Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 11/29 - Sharon
-
Trump Environmental Picks Headed to Senate Confirmation Vote
Nov 29, 2017 | Associated Press (In The New York Times)
Republican senators used their majority to advance two of President Donald Trump's picks for key environmental posts over the objections of Democrats who say the nominees are unfit for office. -
CEQ, EPA Picks Squeak Through Committee on Party-Line Votes
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Two of President Trump's top environmental nominees took a step closer to Senate confirmation today. -
Democrat Glick To Be Sworn In Today as Newest Commissioner
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Richard Glick, recently the general counsel to Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will be sworn in today as the newest member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. -
REACH Authorisation 'Achieving Objectives', Says Commission
Nov 29, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The REACH authorisation process "achieves its objectives in terms of substitution and improvements in the way SVHCs are used", the European Commission said at an Echa authorisation conference, earlier this month. -
Keystone Pipeline Spill Blamed on Damage From Its Construction
Nov 29, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A preliminary investigation has found that the 210,000-gallon oil spill last week from the Keystone pipeline was caused by damage sustained when the line was constructed in 2008. -
Enviros Raise New Challenge to FERC Eminent Domain Process
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
New Jersey environmentalists are the latest pipeline critics to take aim at how natural gas projects are approved and developed. -
This Obama Climate Pact Has Trump's Stamp of Approval
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Ben Hulac
The Trump administration appears to be quietly accepting an Obama-era international climate change deal. -
The 2nd Cap-And-Trade State?
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Oregon Democrats are increasingly optimistic they can pass a cap-and-trade bill early next year, raising the hopes of greens desperately in search of carbon reductions following President Trump's rollbacks of federal climate policies. -
EPA's Big Moment in Coal Country Points to Future Turmoil
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
The public hearings to repeal a landmark climate rule yesterday exposed anxiety in friends and foes of the regulation about what comes next along the nation's divisive path to address rising temperatures.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Trump Environmental Picks Headed to Senate Confirmation Vote
Nov 29, 2017 | Associated Press (In The New York Times)
Republican senators used their majority to advance two of President Donald Trump's picks for key environmental posts over the objections of Democrats who say the nominees are unfit for office.
The Environment and Public Works Committee voted along party lines Wednesday to send the nominations of Kathleen Hartnett White and Andrew Wheeler for votes before the full Senate.
White is an ardent champion of fossil fuels nominated to chair the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. She claims that carbon dioxide is a harmless "plant nutrient" and conceded she was unfamiliar with basic scientific principles related to climate change, such as the fact sea water expands as it gets warmer.
Wheeler is a former coal-industry lobbyist selected to serve as the second-highest ranking official at the Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/11/29/us/politics/ap-us-congress-trump-environment.html
-
CEQ, EPA Picks Squeak Through Committee on Party-Line Votes
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Two of President Trump's top environmental nominees took a step closer to Senate confirmation today.
This morning, the Environment and Public Works Committee moved through the nominations of Kathleen Hartnett White to be chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and Andrew Wheeler to be deputy U.S. EPA administrator. Both passed on party-line votes of 11-10.
Panel Democrats spent much of their time at the EPW meeting protesting Hartnett White. The senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has questioned climate change science and also has touted fossil fuels and increased carbon dioxide emissions as beneficial for life.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the Senate needs to block the CEQ nominee, calling her a "preposterous nominee." He brought up the legend of Roman Emperor Caligula planning to appoint his horse to the Senate.
"Approving this nominee for CEQ would be so preposterous that it would be like appointing Caligula's horse, in that the real question becomes about the power of our fossil fuel emperors and the spine of the Senate," Whitehouse said.
That comment sparked a rebuke from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the EPW chairman. "Let me just say that comparing Ms. White to a horse, as one of our Democrat colleagues just did, to me is a new low. It's disturbing, it's demeaning and it's dehumanizing," Barrasso said.
Other Democrats blasted the CEQ nominee.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the committee's ranking member, went through a list of Hartnett White's past remarks that criticized renewable energy, environmentalists and the Clean Air Act. He said her confirmation hearing testimony earlier this month pained him.
"It was painful to watch. It was painful to hear. And we should not inflict this pain on the people of this country," Carper said.
Leading up to today's vote, Hartnett White downplayed her past opposition to biofuels in response to questions from committee members, which seemingly helped win over GOP senators hailing from farm states (E&E Daily, Nov. 29).Wheeler
Wheeler also encountered some resistance from Democratic senators. The former longtime EPW aide became a lobbyist at Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting after leaving Capitol Hill in 2009 and worked on behalf of several energy interests, including coal giant Murray Energy Corp.
"Mr. Wheeler is the ultimate revolving-door lobbyist, no way qualified to serve as deputy administrator at the EPA," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
"As a lobbyist for the company, Wheeler personally helped Murray Energy formulate a plan for rolling back EPA's environmental regulations and undermining the agency's ability to carry out its mission of protecting the health of our planet and our people."
In response, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) praised Wheeler for his work on Capitol Hill. Wheeler also has served as a staffer in Inhofe's personal office.
"I know Andrew Wheeler probably better than anyone, except maybe his mother," Inhofe said.
Inhofe noted several of the EPW panel's legislative accomplishments while Wheeler was a top committee aide, including the 1998 and 2005 highway bills as well as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
"I have to say that I totally relied on Andrew Wheeler for the background, the knowledge and the expertise that he has demonstrated year after year after year on a very bipartisan basis," Inhofe said.Other nominees
The EPW committee has approved several of Trump's nominees that still have not been confirmed by the full Senate. EPA has only two Senate-confirmed officials in place at the moment — Administrator Scott Pruitt and air chief Bill Wehrum.
Carper, however, said at today's markup that nominees could start moving on the floor if EPA picks up the pace in responding to inquiries from Democrats. He said he understands the agency plans to respond to more of their letters.
"If the responses that are being crafted by EPA now are completed in short order and are truly responsive, we'll make progress on a number of nominations. If the responses are further delayed or are unresponsive, that progress may not be realized," Carper said.
After the committee's business meeting concluded today, Barrasso told reporters he has been frustrated by Democrats' delays on nominees. He has pushed for an agreement to limit debate on the president's picks so they can be more quickly confirmed.
"I'm actually proposing or have proposed changing the rules in the Senate to make it easier and quicker to bring some of these nominations to a vote," Barrasso said.
"The votes are there. You just don't want to have to allow to block so many activities in the Senate because of the 30 hours that are required by the rules, and the Democrats tend to not use the time anyway."
While Carper expressed some optimism on moving some nominees, he was not as positive about Hartnett White. He told reporters after the markup about Russ Peterson, the former Republican governor of Delaware and CEQ chairman during the Nixon and Ford administrations, who served as a mentor to Carper during his career.
"He was a giant in Delaware, I think a giant for our country. I'll be damned if I'm going to stand aside and let someone be confirmed to defame his legacy. I'll be damned," Carper said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/29/stories/1060067587
-
Democrat Glick To Be Sworn In Today as Newest Commissioner
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Richard Glick, recently the general counsel to Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will be sworn in today as the newest member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
He will join Chairman Neil Chatterjee and Commissioner Rob Powelson, both Republicans, and Democrat Cheryl LaFleur.
FERC Chief Administrative Law Judge Carmen Cintron was expected to perform the swearing-in.
Still waiting to be sworn in is Kevin McIntyre, the co-leader of the global energy practice at law firm Jones Day.
McIntyre, a Republican, has been designated by President Trump to serve as chairman through June 30, 2023.
The Twitter universe hosted rife speculation yesterday about why McIntyre is not also being sworn in, which Chatterjee described as unfounded "conspiracy theories."
The explanation for the delay on McIntyre is probably simple: Chatterjee is slated to speak tomorrow at the Natural Gas Roundtable in Washington, an appearance booked weeks ago that advertised his speech as FERC chairman.
By holding off on his swearing-in, McIntyre would help Chatterjee avoid an awkward occasion as well as extend some goodwill to a commission colleague.
One of the immediate tasks facing Glick likely will be establishing a social media presence, probably on Twitter, as new commissioners have done in recent years.Who is Glick?
Glick, 54, will serve a term expiring in June 2022. His salary will be $161,900 annually.
He earned his bachelor's degree from George Washington University and his law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center.
From 1988 to 1992, Glick was an associate with the law firm of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand.
Glick spent 6 ½ years in the 1990s working in the Senate as legislative director and chief counsel for former Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), where he worked on several provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and helped to draft bipartisan legislation addressing electric industry restructuring.
Between 1998 and 2001, Glick served as a senior policy adviser to then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson during the Clinton administration, where he helped craft a response to the "western energy crisis," a period of time when the California electricity markets spiked as a number of market players, led by Enron Corp., manipulated power supplies.
Prior to joining the committee staff in February 2016, Glick was vice president of government affairs for Iberdrola's renewable energy, electric and gas utility, and natural gas storage businesses in the United States. He previously served as a director of government affairs for PPM Energy Inc. and before that was a director of government affairs for PacifiCorp, a multistate electric utility company.
Before the Senate, Glick was vice president for government affairs for Iberdrola USA — now Avangrid — one of the biggest renewable electricity generators in the U.S. and operator of several gas and electric distribution companies.
On Sept. 7, Glick and McIntyre had an easy outing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
In his statement at the confirmation hearing, Glick noted that if FERC does not act when needed, it can "have a significant impact on the lives of everyday Americans." He cited as a failure the agency's "inability to come together on a unified response during the height of the western energy crisis in 2000" that "caused consumers to pay more for electricity and natural gas."
He pledged to "help facilitate the ongoing dramatic transformation to the ways Americans produce and consume energy," a "revolution" with the potential to "substantially improve our energy efficiency, reduce emissions, grow the economy and create millions of new jobs."
Glick said he wants to collaborate with state regulators to help eliminate barriers to the adoption of these new technologies and processes.
In responses to questions from senators, he demonstrated a firm grasp of what FERC has been up to and the issues facing the agency.
He refused to take the bait from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) on how to preserve so-called baseload generation such as coal plants, which Chatterjee is calling for as part of FERC's reply by Dec. 11 to a directive from Energy Secretary Rick Perry that the agency compensate coal and nuclear plants to keep them online.
Glick pointed to the recent study by the Energy Department on electricity markets and reliability whose conclusions "suggested that the significant loss of baseload generation, both coal and nuclear, has not impaired reliability to date, but they suggested it's something we need to keep an eye on."
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said he has become "concerned the term baseload power has potentially become less of an engineering term and more of a political term" used to advocate "propping up" electricity generation technologies that are no longer cost-competitive.
Glick replied that "the commission doesn't have the authority nor should it prop up failing technologies or technologies that are uneconomically competitive."States' rights
Two senators pressed McIntyre and Glick about their views on whether states have primacy in determining their preferred mix of electric generation resources.
"You never thought you'd hear so much about states' rights from Democrats, huh? But here we are," said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
She noted that Illinois was among a number of states that have enacted policies to favor certain types of generation. In Illinois, it's nuclear.
"Congress has left for the states authority over utility resource decisionmaking, so it's not FERC's role," Glick said.
In response to a similar question from Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Glick noted that "nine states get more than 15 percent of their power from renewable energy today, and none have had any reliability problems."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/29/stories/1060067495
-
REACH Authorisation 'Achieving Objectives', Says Commission
Nov 29, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The REACH authorisation process "achieves its objectives in terms of substitution and improvements in the way SVHCs are used", the European Commission said at an Echa authorisation conference, earlier this month.
The EU executive’s comments accompanied the presentation of preliminary findings of its study, which aimed to assess the costs and benefits of the process and whether it reaches it goals. These are to substitute SVHCs with less hazardous substances and control risks where suitable alternatives are not available.
However, Valentina Bertato from DG Grow told delegates at the event that, according to the study results, "it is not possible" to conclusively say that the benefits of the process are higher than the costs. And yet, two months ago, Echa’s analysis of the first 100 applications for authorisation showed the socio-economic benefits of continued use of SVHCs "outweigh" the risks to human health and the environment.
Eighty-three manufacturers took part in a survey for the study. Out of 83 respondents, 37 said they had substituted a SVHC use, Ms Bertato said. They identified 53 examples of switching to an alternative substance and eight examples of changing to an alternative technology. This relates to 27 SVHCs; the most substituted being:chromium trioxide;1,2 dichloroethane; andHBCDD.
Meanwhile, there were 71 examples of substitution-related activities concerning use of an SVHC identified in the study, as provided by 44 respondents. This relates to at least 33 such substances. The most frequently mentioned are:chromium trioxide;boric acid; and1-methyl-2- pyrrolidone (NMP).
Fifty-nine percent of respondents said REACH authorisation is a driver for substitution. And survey data shows that a third of substances are being substituted when they are added to the candidate list, while a quarter are being replaced when included on Annex XIV – the authorisation list.
Authorisation is also improving risk management measures and operating conditions, Ms Bertato said. Out of 63 companies using SVHCs, 23 reported enhancing both. And about 83% of respondents indicated that these risk management measures reduced worker exposure.
There is clearly "robust evidence" of substitution, Jack de Bruijn, Echa’s director of risk management, told delegates, and the authorisation system "as a whole has had a major impact".
Where companies have not started to replace hazardous substances, is generally related to a lack of technical feasible alternatives, the conference heard. "Whether that is always true or perceived is a big question, perhaps – but for the majority of cases, that was given as one of the reasons," Mr de Bruijn said.
Conference stakeholders discussed how alternatives providers can get more closely involved – "this is where the picture becomes less rosy", Mr de Bruijn said. Something to work on, he added, is how to get better information from these providers "preferably as early as possible, but also during the decision-making process".
There are, he said, "clearly advantages" to better collaboration between authorities and industry in finding sustainable alternatives.Questions remain
Dolores Romano from NGO the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) agreed the authorisation list is good for substituting SVHCs and that risk management measures and operating conditions have improved. However, she said she is "not optimistic" about the risk reduction scenario because as long as SVHCs are granted authorised uses, "thousands of workers, citizens and the environment will still be exposed".
She also questioned how authorisation conditions can be monitored and enforced because in many European countries "inspection capacity is not sufficient".
And Frida Hök, from NGO ChemSec, said the Opinions of Echa committees are "killing the incentive" to switch to safer alternatives. Alternatives providers find it "painful" to take part in the process, she added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62097/reach-authorisation-achieving-objectives-says-commission
-
Keystone Pipeline Spill Blamed on Damage From Its Construction
Nov 29, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A preliminary investigation has found that the 210,000-gallon oil spill last week from the Keystone pipeline was caused by damage sustained when the line was constructed in 2008.
The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) outlined its initial conclusion in an order released late Tuesday that allowed TransCanada Corp. to return the line to operation nearly two weeks after the South Dakota leak was reported, but under lower pressure, among other conditions.
“The rupture has characteristics of mechanical damage from original construction. Preliminary information indicates the failure may have been caused by mechanical damage to the pipeline and coating associated with a weight installed on the pipeline in 2008,” Alan Mayberry, PHMSA’s associate administrator for pipeline safety, wrote in the order.
TransCanada, which is planning to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to expand oil capacity heading south from Alberta, Canada, removed the damaged portion of pipe and replaced it. It is being sent to a National Transportation Safety Board lab for metallurgical testing.
Crews are still working to clean the oil that spilled from the underground pipe.
In the meantime, however, PHMSA is allowing Keystone to restart operations. The agency approved TransCanada’s plan to restart with an initial pressure about 20 percent below its usual level at the affected area, reducing the line’s capacity.
PHMSA is also requiring TransCanada to prepare a more detailed remedial action plan from the incident and an analysis of the root causes of it.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/362311-keystone-pipeline-spill-blamed-on-damage-from-its-construction
-
Enviros Raise New Challenge to FERC Eminent Domain Process
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
New Jersey environmentalists are the latest pipeline critics to take aim at how natural gas projects are approved and developed.
The New Jersey Conservation Foundation last week sued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, arguing that the agency's practice of granting eminent domain power to pipeline developers is unconstitutional.
The group argues that FERC's process for approving pipelines and then granting developers the power to take private property falls short of constitutional standards that require such property takings to be for a public use. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, contends that the agency often approves pipelines that are not really needed.
"FERC's failure to ensure that the only pipelines built are those that are absolutely required to be built has burdened the parties FERC was meant to protect," the filing says. "While a constitutional public use analysis may be time-consuming or complex, that does not excuse FERC from doing its job."
The conservation group claims it is harmed by FERC's process because the proposed PennEast pipeline, under review by the agency, passes through land the group owns in western New Jersey. But the lawsuit does not focus on proceedings for that project; instead, it broadly challenges FERC's pipeline approval processes.
Landowners along pipeline routes have shown increasing concern about the use of eminent domain by developers. At least three similar challenges are pending: a lawsuit in Ohio focused on the Nexus pipeline, a lawsuit in Virginia focused on the Mountain Valley pipeline, and a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., focused on both the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast pipelines.
The latest lawsuit argues that the natural gas industry has changed dramatically since Congress approved Natural Gas Act amendments in 1947 that allowed developers to take land, with compensation, from holdout property owners along approved pipeline routes.
"There is no longer a tightly regulated market nor a wartime-induced fear of lack of gas for winter home heating," the filing says. "Now there is a deregulated market, and gas production, shipment, and consumption can be integrated into a single entity capable of passing higher rates onto consumers."
The lawsuit also points to FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur's recent dissent to the approval of two natural gas pipelines as support for their contention that the agency's process for considering projects should be revisited (Energywire, Oct. 16).
Many property rights advocates and legal scholars have pounced on the eminent domain issue as an example of government intrusion on private property rights. But experts warn the issue may face an uphill battle in the courtroom Energywire, Sept. 13).
Columbia Law School Environmental Law Clinic attorney Susan Kraham noted that the New Jersey lawsuit is designed to spur reform within the agency.
"Our aim is to motivate FERC to amend its policies so the agency ceases its unconstitutional practice of granting Certificates for pipelines that are not in the public interest," she said in a statement. "This will end the unjust seizing of public and private land."
The law clinic and the Eastern Environmental Law Center are representing the New Jersey Conservation Foundation in the litigation.
FERC does not comment on pending litigation.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/29/stories/1060067487
-
This Obama Climate Pact Has Trump's Stamp of Approval
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Ben Hulac
The Trump administration appears to be quietly accepting an Obama-era international climate change deal.
A career government official, State Department Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Judy Garber, confirmed last week during a speech to diplomats at a Montreal Protocol gathering that the Trump administration won't run away from the deal finalized last year in the Rwandan capital known as the Kigali Amendment. Under that deal, the U.S. government would work globally to limit refrigerants and coolants that greatly contribute to climate change.
She signaled that the process might be a slow one. Rather than setting a timeline for the administration to ask the Senate for its approval — as would almost certainly be required for the legally binding amendment to the ozone treaty — Garber stated that her agency had "initiated the process to consider U.S. ratification."
Still, her approved remarks were viewed as a ringing endorsement of Kigali, a climate change issue that has seemed to fly under the radar in this administration. It's a notable contrast to the administration's public rebuke of the Paris emissions treaty, and the suggestion that the United States might ratify the deal was met with applause from industry groups and environmentalists — even though the administration isn't trumpeting its climate impacts.
Garber called the Kigali Amendment a "pragmatic and balanced approach" to limiting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of climate superpollutants that could contribute a dangerous half-degree Celsius to warming. But she skirted the issue of climate change while touting President Reagan's role in the underlying treaty.
"When he signed the Montreal Protocol, President Reagan said, and I quote: 'The Montreal Protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and its effects,'" she said. Reagan signed the agreement in 1987.
HFCs slightly contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer in Earth's stratosphere, but the amendment targets them mostly for their climate effects.
Industry and environmentalists, who have jointly pressed for ratification of the long-sought amendment, were delighted with Garber's words.
"They don't have to talk about climate," said Durwood Zaelke, founder and president of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development. The U.S. heating and cooling industries have backed the amendment to phase down HFCs, after years of preparing alternatives, and Zaelke said the State Department was right to focus on the trade and competitiveness benefits that track with Trump administration priorities. He called Garber's remarks an encouraging sign.
"They kept on the path started by Reagan and [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher 30 years ago," he said. "They didn't step off. They could have stepped off."
"I was very heartened," said Francis Dietz of the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute. Industry has been communicating its support for the Kigali deal to the administration for months, and Dietz took Garber's words as affirmation that the amendment wouldn't run afoul of the White House.
"It does seem to be, at least at this point in time, that people are singing from the same sheet of music," he said.
The Kigali Amendment commits the United States and other developed nations to begin cutting the production and use of HFCs in 2019, when the deal takes effect for countries that have ratified it. Dietz said U.S. industry would meet the relatively modest first reduction targets without any new regulation. But longer-term phase-downs could require domestic policy, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit complicated that picture in August when it killed an Obama-era rule that the Trump administration defended.
Still, some question whether the ruling will withstand appeal, and there are other avenues to reduce HFCs under the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act if it does stand.
"We are confident as an industry that there's a path forward. Even if the D.C. Circuit opinion were to stand, we're still confident that a path forward can be found to implement Kigali, absolutely," said Dietz.
But domestic implementation is likely one of the issues the State Department is now addressing with agencies including U.S. EPA and the Commerce Department in interagency discussions that it says are now underway. If administration lawyers determined that current domestic law did not allow EPA to regulate HFCs, the administration might have to appeal to Congress to pass climate-related legislation — a heavy lift in the current political atmosphere.
The State Department also has to determine whether it must ask the Senate for its advice and consent or whether it can simply join Kigali as an executive agreement. But four previous amendments to the ozone treaty have received Senate votes, and skirting Senate consent now would be an unusual move, especially given the intense GOP criticism heaped on the Obama administration for joining the Paris climate agreement via executive authority.
"I think there are senators on both sides of the aisle who have been eager for the Senate to reassert its constitutional prerogative in a way that helps U.S. industry," said Paul Bledsoe, an energy and climate lecturer at American University.
But the amendment is unlikely to travel to the Senate anytime soon. The United States took two to four years to ratify previous amendments. And its proponents say that while they would welcome a speedy ratification, a moderate delay wouldn't matter much. The amendment has already been ratified by 20 countries — meaning it has met the necessary threshold of support to enter into force in January 2019, and U.S. manufacturers are poised to supply alternatives.
"Maybe they submit this in a year. It doesn't matter. Maybe they submit it in two years," said Zaelke.
Jennifer Haverkamp, the former assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs under Obama who negotiated Kigali, said the extra time could help industry representatives and other advocates drum up the two-thirds support the amendment would need for a Senate ratification vote.
"There aren't reasons to rush it, which means it can be a thoughtful process that includes building the necessary understanding and support on [Capitol Hill] for it to go through smoothly," she said.
Sarah Hunt of the American Legislative Exchange Council said that the Kigali Amendment — unlike the Paris deal — is legally binding.
"This creates a strong argument that U.S. Senate ratification of Kigali is required by U.S. treaty ratification law," she said. "Because the most recent NASA research shows that the HFCs phased out by Kigali contribute to ozone depletion, U.S. policymakers should resist playing politics with ozone layer protection by turning a Kigali ratification vote into a referendum on climate policy."'The one that the Trump administration didn't notice'
For now, the Kigali Amendment seems to be skating under the radar in the Senate, where members are focused on tax legislation.
In a brief exchange on an elevator packed with reporters, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, appeared distracted when asked about the amendment. "I'm sorry," he said, adding that he couldn't answer the question. "My mind's in another place."
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), the Foreign Relations subcommittee chairman who would be responsible for ratification, said he was unaware of the amendment.
The panel's ranking member, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who traveled to Bonn, Germany, earlier in the month to attend U.N. climate talks, said he wasn't aware of any strategy to bring the amendment to the floor of the Senate.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a Foreign Relations Committee member, was surprised when asked about HFCs instead of tax policy. He said he would vote to ratify but wasn't sure of his colleagues.
"I don't have a good read on whether or not we can act in a responsible, bipartisan way to strengthen the Montreal Protocol," he said in an interview. "I do think it is something where we can and should move forward on scientifically based policy that actually advantages American manufacturers and helps fight global warming."
Coons added, "It's the sort of thing that should get bipartisan support."
In an interview, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), perhaps the chamber's most vocal advocate for climate policy, said the White House seems to have let Kigali slip past. "It's the one that the Trump administration didn't notice," Whitehouse said. "What?" he said, laughing and playing the role of the administration. "We let something environmental go?"
One possible explanation: "They probably didn't notice it was happening," he said. "Too busy tweeting about tax cuts."
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate's most outspoken climate skeptic, said he thought the State Department shouldn't submit Kigali. "I don't see any reason for it," he said.Advocate in Trump White House
The White House has at least one prominent backer of the Montreal Protocol — White House energy adviser George David Banks, who was honored by the Obama administration in 2009 for work he did to broker an amendment phasing down HFCs under the treaty, which are both ozone-depleting and climate-forcing.
The White House has been in contact with the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, an industry group that backs Kigali, for months, said Kevin Fay, the group's director.
"We've been discussing this with the administration since they got into office," Fay said by phone. "A big part of this is about educating people about the Montreal Protocol."
And John Hurst, vice president of government relations for Lennox International Inc., a Texas-based firm that makes heating and cooling systems for homes, said confusion in Washington sows doubt in the private sector. "Regulatory certainty is very important to us," Hurst said.
Avipsa Mahapatra, the climate campaign lead for the Environmental Investigation Agency, a nonprofit, said chemical companies and the companies that use those products — big-box stores that need refrigerants for cooling, for example — back the deal, too. "Even for this Senate, it's a no-brainer," Mahapatra said.
It's estimated that 500,000 U.S. jobs are tied to the HFC business, according to Zaelke of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (Climatewire, Nov. 20). And firms have spent billions to come up with replacement chemicals that don't heat the planet.
"Global demand for our products continues to rise as countries begin to focus on adopting environmentally preferable and energy-efficient technologies to meet the goals of the Kigali Amendment," said a spokesperson for Honeywell International Inc., which wants to see the amendment ratified in the United States.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/29/stories/1060067529
-
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Oregon Democrats are increasingly optimistic they can pass a cap-and-trade bill early next year, raising the hopes of greens desperately in search of carbon reductions following President Trump's rollbacks of federal climate policies.
The bill calls for strengthening the state's emissions targets and creating a carbon market where a steadily decreasing number of allowances are bought and sold. Proceeds from the auctions would be reinvested in emissions reduction strategies like energy efficiency and electric vehicle infrastructure.
Gov. Kate Brown (D) and Democratic legislative leaders, who control the state House and Senate, have labeled the legislation a priority for next year's shortened session in Salem, the state capital.
"There's a feeling like we can't just sit around waiting for the federal government to act. And it's not just rhetoric," said state Rep. Ken Helm, a Democrat who represents a suburban Portland district and is a lead author of the legislation. "The bill, the 'Clean Energy Jobs' bill, is evidence we can address climate at the state level."
Oregon is in a growing queue of states seeking to redouble their climate efforts in the face of federal inaction. California recently reauthorized its own carbon cap-and-trade program. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program encompassing the power sector in nine Northeastern states, has agreed to make an additional 30 percent reduction in power plant emissions between 2020 and 2030. Virginia and New Jersey are now poised to join the program.
Oregon's proposal is particularly notable against that backdrop for both its promise and challenges. The bill puts Oregon on track to become the second U.S. state to impose an economywide cap on carbon and the first to join California's stringent cap-and-trade program, the Western Climate Initiative. The Canadian province of Ontario recently joined Quebec and California in the program.
Cooperation with California offers several benefits to Oregon, lawmakers there say. The Golden State is a large market and already has experience running auctions where carbon allowances are bought and sold. Oregon lawmakers also see an opportunity for economic development in linking up with California. Under California's present plan, businesses are allowed to offset 8 percent of their total emissions under the state's cap. Oregon lawmakers believe their state is a natural market for companies looking to buy offsets.
"We really see our forests particularly as an engine to sequester carbon and help other states," said state Sen. Michael Dembrow (D), the proposal's leading champion in the upper chamber.
He added: "I think it's really important to follow up on the momentum that we're seeing in the WCI with Ontario joining and now California renewing its program. It's clear we need to move this momentum to other states. Oregon is really well-poised to do that. There is a lot of interest in creating a pan-Pacific carbon pricing agenda. However you're doing it, cap and trade, carbon tax, having the entire West Coast pricing carbon is creating a lot of heft that can move a lot of markets."
British Columbia already employs a carbon tax. And Washington Democrats, having recently taken control of all three branches of elected government in Olympia, are considering their own carbon-reduction strategy.Transportation troubles
But California's experience also hints at the limitations of state action.
The state's carbon emissions declined by 16 million metric tons between 2015 and 2016, in large part driven by reductions from the power sector.
The problem: California boasts a relatively green power sector by national standards, and transportation is the leading source of emissions. And unlike overall emissions, the state's transportation emissions edged up in 2016.
Oregon faces a similar challenge, said Michael Wara, a senior researcher at Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment.
"Pretty much everywhere you look around the world, you see strong responses to a carbon price from the power sector and pretty much no response from transportation and [heavy] industry," he said. "It's great to see Oregon moving toward a carbon-pricing regime. No regime is forever. This is a first step in a process. California has taken its second step now. Maybe Oregon can benefit from some of that learning."
Oregon also boasts a green power sector. It relies heavily on hydropower for much of its electricity generation. Its lone coal plant is scheduled to retire in 2020, and the Legislature last year passed a law phasing out its utilities' reliance on out-of-state coal generation.
Transportation emissions, meanwhile, are a major hurdle to Oregon's climate goals. The sector's share of the state's emissions pie is roughly 36 percent, according to the state Global Warming Commission. By comparison, the combined emissions output of electricity and heating consumption associated with the state's residential and commercial sectors was 35 percent, the commission found.
The commission's 2017 report to the Legislature said Oregon "is not expected to come within striking distance" of its present greenhouse reduction goals without further action. The state's current target is 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 75 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. That would increase under the proposed legislation to 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.
Oregon greens acknowledged the challenges presented by transportation but argued that it is too soon to say cap and trade is an ineffective means of holding down emissions from the sector. California's cap, they noted, only expanded to include transportation in 2015.
They also pointed to Oregon's recently implemented low-carbon standard for transportation fuels and the passage last year of a transportation package that includes incentives for low-carbon transit. Those policies will work in concert with cap and trade to incentivize further reductions, they argued.
"The way to think about this is it's a holistic backstop that needs to be viewed as a long-term policy that will set long-term expectations across the economy," said Noah Long, legal director for Western energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's unrealistic to think you will see significant drops in emissions in every sector of the economy in the first few years."Industry opposition, time crunch
The proposal faces other hurdles. Investment in transportation is complicated by a provision in the state constitution that only allows revenue from transportation fuel taxes to go to improvement of state roads. It remains to be seen how much legal latitude Oregon will have to direct cap-and-trade revenues to transportation, Dembrow said.
He nevertheless expressed confidence that money could be spent on bus and bike lines, electric vehicle infrastructure, and tree-planting programs along roadways.
PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric Co., the state's leading utilities, have raised concerns about the proposal, saying it could increase costs to consumers. A cap-and-trade program is repetitive and adds a layer of costs on top of the state's renewable portfolio standard and coal phaseout plan, said Steve Corson, a spokesman for Portland General Electric.
"We support carbon reduction. We support effective policies to do that," he said. "But we are concerned that what is being discussed right now would basically charge our customers twice, would single them out to pay extra for little, if any, carbon reduction beyond what existing policy may be driving."
There is also the matter of timing. Even-numbered years make for compressed legislative sessions in Oregon. In 2018, lawmakers will only spend February in Salem. Some legislators argue that such short sessions should be limited to budgetary matters and say debate over cap and trade should be delayed.
Advocates say such a debate is long overdue. A carbon-pricing proposal has been made in every session since 2003, said Helm, the state representative. The idea has been seriously considered since 2015. A bill introduced this year, which is serving as the template for 2018 discussions, was heavily debated. Twelve working groups held meetings and took public comment throughout the fall.
With that work done, Democrats say they are prepared to make a final push.
"We have unprecedented coordination between the governor's office, the Senate and House here," Helm said. "I couldn't really hope for more from the governor's office right now. My speaker and majority leader, this is a top priority for them."
Next year will tell if they have enough time, and support, to make that priority a reality.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/29/stories/1060067535
-
EPA's Big Moment in Coal Country Points to Future Turmoil
Nov 29, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
The public hearings to repeal a landmark climate rule yesterday exposed anxiety in friends and foes of the regulation about what comes next along the nation's divisive path to address rising temperatures.
Simmering beneath each sides' arguments is a sense that the fight is getting harder and the stakes are higher. The hearings might address the controversial Clean Power Plan, but they don't offer answers to the crises arising in testimony at the U.S. EPA hearings for both the climate and the coal sector.
Proponents of the rule agonized over the environmental damage of stalling coal power's decline. At risk are people's health, local environments and the global climate — and with such a broad swath of threats, some in the environmental movement hope this moment galvanizes support for an even tougher regulation after the Trump administration ends.
"Keep testifying. Today is only a formal testimony. Every day is your informal testimony," Mark Magaña, president of Green Latinos, said to about a hundred environmentalists gathered for an alternative hearing across town. "We don't have the ... money that the opposition has. But we have the numbers. We have the people."
Opponents of the regulation want to cut off the possibility of its ever returning, a harder task than just killing it once. For those with long-term investments in coal mines and power plants — and for the workers who draw their paychecks from them — repealing the Clean Power Plan hardly counts as a victory if it only lasts for the term of one president.
"We're not looking for it to come back in four or five years," said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R). "We want to work with EPA to put appropriate regulatory and judicial restraints in place to make sure the power plan never again sees the light of day."
Morrisey, a candidate for Senate, says that would best be done through legislation banning regulations that force changes to states' energy mixes.
But with Congress unable to pass major legislation, he has some ideas about how EPA could use regulations to block a Clean Power Plan 2.0.Another attack on the endangerment finding?
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is targeting the Clean Power Plan for exceeding the agency's statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. But he hasn't challenged the endangerment finding, a scientific document explaining why carbon dioxide poses a threat to human health and welfare.
As long as the endangerment finding remains on the books, conservatives eager to erase Obama's climate legacy — and boost coal back to its glory days — could still have to prove they're protecting humans from the harms of global warming.
In addition to challenging the endangerment finding's science, Morrisey said he wants to challenge its scope by reopening questions about how it applies to stationary sources of carbon emissions.
"I think that's going to bear some fruit, because we'll find that there's some real questions as to the extent of the endangerment finding," he said. "It's the scope of applicability for how far it goes and whether it should be limited to mobile sources or stationary sources."
The endangerment finding was issued in 2009 as the Obama administration finalized vehicle emission standards. The way that EPA regulates stationary sources underwent years of legal disputes and survived a 2014 Supreme Court challenge (Climatewire, June 24, 2014).
During his public testimony, Morrisey urged EPA officials to work with him and other attorneys general to craft a coal-friendly replacement for the Clean Power Plan.
"Go further," he said. "When you think you are lacking authority, talk to the states. Work with us, so we can help you in a manner that's going to protect coal country and be consistent with your statutory mandate."
Morrisey was less bullish after the hearing. Even West Virginia's biggest utility is starting to move away from coal, citing the possibility of future regulations. To stop that, he says, will take a permanent end to the possibility of carbon regulations.
"Long-term, there has to be a refocus that the marketplace will be there in the future — and that's why I'm talking about permanent prohibitions on the Obama power plan, sending a message to everyone that there will be a viable future for coal," he said.Greens aim at miners
Speakers at the coal country-based hearing couldn't overlook the rows of men in mining helmets and reflective jackets taking up half the room.
The miners work for Murray Energy Corp., and they sat behind their boss, coal baron Bob Murray. When Murray took his position to speak, he railed against the Obama administration's "war on coal" before turning to the workers.
"God bless you. God bless every one of you," Murray said. The audience applauded the miners; it wouldn't be the last time.
Environmentalists aimed a wedge between mine workers and management throughout the day. Liz Perera, the Sierra Club's climate policy director, began her testimony by saying her group supports miners' pensions and safety regulations, while coal companies have spent years backpedaling on both.
The West Virginia-based environmentalists were less diplomatic.
"This is an extraction colony," April Pierson-Keating, an activist from nearby Upshur County, said during the greens' alternative hearing. "For 152 years, extractive industries have preyed upon these people who are largely poor and undereducated — they don't know their rights; they don't know where to go for help; they don't have money for a lawyer."
As the day's hearings wore on, the number of Clean Power Plan opponents dwindled until just about every speaker was asking — sometimes pleading — for EPA to take emissions more seriously.
"You're ignoring so much. And it makes me rather angry," said Allan Tweddle, an 85-year-old engineer who lives nearby in Charleston.
After his speaking time expired, he tried approaching EPA officials to show them pictures of communities affected by climate change. They ordered him to sit down, and an event coordinator rushed forward to take him from the panel.
Tweddle sat through a few more testimonies before grabbing his cane and leaving.
"What a farce," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/29/stories/1060067539
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested