's a passionate advocate for adoption and foster care, and father to eight children ranging in age from 12 to 32, including twin boys adopted from Guatemala. And that's not all. He also has four grandchildren.

   "As I often tell people, we have a focus group right in our own home," Gerard told E&E News. "If I need to talk to millennials, or children, talk to a spouse, boys, girls — whatever we need — we've got it."

   The Idaho native came to Washington in 1981 as an intern for former Rep. George Hansen (R-Idaho), who soon offered him a full-time job. Gerard got his bachelor's degree by taking classes at night at George Washington University. A few years later, he moved across Capitol Hill for a job with another Idaho Republican, former Sen. James McClure, who then chaired the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

   Gerard kept up the night classes, chasing a GW law degree.

   "So I had six years of night school to finish my undergraduate and law degrees while I was working on Capitol Hill," he said. "It wasn't easy."

   The hard work paid off. Gerard co-founded and led a lobby shop with McClure before moving to trade groups. He ran the National Mining Association and the American Chemistry Council before heading to API in 2008.

   Gerard sat down with E&E News recently to chat about energy security, climate change and his family.

   How have energy issues changed over the years?

   If you step back just across the last two or three decades, the United States was really operating under a broader vision of scarcity, that our resources were finite, that they were running out, so we needed to figure out a broader-term energy policy. We were focused on things like importation of natural gas, and now, today, we see a very fundamental shift that's just occurred in the past six, seven years.

   Now we are talking about LNG [liquefied natural gas] exports, crude oil exports, gasoline exports. I think that's also changed the basic conversation surrounding energy generally, to where now we're really focused on what the future of the United States should look like. Our hope is, it helps to do away with some of the division of polarization, and brings us back to a common set of objectives.

   We all agree we want affordable, reliable, low-cost, cleaner energy in this country. And we're accomplishing a lot of that now, so how do we set policy to allow that to continue moving forward?

   Does the Trump administration's "energy dominance" theme help or hurt that objective?

   Well, I think clearly the focus on energy is helpful. You know, a lot of people interpret the word differently. But the reality is the United States is in a very different position today than it was just a decade ago. So I think it's helpful to have that broader conversation. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans and independents and socialists, or however people like to label themselves. This is fundamentally about the well-being of the U.S. economy and its positive impacts for the American people and the consumer. We produce more energy here in the United States, thus making that energy that goes to the consumer more affordable than it was a few years ago.

   Is U.S. energy production sustainable?

   It is sustainable because of the vast resource we've found in this country due to our technological development. In fact, if we can continue to improve it through doing it more efficiently and effectively than we ever have, our costs associated with producing that energy continue to go down out of need. We really are at a turning point in history when you think about it; we're right in the middle of that transition from scarcity to abundance. I think this generation, these few years, will really judge how successful we'll be based on the policies that are implemented.

   Is energy independence achievable?

   Well, when we think of the objective we ought to set out, we call it energy security. How do we become energy secure as a nation, because there will be some times when we are better off to import a product because it might be less costly. So instead of trying to suggest we need to be independent from everybody else, what we need to be is energy secure, so when needed we can produce our own without disruption as a result of world events or global markets. We are fast getting to that point.

   Did you know that you wanted to adopt children?

   Well, I've grown up with adoption [he has an adopted sister]. My good wife, she has three nephews who are adopted from different parts of the world. So we grew up in a culture where family is very important to us. We've always kind of had it in the back of our minds.

   One of the things I do that I am passionate about is chair the [nonprofit] Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, which is a bipartisan caucus in the Congress [Congressional Coalition on Adoption]. One of the great personal satisfactions I have in this town is that we work on issues together in a bipartisan way, but it's really focused on children and foster care.

   Each summer, we bring about a dozen foster youth to Washington and get them internships. We raise the money to support them. Then they write their policy recommendations based on their personal experience, on how we can improve the foster care system.

   Do the administration's efforts to roll back regulations threaten the industry's success in reducing greenhouse gases?

   The view of our industry? Regulation is appropriate, but it should be smart regulation. What's the difference? Smart regulation is regulatory activity that gives you certainty, but doesn't add unnecessary cost or impede the very activity you're trying to accomplish. In our last few years, we've had excessive regulation on the part of the previous administration.

   As we look going forward now, we're trying to get some regulations revised to truly reflect the reality. Methane is a good example. If you've got a regulatory regime where you are able to reduce methane emissions, and you are doing that primarily because of the energy industry's advanced technologies, why would you come in and add costs just because you can through regulatory process?

   Let's be smart about our regulation. Look at the Clean Power Plan the previous administration pushed forward. It was never put into law, but what happened? We were already reducing our carbon emissions faster than anybody else in the world without the regulatory regime.

   We shouldn't regulate merely because we can regulate. We should regulate where appropriate, and make it smart regulation so we protect the American people, the environment and our workforce, but we do it in a way that benefits the American people with affordable, reliable energy.

   Easier said than done.

   It is, but that is the right direction we should be going.

   Do you believe in climate change?

   We believe the best approach to that discussion is to focus on solutions. And I say that intentionally because it's important that we get over what the debate has been over the past decade in this country about, "Are you a believer, or are you a denier?"

   That's why our approach is to move beyond that and say, "Wait a minute, let's all agree that if it's a challenge, then let's focus on the solution."

   So if it's a challenge, it's a problem?

   Well, if it's a challenge, then what is the solution to that? We believe strongly, as we have already demonstrated, that we can reduce carbon emissions in this country by paying attention to it, by looking at the natural gas production that has brought us to a near 30-year low. So that's part of the solution.

   This isn't a religious test. It's a domestic challenge as it relates to energy. When the president went to Paris, we believe his focus should have been on "Hey, here's our experience in the United States. We're now reducing carbon emissions, this might be something everybody else can learn from."

   If you look at the developing world — and this is where my passion for children and [helping] youth intersects closely — we have a billion-and-a-half people in the world today who don't have the benefit of energy.

   If our real goal, longer-term, is not only to give them an opportunity to survive, to compete, get educated, we should focus on energy. How do we do that? Well, think of that clean-burning natural gas we produce in great abundance right here at home. Just think if we can export some of that, and make it portable into some of these other societies to give people an energy opportunity.

   This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060061455/search?keyword=American+Chemistry+Council
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

2. From Hair Care to Hamburgers, Companies Get On Board the Transparency Train

   Sep 22, 2017 | Environmental Working Group

   By Paul Pestano

   Americans want and have a right to know what's in the stuff they buy. Manufacturers and marketers are finally joining the unstoppable movement for product transparency.

   For too long, many companies have hidden behind archaic laws that let them keep their products' ingredients secret. For many kinds of products, companies aren't required to disclose any ingredients at all.

   But in response to consumers' demand for detailed information about the things they eat, put on their bodies or use to clean their homes, some companies are taking the initiative and acting on their own. This market shift is accelerating as brands realize that if they don't disclose ingredients, their customers will find a competitor that does.

   Cosmetics and personal care products

   In the cosmetics and personal care market, small companies were the first to take on the transparency challenge. In the last decade, boutique specialty companies have tapped into Americans’ desire for safer, greener and more transparent products. But these companies have a small share of the market. But recently, major personal care product companies have taken steps toward greater transparency.

   In February, Unilever pledged to disclose fragrance ingredients down to a very small, or de minimus, concentration in its personal care products using SmartLabel by the end of 2018. SmartLabel is an online and mobile application that provides detailed information about consumer products. The initiative began this month, with Unilever listing more detailed ingredient information for some of its products across seven brands like Dove, Axe and Suave.

   This was a monumental step in a sector of the market that still clung tight to the excuse that fragrance disclosure was impossible. Under current federal law, manufacturers can use the term “fragrance” to conceal all ingredients that scent their products. Some of the ingredients used in fragrance mixtures have been linked to troubling health impacts such as endocrine disruption and allergies.

   Shortly after Unilever's announcement, Procter & Gamble, which makes both personal care and cleaning products, said it would disclose fragrance ingredients online across all its products by 2019. Last year the company posted $65.3 billion in net sales, so if the company makes good on its pledge, this unprecedented level of transparency would be a game-changer.

   In 2014, Revlon began to voluntarily disclose the allergens in their products to comply with European Union labeling laws. These allergens are not the fragrances themselves, but either separate ingredients of a product’s fragrance palette or components of other ingredients like essential oils and botanical extracts.

   Cleaning products

   In the cleaning product sector, federal law does not require manufacturers to list most ingredients used in products. Smaller companies like Seventh Generation Seventh Generation – years before it was bought by Unilever – and the Honest Company have bucked this trend. Those same companies advocated for the California Cleaning Product Right to Know Act, which recently passed the state legislature. If signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, this landmark bill would require ingredient disclosures on all labels and online for both home and commercial cleaning products sold in California, the nation's largest market.

   Procter & Gamble’s pledge to disclose cleaning product ingredients is the biggest voluntary step toward transparency. But other big companies have also made or pledged similar actions. SC Johnson, which owns brands like Windex and Shout,  launched three Glade PlugIns Citrus Blossom products in 2016 with full disclosure of fragrance ingredients.

   Food and restaurants

   Over the last decade, major fast-food restaurants – including McDonald’s, Starbucks, Subway and Chipotle – began listing calorie counts and other nutrition information on their menus and websites. Panera Bread not only disclosed a list of 140 ingredients it does not use, but also began listing nutrition information, including added sugars, on the cups of its craft fountain beverages.

   Retailers

   In January, Target announced that all its store-brand beauty, baby care, personal care and household cleaning products would disclose all ingredients, including fragrances, by 2020.

   In 2013, Walmart announced its Sustainable Chemistry Initiative, with a goal to require all manufacturers that sell at Walmart and Sam’s Club to disclose product ingredients on Walmart’s website. Manufacturers must also provide Walmart with full disclosure of ingredients, including fragrance, starting in 2015. According to the initiative’s most recent report in 2016, over 96 percent of product formulations are fully disclosed to the retailer, while 60 percent of personal care and 58 percent of household cleaning products have listed ingredients on Walmart's website.

   EWG’s role

   EWG has been at the forefront of the transparency movement for more than a decade. Our Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database and Guide to Healthy Cleaning inform consumers about the potential hazards associated with personal care and household cleaning products.

   As companies join the movement, it’s up to us to continue pushing other manufacturers and the federal government. Without meaningful regulation requiring full ingredient disclosure and testing of products before they're put on the market, we'll never know what is in the products we buy and use. Will you join us?

   http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/09/hair-care-hamburgers-companies-get-board-transparency-train#.WcU_zbKGOUk
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. EPA Issues Direct Final SNURs for Carbon Nanotube (Generic) and Nanocarbon (Generic)

   Sep 22, 2017 | The National Law Review

   By Lynn Bergson & Carla Hutton

   The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated on September 21, 2017, significant new use rules (SNUR) for 37 chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN). 

   Six of the chemical substances, including carbon nanotube (generic) and nanocarbon (generic), are subject to consent orders issued by EPA under Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.  The SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of the 37 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.  The required notification initiates EPA’s evaluation of the intended use.  Manufacture and processing for the significant new use is unable to commence until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required with that determination.  The promulgated SNURs include:

   Carbon nanotube (generic) (PMN Number P-15-672): The generic (non-confidential) use of the PMN substance will be in filtration media.  EPA identified concerns for pulmonary toxicity and oncogenicity, as well as environmental toxicity.  The consent order requires:

   Use of personal protective equipment involving impervious gloves and protective clothing (where there is a potential for dermal exposure) and a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirator with N-100, P-100, or R-100 cartridges (where there is a potential for inhalation exposure);

   Processing and use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the consent order;

   Processing and use of the PMN substance only as an aqueous slurry, wet form, or a contained dry form as described in the PMN; and

   No use of the PMN substance resulting in releases to surface waters and disposal of the PMN substance only by landfill or incineration.

   Nanocarbon (generic) (PMN Number P-16-170): The substance will be used as an additive to composite materials.  EPA identified concerns for pulmonary toxicity and oncogenicity, as well as environmental toxicity.  The consent order requires:

   Use of personal protective equipment involving impervious gloves and protective clothing (where there is a potential for dermal exposure) and a NIOSH-certified respirator with N-100, P-100, or R-100 cartridges (where there is a potential for inhalation exposure);

   Submission of a dustiness test within six months of notice of commencement;

   Submission of a 90-day chronic inhalation study prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the consent order;

   Processing and use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the consent order, including no application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol unless the application method occurs in an enclosed process; and

   No use of the PMN substance resulting in releases to surface waters and disposal of the PMN substance only by landfill or incineration.

   Both SNURs would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of the specified protective measures.  The notice includes recommended testing for each substance.  The SNURs will take effect November 20, 2017.©2017 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

   https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-direct-final-snurs-carbon-nanotube-generic-and-nanocarbon-generic
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

4. (ACC Mentioned) How Exxonn Mobil May Soon Have Greater Sway Over Science Used in EPA Policies

   Sep 22, 2017 | The Intercept

   By Lee Fang

   EXXON MOBIL MAY soon have a greater hand in shaping the science used to develop major environmental regulations.

   The published list of potential names for the Science Advisory Board and the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee includes many industry representatives and consultants. The panels are typically composed primarily of independent academics and researchers charged with reviewing agency science and advising the Environmental Protection Agency on major policy decisions.

   While industry has always had a voice on those panels, comments from the Trump administration and the potential new appointees suggest the balance may soon change in favor of greater power for regulated companies, particularly the oil and gas industries.

   The long list of potential new advisory board members includes officials from Exxon Mobil, Phillips 66, Alcoa, Noble Energy, Total, and the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for the chemical industry. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will make the final determination to select the members of the panels.

   In a move widely viewed as an attempt to make room for more industry representatives, the EPA in May dismissed at least five academic researchers from their position on the SAB. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” an EPA spokesperson told the New York Times.

   Steve Milloy, a former Trump transition official, told E&E News that he believes the scientific advisory panels will be significantly “reconstituted” to include more industry representatives and those in the industry-backed think tank world that have held hostile views to previous EPA decisions.

   The list of potential new hires to the scientific advisory boards suggest such changes may soon happen.

   Jeffrey Lewis, an Exxon Mobil in-house scientist, has been floated to serve on both the SAB and CASAC scientific panels. Lewis has developedcost-benefit analysis and other regulatory filings to challenge the scientific standard used in previous years to formulate limits on air pollution. His current professional biography notes that he works in ExxonMobil’s regulatory affairs team — code for lobbying — on a variety of environmental health issues for the company.

   Richard Belzer, a consultant who produces research for Exxon Mobil on air pollutants, is also on the nominee list for the SAB. Exxon Mobil and other industrial concerns voiced opposition to the science used to address ozone pollution under the Obama administration. Belzer and Lewis have worked together on ozone issues for Exxon Mobil.

   Many other executives and officials at major oil and industrial companies are also on the list for the SAB: Merl Lindstrom, vice president of technology for oil refinery company Phillips 66; Sidney Marlborough, a senior environmental toxicologist at fracking company Noble Energy; Rob Merritt, manager of geoscience information at French oil company Total; Mark Monique, president of The Savogran Co., a consumer chemical products company; and Laurie Shelby, a vice president at Alcoa Co., one of the largest aluminum firms in the world.

   Genna Reed, a science and policy analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy, says she is concerned that the balance between independent scientists and industry representatives on scientific advisory panels could soon change.

   “This is supposed to be a science advisory board that provides the most rigorous science advice to the administrator,” said Reed. “There could be motivations from the regulated industry to weigh in more on the science dimensions of regulatory questions. We will be watching closely to ensure that even if there is more industry representation on the SAB than usual, that the conflicts of interest rules still apply and that all members are held to their ethics pledges.”

   The EPA’s scientific advisory boards have attracted criticism in the past for the inclusion of scientists who work at foundations or projects associated with regulated industries. In 1990, controversy erupted over revelations that scientists on the EPA’s scientific advisory panels worked at academic departments funded through tobacco industry research grants.

   The recent list of nominees is an echo of the past given that many of the researchers and scientists proposed for the SAB and CASAC work at nonprofits financed by oil and gas industries. As the Scientific Americanand the Washington Post reported, several names floated by the EPA are known for disputing mainstream climate science.

   Edwin Berry, one of the nominees, is a scientist who compared the belief in climate change to “Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.” Other researchers Pruitt proposed are linked to the Heartland Foundation, a prominent industry-backed think tank heavily involved in attacking those who believe in human-caused global warming.

   Other nominees have a deep background working for industry concerns to challenge EPA health standards.

   For instance, Tony Cox of Cox Associates, nominated to both the SAB and CASAC boards, previously produced research for the American Chemistry Council on lung disease issues, as well as for the American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group for the oil industry, on the health effects associated with fine particulate matter and ozone. Exxon Mobil is a prominent member of the API.

   Another SAB nominee, Kimberly White, is a senior director at the American Chemistry Council and has worked on a variety of environmental health regulatory issues.

   Tim Donaghy, senior research specialist for Greenpeace, notes that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set air quality standards that are based on the “best available science,” a standard that is developed in consultation with the scientific advisory panels.

   “Standards for ozone and particulate matter are usually criticized by the industry, so having advisory committee members with serious conflicts of interest could lead to a weaker standard that isn’t sufficiently protective of public health,” says Donaghy.

   The EPA intends to finalize public comments on the CASAC board this week and for the SAB by September 28.

   The push to remake the panels comes as industrial lobbyists and their allies in Congress have pushed to radically reshape the science used in environmental policymaking.

   In March, the House of Representatives passed a pair of bills designed to change the way scientific research is used to formulate EPA policies. The Honest Act, sponsored by Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, would prevent the EPA from relying on the type of epidemiological research that was used to regulate leaded gas and the pesticide DDT. Another bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, allows industry representatives to serve on the SAB and other scientific research panels without receiving a special waiver.

   https://theintercept.com/2017/09/22/epa-science-exxon-mobil-climate-change/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Administration Officials Meet to Develop Climate Strategy

   Sep 21, 2017 | PoliticoPro

   By Andrew Restuccia & Emily Holden

   Trump administration officials huddled at the White House on Wednesday in a bid to chart a more cohesive energy and environmental policy strategy, including a game plan for communicating its position on climate change, according to three people familiar with the meeting.

   The meeting included more than a dozen deputy-level officials from the White House’s various policy councils, as well as representatives from federal agencies such as the EPA and the Energy Department.

   The goal of the meeting was to develop a forward-looking strategy that goes beyond early efforts by the administration to overturn former President Barack Obama’s regulations. Participants emphasized the importance of coming up with a way to frame President Donald Trump's energy and environmental objectives. Several officials at the meeting proposed highlighting the potential for new energy technology innovation and job creation, according to the people familiar with the meeting.

   Officials also discussed how to combat the public perception that the administration is out of touch with climate science, sources said. The White House declined to comment.

   One administration official said the meeting focused on “big picture climate strategy,” and had less to do with the nitty-gritty policy details of the Paris climate change agreement or Obama’s climate regulations for power plants.

   Wednesday’s meeting marks the latest effort by chief of staff John Kelly to formalize the policymaking process in the West Wing. Kelly has called for more deputy-level strategy sessions on a range of policy issues. Administration officials said there were no final decisions at Wednesday’s meeting, and they expect additional meetings in the coming weeks.

   Trump and his team have often struggled to put forward a unified environmental vision. Trump has said he values clean air and water. But he has sought to undo a series of Obama-era environmental regulations and he announced in June that he intended to withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement, arguing it is a bad deal for the United States.

   Though the Paris climate deal wasn’t a major topic at Wednesday’s meeting, Trump’s stance on the pact has caused confusion among the United States’ foreign allies. Trump has held out the possibility of remaining in the agreement if he can secure a better deal for the U.S., but he’s offered few clues about what that might look like. For now, administration officials have stressed that they still intend to withdraw.

   The administration has also not yet honed a clear stance on climate change science. Before becoming president, Trump called climate change a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese. Since then, various administration officials have said they believe climate change is occurring, but raised questions about the degree to which human beings are responsible. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has called for a public review of climate change science.

   A series of record-breaking hurricanes have put added pressure on the White House to weigh in on the effect that climate change is having on extreme weather.

   "We continue to take seriously the climate change — not the cause of it, but the things that we observe,” White House national security adviser Tom Bossert said earlier this month, pointing to rising sea levels and other climate effects that “would require prudent mitigation measures.”

   Trump later appeared to dismiss the link between hurricanes and climate change. “We’ve had bigger storms than this,” Trump said when asked if Hurricanes Harvey and Irma were changing his views of climate change.

   The vast majority of climate scientists say the planet is warming in large part due to human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels.

   http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/21/white-house-trump-energy-environment-policy-strategy-242980
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Ewire: White House Plots 'Forward-Looking' Climate Strategy

   Sep 22, 2017 | Inside EPA

   More than a dozen deputy-level officials from various corners of the White House met Wednesday to craft a “forward-looking strategy” on climate, energy and environmental issues and a “game plan” for communicating its position on climate change, according to a dispatch from Politico.

   According to the report, several officials at the meeting “proposed highlighting the potential for new energy technology innovation and job creation,” though much of it appears aimed at developing a message to “combat the public perception that the administration is out of touch with climate science.”

   The overwhelming majority of scientists have concluded that human-released greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change. Scores of international and domestic scientific reports have shown this, with multiple lines of evidence.

   It's not certain where this whole “public perception” about the Trump administration being out of touch with this issue came, but we have some clues.

   During the campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump was often pilloried for his past statement that climate change is a “hoax” created by the Chinese to gain a competitive edge. He also said he is “not a big believer in man-made climate change.”

   Then in March, EPA chief Scott Pruitt said he does not accept that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to global warming -- a statement that drew sharp criticism from scientists, environmentalists and others.

   Afterward, Pruitt and other Trump officials embraced a “red team, blue team” effort to review climate science, though critics have said that such an effort would mislead the public about the risks of climate change by giving unwarranted weight to claims made by fringe voices.

   Then in June, Trump gave a high-profile speech in which he said he planned to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, though his administration has sent various muddied signals about the deal since. Nevertheless, many international climate observers say that the move signals that Trump is not serious about addressing climate change.

   More recently -- as a series of massive hurricanes caused catastrophic damage in the Southeast and Caribbean and renewed public debate about whether climate change intensifies natural disasters -- Trump administration officials further offered a less-than-robust embrace of climate science.

   For example, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert offered this vague statement: Administration officials “take seriously the climate change -- not the cause of it, but the things that we observe. And so there's rising flood waters -- I think one inch every 10 years in Tampa -- things that would require prudent mitigation measures.”

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-white-house-plots-forward-looking-climate-strategy
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Appellate Court Tosses Litigation Over BLM Fracking Rule

   Sep 22, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Charlie Passut

   A divided appellate court panel on Thursday dismissed litigation against an Obama-era rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands, on the grounds that the Trump administration intends to rescind the rule.

   In a ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Court in Denver, Judges Mary Beck Briscoe and Jerome Holmes pointed out that two key events occurred since a district court judge ruled in June 2016 that the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does not have the authority to regulate fracking: Trump was elected president, and the BLM began the process of rescindingthe rule.

   "Given these changed and changing circumstances, we conclude these appeals are prudentially unripe," Briscoe and Holmes wrote. "As a result, we dismiss these appeals and remand with directions to vacate the district court’s opinion and dismiss the action without prejudice."

   Judge Harris Hartz said that while he concurred with most of the panel's opinion, he dissented on the issue of vacating last year's order by U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl invalidating the rule.

   "The majority has chosen to vacate the district court's order," Hartz wrote. "Perhaps that is the proper choice. In my view, however, we do not have adequate information to make that determination."

   The rule would require oil and gas operators to use the FracFocus registry to disclose the chemicals used in fracking and use above-ground tanks to temporarily store produced water, among other things. The government filed an appeal after Skavdahl's ruling.

   Last March, the Tenth Circuit gave the Trump administration one week to decide whether it wanted to continue defending the rule in court. Attorneys for BLM said the Obama-era rule did not reflect the Trump administration's priorities and asked the court to postpone a pair of cases over the rule. The court granted the request, postponing oral arguments until late July.

   The cases are State of Wyoming et al v. Zinke et al, No. 16-8068; and State of Wyoming et al v. DOI, No. 16-8069.

   http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111832-appellate-court-tosses-litigation-over-blm-fracking-rule
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. DowDuPont Fires Up Massive Texas Ethylene Plant

   Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

   By Jordan Blum

   DowDuPont Inc. has turned on its massive new ethylene and plastics operation in Freeport, Texas, the company said yesterday.

   The newly merged company is the largest chemical company in the nation. This will be the first major ethylene project along the Texas Gulf Coast.

   Ethylene is the building block of most plastics. The plant will produce up to 2 million metric tons a year, making it the largest ethylene production facility in the world.

   DowDuPont and others are betting on a global rise in plastic demand, driven by Asian markets. This has led to a petrochemical plant boom on the Gulf Coast, with its easy access to Texas natural gas.

   Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp. are completing ethane plants in South Texas.

   Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont finalized their merger Sept. 1. The company will split into three separate companies in about a year

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/09/22/stories/1060061433
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Ohio Looks to Rover for Lessons in Regulating

   Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

   By Jenny Mandel

   Construction of the Rover pipeline through Ohio has been fraught with environmental problems, and state regulators are hoping to avoid a repeat performance for the next big project to cross through the state, Enbridge Inc.'s Nexus pipeline.

   Rover has repeatedly been in the news for leaks of drilling mud, stormwater runoff violations and open burn violations. Civil penalties against the developer, Energy Transfer Partners LP, have reached $3.2 million, regulators said this week, and water sources potentially impacted by the toxic-laced drilling mud will be monitored for years to come.

   On Tuesday, Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler said the state had learned "a great deal" about how to regulate a major pipeline from its Rover experience and is seeking to avoid a repeat. Evidence of those lessons learned, he suggested, lies in the state water quality permits issued to the two projects.

   "Rover had very generic contingency plans, where Nexus has been very understanding in working with us to develop very detailed and site-specific contingency plans," Butler told reporters.

   Rover is a $4.2 billion, 713-mile project, 369 miles of which runs through Ohio. The state's water quality permit is 75 pages long.

   Nexus, a $2 billion, 255-mile project with 209 miles in Ohio, has a water quality permit that is nearly three times as long, at 211 pages.

   Ohio EPA points to appendices to the Nexus permit that don't exist for Rover as key additions: a horizontal directional drilling monitoring and inadvertent return contingency plan, and an erosion and sediment control plan. The document also spells out in much greater detail the requirements for wetlands restoration, specifying details like how the company should track vegetation growth and specifying a longer monitoring period to ensure appropriate regrowth.

   The most severe issues experienced with Rover related to horizontal directional drilling (HDD), which is barely mentioned in the project's water quality permit. Rover had numerous leaks, or "inadvertent returns," of drilling mud that pushed the normally nontoxic slurry up through the ground near where the pipe was to be laid.

   By far the biggest of those was one in April near the Tuscarawas River that federal regulators say leaked between 2 million and 5 million gallons of drilling mud into a high-quality wetland. In the ensuing cleanup, it was found that samples from multiple locations across the leak were contaminated with low levels of diesel fuel, leading regulators to require Rover to stop disposing of the waste in a nearby quarry and move it to a site approved to accept industrial waste (Energywire, June 9).

   The section of Nexus's permit that covers HDD goes into great depth, covering multiple failure scenarios and types of environmental impact to be minimized — the kind of planning that would have been helpful in addressing Rover's incidents.More leaks to come?

   The Nexus pipeline was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last month and is gearing up for construction despite continued protests from some landowners and others who oppose it (Greenwire, Aug. 28).

   Meanwhile, Ohio EPA continues to battle Energy Transfer Partners over the payment of fines and the company's legal obligations related to its environmental violations.

   This week, the agency referred a case to the state attorney general for civil prosecution after Ohio EPA concluded that negotiations with the company had failed. The state is seeking to collect nearly $3 million in penalties for 12 violations, as well as about $250,000 in cleanup costs that the state has incurred, according to Butler, the agency's director.

   Last week, Energy Transfer Partners won permission from FERC to restart HDD activities in the state at several water and road crossings, based on new plans to more carefully monitor drilling and watch for leaks. Butler said there could be new leaks following the restart of work, but he expects they will be less severe.

   "We understand that at some point you'll have small releases and spills, that's why you have contingency plans," he said, adding, "I wouldn't be shocked that if they restart operations, we'll see a small number [of leaks] and small amounts of material.

   "What I'm hopeful for is that we have stopped this pattern of significant and substantial violations that were happening on a frequent basis," Butler said.

   https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/09/22/stories/1060061393
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

10. Dispersants Sickened Deepwater Horizon Responders

    Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Tristan Baurick

    The chemicals used to mitigate the Deepwater Horizon oil spill sickened the workers who responded to the disaster, a new federal study confirmed.

    Workers exposed to the dispersants used to break up oil from the spill suffered symptoms such as eye and lung irritation, cough, and shortness of breath, according to the study by the National Institutes of Health.

    While the dispersants Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A have been suspected for years of sickening workers, the study lends official confirmation.

    In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded and spewed at least 172 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, marking the worst oil disaster in history. 

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/09/22/stories/1060061435
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

11. PennEast Hopeful of Fed Approval, But Local Battles Await

    Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Energywire

    By David Iaconangelo

    A proposed pipeline that would deliver Marcellus-sourced natural gas to consumers in New Jersey is inching through the federal permitting process, but local agencies — and an unusually influential citizen opposition — could prove less amenable to the idea.

    Last Friday, PennEast Pipeline Co. filed for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to cross the Delaware River and other waterways using horizontal directional drilling. In a notice for public comment, the Army Corps wrote that a preliminary review suggested the proposal wouldn't affect threatened or endangered species.

    The filing also noted PennEast's cooperation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on an April final environmental impact statement concluding the project would result in "some adverse environmental impacts, but impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of PennEast's proposed and FERC staff's recommended mitigation measures."

    For the Army Corps' approval, the developer still needs clearance from the Fish and Wildlife Service and a FERC evaluation of impacts on historic resources. For the full green light from federal regulators, PennEast also needs final approval from FERC itself, which is expected to consider the project soon.

    PennEast spokeswoman Patricia Kornick said the company believed FERC would end up granting the final certificate of public convenience and necessity, based on the favorable April impact statement.

    "PennEast expects that the PennEast Pipeline will be operational in the second half of 2018, following an approximately seven-month construction phase," wrote Kornick in an email.

    But the pipeline may come under greater scrutiny from New Jersey regulators, who may be more receptive to arguments that the project is designed less to meet demand than to secure a higher rate of return.

    "I would anticipate that if there are complications, they're likely to occur on the local level," said Stefanie Brand, director of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, which represents energy consumers in the state.

    Under Brand's leadership, the Division of Rate Counsel has contributed some of the project's toughest criticism. In 2016 comments submitted to FERC, the division said it did not support authorizing the pipeline, writing that PennEast had failed to demonstrate need for the project, and called the terms of the proposal "unduly generous to PennEast and unfair to consumers."

    Of the 12 companies that had signed on to ship natural gas from the pipeline to consumers through New Jersey, it said, five were affiliates of companies that collectively owned PennEast.

    Even those affiliates appeared to have the capacity to meet demand through at least 2020, the division wrote, while the requested rates of return were well over market rates.

    The need for the project, it said, "appears to be driven more by the search for higher returns on investment than any actual deficiency in gas supply or pipeline capacity to transport it."

    A separate report filed with FERC by PennEast called those findings "inaccurate," contending that gas rates during peak periods for New Jersey were much higher than production area rates in Pennsylvania, while the project's rate of return was consistent with similar FERC-approved projects over the last decade. It also noted that the state Board of Public Utilities would ultimately have to approve the rates requested by natural gas utilities.

    Many of the division's criticisms were echoed — and in the case of PennEast, excerpted — in a report published this week by Oil Change International, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club (Energywire, Sept. 19). The groups argued that affiliations between pipeline owners and end-user utilities often posed risks to the public good.

    "Our office is not opposed to pipelines as a general proposition," said Brand. "For us, it's about not paying for things that we don't need, because with the amount of capacity available in New Jersey, we think we're OK. We're able to meet peak load. It's been fairly flat, and we don't anticipate large spikes in it."

    Permitting from two separate agencies in New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Delaware River Basin Commission, lies ahead.

    In June, the NJDEP closed PennEast's application after the company didn't produce additional information requested by the department within the 60-day time limit. The company said afterward it planned to resubmit (Energywire, June 29).

    Approval from the River Basin Commission, an interstate regulator made up of the four basin state governors and the Army Corps' division engineer, would grow especially fraught following the Nov. 7 elections in New Jersey. The Democratic front-runner, former financier and diplomat Phil Murphy, is an outspoken opponent of the proposal.

    Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter, said he expected Murphy to ally with New York and Delaware governors to defeat the project.

    Well-to-do residents in the bucolic river-basin counties of the pipeline's path have loudly denounced it, he noted, denying surveyors access to their properties and even filing lawsuits accusing the company of repeatedly trespassing.

    "They picked an area of environmental advocates and politically connected people to come into," he said. "You have the arts and theater people, and you also have very powerful executives. This is a place where people want the 100-acre property with the stone house."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/09/22/stories/1060061391
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Letter: Oil Train Safety Bill Due for Veto Override

    Sep 22, 2017 | North Jersey

    By Paula Rogovin

    A vote to override Governor Christie’s veto of S806, the Oil Train Safety Bill, will take place in the state Senate in early October. A coalition of over 40 groups in northern New Jersey, along with the editorial board of The Record, have called on the state Senate to override the veto. We saw during the hurricanes in Florida and Texas how the lack of information for the public and first responders about materials in our communities – whether at oil and chemical companies, Superfund sites, or in trains put people at great risk. There were explosions of unknown chemicals and floodwaters with toxins. People were exposed to the air from the explosions and others waded through waters with hazardous chemicals and no access to information about what they were exposed to by various industries.

    Without prior knowledge, our security and health is at even greater risk. First responders need to know how to respond and the public needs to know how to protect ourselves from the various toxins and hazardous materials. The Oil Trains Safety Bill also calls for a response and cleanup plan from the rail companies. The need for that is obvious. CSX and Christie show blatant disregard for public safety and health. The governor uses a false argument about security. But we say his veto endangers the public. We urge people to contact members of the state Senate as soon as possible and urge them to vote “yes” for an override. 

    http://www.northjersey.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/09/22/letter-oil-train-safety-bill-due-veto-override/693162001/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

13. (ACC Mentioned) Justices to Weigh Environment Petitions as Term Begins

    Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Greenwire

    By Amanda Reilly

    Summer is over for the Supreme Court.

    Justices return next week for their fall term, kicking things off Monday with an opening conference to consider hundreds of petitions submitted over the past several months.

    It's a different court than this time last year: President Trump's appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is now a member of the court's conservative wing, filling the seat that was left vacant when Justice Antonin Scalia died.

    With eight members for most of last term, justices largely shied away from taking up blockbuster cases. But this year promises to be different: On tap are major legal disputes over Trump's immigration executive orders, partisan gerrymandering and whether a cake shop can decline to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

    The new term coincides with Trump's pick to be the government's top advocate in the Supreme Court, Noel Francisco, just settling into his job. The Senate narrowly confirmed Francisco, an attorney formerly at Jones Day and no stranger to arguing in front of the Supreme Court, earlier this week to be solicitor general.

    Court watchers are also still waiting for Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April, to make his mark in environmental law. He's likely to be skeptical of federal agencies and regulations but has yet to write an opinion on the issue area.

    But while justices have teed up many controversial issues for this term, the court's environmental law docket is relatively light.

    Of note, justices will hear arguments in October over the correct legal venue for challenges to the Obama administration's Clean Water Rule, a case that could be highly consequential for the Trump administration as it tries to replace the rule.

    Justices will also decide whether a law that barred a landowner from proceeding with a lawsuit over land in Michigan that the government is holding in trust for a Native American tribe is constitutional.

    Still, some nonenvironmental cases may have implications for environmental laws. A lawsuit that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) brought over whether the state has the right to regulate sports betting may set some precedents in federalism that trickle down into environmental policy, and the court may take some cases that limit deference to federal agencies.

    "Thus far, there's not a ton with too many implications for energy and environmental policy," Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, wrote in an email. "The Christie case is the closest because it has implications for cooperative federalism and, for instance, [Endangered Species Act] enforcement. Otherwise we're waiting to see what additional cases are granted."Monday's opening conference

    Last term, the Supreme Court decided 62 cases.

    At their opening conference Monday, justices will consider hundreds of petitions filed in recent months. The court will add a handful of new cases to its docket for the fall term and dispense with the rest in a customary short order. It takes the votes of four justices for the court to hear a case.

    Here are the environment- and energy-related cases that are on the Monday conference schedule:Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren: Virginia Uranium Inc. has asked the Supreme Court to strike down Virginia's long-standing ban on uranium mining. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the moratorium in February. The legal question in the case is whether the federal Atomic Energy Act pre-empts Virginia's law. The uranium company argues that the state has taken on the regulation of radiological safety hazards resulting from activities that are under the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Alaska v. United Cook Inlet Drift Association: Alaska is seeking to overturn a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals requiring NOAA to create a new plan for managing state salmon. The 9th Circuit found that NOAA couldn't exclude historical net fishing areas of the Cook Inlet from its fishery management plan (FMP) for salmon. Alaska, which has long managed salmon in Cook Inlet, argues that the court was wrong because the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act doesn't require the federal government to prepare an FMP for a fishery that doesn't need one.David Goethel v. Department of Commerce: Northeast fishermen are challenging a federal program that requires most groundfish boats to pay for their own at-sea watchdogs. They're appealing a 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to dismiss their suit on procedural grounds. NOAA's program requires fishermen who voluntarily joined a "sector" — or a group that shares fish quotas — to have at-sea monitors who tag along on fishing trips to ensure federal rules are followed. The agency partially reversed course last year and estimated it would be able to reimburse 85 percent of industry costs in 2016 and 60 percent in 2017.Evergreen Partnering Group Inc. v. Pactiv Corp.: This dispute pits Evergreen Partnering Group Inc., a recycling company, against major manufacturers of polystyrene food service products and the American Chemistry Council. Evergreen alleges that manufacturers, while they publicly supported recycling, conspired to prevent its closed-loop, sustainable recycling model. The legal question in the case is the standard that courts should use when deciding whether to grant summary judgment motions in antitrust cases. Evergreen argues that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the manufacturers, applied the wrong standard based on a "significant misinterpretation" of past Supreme Court cases.S.G.E. Management LLC v. Torres: Stream Energy, which sells electricity through a multilevel marketing program, is attempting to beat back accusations of operating a pyramid scheme. It asked the Supreme Court to review lower courts' certification of a class of 230,000 plaintiffs who say they've collectively lost more than $87 million after signing up as "independent associates" under the company's program. The case centers on the extent to which — in class-action fraud cases — plaintiffs have to show they relied on a misrepresentation made by the defendant. Stream Energy argues that the district court and 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals certified the class "based on little more than a naked allegation that the named plaintiffs were misled."United States ex rel. Harper v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District: Ohio residents are challenging the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in favor of a watershed conservation district in a dispute over leasing land for oil and gas drilling. The federal government transferred the land to the Muskingum Watershed Conservation District in 1949 under the conditions that it be used for recreation, conservation and reservoir development. But between 2011 and 2014, the district leased the lands for oil and gas development. The legal question is the extent to which the United States was entitled to immediate possession of the lands under the Federal Claims Act, which imposes liability on those who "knowingly" and "improperly" avoid an obligation to the government.Gulf Coast Rod, Reel & Gun Club Inc. v. Army Corps of Engineers: Fishing advocates have asked the Supreme Court to scuttle a federal permit for the closure of Rollover Pass, a man-made channel that Texas dug out in 1955 to allow fish and salt water to more easily access the East Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The state decided to close the channel after Hurricane Ike tore through the area in 2008. But the Gulf Coast Rod, Reel & Gun Club and a local community association say the Army Corps, when issuing its permit for the closure, failed to assess the cumulative impact and to adequately consider alternatives to closing the channel. The 5th Circuit upheld the permit in January.Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle: The Pacific Legal Foundation claims that a North Carolina town took the beach in front of a family's house without just compensation. At issue is the public trust doctrine, or the principle that the government holds natural resources in trust for the public to use and enjoy. On behalf of the Nieses, PLF argues that the town of Emerald Isle illegally extended the doctrine to the dry beach in front of their home. But the state Court of Appeals sided with Emerald Isle, finding that the dry beach was a public trust area under a 1998 North Carolina law. The North Carolina Supreme Court left the decision in place.Jarreau and Bayou Construction and Trucking LLC v. South Lafourche Levee District: Chad Jarreau, a Louisiana man whose business is selling sandy dirt for construction projects, brought takings claims against the South Lafourche Levee District, which condemned a chunk of his land to use the dirt for levee construction. At issue in the case is whether business losses are considered a taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment. The Louisiana Supreme Court sided with the levee district, finding that Jarreau was not entitled to compensation.Other petitions on the horizon

    If none of the cases makes the cut Monday, there's still plenty of opportunity for justices to add environmental issues to their docket this term.

    Just last week, environmentalists and a New York-led coalition of states asked the court to take up a George W. Bush-era EPA rule exempting water transfers from Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

    One petition that's generated a lot of interest over the summer recess asks the Supreme Court to overturn a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling finding that a tribe has a legal right to the groundwater under its reservation.

    Ten states, the Association of California Water Agencies and PLF have filed briefs urging the court to take up the issue.

    "That's a classic for the Supreme Court to take," said Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School.

    The court is also weighing a handful of Endangered Species Act cases. One seeks review of a 9th Circuit decision upholding the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to list the Arctic bearded seal based on long-term climate risks.

    Another asks the court to overturn a split decision by the 5th Circuit concerning critical habitat for the endangered dusky gopher frog in Louisiana, even though the frog doesn't currently occupy that area. Eighteen states, the Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups, and several conservative legal organizations all filed amicus briefs this summer in support of the petition.

    In recent months, parties have also brought two Clean Air Act cases to the Supreme Court: Arizona is challenging EPA's contingency measures under a plan for reducing particulate matter, while Michigan's largest coal plant is challenging when modifications are "major" enough to warrant additional regulations under the Clean Air Act.

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060061463/search?keyword=American+Chemistry+Council
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. 'Supercharged' States, Cities Vow to Pick Up Trump's Slack

    Sep 22, 2017 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick

    With the Trump administration keeping noticeably mum on climate change throughout this year's U.N. week, U.S. cities, businesses and states were busy auditioning for understudy.

    Cities including Boston, Los Angeles and New York City outlined plans to further the objectives of the Paris climate agreement. Corporations, too, voiced their support for climate action and opposition to the Trump White House's decision to leave the Paris accord at forums hosted by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York and former Secretary of State John Kerry at Yale University.

    And governors from 14 states and Puerto Rico reassured concerned international partners visiting the Big Apple for the U.N. General Assembly that they would keep U.S. climate progress going even as President Trump dismantles the federal controls that underpinned the last administration's commitments to Paris.

    "There's nothing Donald Trump can do in our states to stop us from advancing our policies," Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said during a press conference in New York hosted by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). The event also featured Kerry and California Gov. Jerry Brown (D).

    All three states participate in greenhouse gas emissions-capping programs and other policies that they've been keen to highlight on the world stage. And all three governors will visit the U.N. climate talks in Bonn, Germany, this November to bring the world a message: U.S. climate action is not dead.

    It's still unclear whom the Trump administration will send to lead negotiations for the United States.

    The climate crusader role has already given the three Democratic leaders of the governors' alliance unusual prominence within the United Nations. Inslee was the sole U.S. participant in a March meeting highlighting Paris action. Brown, who is now the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change's special envoy for states, will host a summit on subnational action next year in San Francisco to be co-chaired by UNFCCC chief Patricia Espinosa. He laid out some of the objectives of the summit in a closed-door meeting Monday hosted by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. Robert Orr, a climate adviser to the secretary-general who helped plan this week's events, said Brown's message was that the United States' authority to make emissions reductions is decentralized, and subnational actors will do much of the heavy lifting to achieve their country's Paris targets.

    Cuomo, meanwhile, heads the U.S. Climate Alliance — a group of states that have declared themselves still aligned with the 2015 climate deal even as Trump has announced that the United States will leave it.

    They're eager to give foreign partners frustrated by the Trump administration's aversion to climate action a story that they'll like.

    "We're already ahead of where we should be in reaching the Paris accords, so we're doing very well," said Cuomo.

    The trio unveiled research Wednesday showing that participants in the alliance are on track to meet or exceed their share of the Obama-era nationally determined contribution to Paris, which called for a 26 to 28 percent cut in emissions by 2025 compared with 2005 levels. They also stressed that those reductions haven't come at the expense of economic growth — alliance states outstrip the national average in gross domestic product growth over the last decade.

    Orr, who is also the dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, said U.S. cities and states lead the world in important aspects of climate resilience and mitigation precisely because the Trump administration has rolled back federal ambition.

    "Because of the political realities playing out in the United States, the state and local elements are supercharged," he said, adding that they can pass on lessons learned to nonstate actors in other countries that must also play a role.

    But some climate advocates worry that opposition to Trump, while motivating, might also play into the narrative that climate change is a political issue important only to Democrats.

    Republican Govs. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Phil Scott of Vermont are members of the alliance, but it is overwhelmingly a Democratic club, and its members have had harsh words for the current administration.

    "In my opinion, this federal government is the most ignorant federal government we've ever had when it comes to the environment and climate change," Cuomo said at the New York press conference.

    At the Yale forum Tuesday, Brown dismissed the Trump team as "troglodytes," which he defined as "dwellers in deep, dark places." Inslee expressed hope that those who reject mainstream climate science could be defeated at the ballot box.

    In a short interview with E&E News after the panel, Inslee attributed his own 2012 election as governor in part to his focus on climate issues in the campaign. But he predicted that politics nationally would shift to the point where federal climate legislation would be possible and presidential contenders will need to have a position on the issue.

    "The reason is that what used to be a hypothetical graph on the chart is now a real forest fire on your TV screen. What was a numerical indication of parts per million in carbon is now a giant hurricane, repeatedly," he said.'The world should not give up on Americans'

    The governors aren't the only ones doing an end run around Trump to project an image of continued U.S. climate action to the rest of the world.

    Jeff Immelt, the Republican chairman of the board of General Electric Co., said during the Yale event that Trump's Paris withdrawal showed that industry needs its own foreign policy independent of the federal government. And Bloomberg has emerged as a major independent convener and funder of climate work. The billionaire businessman, who will also travel to Bonn, offered to fund the U.S. contribution to the UNFCCC secretariat after the Trump budget for fiscal 2018 proposed cutting it. The Senate version of the State Department spending bill would restore those funds.

    Sue Biniaz, a lawyer and veteran climate negotiator who left the State Department earlier this year, said nonfederal actors need to walk a fine line between usurping the federal government's role and just showing their own initiative. Presenting themselves as a substitute for federal action would not only be viewed as provocative by the current administration but might let the White House off the hook for actions it should take to limit emissions and support countries struggling with climate change, she said.

    But she said America's Pledge, the Bloomberg-Brown initiative to compile and quantify U.S. actions by different sectors toward the goals of Paris, does meet that standard.

    "And that, I think, helps us, foreign policy-wise, because it allows other countries to say, 'Oh, the U.S. is not doing nothing. The U.S. is doing 'X' and likely to do 'Y.' And not that the federal government is irrelevant, but pulling out of Paris doesn't mean the United States all of a sudden went to zero," she said.

    Inslee said he sees the governors as "confidence builders."

    "We have a good story to say why the rest of the world should not give up on Americans," he said.

    Ken Alex, Brown's senior policy adviser for planning and research, said Brown doesn't view his outreach on climate change to be partisan. He noted that California's Republican governors signed some of its strongest environmental legislation into law.

    Nonfederal players also couldn't fully take up the mantle dropped by the federal government even if they wanted to, he said.

    "There's a huge amount that subnationals and businesses can do, and ultimately, the trillions of dollars that need to be invested will often be from the private sector," he said. "But the U.S. is a huge actor, and their absence is important. You can't patch over that."

    From research dollars to federal efficiency programs, he said, "we need the federal government ultimately to take responsibility."

    Meanwhile, Trump and his officials were largely absent from climate discussions that took place this week in and around U.N. headquarters. The United States wasn't represented in the secretary-general's high-level climate meeting Tuesday that drew the likes of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron. And Trump didn't mention climate change during his own first U.N. address Tuesday.

    By contrast, a fellow conservative head of state, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, implied in her own address that Trump's choice to leave Paris was a threat to "rules-based" international order.

    "As the global system struggles to adapt, we are confronted by states deliberately flouting — for their own gain — the rules and standards that have secured our collective prosperity and security," she said.

    Macron used his own address to again rule out renegotiating the deal.

    The only Trump administration engagement on climate change came at the start of the week, when White House National Economic Council chief Gary Cohn hosted counterparts for a Monday morning breakfast to reiterate that the United States would exit Paris and to squash reports that it might be searching for a way back in.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/09/22/stories/1060061419
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. The Energy 202: Climate Change Terms Altered in Another Corner of EPA’s Website

    Sep 22, 2017 | The Washington Post

    By Dino Grandoni

    Numerous mentions of “climate change,” “greenhouse gasses” and other phrases related to global warming have been found to be altered or deleted from another portion of the Environmental Protection Agency’s website, according to a new environmental watchdog report.

    At the beginning of President Trump's term, the EPA’s SmartWay program, designed to help businesses looking to lower their impact on the environment find ways of doing so when shipping goods, told visitors that “many companies monitor their carbon emissions and establish inventories or overall 'carbon footprint' to help decision makers identify the best strategies for reducing climate impacts."

    But by May, those descriptions had been replaced by more generalized terms. Instead of tracking carbon emissions, firms could monitor “fuel consumption.” Instead of shrinking their carbon footprint, companies could address their "environmental footprint." Instead of reducing climate impacts, they were told they could “improve sustainability.”

    The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative has this screenshot taken between April 5 and May 30: 

    
    

    Elsewhere on SmartWay’s website, other phrases used in climate science were deleted without replacement, with “climate change” and “greenhouse gas emissions” being dropped from a paragraph describing the environmental effects of freight transport. In one instance, the sentence “The science is clear — greenhouse gas emissions from all sources must decrease” was struck entirely from the website. 

    The changes were detailed in a report released Friday by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, a group of nonprofits and academics who among other activities have monitored changes to federal government websites during the Trump administration.

    According to EDGI, the alterations occurred sometime between late March and early May. In April, the EPA announced an overhaul of the agency’s website that included a review of “content related to climate and regulation.” 

    “We want to eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first and making room to discuss how we’re protecting the environment and human health by partnering with states and working within the law," J.P. Freire, agency’s associate administrator for public affairs, said in April.

    Since at least 1997, the EPA’s website has served as a hub for information for the public on the causes and consequences of climate change, including the human contributions to the observed warming. Scientists largely agree that human activity is contributing to the warming.

    EPA chief Scott Pruitt, like several other Cabinet officials and President Trump himself, has expressed doubts about that conclusion. In February, Pruitt famously said carbon dioxide was not the “primary contributor to the global warming that we see.” 

    At the time, an EPA webpage on the causes of climate change indicated otherwise. But since coming under review, that webpage reads: “This page is being updated.” Recently, Pruitt said he believes humans contributed to global warming but was uncertain as to what degree.

    This isn't the first administration under which the EPA's website has been scrutinized: During the George W. Bush administration, updates to the site were frozen, and then required to undergo White House review before being published.

    What Pruitt is trying to do now: Seeking to unwind the Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era policies meant to reduce climate-warming emissions, Pruitt has repeatedly said he wants to bring a “back-to-basics” approach to the agency. 

    The Nixon administration created the EPA in 1970 to execute new clean-air laws meant to reduce the buildup of smog-forming pollutants. Some of the newly revealed changed language on the agency’s website reflect that original statutory purpose, such as in one instance “climate change” being replaced by “cleaner air.”

    Other changes to SmartWay’s webpages are consistent, according to EDGI, with another push under Trump’s "America First" banner: bringing jobs back onshore. One webpage that acknowledged that increasingly “U.S. consumer products are manufactured” was changed to read that “U.S. manufacturing relies upon multiple sources and modes of transportation.” A description of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Climate and Clean Air Coalition was also removed.

    On Monday morning, the EPA said the website changes were "cosmetic" and the mission of the program remains the same.

    “EPA career staffers proactively made cosmetic changes to the Smartway Program website,"spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in a statement. "There have been no changes to the program and EPA continues to support efforts to improve supply chain efficiency, and cut air pollution."

    The EPA is hardly alone when it comes to the rebranding of Obama-era language under Trump. 

    Such alterations have been made to the websites of the Energy Department, the State Department and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a unit of the National Institutes of Health, according to EDGI and Post reporting.

    According to Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, these efforts to tamp down on climate-change language emulates, writ large, pushes in Florida, Wisconsin and other states to do the same.

    "This isn't new," Leiserowitz said. "This is something you've been seeing in Republican-controlled states. We're not just seeing it exercised at the national level."

    As The Post’s Chris Mooney and Lisa Rein reported in May, other programs have reframed their missions to de-emphasize Obama-era priorities. Domestic violence programs have been recast as a part of Trump’s fight against crime. An international aid organization highlighted its work as a counterweight to violent extremism.

    As is the case here, it’s often (though not always) career employees, not political appointees, doing the rebranding.

    As Chris and Lisa reported, career staffers make public-facing changes to protect programs from scrutiny from agency higher-ups. Or as one career employee at the Energy Department put it to them: "They’re in their keep-their-head-down, ‘maybe they won’t cut our budget’ mode."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/09/22/the-energy-202-climate-change-terms-altered-in-another-corner-of-epa-s-website/59c42c3b30fb0468cea81a77/?utm_term=.af6ce82d5f69
    

    Return to headline | Return to top