Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/24
-
(ACC Mentioned) Arguments Against Banning Plastic Bags Don’t Hold Water
Jan 24, 2018 | The SandPaper
By Teresa Hagen
Back in December 1967, his Pasadena neighbor had “just one word” for Benjamin Braddock: plastics. -
EPA’s Budget Has Been Devastated for Decades: Here’s the Math
Jan 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Keith Gaby
When Donald Trump rolled out his budget, which cut the Environmental Protection Agency by more than any other department, he said his goal was to “shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy.” -
2nd Lawsuit Hits Pruitt's Advisory Board Directive
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA is facing a second lawsuit as a result of a recent directive barring agency grant recipients from serving on advisory committees. -
EPA’s Appalling Failure to Provide Public Access to Public Data on TSCA New Chemicals
Jan 24, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
At last month’s public meeting held by EPA to discuss changes it is making to its new chemical review program, the issue of public access to information about those chemicals and EPA’s review of them featured prominently. -
Bill Would Crack Down on Chemicals Used in Firefighting Foam
Jan 24, 2018 | Seattle Times (In E&E Greenwire)
By Hal Bernton
Washington state lawmakers are considering major restrictions on chemicals used in firefighting foam that have been found in drinking water supplies nationwide. -
Echa Selects More Than 200 Substances for Manual Screening
Jan 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The substances are selected by an automated IT process and not directly by Echa. -
Perry: Us ‘Not Just Exporting Energy, We’re Exporting Freedom’
Jan 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Energy Secretary Rick Perry characterized the Trump administration’s energy agenda as a world-changing development that spreads freedom around the globe. -
Natural Gas Expected to Remain Dominant Power Source Through 2019
Jan 24, 2018 | The Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
Natural gas is expected to remain the dominant source of power in the U.S. for the next two years as it continues to push coal-fired power plants to the sidelines. -
Close Call for New England's Grid Headlines a Senate Inquiry
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
New England may have been one more bad ice storm away from rolling blackouts during the past month's bitter "bomb cyclone," the region's grid operator is warning. -
Rig Wreckage Probed for Cause of Deadly Okla. Blast
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Mike Soraghan
The state medical examiner recovered the bodies of five workers who were killed when a natural gas rig exploded here Monday, leaving a small town to cope with one of the worst onshore drilling accidents in U.S. history. -
Experts Cite Risks for CPP Replacement Based on Untested Legal Theories
Jan 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Legal experts and supporters of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) say the Trump EPA's plan to repeal and replace the utility greenhouse gas rule with a narrower measure could encounter risks because it could rely on untested legal interpretations of the agency's Clean Air Act authority while also giving states unprecedented discretion under a federal standard. -
California to Sue Trump Over Fracking Rule Repeal
Jan 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
California’s attorney general is suing the Trump administration to challenge its repeal of a rule that set standards for hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas on federal land. -
Dems — Eyeing Gavels — Want to See Pruitt a Lot More
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender and Josh Kurtz
Senate Democrats have big plans for Scott Pruitt if they clinch control of the chamber this fall.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Arguments Against Banning Plastic Bags Don’t Hold Water
Jan 24, 2018 | The SandPaper
By Teresa Hagen
Back in December 1967, his Pasadena neighbor had “just one word” for Benjamin Braddock: plastics. Fast forward 50 years and that “one word” from “The Graduate” has become a flashpoint for environmentalists, businesses and communities nationwide.
The controversy touched down in our little piece of paradise last November when Long Beach Township became the first municipality on the Island to limit single-use plastic bags. I’m not going to reiterate the shocking statistics that have already been so well documented by others in this newspaper. Instead, I’m going to try to answer some of the objections I’ve heard against the ordinance.
“My Plastic Grocery Bag Is Recyclable”: Whenever we talk about limiting single-use plastic bags, someone invariably argues that his or her grocery bags are “recyclable.” And they may very well be. They may even have the familiar trio of green arrows chasing one another, but that doesn’t make them safe for the environment.
Still, you can’t blame people for being confused; environmentalism is a fairly new phenomenon and there’s an awful lot of misleading information out there. Moreover, some companies even deliberately mislead consumers by making false claims of environmental benefits. It’s called “green washing.”
To help consumers separate (pun intended) the recyclable from the biodegradable from the compostable, the Federal Trade Commission has created what it calls “Green Guides.”
Here’s what the FTC has to say: If a product “can be collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the waste stream for reuse or use in the manufacturing or assembling of another item,” it meets the commission’s definition of recycling.
Sounds good, huh? Plastic bags can be made into other things. But the truth is: They never really go away! Unlike paper, they do not “biodegrade” (break down into water, carbon dioxide and biomass). The most common – a.k.a., the ubiquitous grocery bag – are made of polyethylene, a petroleum-based polymer that cannot biodegrade, but simply breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces of, you guessed it, plastic!
It’s these so-called “micro plastics” (about the size of a sesame seed) that make their way into the food chain and eventually our bodies. My generation may not see tangible evidence of these “endocrine disruptors,” but scientists warn that our children and grandchildren may suffer the effects: delayed development, mental impairment and hormonal imbalances.
So please, let’s not pretend that our grocery bags are safe just because they’re “recyclable.” There are plenty of eco-friendly alternatives. It would be irresponsible not to use them.
“Plastic Bags Don’t Pollute, People Pollute!”: This is the rallying cry of people who believe more “education” will solve our plastic problem. Way back in 1970, coincidentally the same year of the first Earth Day, President Nixon signed the Resource Recovery Act that tasked the EPA with developing new ways to deal with solid waste. Since then, schools and communities have hosted thousands of events stressing the Three R’s, “reduce, reuse, recycle.”
So how’s that working? In 2016, one trillion plastic bags were used worldwide and less than 5 percent of those were recycled. We Americans have a dismal record, recycling only 0.6 percent of the 100 billion plastic bags we use each year.
Education is great, but as ever, knowing something and doing it are vastly different.
“Plastic Bags Are Safer!”: These people like to cite a study linking an upsurge in E. coli and other food-borne illnesses to canvas or cotton reusable grocery bags, a study funded by the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing plastic bag manufacturers, and one that has been debunked many times since it was published in 2007.
A later study, by the University of Arizona and the Loma Linda School of Public Health, did discover E. coli in 8 percent of all reusable bags they surveyed, but three-quarters of the participants admitted to not separating meat from vegetables and only 3 percent cleaned their bags regularly, which eliminates 99 percent of all pathogens.
Canvas and cotton bags are perfectly safe if you follow the same precautions you’d use in your own kitchen: separating meat and fish from other groceries and thoroughly washing any containers used for food. I use a cooler bag for meat and fish that can be spritzed with a bleach solution and canvas for everything else. Is it inconvenient? Not really, since I find them easier to load, carry and unload.
“Paper Bags Lead to Deforestation!”: This argument might carry some weight if it were valid. But the choice is not between plastic and paper. The smart choice is reusable cotton or canvas, both renewable and eco-friendly sources.
“Limiting Single-Use Plastic Is Government Overreach!”: If asked, we all could list hundreds of instances when the government interferes in our lives for the good and safety of the population at large: speed limits on our highways, bans on deadly pesticides and chemicals, fire safety restrictions on buildings, minimum wage requirements … the list goes on and on. Yet no one would argue against them.
There are many other rationales for continuing to use plastic: It adds to business costs, consumers will be inconvenienced, yadda, yadda, yadda. All could be debunked if space permitted. But it doesn’t. So I’ll just leave you with my own No. 1 reason for carrying reusable eco-friendly bags whenever I shop: I’ve never seen a whale or a dolphin or a deer or a bird choked or strangled by a canvas bag.
https://thesandpaper.villagesoup.com/p/arguments-against-banning-plastic-bags-dont-hold-water/1717866
-
EPA’s Budget Has Been Devastated for Decades: Here’s the Math
Jan 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Keith Gaby
When Donald Trump rolled out his budget, which cut the Environmental Protection Agency by more than any other department, he said his goal was to “shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy.” He clearly meant to leave the impression that EPA had gotten too big and costly.
But the facts tell a very different story.
Far from growing too big, EPA’s budget has been devastated over the last four decades. Other than a bump in the early Obama administration, funding for the agency has been in a long downward spiral.
In fact, contrary to Trump’s implication, EPA’s funding in real dollars is less than half of what it was in the late 1970s. Here’s the math:
In 1979, the agency’s budget was $5.4 billion. In 2017, its funding was $8.2 billion. But adjust that for inflation — so you can actually compare what EPA had to spend on enforcement, state and local support, science and all its other responsibilities — and the 2017 budget was really worth just $2.4 billion in 1979 dollars.
This dramatic drop occurred even as our population increased by one hundred million people and our economy doubled in size. That means that with many more people and businesses, the agency has far fewer resources to protect clean air and water, deal with toxic waste and chemicals, and protect our health.
Not only that, Congress has repeatedly added to EPA’s responsibilities. Since 1979 there are at least a dozen major new (and necessary) laws for the agency to enforce — including Superfund to clean up toxic waste, Oil Pollution Act, Food Quality Protection Act, as well as updates to laws on safe drinking water and clean water. All as the agency’s funding dropped 55 percent in real dollars.
These cuts are not merely the result of general reductions in government. Over the same period — 1979 to 2017 — the average federal agency’s budget has increased by 26 percent. (Not as much as the 43 percent increase in our population, but an increase nonetheless.)
Overall, 18 agencies, departments, or branches of government saw real increases. The Executive Office of the President grew by 43 percent, the Department of Commerce grew by 29 percent, and the Department of Justice grew by 117 percent. They do important work, but it provides a contrast with EPA’s cuts.
The fact that EPA has managed to make our environment dramatically cleaner, support states in providing clean drinking water, and saved a hundred thousand lives year by reducing air pollution is remarkable. They’ve done it by implementing effective safeguards, holding polluters accountable, and working closely with states and business to find the best way to protect human health.
The idea that the Trump administration now wants to reduce the agency’s budget another 30 percent — and the House and Senate are also considering serious cuts — is reckless. Reducing funding for clean air monitors, state anti-pollution programs, and toxic waste clean-up would be a disaster. There are already fewer than the legally required 200 enforcement agents for the entire country.
All of this would lead directly to more smog and asthma attacks, more toxic chemicals and cancer in our lives, and more climate pollution threatening our future.
The president’s campaign rhetoric aside, EPA has in fact pushed for greater efficiency in environmental protection. The Clean Power Plan, now withdrawn by the Trump administration, emphasized finding the lowest cost ways to reduce pollution. And EPA has used innovative market-based approaches to protect human health in ways that promote economic growth.
The real reason the Trump administration wants to reduce the agency’s budget is to hobble EPA’s ability to enforce our environmental laws. Fewer resources means that the least responsible polluters will have little to fear from EPA. The record, rhetoric, and history of both Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt lead to no other conclusion.
We can’t let our children’s health or future fall victim to this dangerous approach. The administration needs to tell the American people the truth — the EPA’s budget has been devastated for decades. It’s time to fully fund the agency that protects our health.
Keith Gaby is senior communications director (climate, health and political affairs) at Environmental Defense Fund.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/370334-epas-budget-has-been-devastated-for-decades-heres-the-math
-
2nd Lawsuit Hits Pruitt's Advisory Board Directive
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA is facing a second lawsuit as a result of a recent directive barring agency grant recipients from serving on advisory committees.
The Union of Concerned Scientists and Elizabeth Anne Sheppard, a professor at the University of Washington and a member of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, yesterday filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking to vacate the policy.
"This is an abuse of power and an affront to the scientific integrity of the EPA and the federal government," Joshua Goldman, senior legal analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in October issued the directive, saying it would help ensure the "integrity" of the panels that offer the agency advice on a number of issues, including air quality standards, children's health and pesticides.
"There is a question that arises over independence," Pruitt said. "They have to choose: either the grant or service. But not both" (E&E News PM, Oct. 31, 2017).
Sheppard disagrees.
"I am committed to serving on federal advisory committees because I believe this is one of the most effective ways for me to use my scientific expertise to promote public health," Sheppard said, noting that she was forced to give up her role as a co-investigator on a $3 million EPA grant for researching health effects of air pollution in order to remain on the air quality advisory panel. "This directive forces me to choose between my own work and my commitment to [the] public."
EPA has faced swift criticism from environmentalists and scientists, who said the agency already had adequate conflict-of-interest safeguards and that the new policy would skew advisory boards toward researchers affiliated with industry.
In December, three university researchers filed suit over the directive in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that EPA failed to receive approval from the Office of Government Ethics, and that the directive violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act by setting an unreasonably high bar for independence from the agency (E&E News PM, Dec. 21, 2017).
The new lawsuit in district court in Massachusetts, where the Union of Concerned Scientists is headquartered, raises similar claims, calling the directive arbitrary and ungrounded in law.
"The effect of the ban, which has no precedent and no counterpart at any other federal agency or department, is to single out academic scientists and experts by excluding them from serving EPA in the public interest," the complaint says.
The Protect Democracy Project and law firm Jenner & Block LLP filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/24/stories/1060071815
-
EPA’s Appalling Failure to Provide Public Access to Public Data on TSCA New Chemicals
Jan 24, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
At last month’s public meeting held by EPA to discuss changes it is making to its new chemical review program, the issue of public access to information about those chemicals and EPA’s review of them featured prominently. This post describes EDF’s recent exasperating attempt to gain access to information that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and EPA’s own regulations require be made public.
EDF has repeatedly informed EPA that the agency’s regulations (see here and here) require EPA to promptly make premanufacture notifications (PMNs) and associated documents broadly available to the general public by posting them to electronic dockets. One regulation states: “All information submitted with a notice, including any health and safety study and other supporting documentation, will become part of the public file for that notice, unless such materials are claimed confidential.” The other regulation states that public files are to be made available in the electronic docket posted at http://www.regulations.gov.
Despite the clear requirements for electronic access, EPA acknowledged at its December 6 meeting that it has not provided such access. It then stated that “[s]anitized PMNs and their attachments can be requested directly from the EPA Docket Center.” So we decided to try getting these materials by that route.
On December 13, 2017, EDF sent a letter to the EPA Docket Center requesting electronic versions of the sanitized Pre-Manufacturing Notices (PMNs), any health and safety studies, and any other supporting documentation associated with each chemical substance for which, between the law’s passage on June 22, 2016, and the date of our request, EPA had made a finding:under § 5(g), in accordance with § 5(a)(3)(C), that the new chemical substance is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;” orin accordance with §§ 5(a)(3)(A) and 5(f), that the new chemical substance “presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or environment.”
We received a CD from the docket center two weeks later, on December 26, 2017. The CD contained file folders for 67 PMNs; a week later we requested additional file folders for two PMNs that received “not likely” findings around the time of our first request, and subsequently received a second CD.
We have been reviewing these materials. This post is the first in a series that will describe what we got – and didn’t get.
Overall, what is missing
PMNs are supposed to include a list of attachments that identifies the number of pages in each attachment. The good news is that these PMNs did include such a list, and in most cases the public files we received contained a “document” corresponding to each listed attachment.
The bad news starts with what was in, or more accurately, what was not in, those documents:
Of a total of 549 attachments identified in the PMNs we received:103 of those attachments consisted of wholly blank or blacked-out pages.Another 97 of those attachments consisted wholly of pages that had only a header at the top, with all other text removed.Another 111 of those attachments, while retaining the skeleton of the underlying form, redacted 100% of the information entered into the form by the submitter.6 of the attachments were corrupted and could not be opened for viewing at all.10 documents were missing entirely from the files we received.101 of the attachments were partially redacted, ranging from heavy to light redactions.121 of the attachments were not redacted.
In all, 327 of the attachments – 60% – had no meaningful information whatsoever. Across this set of PMNs, over 1,000 pages of information that should have been provided (even if redacted) was simply missing or inaccessible.
Health and safety information that is missing
Even more disturbing is the fact that a large fraction of the missing information definitely or likely consists of health and safety (H&S) information, which TSCA § 14(b)(2) precludes from being withheld from the public.
First – in keeping with historical evidence – the great majority of these PMNs had no health nor environmental safety information whatsoever. Only 17 of the 69 PMNs – 24% – included any health and safety studies.
A total of 78 of the 549 attachments identified in the PMNs we received were clearly identified as H&S studies. Of these 78 attachments:8 of these documents were not provided at all, including one that consisted at least partially of a H&S study, all from the same PMN. (Click here for an example.) We know that EPA relied on at least three of these studies in making its final “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination.25 others were blank, wholly redacted or corrupted and could not be viewed at all. For many of these, EPA provided us with only a single blank page even when the list of attachments indicated the documents consisted of multiple pages. (Click here for an example.)Another 22 were partially redacted, with strong indications that information not eligible for protection from disclosure was nonetheless redacted. (Click here for an example.)Only 23 were provided to us without redactions.
Beyond those 78 documents, another 62 documents were identified as safety data sheets, which likely also in whole or in part constitute health and safety information not eligible for protection from disclosure. Yet:12 of these were blank, blacked out or wholly redacted. (Click here and here for examples.)32 were partially redacted.Only 18 were provided to us without redactions.
In all, 45 of the 140 attachments constituting health and safety information – 32% – had no meaningful information whatsoever, and another 54 of these attachments – 39% – included partial redactions. Across this set of documents containing health and safety information, over 620 pages of information that should have been provided (even if redacted) was simply missing.
This situation, in a word, is outrageous. In another word, it is unacceptable.
We blogged recently about how EPA is now hiding its tracks when it comes to the outcomes of its initial reviews of new chemicals. This post details another way in which EPA is cutting the public out of the new chemicals review process.
Among the reasons public access to PMNs and associated information is so important is that EPA is adopting an approach (albeit contrary to the law) to reviewing new chemicals under which it argues that the information in a PMN is a sufficient basis for making a regulatory determination that the substance is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk.” EPA will then develop a SNUR that is supposed to closely mirror those aspects of the PMN that allowed EPA to make that determination. Without ready and timely public access, there is simply no way for the public to be able to assess whether these assertions by EPA are sufficient and accurate, or to have any faith and trust whatsoever in the approach the agency is taking.
We’ll have to more to say about other gaping deficiencies in the public PMN files in subsequent posts to this blog. Stay tuned.
Stephanie Schwarz, J.D., is a Legal Fellow. Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/01/24/epas-appalling-failure-to-provide-public-access-to-public-data-on-tsca-new-chemicals/
-
Bill Would Crack Down on Chemicals Used in Firefighting Foam
Jan 24, 2018 | Seattle Times (In E&E Greenwire)
By Hal Bernton
Washington state lawmakers are considering major restrictions on chemicals used in firefighting foam that have been found in drinking water supplies nationwide.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have long been used in everything from shoes to cookware, but they are perhaps best known for their use in fighting fires.
In recent years, though, they have turned up in waterways and drinking water supplies. U.S. EPA issued a health advisory for the chemicals in 2016, though it does not formally regulate them.
A bill in the Washington House of Representatives would ban companies from selling firefighting foam or protective gear made with PFAS chemicals by 2020. But it exempts certain facilities, like military airports, which have been a major source of the contamination.
At issue in the state House is the health of firefighters, who are most often exposed to PFAS.
"We would like to see them phased out," Michael White, legislative liaison for the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters, told lawmakers at a hearing yesterday.
Jessica Bowman of industry group FluoroCouncil, however, said a PFAS ban would leave firefighters vulnerable because replacements are less effective (Hal Bernton, Seattle Times, Jan. 23).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/24/stories/1060071805
-
Echa Selects More Than 200 Substances for Manual Screening
Jan 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has picked 236 substances from REACH registration dossiers for scrutiny by member state competent authorities.
They will manually screen the chemicals this year and decide whether regulatory action is necessary. Manual verification is needed to confirm a potential concern.
The substances are selected by an automated IT process and not directly by Echa.
The 2017 exercise saw 162 chemicals shortlisted for screening, of those 133 were examined by member states and 68 required follow-up actions. Thirty-two are still undergoing screening.
Echa has moved more towards screening groups of substances, which means the manual verification "can take longer for larger or complex groups", the agency told Chemical Watch.
Follow-up actions included:
a substance evaluation in the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap);
a compliance check;
proposal for harmonised classification and labelling (CLH); and
proposal for risk management option analysis (RMOA).
In both its 2016 and 2017 screenings, Echa focused on substances that are potentially carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction (CMRs), persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBTs), endocrine-disrupting, sensitising or have potential specific target organ toxicity following repeated exposure (Stot Re) properties.
Substances are reintroduced to the shortlist if member states did not prioritise them for manual screening in previous rounds. But if dossiers are updated in the meantime for hazard, use or exposure information, it is possible that these substances are no longer a priority. They may also be subject to a new testing proposal examination, related to the potential concern.
The screening approach includes exclusion criteria for substances:listed for evaluation in the Corap;on the candidate list or subject to RMOA for the same potential concern; andmanually screened in the last three years.
Chemicals subject to an ongoing compliance check are also excluded.
Echa says companies affected will receive a letter, inviting them to update their dossiers. This will ask them to address any shortcomings as soon as possible, because up-to-date information will help national authorities confirm the concern indicated by the screening, and if regulatory action is still needed.
If a member state, or Echa, take actions on a substance, the information is published on the agency's website. This will appear, for example, in:the list of substances potentially subject to compliance checks;the registry of intentions;the draft Corap; andthe public activities coordination tool (PACT), which lists substances under hazard assessment or RMOA.
Companies can check the status of their substance through the ‘Search for chemicals’ facility on Echa's homepage.1,000+ substances
The previous four rounds - 2014-2017 - of IT screening have identified 1,084 substances for further scrutiny. Of those, member states have examined 714 substances and three quarters of them required follow-up activities, Echa says. Some substances have more than one outcome.
The outcomes of annual substance screenings for 2014-2017 are:
substance evaluation (Corap): 27%;
compliance check: 25%;
no action: 21%;
harmonised classification and labelling: 10%;
other activites: 7%;
RMOA: 6%; and
ongoing: 4%.
Echa is hosting a webinar on 1 February to provide more details about the screening process. Registrants will have the opportunity to pose questions to Echa staff.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63361/echa-selects-more-than-200-substances-for-manual-screening
-
Perry: Us ‘Not Just Exporting Energy, We’re Exporting Freedom’
Jan 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Energy Secretary Rick Perry characterized the Trump administration’s energy agenda as a world-changing development that spreads freedom around the globe.
Perry framed exports of fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal as a central part of President Trump’s “Energy Dominance” agenda, in which the administration is aiming to dramatically increase the domestic production of fossil fuels.
“The United States is not just exporting energy, we’re exporting freedom,” Perry said on Fox Business’s “Mornings with Maria” in an interview from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
“We’re exporting to our allies in Europe the opportunity to truly have a choice of where do you buy your energy from. That’s freedom. And that kind of freedom is priceless.”
The former Texas governor further cited the estimate from numerous sources, like the International Energy Agency, that the United States will become the world’s top oil producer this year. It is already the top natural gas producer.
“I'm not sure anything since World War II has been any more dynamic, from my perspective, than the shift in energy supply, energy control if you will,” Perry said of the domestic oil and gas boom of the last decade.
“The United States isn’t about controlling a country with this energy. It’s about literally freeing up our allies around the world, letting them know that we’re going to be there for them. There’s no strings attached when you buy American [liquid natural gas]. So that’s world-changing.”
Perry said that the United States has an “amazing” supply of oil and natural gas, citing Trump’s offshore drilling plan and Congress’s plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
He waded briefly into Trump’s Monday decision to impose steep tariffs on imported solar panels and washers, saying it’s a sign of the rules under which Trump thinks countries should trade with the United States.
“We shouldn’t be worrying about this administration from the standpoint of transparency and fairness. That’s what Donald Trump’s all about,” Perry said.
“You want to compete against the United States? Bring it. But don’t subsidize in a way that is unfair. Don’t get into the market and try to gobble all the market, and then all of the sudden, after you’ve choked everybody else out of the market, guess what, prices go up.”
Free-market Republicans have joined affected industries like solar panel installers and appliance companies in criticizing Trump’s tariffs, saying they represent an abandonment of free-trade principles.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370468-perry-us-is-not-just-exporting-energy-were-exporting-freedom
-
Natural Gas Expected to Remain Dominant Power Source Through 2019
Jan 24, 2018 | The Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
Natural gas is expected to remain the dominant source of power in the U.S. for the next two years as it continues to push coal-fired power plants to the sidelines.
Natural gas-fired power plants are expected to provide 33 percent of the nation's energy in 2018 and 34 percent in 2019, according the U.S. Department of Energy. As natural gas use rises, coal's share of the power is expected to drop to 28 percent by 2019.
The low cost of natural gas has played a large part in its rise as a dominant energy source -- since 2015, prices have averaged $3.50 per million British thermal units, a price that is expected to fall 2 percent this year. By contrast, the price of coal is expected to rise 5 percent, according to the Energy Department.
This year could see the largest increase of in natural gas capacity in nearly 15 years. The Energy Department expects that 20,000 megawatts of capacity to be online in 2018, most of which will be in Pennsylvania and Texas. Coal capacity on the other hand, is expected to fall by 13,000 megawatts this year as plants across the country retire.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Natural-gas-expected-to-remain-dominant-power-12519528.php
-
Close Call for New England's Grid Headlines a Senate Inquiry
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
New England may have been one more bad ice storm away from rolling blackouts during the past month's bitter "bomb cyclone," the region's grid operator is warning. The threat is growing, and there are no direct solutions at hand — no silver bullets, no magic buttons.
That chilling assessment by Gordon van Welie, chief executive of the region's grid operator, ISO New England, highlighted at a Senate hearing yesterday challenges to electric power reliability and resilience in extreme conditions, as older, uncompetitive power plants retire amid a game-changing grid transformation.
In the coldest winter weather, demand for limited natural gas supplies for heating balloons in the Northeast, and gas prices spike. This time, to keep power flowing, New England had to rely on power from plants burning oil, a rarely used fuel in normal weather. Resupply would have been jeopardized by a big new storm that blocked fuel trucks' passage, van Welie said (Energywire, Jan. 19).
"Our biggest operating concern was that we would experience a large, multiday system contingency during this period or that oil-fired generators would run out of fuel before they could be resupplied," he said.
"It is important to note that ISO New England has no mechanism or authority to invest in, or direct investment in, natural gas supply infrastructure or any fuel infrastructure," van Welie said in his prepared testimony for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It was marked footnote 9, but it was really his headline.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry's directive to his staff for a study on baseload generation and grid reliability nine months ago triggered a right-versus-left fuel fight among fossil fuel generators and nuclear reactors — Perry's "baseload" candidates for federal assistance — and renewable energy, energy efficiency and power demand management.
With Perry's initiative rejected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this month, yesterday's hearing explored whether the debate would shift to the fundamental predicament van Welie presented. Can day-to-day electricity markets, whose goal is cheap power prices, also provide financial premiums that reward investments in reliability actions for emergencies that may happen years down the road?
Another panel member, DOE Assistant Secretary Bruce Walker, told the committee, "Today, the marketplace — rather than electrical engineering principles focused on building and maintaining a resilient energy system — is driving the design of the system.
"However, it is clear we need an in-depth understanding of the resilience of our electricity and related infrastructure in order to know how best to either modify existing market structures or build new resiliency into the system," he said. Walker pitched the committee for funding for such a new DOE analysis of North American grid resilience challenges.
Some committee members yesterday hung onto defenses of home-state coal industries. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) extracted acknowledgement from several panelists that large parts of the grid could not have delivered power in the recent cold blast without coal generation.
Charles Berardesco, interim president of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., tried to steer the conversation away from the fuel wars back to the need to understand what reliability and resilience require. Different fuels have different pluses and minuses and pose different risks. The question is, "What's the appropriate mix to give you the best risk outcome?" he said.
"If we get the price right [on] all of these resources, we will see the dollar value for reliability," added Andrew Ott, chief executive of the PJM Interconnection, the grid operator in the Mid-Atlantic and eastern Great Lakes region. He said that under today's market rules, the short-term prices for power, and the compensation for plants that agree to be on duty for the future, don't ensure the right mix of energy resources will be present when needed.Rating the grid threat
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the committee chairwoman, asked Kevin McIntyre, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, how he would rate the overall risk to the grid, given the retirements of coal and nuclear generation, on a scale of one to 10. "Conceptually," he said, "we're probably at a five, based on what's known today. A danger is waiting too long to find the answers until severe problems become potentially irreversible."
That risk is acute in New England, which is increasingly dependent on natural gas but finds itself at the tail end of interstate gas pipelines. Owners of gas generation won't invest in new pipelines that are only urgently needed in the winter's coldest weeks. The region's governors are committed to expanding renewable energy, notably offshore wind, but will the needed transmission lines be built in time to deliver it?
And what happens if the oil-fired generation that bailed out the region in this cold weather emergency starts retiring? van Welie asked.
After rejecting Perry's request for a rulemaking on subsidizing coal and nuclear plants as compensation for their on-site fuel supplies, FERC's commissioners launched an inquiry this month on reliability and resilience challenges in the nation's competitive electricity markets aimed at the kinds of questions van Welie raised.
If Perry's formula was a politically simple one, an attempt to deliver on President Trump's promise to help "my coal miners," then reforming power market prices is the polar opposite in complexity. PJM's Ott noted that coal or nuclear plants that run at the same rate and deliver a constant block of energy aren't allowed to bid in PJM's price-setting mechanism because their output is inflexible.
If they were allowed to bid, reflecting their value when they are needed in a cold wave, for example, prices would be higher, reflecting that value, he said. PJM's policy is that generators that aren't economical to operate should retire and be replaced by those that are. But power markets aren't designed to provide prices to generators that prevent retirements at all costs, one expert noted.
Murkowski needled McIntyre about how long it might take for FERC to receive recommendations, review and then act on them to approve new pricing systems that could meet future challenges.
FERC has had an open docket on pricing issues for years, since the 2014 polar vortex, she said.
"How prompt will FERC be when it says it will act promptly?" Murkowski asked. Yes, the issue is complex, but paralysis by analysis lurks, she added. "We need to move beyond technical conferences and more white papers, and we actually need to see that action," she said.
"A very valid question," McIntyre said. FERC's order on the reliability-resilience review allowed 60 days for comments and an additional 30 for responses. "Our commitment is to prompt action thereafter," he said.
But this is uncharted territory, experts say. Policymakers and the public have to decide somehow how much they are willing to pay to keep the right resources on hand for emergencies, some of whose dimensions are dimly understood.
"It will always be the case that you can think of a scenario where the system might fail," Paul Centolella, a vice president of the Analysis Group consultancy and former commissioner of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, said in an interview.
"You are never going to be 100 percent secure, so you can try to make the critical elements of the system — both bulk power and local infrastructure — as secure as you possibly can," he said.
Most studies of what customers may be willing to pay to keep the lights on are based on relatively short power outages of eight hours or less. But people hit by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma were in the dark for far longer, and hundreds of thousands of Hurricane Maria's victims in Puerto Rico are still waiting for power. Where would these victims put the value of secure energy?
"It's always a question of what level of risk is acceptable," Centolella said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/24/stories/1060071779
-
Rig Wreckage Probed for Cause of Deadly Okla. Blast
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Mike Soraghan
The state medical examiner recovered the bodies of five workers who were killed when a natural gas rig exploded here Monday, leaving a small town to cope with one of the worst onshore drilling accidents in U.S. history.
The rig, belonging to drilling contractor Patterson-UTI Energy Inc., exploded at about 8:45 a.m. local time Monday and burned until late that afternoon. It wasn't until noon yesterday that the scene was safe enough for investigators to pore through the wreckage.
The five men were found in the "doghouse" of the rig, the control room that sits atop the drilling platform next to the derrick, Pittsburg County Sheriff Chris Morris said. The other 17 crew members escaped, with only one minor injury, but the explosion was so severe the medical examiner has asked families for dental records to identify the men who perished, Morris said.
"From what I was told, they heard a loud boom — they saw the fire and they ran," Morris said at a news conference, relating what he'd been told by the crew. One worker, who was high up on the derrick, escaped by sliding down a guy wire.
The rig had been on the site for about 10 days and had drilled to about 10,000 feet when the explosion happened. Officials from Red Mountain Energy LLC, which owns the well site, and Patterson-UTI said they were providing counseling and other help to the families of the workers involved in the explosion. Three of the dead men worked for Patterson-UTI.
The deaths highlight a crucial fact of the drilling boom — much of it has occurred in rural areas where small-town police officers, sheriff's deputies and volunteer firefighters are often the first responders.
Quinton has four police officers, Pittsburg County has 18 deputies, and the nearest full-time fire department is nearly 30 miles away in McAlester.
Firefighters from 11 agencies — 10 of them volunteer departments — came to help, along with deputies and emergency management workers from two counties and state troopers.
Local churches sheltered the victims' families while the search was going on, and the local school district opened its gymnasium as a staging area for the emergency crews and brought in blankets, toiletries and other supplies for the rig crew.
It's the kind of collective response that the state's emergency workers have been honing since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said at a news conference.
"While we're never totally prepared, it is very humbling to say that once again, Oklahoma showed its true colors in coming together to handle this tragic event," Mullin said.
At the same time, Oklahoma and other oil-producing states have been criticized for years for their lax enforcement of safety and environmental standards.Enforcement questions
Critics say the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates the energy industry, was slow to react to swarms of earthquakes linked to oil-field wastewater disposal operations. The agency employs "compliance-based" enforcement that shuns fines against violators in favor of working with companies to get their operations back in line. It is governed by three elected officials who receive large portions of their campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.
The agency is also suffering from steep budget cuts. The Legislature slashed its general fund budget from $11 million in 2014 to $8 million in 2017 (Energywire, Aug. 17, 2017).
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the cause of the explosion, along with the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. OSHA, though, has been criticized for not writing tougher regulations for oil and gas operations, which has an accident rate about seven times higher than the U.S. average (Energywire, Jan. 12, 2015).
An incident report written by an OCC inspector said there was a "confirmed violation" of agency rules. OCC said the operator, Red Mountain Energy, had no record of prior spills or other incidents.
OCC is investigating under its authority to prevent pollution and its rules on the operation of blow preventers. OCC holds operators like Red Mountain responsible, not contractors like Patterson-UTI.
"This is an open investigation," said commission spokesman Matt Skinner.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has sent two people to look at whether the agency should pursue a full investigation, said spokeswoman Hillary Cohen.
CSB, fashioned after the National Transportation Safety Board, is charged with investigating serious chemical incidents.
Patterson-UTI has a widely criticized safety record. Since 2008, when a U.S. Senate committee called the Houston company "one of the worst violators of workplace safety laws," at least 12 Patterson workers have been killed on the job (Energywire, Jan. 23).
Mullin, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said there are already enough regulations on the books, although he's open to holding hearings if the investigation turns up any gaps in oversight.
"We're always wanting to improve," he said.'It's what we do in small-town America'
Quinton, which is about 100 miles southeast of Tulsa and has a population of about 1,000, has seen its share of oil-field tragedy. In 2011, a truck hauling oil-field water struck a family that was riding in a horse-drawn wagon, according to local media reports. Last year, there was a fire at a producing well site about 3 miles from this week's explosion site, the McAlester News-Capital reported.
Residents said they've learned to live with the risks, saying the economic benefits are worth it.
"Our guys need the jobs," said Lisa Williams, who owns a furniture store in Quinton and lives on the road to the drilling site. "Even with all this tragedy, I still support the drilling."
And like small towns everywhere, people in Quinton took pride in pulling together after the accident.
"It's what we do in small-town America," said Stacey Henderson, the school superintendent. "When people need help, we answer the call."
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060071777
-
Experts Cite Risks for CPP Replacement Based on Untested Legal Theories
Jan 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Legal experts and supporters of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) say the Trump EPA's plan to repeal and replace the utility greenhouse gas rule with a narrower measure could encounter risks because it could rely on untested legal interpretations of the agency's Clean Air Act authority while also giving states unprecedented discretion under a federal standard.
These sources question the Trump administration's opposition to a federal appeals court issuing a merits ruling on the CPP, saying that ruling is likely to address many issues that are poised to arise in future suits over the Trump EPA's new rules, and that such a ruling could set clear guardrails for the agency going forward.
Speaking on a Jan. 23 American Bar Association (ABA) webinar on the CPP rollback and possible replacement, Megan Ceronsky, a former Obama White House adviser, said the legal arguments concerning the proposed repeal are similar to claims from the CPP challengers in West Virginia, et al. v. EPA. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument in that suit in September 2016 but has not issued a ruling.
She also noted that the record used to develop the CPP is not part of the Trump EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to replace the CPP under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. That means the record for any new rule might not include a factual inquiry of the regulatory framework, the source sector as it was identified, or the adequacy of the emissions reduction potential as EPA moves forward with what many expect to be a limited rule with GHG targets based on actions taken “inside the fence” of regulated plants.
“The thing I find most remarkable about the situation we are in right now is you have EPA and an administration opposed to a court deciding the exact arguments they are relying on for repealing this policy. That is a strange place to be and a strange way for the court to be operating, given considerations of judicial economy,” said Ceronsky, who is now executive director of the Boulder, CO-based Center for Applied Environmental Law & Policy, which is run by Harvard Law School. She noted that CPP-related litigation could take several rounds before EPA understands what a court will and will not accept -- similar to the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
CPP supporters have been urging the D.C. Circuit to issue a decision in the case, while EPA has been urging it to keep the suit in abeyance while it conducts its repeal and possible replacement, hoping to have a court grant its legal interpretations deference rather than rule on the Obama administration's legal findings.
One environmentalist says a court ruling could be informative even if the rule at issue is being repealed because the repeal is not final yet “and there is a duty to regulate this industry.”
If, for example, the court were to fault the Obama EPA's interpretation that it could set “beyond the fence” GHG targets, then that could bolster the Trump EPA's push to replace the rule with a narrower version.
The CPP is unique from other Obama-era rules the Trump EPA is seeking to repeal in that it largely has not taken effect, due to a February 2016 Supreme Court stay.
The D.C. Circuit has so far granted 60-day abeyance periods, which Ceronsky says shows “some of the tension the court is under” given that it has refused to grant an indefinite pause. She also cites “discomfort in the D.C. Circuit that they have not been able to resolve” the case “as it becomes more clear that the same legal questions are at issue in the proposed repeal and in the [ANPR]. . . . It will be fascinating to see how the court reacts” to EPA's ultimate rulemakings to replace and replace the CPP.
Current Litigation
It remains unclear what, if any, role the current litigation will have in future suits over a CPP repeal and possible replacement. Other sources suggest the court is likely to dismiss West Virginia without issuing a decision, given that EPA is working on the successor to the rule at issue. The court could also choose to remand the CPP to EPA or keep the case on hold until litigation is filed over the new rulemakings.
Another source notes that the 11 judges who heard the case might have been unable to reach a majority decision or else a ruling would likely have been issued long ago.
EPA proposed the CPP repeal in October and is accepting comment on it through April 26, though it previously planned to close the comment period earlier this month. EPA proposed the ANPR in December and is accepting comment on it through Feb. 26.
The extension of the repeal plan comment period suggests that the agency is slowing that action and could align it with a replacement rule, says Bob Sussman, a former top EPA policy official in the Obama and Clinton administrations, in a Jan. 19 interview with Inside EPA.
Sussman also does not expect the court to issue a ruling in West Virginia, noting, “At this stage, the court has dug a hole for themselves, and if they were going to step in and say enough, and decide the legality of the original CPP, they would have done that several months ago. And now EPA's position has actually improved because they have a proposed repeal in the rulemaking process, they have the ANPR on replacement and they can say to the court they're doing something. I think it's pretty hard for the court to say, 'Whoa, we're going to step in and deny any further [abeyance] requests.'”
However, Sussman also noted that it is “interesting” that EPA is “accelerating replacement and slowing the repeal, and the idea seems to be to have them both come together” as final actions “toward the end of the year.”
He also believes EPA might not have too much trouble issuing a narrow, inside-the-fence replacement, should it opt to do so, because the ANPR was “pretty detailed.”
Nevertheless, he also said the ANPR raises “what I would call a number of push-the-envelope-type issues” defining the scope of EPA authority over states. Such questions include whether a rule should include a “binding” federal emissions rate, whether the guidelines should be uniform across the country, and how much flexibility EPA should give states in determining requirements for individual power plants. However, the agency could also face industry pushback over too much flexibility because it wants regulatory certainty and does not want to face the possibility of 50 different state standards.
“So that's why I say they would be in uncharted waters and need to do some hard thinking about how to frame the approach and justify it,” Sussman said.
These are policy issues in the ANPR “on the far edge of 111(d) and if the agency decides to take those issues on in a serious way, I think they're going to be doing some path-breaking stuff. Maybe they can do that quickly, but I think it's pretty tricky and I guess if they're going to go there, they're going to take on a lot of controversy” particularly because EPA would set up battles between states that want authority to impose stringent GHG standards and those that want limited or no requirements.
He added: “Whereas I think if they just do a straight inside-the-fenceline rule based on heat rate improvements, it's not going to be that heavy of a lift.”
Sussman also said that the D.C. Circuit could consider both the repeal and replacement at the same time if the measures are roughly aligned. Additionally, EPA might drop the repeal proposal altogether and move forward only with a replacement, an approach an industry source also agreed is an option.
He was unclear on how important the Obama CPP record would be in a legal fight over a Trump CPP replacement. However, some environmentalists have said they would push to include both the rulemaking and litigation record in any subsequent legal challenges over repeal and replacement rules.
In the repeal proposal, Sussman noted, EPA does not say the Obama EPA's interpretation that it can impose “beyond-the-fence” targets is impermissible. Instead, it says EPA now reads the statute differently to limit its rules to “inside-the-fence” improvements.
“There is some risk a court would say the statute is ambiguous” and fault the Trump EPA for its narrow approach in light of the “compelling imperative of global warming. That may be . . . a real issue, and I don't know in the repeal [proposal] that they necessarily position themselves to argue the statute in no way can support any other interpretation.”
Proper State 'Balance'
During the ABA event, Carolyn Slaughter, director of environmental policy for the American Public Power Association (APPA), discussed some of the same issues in the ANPR that Sussman raised, including that EPA could seek to address the “appropriate scope and proper balance between state and federal rules” in the power plant GHG rule, and whether EPA's role should be limited to developing procedures and requirements to guide states, or whether it should set the performance standards for each affected power plant.
Also, EPA must decide how much it wants to weigh in on how states account for the remaining useful life of a facility and how it considers costs and other factors.
The ANPR also identifies two possible approaches for setting unit-specific performance standards, including selecting from a menu of potential heat rate improvements that EPA would identify in guidelines, or whether to set a standard based on a facility's best one-year historical emissions level for limiting GHGs.
The industry source says the relationship between states and EPA will be a “critical part” of any replacement rule, including deciding how much states can deviate from an EPA backstop, and that could have implications for any other GHG rule for existing sources going forward.
However an environmentalist downplays the issues teed up by the ANPR, suggesting the document was only floated to show the court that EPA is doing something when it can “just sit on it theoretically” because “if they never propose a replacement there is no deadline. It is their way to drag their feet.”
During the webinar, Slaughter warned that finalizing repeal and replacement this year will be difficult. “If I had my druthers, they would be working on the proposed [replacement] now. Industry is looking for certainty.”
Also on the webinar, Ethan Shenkman, an Obama-era deputy general counsel now with Arnold & Porter, said it is “fairly apparent this administration is interested in getting a number of significant rulemakings out within the next year and a half” in a bid to have legal challenges over them decided before the next presidential election.
“If there is a change in administration, we may see a repeat of what we've seen in 2017, with [the Department of Justice] seeking abeyances and [executive orders] to review and reconsider the prior administration’s rulemakings. There is only a finite window of time to both get a major rulemaking out and have it fully defended and decided in court before the next presidential election.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/experts-cite-risks-cpp-replacement-based-untested-legal-theories
-
California to Sue Trump Over Fracking Rule Repeal
Jan 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
California’s attorney general is suing the Trump administration to challenge its repeal of a rule that set standards for hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas on federal land.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), a frequent litigant against Trump, announced the lawsuit Wednesday, saying the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management violated the law when it repealed the rule last month.
“They didn’t follow the law. They didn’t let the law or the facts get in their way in their zeal to repeal what was a commonsense measure. And so California was left with no choice but to take them to court,” Becerra told reporters.
Becerra accused the BLM of violating both the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act with its repeal.
“They did nothing at BLM to undo the rule with any justification or factual basis, contrary to the way the rule was first issued. And so I think there is plenty of reason to doubt that the fracking repeal engaged in by the Trump administration will withstand scrutiny in court.”
Becerra plans to formally file the lawsuit later Wednesday.
The 2015 rule from the Obama administration set numerous standards for fracking on federal land, mainly in requiring companies to disclose the chemicals they use, standards for well casings and covering fracking fluid waste that’s stored outdoors.
The rule was quickly criticized by Republicans and the oil and gas industry as unnecessarily burdensome and costly.
A federal judge halted the rule in 2015, and overturned it in 2016, saying the BLM did not have congressional authority to regulate fracking. An appeals court overturned his decision in 2017.
The Trump administration and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke targeted the fracking rule as part of its “Energy Dominance” agenda, saying it stood as a hurdle to domestic fossil fuel production.
“This final rule is needed to prevent the unnecessarily burdensome and unjustified administrative requirements and compliance costs of the 2015 rule from encumbering oil and gas development on federal and Indian lands,” the BLM said in its December notice of the repeal.
Becerra has filed numerous lawsuits against Trump administration actions to roll back or delay environmental rules, like those on ozone pollution, energy efficiency standards and methane pollution limits, usually in concert with a handful of other Democratic attorneys general around the country.
He has been successful at each turn.
But the lawsuit announced Wednesday is the first one Becerra has filed against a finalized environmental regulatory rollback, so it may be a harder case for him to make.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/370494-california-to-sue-trump-over-fracking-rule-repeal
-
Dems — Eyeing Gavels — Want to See Pruitt a Lot More
Jan 24, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender and Josh Kurtz
Senate Democrats have big plans for Scott Pruitt if they clinch control of the chamber this fall.
The U.S. EPA boss is slated to appear next week before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, marking his first visit there since his confirmation hearing. Congressional Democrats have griped that the Republican majorities in both chambers have been lagging on EPA oversight, and Senate Democrats say Pruitt can expect to spend much more time on Capitol Hill next year if they're holding the gavels — talking about everything from climate change to EPA's workforce.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member of the EPW panel, which oversees EPA, said he'd like to see Pruitt "a lot more than this last year." Carper added, "He's a big traveler, and we hope he'll be happy to stay at home a little more often, come and talk to us."
The November midterm elections are still an eternity from now in politics, but Democrats on Capitol Hill are hopeful they'll take control of one or both chambers of Congress, giving them subpoena power and control over votes and hearing schedules.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) jokingly chided a reporter yesterday when asked about his strategy if the Democrats retake the majority. "What is this 'if' thing?" he asked. Cardin, the No. 2 Democrat on the EPW Committee, has heaps of questions he'd like to ask Pruitt if his party sets the schedule, with oversight of EPA science topping the list.
"I would like to throw 50 things at him at one time," Cardin said. "But I think clearly the fact of science would be top of my list."
He added, "The foundation of science is critically important to protecting our environment and disseminating the issues involving the Environmental Protection Agency. So I think that would be the first thing, to restore strict oversight on how decisions are being made based upon the facts."
Carper, one of Pruitt's most outspoken critics, said he wants to bring the EPA boss in to ask him about perceived contradictions. "These are the things that you say you want to do, that EPA wants to do, ought to do; why are you doing the opposite?" he said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to grill Pruitt on climate change. "The fundamental issue is that we have an administrator for the EPA who does not believe in environmental protection," Sanders said yesterday. "And at a time when, among other things, climate change is causing devastating problems in our country and around the world, we need an environmental leader who cares about the environment, so we're going to have to start from scratch on that."
Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, both members of the EPW panel, want to probe Pruitt's efforts to trim the agency's workforce.
"I'd like to shine a light on all that's going on to eviscerate the EPA from the inside," said Merkley. "Americans value their clean air and clean water, and the regulatory framework for protecting that is being undone step by step — plus there's an enormous loss of human capital inside the EPA."
Van Hollen echoed those remarks. "The big issue with Scott Pruitt is his effort to dismantle all sorts of structures in place to protect the environment, including just the way he has decimated the ranks of the EPA," he said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wants more climate change hearings, too. He said in a recent interview that the first hearing he'd like to hold on the topic would be about how the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission influenced federal climate legislation.
"I do think that the mother issue on climate change is dark money," Whitehouse said. "Citizens United totally changed the conversation in Congress about climate change. Before January of 2010 when that decision came down, there were all sorts of bipartisan bills kicking around. And as soon as that bill came down, I think the fossil fuel industry expected it, they asked for it, they saw it coming, the Supreme Court delivered and they were ready at the starting gun. Since that moment, not one Republican senator has gotten onto one bill that seriously limits carbon dioxide emissions in any way."
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said yesterday, "When Democrats last controlled the Senate in 2014, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy appeared before the Senate EPW Committee zero times, which is a lofty bar." McCarthy testified that year before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, but EPW Republicans at the time accused that committee's Democratic leadership of lagging on EPA oversight.Lessons from Lisa Jackson?
If the Democrats win the majority in either chamber of Congress this fall, Pruitt isn't the only top Trump administration official who can expect to be spending a lot more time on Capitol Hill. The shift will likely resemble the changing power dynamic in Washington, D.C., after Republicans won control of the House in the 2010 elections. After Democrats controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress for the first two years of the Obama administration, agency heads were frequently asked to testify before the emboldened GOP House majority.
President Obama's then-EPA boss, Lisa Jackson, was a popular political target.
"She was asked to testify more frequently; the hearings were more combative," said Bob Sussman, who was a senior policy counsel to Jackson. There was also an uptick in requests for information and documents from members of Congress, he said.
Sussman said he thinks Pruitt can expect the same if Democrats take charge.
"Emotions tend to be pretty polarized about EPA, and there were certainly members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, who had a big ax to grind for a variety of different reasons, and I think that this time around, there's a lot of concern and discomfort with the direction that the agency is taking under Scott Pruitt," he said.
Republicans inside and outside of the administration say the makeup of Congress could lead to staff departures from the executive branch.
"I think if one of the chambers flips, you're likely to see more turnover than what you would see otherwise," an administration official said in a recent interview.
A former congressional Republican aide said, "I would be concerned that there's a strong possibility that we'll lose one of the chambers and that the Democrats will implement an aggressive oversight campaign that could put a lot of people in really awkward positions."Teeing up next week's hearing
Democrats on the panel will get a chance to grill Pruitt — at least on a limited basis — next week, and they've already advertised their playbook.
A handful of Democratic senators held a public meeting yesterday with former EPA staffers and the leader of a federal employee watchdog group, all of whom decried the agency's direction under Pruitt.
Specifically, the lawmakers and whistleblowers criticized what they characterized as Pruitt's aversion to science and also fretted that the agency's enforcement role has been drastically scaled back during the Trump administration.
"Fear is rampant among America's top climate scientists that the EPA has gone from watchdog to lapdog when it comes to enforcement," warned Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who convened the meeting in his role as chairman of the Senate Climate Action Task Force. He later suggested that EPA under Pruitt has turned into "Every Polluters' Ally."
Markey said yesterday's meeting with the former EPA leaders served as a warmup for Democratic senators to get ready for Pruitt's scheduled testimony Tuesday before the Environment and Public Works Committee.
The session featured testimony from three former top EPA officials who left the agency last year in part because of their aversion to Trump administration policies. They all talked about former colleagues they had left behind who are struggling with the direction of the agency.
"There has been a severe chilling effect from the top down that has hindered the agency from doing its basic job," said Michael Walker, who spent the last five of his 39 years at EPA as director of the National Enforcement Training Institute.
Walker added that while EPA officials can point to hundreds of environmental regulations on the books, those regulations are meaningless unless there is adequate enforcement and industry oversight.
"If you knew there was a highway between here and Blacksburg [Va.], and you knew that there was never any trooper on it, what would your behavior be?"
EPA pushed back yesterday on the notion that it has been lax on the enforcement front.
Asked to respond to the criticism at yesterday's Senate meeting, EPA provided a fact sheet that listed several high-dollar enforcement actions the agency has taken against corporate polluters under Pruitt.
The agency said that through the end of fiscal 2017, the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, in coordination with EPA, has imposed more than $1.72 billion in civil penalties, cost recovery, natural resource damages and other recouped funds; more than $2.91 billion in criminal fines, restitution and other assessments; and more than $3.13 billion in injunctive relief and environmental mitigation projects.
"The last administration crippled EPA's criminal enforcement program, as they cut 24 percent of the agents who pursued environmental violations," Henry Barnet, director of EPA's Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, said in a statement provided to E&E News. "Administrator Pruitt is highly supportive of our program, he took the unprecedented step of meeting with our criminal investigators and reaffirmed that we'd have the resources to carry out our mission."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/24/stories/1060071787
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested