Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/29
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Webinar Highlights Free Tools to Improve Plastics Recycling
Jan 29, 2018 | Waste Dive
By Cody Boteler
East Hartford, CT, saw the amount of plastic film material collected at a local Shop Rite double after implementing a Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP) — with a contamination rate of only 16%, according toAssistant Director of Public Works Marilynn Cruz-Aponte. -
GOP Senator Puts Hold on Trump Energy Nominee
Jan 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Republican Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.) is placing a hold on the nomination of a Trump appointee who would oversee the Department of Energy’s (DOE) environmental cleanup programs. -
Trump’s Top Environment Pick, a Fossil Fuels Evangelist, May Be in Trouble
Jan 29, 2018 | InsideClimate News
By Marianne Lavelle
Kathleen Hartnett White, the former Texas regulator who has extolled the social benefits of carbon dioxide and asserted that coal helped end slavery, faces a difficult road to Senate confirmation as top White House environmental adviser, according to lobbyists and Capitol Hill sources. -
The Freedom of Information Act and Mr. Trump’s EPA
Jan 29, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Michael P. Lemov
When the Freedom of Information Act was passed five decades ago, Congress did not see it as an environmental protection law. -
Scott Pruitt Needs to Answer for What He's Done to the EPA
Jan 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Mary Anne Hitt
A rare thing will happen Tuesday: Scott Pruitt will face questions from Congress about his time as head of the EPA — a year packed with scandals and assaults on bedrock clean air and water laws. -
In a First, Minneapolis Cuts out Dry-Cleaning Chemical
Jan 29, 2018 | Minneapolis Star Tribune (In E&E Greenwire)
By Adam Belz
Minneapolis has become the first major U.S. city to eliminate a toxic chemical used by dry cleaners. -
'Energy Dominance' a Likely Theme
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King and David Iaconangelo
When President Trump takes the podium in the House chamber tomorrow night, expect to hear him tout his administration's work to bolster U.S. fossil fuels businesses. -
Sierra Club Drops Opposition to Sabine Pass LNG Exports
Jan 29, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Sierra Club last week moved to voluntarily dismiss the fifth lawsuit it has filed in federal court since 2015 that attempted to contest approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from facilities in Louisiana, Maryland and Texas. -
N.C. Signals Support for Atlantic Coast Project
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Regulators in North Carolina granted permits for the Atlantic Coast pipeline on Friday, bringing Dominion Energy Inc.'s $5.1 billion, 600-mile natural gas pipeline closer to construction. -
Will Trump’s State of the Union Ignore This National Security Threat?
Jan 29, 2018 | Newsweek
By Christine Todd Whitman
In every State of the Union, presidents talk about threats to the homeland. President Donald Trump certainly will. -
(ACC Mentioned) Is Trump's Infrastructure Plan Already DOA?
Jan 29, 2018 | Politico
By Tanya Snyder
President Donald Trump is expected to stand before a joint session of Congress tomorrow night and use his State of the Union address to sell lawmakers on a plan to invest $200 billion in an infrastructure proposal he says would create $1.8 trillion by leveraging state, local and private funds. -
Ewire: White House Eyes Permitting Overhaul in Infrastructure Bill
Jan 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
The White House is pushing for major changes to environmental permitting requirements in its upcoming attempt to pass a major infrastructure bill, including scrapping a requirement that EPA comment on most agencies' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and changes to other environmental laws' permitting provisions. -
'Discussion Draft' Would Make Big Changes to NEPA
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The Trump administration wants to make major changes to permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act as part of its infrastructure plan, according to a draft White House document obtained by The Washington Post. -
D.C. Circuit Won't Revisit Decision Striking Down HFC Rule
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit won't reconsider a recent decision that struck down a key prong of the Obama administration's climate policy. -
Lawmakers to Announce 'Cap-And-Dividend' Bill Today
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Josh Kurtz
Democrats in the Senate and House plan to introduce "cap-and-dividend" legislation this week, a new entry into the limited debate on Capitol Hill about how to combat climate change. -
Trump Says Earth Is 'Too Cold' and Ice Is Expanding
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
President Trump expressed deep skepticism about mainstream climate science in his first international TV interview since taking office, making incorrect statements about global temperatures and Arctic sea ice. -
Records Show EPA Chief’s Role in Removing Climate Web Pages
Jan 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt was personally involved in the process to remove sections on climate change from the agency’s website, records obtained by a green group show.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Webinar Highlights Free Tools to Improve Plastics Recycling
Jan 29, 2018 | Waste Dive
By Cody Boteler
Dive Brief:
East Hartford, CT, saw the amount of plastic film material collected at a local Shop Rite double after implementing a Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP) — with a contamination rate of only 16%, according toAssistant Director of Public Works Marilynn Cruz-Aponte. She spoke during an EPA-hosted webinar which focused on improving the quality of plastics recycling, especially in light of China's import restrictions. The idea behind focusing on filmy plastics, like shopping bags, is that educating residents will remove the material from curbside bins, increasing bale yields of higher-value plastic and reducing contamination.
"Quality matters and we want to see how we can improve the quality of the plastics we collect for recycling," said Sarah Lindsay, public outreach manager for the plastics division of the American Chemistry Council. Lindsay's presentation during the webinar focused on two tools — a common set of terms and phrases, and WRAP.
The set of terms and phrases, from the Association of Plastics Recyclers, brings with it a "recycling outreach builder" to make communicating with residential and business customers easier. WRAP includes a "roadmap" to help communities, like East Hartford, improve recycling quality. Dive Insight:
The tools discussed in the webinar are available online for free, and customizable to an individual recycling program. Speakers highlighted successes that cities utilizing the tools had seen, including increased participation and decreased contamination. Similar programs, like those working with The Recycling Partnership, have shown some big successes, like a 32% contamination decrease in Chicago.
With cities and states around the country altering recycling programs because of China's scrap import policies, Lindsay and the other speakers during the webinar were correct: Quality matters. With some material outright banned and with a stringent 0.5% contamination standard for other import material, producing high-quality bales at MRFs is perhaps more important now than ever.
This is especially true because, despite recent efforts by government officials and industry organizations, it appears Chinese officials have no intention of delaying implementation the new policies. Already, it seems the industry is developing new markets in Southeast Asia. As there is some concern that other nations could follow in China's footsteps and implement their own strict standards, it continues to be critical to keep quality high and contamination low. The most effective recycling programs will be ones that combat contamination at all levels, from consumer education and collections all the way through sorting.
https://www.wastedive.com/news/epa-webinar-highlights-free-tools-to-improve-plastics-recycling/515593/
-
GOP Senator Puts Hold on Trump Energy Nominee
Jan 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Republican Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.) is placing a hold on the nomination of a Trump appointee who would oversee the Department of Energy’s (DOE) environmental cleanup programs.
Barrasso said during a confirmation hearing with the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources last Thursday that he was placing a hold on Anne White's nomination until the DOE committed to ending its process of re-selling excess government-owned uranium on the market. Barrasso said the process hurts his state's uranium mining industry.
The DOE frequently sells excess uranium it owns in order to finance cleanup operations and decommission nuclear sites.
"You were unable to give me a firm commitment to immediately halt these barters, something that (DOE Secretary Rick) Perry has told me he wants to do. So for this reason, I am unable to support a confirmation at this time and withhold the confirmation until the department ends its practice of bartering excess uranium,” Barrasso told White during the hearing.
“I think it’s preserving good-paying uranium jobs and uranium security in America."
The hold could keep the nomination from proceeding to a vote. The Energy Committee is slated to vote on White's nomination Tuesday.
The DOE did not return requests for comment.
Barrasso was the only Republican to speak out against White. According to a Democratic staffer on the Energy Committee, White is considered a "non-controversial" Trump nomination. According to the staffer, the only Democrat expected to vote against White is Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Other Trump nominees may also be facing setbacks at the same hearing Tuesday.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said earlier this month that he is placing holds on three pending Interior Department nominees following Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's announcement that he may lease offshore drilling sites for oil and gas off the coast of Florida. Nelson said he won't release those holds until Zinke rescinds the draft five-year drilling plan published in the Federal Register on Jan. 8.
Those votes are also schedule for Tuesday.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/371196-gop-senator-puts-hold-on-trump-energy-nominee-who-dems-support
-
Trump’s Top Environment Pick, a Fossil Fuels Evangelist, May Be in Trouble
Jan 29, 2018 | InsideClimate News
By Marianne Lavelle
Kathleen Hartnett White, the former Texas regulator who has extolled the social benefits of carbon dioxide and asserted that coal helped end slavery, faces a difficult road to Senate confirmation as top White House environmental adviser, according to lobbyists and Capitol Hill sources.
They say that White, still awaiting a committee vote that has yet to be scheduled, is the most endangered of President Donald Trump's environmental nominees. Her embattled bid to chair the Council on Environmental Quality underscores larger problems for the White House in filling key roles throughout the federal government.
Although Trump already lags behind his three immediate predecessors both in making nominations and having them confirmed, he assured himself further fights by doubling down on 75 controversial nominees that the Senate returned to the White House for reconsideration before the December recess.
Trump sent the names, including White's, right back to the Senate, where he now has one fewer Republican vote to count on, since the election of Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama. If Democrats stick together, it would only take two GOP defections to sink any nominee. Environmental groups are working on swaying at least a half-dozen Republican senators who may be wavering due to White's past stances on issues important in their home states—including ethanol, renewable energy and radiation contamination in water.
The League of Conservation Voters says it has volunteers working in three key states to encourage constituents to urge their senators to oppose White's nomination: Maine, Montana and Nevada. LCV's Latino organizing affiliate, Chispa, also has been speaking out against White in Arizona. "Kathleen Hartnett White is laughably unqualified," said Sara Jordan, LCV's legislative representative. "She's an anti-science zealot with a long record of distorting science, spouting conspiracy theories and denying serious pollution problems in Texas."
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who has the strongest environmental voting record among Senate Republicans, was the only GOP senator who voted against confirmation of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and against the sole assistant administrator approved so far: William Wehrum, a former fossil fuel and chemical industry lawyer who now runs the agency's air office. Collins office did not respond to queries from InsideClimate News on her stance on White. Collins told E&E Daily earlier this month that she had "seen some excerpts" from White's confirmation hearing but had not yet seen the whole thing. "So I don't know whether they were in context or whether they represent how the hearing went in general," Collins said.
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said: "In the 17 years I have been in the Senate, I have never sat through a hearing as excruciating as Ms. White's."White's View of CO2: 'The Gas of Life'
White, a senior fellow at the Austin-based Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative and fossil fuel industry-funded think tank, faced a fusillade of questions about her comments over the years that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but "the gas of life"; that the human contribution to climate change is "very uncertain; and that ozone, or smog, isn't harmful unless "you put your mouth over the tailpipe of a car for eight hours every day." Senators entered into the record her essay on "the moral case for fossil fuels" and a 2014 blog post in which she theorized that "fossil fuels dissolved the economic justification for slavery."
But the most memorable exchange of the hearing was her halting parry of a series of ocean science questions lobbed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). She said she didn't know about ocean absorption of heat or carbon or even whether the law of thermodynamics applied to seawater (starting at 4:50 in the video below and at 9:40). "I do not have any kind of expertise or even much layman study of the ocean dynamics and climate change issues," she said.
In the wake of the hearing, TPPF Executive Vice President Kevin Roberts wrote an op-ed on her behalf, noting that pollution levels in Texas declined during her tenure as chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "Kathleen is an effective regulator," he wrote in The Hill. "And that's what is called for in this appointment—not a scientist."
But locally important environmental issues will be more important than climate change in deciding White's fate, said lobbyists and Congressional staffers, who asked not to be named as the politically sensitive arm-twisting continues.
One of Trump's environmental nominees already has been felled by this kind of issue. Michael Dourson, a toxicologist with close ties to the chemical industry, Trump's choice to lead EPA's chemical safety office, withdrew his nomination after North Carolina's two Republican senators voiced opposition, noting their concerns about water contamination in their state.Drinking Water Contamination and Ethanol
In Montana and Arizona, two states that have grappled with radioactive contamination in drinking water, environmentalists are raising the issue of White's actions as a Texas regulator to lower statistical data on alpha radiation in drinking water to protect utilities from EPA scrutiny.
In states with large renewable energy industries, like Nevada and Arizona, White's opponents are focusing on her history of strong statements against solar and wind power, which she has called a "false hope."
And it's unclear whether farm-state senators are satisfied with White's attempted about-face on ethanol; she said she would support the president in his support of the Renewable Fuels Standard she once decried. Under questioning from Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), White declined to commit to keeping the RFS in place through at least 2022. Fischer said she was concerned about White's "extremist views," although she did vote to advance her nomination to the floor in November—a vote the committee will now have to reprise.
Trump's other environmental nominees, even though they are opposed by Democrats, have done better than White in avoiding the political hot-button issues that would erode support in the majority party.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Jan. 18 to advance the nomination of Jeffrey Bossert Clark to head the Justice Department's Environmental and Natural Resources Division, and he awaits a vote by the full Senate.
Clark is an industry lawyer who has challenged the federal government's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and was part of the legal team that represented BP in lawsuits stemming from the nation's worst oil spill. He also was part of the legal team that successfully defended Exxon and other oil companies in a 2012 climate damages lawsuit brought by the Alaskan town of Kivalina, which is threatened by sea level rise.Approval May Be Easier for Coal Lobbyist Wheeler
Andrew Wheeler, Trump's appointee to serve as deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, seems at first glance to be in a position similar to White's—awaiting a second vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee after his nomination's quick round-trip back to the White House early this month.
But Wheeler, who served as a personal staffer for two years and committee staffer for 12 years under Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), including as the Environment and Public Works Committee's chief counsel, is well known by the senators, and lobbyists and committee staff expect that he will have an easier time gaining approval. Carper, even though he voted against the coal industry lobbyist in November, added: "He may have demonstrated a more transparent and straightforward approach to engaging with members of the committee than any other Trump administration EPA nominee thus far. Some would say that's a low bar, but that's a fact."
Inhofe was effusive in praise for his former staffer, whom he said he knew "better than anyone except maybe his mother." Inhofe credited Wheeler for bipartisan legislative accomplishments during his tenure as committee chairman, including the energy bills of 2005 and 2007, which increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards and promoted use of ethanol and energy efficiency.
"A well-qualified, experienced, and dedicated public servant," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the committee chairman, said of Wheeler. Barrasso's support for White was notably muted in contrast: "If confirmed, Ms. White will bring her extensive experience to the job of CEQ," Barrasso said. Inhofe noted on White: "We have people out there that are singing her praises." As for himself, Inhofe said, "I don't know Kathleen White as well, obviously, as I do Andrew Wheeler."Trump's Filling Posts at a Glacial Pace
The controversy over White has further slowed already glacial progress in filling key posts throughout the administration, particularly in environmental slots. Trump has confirmed appointees in only five of the 13 executive posts at the EPA; for seven of the positions, there are no nominees. At the Interior Department, the White House still has not chosen nominees for seven positions, including such high-profile posts as the head of the National Parks Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. At the State Department, there is no nominee for undersecretary for economic growth, energy and environment.
As chair of the CEQ, White would be at the nexus of all federal interagency discussion on energy and environment issues. Carper said the importance of the post "cannot be overstated." "You're kind of like the orchestra leader—not playing an instrument but making sure everyone is playing from the same music and in harmony," he said.
But for now, the Trump administration's environmental ensemble is playing with no one at the podium, and many empty seats in the band.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29012018/kathleen-hartnett-white-climate-denial-nomination-trump-ceq-trouble
-
The Freedom of Information Act and Mr. Trump’s EPA
Jan 29, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Michael P. Lemov
When the Freedom of Information Act was passed five decades ago, Congress did not see it as an environmental protection law. But the present frenzy of the Trump administration’s efforts to slash federal regulations, primarily those designed to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink and to eliminate the toxic chemicals that can kill us, may well open a new chapter for the 51 year old FOIA. It may, in fact, have already become a crucial environmental protection weapon.
Under direct orders from the president, shadowy task forces have been established by the Office of Management and Budget to formulate plans to halt or undo actions by most federal agencies.
A leading target is the Environmental Protection Agency. Under President Obama, the EPA issued key rules, such as the Clean Power rule and the Waters of the United States rule, designed to reduce major human health threats from the environment: primarily excess carbon dioxide in the air and impure run off of toxic chemicals into rivers and streams. These two rules have been under intense attack by the regulated industries, such as coal, oil and real estate development, which would like less government oversight of their operations. The Trump administration would like to assist them through elimination or reduction of these and other rules.
Based on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act the EPA/OMB deregulation task force, whose membership remains secret, is probably made up primarily of representatives of the fossil fuel and energy industries and of land developers that have in the past, expressed forceful opposition to the air and waters rules. It remains unknown whether any public representatives or independent experts are included in the membership. This is despite continuing efforts by environmental and citizen organizations as well as some states, both before the agency and in the courts, to obtain disclosure of the members.
The prime weapon of the press and public groups is the fifty-one year old Freedom of Information Act. It was passed by a legislative coalition of Democrats and Republicans over the fierce opposition of four presidents, of both political parties. Those chief executives argued that an opening up government records would invade the powers of the president, impair the operation of the executive branch and, surprisingly, aid the Russians (then known as the “Communist Threat”).
FOIA arose out of the “McCarthy era” and the Cold War, a time filled with fear of Russia and Communism and marked by government abuses and mandated secrecy.
It took 12 years of intense struggle to enact the open government law. The fight was led by a young California congressman named John E. Moss, who had been tarred as a “red” himself as a as a candidate for Congress.
FOIA was one of the first laws worldwide to attempt to force transparency on reluctant chief executives. Today that includes the secretive President Trump and his EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” the great American jurist and Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis once said. Moss spent much of his congressional career and fought presidents of his own party, to prove that was right. Lyndon Johnson reluctantly signed “the f…ing thing” into law on July 4 1966.
Many nations have followed the U.S. lead. FOIA has been a means of building democracy (including in former communist bloc countries), limiting corruption and giving power to ordinary citizens. As of today 110 nations around the world have adopted laws based on FOIA, as have most American states. Only Sweden and Finland preceded the U.S. in passing such a law.
The key to FOIA’s appeal is that it provides that “any person” may upon a simple written request (subject to some exceptions) ask for “any agency record”, be it a task force memorandum or White House guest list. The courts can order production of the documents. There are severe penalties for agencies refusing to produce them.
FOIA was a reaction to excessive government secrecy in another time. But history does tend to repeat itself. Can FOIA be used to block a reckless anti-regulatory administration and support the gains already made in environmental protection? There are many efforts under way as well as some notable successes that suggest it can.
In August of this year, the Attorney General of California, Xavier Beccerra, sued the EPA under FOIA for failing to provide agency records. California argued that the EPA records would establish that Scott Pruitt, the administrator who had previously sued EPA repeatedly as a state official, has existing conflicts of interest which would prejudice his objectivity and participation in the administrative processes in cases like the attempted Trump clean air rule repeal and the proposed clean waters revision. Such conflicts could affect Pruitt’s ability to render a fair decision on repeal or revision of the Clean Power, Clean Waters and similar deregulation rules.
Simultaneously, a public interest group called Democracy Forward, filed suit under FOIA over the secrecy of the administration’s appointees to all its so called regulatory reform task force panels. The case is still pending in federal court.
Another citizens group sued using FOIA to obtain information on EPA’s encrypted monitoring of its employee’s mail. The contractor has now withdrawn after a lawsuit by the consumer group, Public Citizen, charging the contract was placed with a political ally of the Trump administration and was not awarded by required competitive bidding.
Reporters have used FOIA to uncover a long relationship between Scott Pruitt and Devon Energy Company which wrote letters to the agency which Pruitt dutifully signed. FOIA was also used to uncover Pruitt’s meetings with the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association industry, just prior to the issuance of a proposed rule limiting the clean air rule.
Will these efforts using the Freedom of Information Act slow or reverse the Trump administration’s push to undo environmental protections laboriously erected over past decades?
The challenges are not yet fully decided. FOIA is probably only part of the answer. But FOIA leads ultimately to more information to the public; to the sunlight of democracy. The public will at minimum learn more about the close economic ties of the regulated industries and the Trump administration.
And there is a reckoning coming… as early as November 2018.
Michael R. Lemov was counsel to the House Commerce and Banking Committees. He is the author of People’s Warrior: John Moss and the Fight for Freedom of Information and Consumer Rights (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2011) and Car Safety Wars, 100 years of Technology, Politics and Death (Id. 2014).
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/371161-the-freedom-of-information-act-and-mr-trumps-epa
-
Scott Pruitt Needs to Answer for What He's Done to the EPA
Jan 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Mary Anne Hitt
A rare thing will happen Tuesday: Scott Pruitt will face questions from Congress about his time as head of the EPA — a year packed with scandals and assaults on bedrock clean air and water laws. We’re watching closely to see whether he answers those questions, or whether Congress will settle for another round of Pruitt’s platitudes.
Despite being the driving force behind the Trump administration’s relentless attacks on our environment and our communities, Pruitt is clearly petrified of criticism.
He’s wasted thousands in taxpayer dollars on a soundproof phone booth, he’s kept his schedule out of public view, and newly-revealed emails show his staff works overtime to keep him from answering questions from reporters and the public.
He’s also dodged those who are most responsible for holding him accountable, having testified just once before Congress since getting confirmed.
That testimony was a frustrating experience for most. That’s because, when confronted by questions about his record, Pruitt reliably responds with platitudes and meaningless catchphrases, using buzzwords to obscure the reality that he is allowing polluters to dump their toxics anywhere they please impunity.
Linguistic gymnastics are nothing new for politicians, but Pruitt’s sojourns into the English language are so opaque and contradictory at times that even the most seasoned Washington observers leave scratching their heads. The American people deserve better. Lawmakers can’t let him slither away without uttering a meaningful thing. But, one way or the other, we’re here to help with this simple guide to translate some of Pruitt’s favorite platitudes.
Perhaps Pruitt’s favorite catchphrase is “back to basics.” It’s a term he throws out to justify his moves to gut every public health safeguard he touches. It’s his way of pretending he has a philosophy other than doing whatever he can to help fossil fuel polluters.
Pruitt’s moves to gut the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act don’t send us “back to basics” — they send us “back to the 19th century.” Pruitt’s moves roll back decades of environmental progress and attack laws that were established because our rivers were catching on fire and our cities were contaminated by filthy air.
Another classic Pruitt platitude is “cooperative federalism.” Think of this as “cooperating with corporate polluters.” This is Pruitt’s excuse that asserts he can gut federal pollution safeguards because states will step in and pass their own rules.
It’s not that simple, as pollution crosses state boundaries and polluters would face wildly varying standards in each state. Pruitt and the polluters pushing this phrase know that.
Furthermore, we can’t trust Pruitt’s words when the budget he backs slashes funding for states to enforce environmental laws and zeroes out money to cleaning up places like the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay.
Plus, he touts his support for states having the right to set their own policies, but then pressures California to lower its statewide fuel economy standards. Pruitt seems to lean heavily on this buzzword, but he then criticizes and threatens states that show real leadership.
Indeed, if Pruitt truly respected federalism and followed the “rule of law” — another old Pruitt stand-by — he’d be acting to tackle climate change. The Supreme Court has ruled three times that the EPA must act to cut carbon pollution to protect our families and communities. Therefore, according to the rule of law, EPA must act. But Pruitt, of course, doesn’t mean what he says.
He won’t even acknowledge the reality of climate change and even halted the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants.
The list of double talk terms goes on and on. Who knew that “regulatory certainty” would be preached by an EPA administrator who throws out regulations already on the books?
Who knew that a man who says “process matters” over and over again would be sued so many times for trying to delay and obstruct life-saving safeguards?
The overriding assumption is that words don’t mean much to Pruitt, and he is inevitably going to do whatever polluting industries ask for and then make up some platitude to justify it.
Pruitt likes to say “the future ain’t what it used to be.” We’ll give him that one. Under his destructive watch at the EPA, our air and water will get dirtier, our communities will get sicker, and our climate will be threatened more than was projected just 14 months ago, before his tenure began. And, with all these Pruitt platitudes obscuring the facts, one thing is certain — his words can't be trusted.
Mary Anne Hitt is the director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/371147-scott-pruitt-needs-to-answer-for-what-hes-done-to-the-epa
-
In a First, Minneapolis Cuts out Dry-Cleaning Chemical
Jan 29, 2018 | Minneapolis Star Tribune (In E&E Greenwire)
By Adam Belz
Minneapolis has become the first major U.S. city to eliminate a toxic chemical used by dry cleaners.
The push to phase out perchloroethylene started six years ago. Last year, the city convinced four dry cleaners to use a safer hydrocarbon solvent instead.
Perchloroethylene, classified as a "likely carcinogen" by U.S. EPA, can remove grease-related stains from clothing.
"Perc is a nasty carcinogen that causes damage to your liver and kidneys and our children in the city of Minneapolis, and Minneapolis is now the first city in the country to go entirely perc-free, and that's something to celebrate," Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said.
Arif Osman runs the last dry cleaner to make the switch, Osman Cleaners.
"We didn't mean to hold the title of the last cleaner to use 'perc,' but due to the financial difficulties, it just so happened that it worked out this way," Osman said.
Osman got money from the city, its pollution control agency and other groups to replace his dry-cleaning machines (Adam Belz, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 28). — CS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/29/stories/1060072215
-
'Energy Dominance' a Likely Theme
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King and David Iaconangelo
When President Trump takes the podium in the House chamber tomorrow night, expect to hear him tout his administration's work to bolster U.S. fossil fuels businesses.
"The president is a bit of an unpredictable guy," said Samantha Gross, a fellow in the Brookings Institution's energy and climate initiative. "Given that, I would expect 'energy dominance' to be an important area."
Trump is likely to highlight the deregulatory agenda his administration has designed to achieve that dominance, Gross said (Energywire, Oct. 24, 2017).
The U.S. energy industry is headed for an upswing, but that has more to do with the discipline that a period of low oil prices has instilled in companies and less to do with the president's policies, Gross said.
"But public knowledge of the energy industry is not very extensive," she said. "If he takes credit for the health of the industry, people may buy it."
References to "energy dominance" won't play well with every audience member, though.
Climate change communications group Climate Nexus offered sardonic definitions of "energy dominance," the first being "an unnecessary, vigorous assertion of authoritarianism in the field of usable power."
Since the oil embargoes of the 1970s, presidents have slipped glossy mentions of national aspirations to "energy independence" into their addresses, said Stephen Munro, U.S. policy analyst and editor at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Trump's preferred phrase — "energy dominance" — is "what you get when you run 'energy independence' through Trump's hyperbole meter," Munro said.
The president is also likely to extol "America-first" policies that have put the nation on a course toward becoming a net energy exporter, said Peter Shulman, associate professor at Case Western Reserve University.
Trump is less likely to mention Puerto Rico — one of the major energy stories of the past year, but not one that casts the president in a positive light, Shulman said.
Any references to the storm-ravaged island will likely focus on grid restoration efforts, he said.Offshore drilling, infrastructure
Administration officials last week began to drop hints about what Trump might say in his speech.
In interviews during a National Shooting Sports Foundation convention in Las Vegas, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke repeated his wish to address the National Park Service's massive maintenance backlog (E&E News PM, Jan. 26).
"Stand by in the State of the Union: We're going to rebuild our parks," he said Friday. "Here it comes."
Zinke has often suggested expanding offshore drilling in U.S. waters as a solution to addressing the parks backlog. Earlier this month, his department floated a plan to open up more than 90 percent of the outer continental shelf to potential development. Zinke quickly excused Florida from the program and is now fielding backlash from leaders in most other coastal states who want their own exemptions.
If he mentions the offshore plan, Trump is likely to highlight it as a promise kept, said Kevin Book, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners LLC.
"That's very consistent with promises made in the campaign and likely to be cited as promises delivered," he said.
As for promises the administration has yet to fulfill, Trump could highlight infrastructure, Book said.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America will be listening for details on that front, said spokesman Neal Kirby.
"Energy infrastructure plays an important role in helping our member companies get their products safely and efficiently to new markets," he said.
Trump's speech and the Democratic rebuttal from Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy constitute "the least predictable State of the Union in a while," said Bob Perciasepe, an Obama-era U.S. EPA official and current president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
Trump might stick to championing high-profile steps to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and deregulate industry, while Kennedy could cast those actions as a failure to take up global leadership.
"You've only got a couple of minutes to hold everyone's attention," Perciasepe said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/29/stories/1060072183
-
Sierra Club Drops Opposition to Sabine Pass LNG Exports
Jan 29, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Sierra Club last week moved to voluntarily dismiss the fifth lawsuit it has filed in federal court since 2015 that attempted to contest approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from facilities in Louisiana, Maryland and Texas.
The environmental group last Wednesday asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to dismiss its petition to review the March 2016 order by the Department of Energy (DOE) authorizing LNG exports via Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Cameron Parish, LA. The Sierra Club had also petitioned the court to review a DOE order denying a request for a rehearing over the matter (Sierra Club v. DOE, No. 16-1426). Oral arguments in the case were scheduled for Feb. 12
The move to dismiss follows the court's rejection last year of four similar Sierra Club lawsuits. Last August, the court dismissed a lawsuit filed in December 2015 challenging DOE's authorization of exports from the Freeport LNG terminal on Quintana Island, TX. The courtalso dismissed three lawsuits filed in June and July of 2016 to thwart exports from Sabine Pass; the Dominion Cove Point LNG LP terminal near Lusby, MD; and Cheniere's Corpus Christi Liquefaction LLC project, which isunder construction.
"The issues in this particular case were very similar to the ones that the court decided in November," Sierra Club attorney Nathan Matthews told NGI on Friday. The four cases, all titled Sierra Club v. DOE, were against Freeport, in case No. 15-1489; Cove Point, No. 16-1186; Sabine, No. 16-1252; and Corpus Christi, No. 16-1253.
The Sierra Club had argued that DOE failed to meet its obligations under the Natural Gas Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Specifically, the group said DOE had not sufficiently examined the indirect effects of approving LNG exports, the impacts of increased domestic natural gas production, or the cumulative environmental effects of other export projects.
Matthews said the Sierra Club remains opposed to the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal at Coos Bay, OR, overseen by Calgary-based Veresen Inc.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113192-sierra-club-drops-opposition-to-sabine-pass-lng-exports
-
N.C. Signals Support for Atlantic Coast Project
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Regulators in North Carolina granted permits for the Atlantic Coast pipeline on Friday, bringing Dominion Energy Inc.'s $5.1 billion, 600-mile natural gas pipeline closer to construction.
North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality issued a state water quality certification for the project, a so-called Section 401 permit that represents one of a state's few gatekeeping opportunities in interstate pipeline permitting.
The permit is the first major approval in North Carolina and came after extended back-and-forth with Dominion over aspects of the company's plans.
The Atlantic Coast pipeline is slated to start in West Virginia, pass through Virginia and end in North Carolina. There is widespread speculation, backed by some company comments, that it could ultimately extend farther to deliver gas to South Carolina as well.
The project has been controversial in the Tar Heel State, and DEQ officials noted that they went back to Dominion five times for clarifications or further information about the project.
"DEQ left no stone unturned in our exhaustive eight-month review of every aspect of the 401 application," said DEQ Secretary Michael Regan in a statement. "Our job doesn't end with the granting of the permit but continues as we hold the company accountable to live up to its commitments. Our efforts have resulted in a carefully crafted permit that includes increased environmental protections, while giving us the tools we need to continue close oversight of this project as it moves forward."
Also Friday, West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection approved the project's erosion and sediment control permit. The state had already signaled that it strongly supported the Atlantic Coast pipeline project, having waived its right to issue a Section 401 certification (Energywire, Dec. 7, 2017).
In Virginia the project's status is less clear. In December, the State Water Control Board stood poised to approve the project's Section 401 certification after granting approval to the Mountain Valley pipeline, a largely parallel natural gas pipeline that has proceeded through regulatory obstacles alongside Dominion's project. But the board unexpectedly voted to approve the project after certain studies have been completed to their satisfaction, leaving it up in the air whether they would weigh in on the project again (Energywire, Dec. 13, 2017).
Since then, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine (D) has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to look again at its decision to approve the pipeline, raising further questions about the level of political support the project enjoys.
On Friday, Dominion welcomed the news of the West Virginia and North Carolina approvals. "Once we receive a few remaining approvals from other state and federal agencies, we'll take the final step of requesting a notice to proceed with full construction from FERC. We expect to receive these remaining approvals in time to begin full construction activity by the early spring," the company said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/29/stories/1060072195
-
Will Trump’s State of the Union Ignore This National Security Threat?
Jan 29, 2018 | Newsweek
By Christine Todd Whitman
In every State of the Union, presidents talk about threats to the homeland. President Donald Trump certainly will. When he does, I hope he includes the threat that has been hanging over our heads for more than 15 years: deliberate or accidental releases of toxic chemicals that put nearly 180 million Americans is harm’s way every day.
Since shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, I have been advocating for tougher standards on chemical plants to reduce their vulnerability to attack. These tougher standards would also make Americans safer from accidental releases of toxic chemicals.
Unfortunately, both the Bush and Obama administrations failed to take the steps needed to make safer those Americans who live near the 12,000 chemical facilities that pose the greatest risk. The Trump administration now has the opportunity, and responsibility, to do what his two predecessors failed to do.
Last summer’s explosion at the Houston-area Arkema plant was a striking reminder of the danger we face. Overwhelmed by Hurricane Harvey, the facility’s chemicals—known to be combustible if they grew too warm—caught fire. A dark cloud spewed toxic chemicals into the air, as first responders rushed to the scene and nearby communities fled, all in the midst of the hurricane recovery.
Faulty equipment and poor planning were to blame. Arkema also failed to alert first responders of the toxic chemicals. Nearly two dozen police and EMTs were hospitalized when poison smoke overtook them. They collapsed, choked and vomited right in the middle of the street.
Unfortunately, the Arkema disaster wasn’t a lone example. It’s evidence of a far larger problem. In February 2017, a chemical plant leak in Alabama released 738 pounds of chlorine gas. Because of inadequate disclosure and preparation, the plant failed to warn nearby residents of the noxious gas; first responders, unaware of the danger, deployed right into the choking cloud. Last May, a Kentucky refinery released chemical vapors without warning. Because of inadequate disclosure and preparation, a nearby elementary school didn’t know to shelter in place to limit their exposure.
In fact, from 2004 to 2013, there were 2,200 accidents at chemical facilities. In total, they killed 60 people, injured 17,000, forced nearly half a million to shelter in place or evacuate and caused $2.7 billion of damage.
Our lax chemical safety rules are a public health and national security crisis. American families and first responders need action. They need the Chemical Disaster Rule.
The Chemical Disaster rule was drafted at the end of the Obama administration after years of evaluation and consultation with expert agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Chemical Safety Board. And while the rule isn’t all I hoped it would be, it is a much-needed step in the right direction.
The Chemical Disaster Rule requires oil refineries and other chemical facilities to evaluate safety improvements to stop disasters and save lives. Furthermore, it requires facilities to coordinate and share information with first responders, like firefighters and medical teams.
Put simply, the Chemical Disaster Rule will help stop chemical disasters and protect first responders from harm if disaster does strike. It’s smart policy.
Sadly, it’s also under siege. It’s no secret that the Trump administration has taken aim at many Obama-era rules. And last year, Scott Pruitt, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator, froze the rule until 2019. He did so, oddly, even though he acknowledged the grave risk that chemical facilities pose as "soft targets to terrorists.”
Freezing the Chemical Disaster Rule is not putting "America first"; protecting families and first responders from chemical disasters is putting the American people first. That’s why I am urging Trump to stand up for families and first responders, and to stand up for the Chemical Disaster Rule.
The president must make this a priority. To protect our people and our police, he must implement the Chemical Disaster Rule.
We face many threats to the homeland, but chemical safety is far too often overlooked. Yet, it’s our failing chemical safety laws that are a disaster waiting to happen.
Christine Todd Whitman, president of the Whitman Strategy Group, was the Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2001 to 2003, and the governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001.
http://www.newsweek.com/will-trumps-state-union-ignore-national-security-threat-793949
-
(ACC Mentioned) Is Trump's Infrastructure Plan Already DOA?
Jan 29, 2018 | Politico
By Tanya Snyder
IS TRUMP’S INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ALREADY DOA? President Donald Trump is expected to stand before a joint session of Congress tomorrow night and use his State of the Union address to sell lawmakers on a plan to invest $200 billion in an infrastructure proposal he says would create $1.8 trillion by leveraging state, local and private funds. Democrats have waited years for a viable infrastructure investment plan, but they’re beginning to fear that this isn’t the one. “Instead of the grand, New Deal-style public works program that Trump's eye-popping price tag implies, Democratic lawmakers and mayors fear the plan would set up a vicious, zero-sum scramble for a relatively meager amount of federal cash — while forcing cities and states to scrounge up more of their own money, bringing a surge of privately financed toll roads, and shredding regulations in the name of building projects faster,” writes our Lauren Gardner.
The federal role: Both Democrats and Republicans are wary that the plan could signal a move toward devolution of federal responsibility for infrastructure to the states. And White House rhetoric would seem to corroborate that fear. "[T]he President wants to allow communities to keep more of their funds and make their own decisions,” said deputy press secretary Lindsay Walters in a statement. One transportation official called the approach “a direct repudiation of the federal role in building infrastructure.” John Cline, a lobbyist and former Republican DOT official under President George H.W. Bush, said the administration’s view of the federal government’s future role in infrastructure is the most important part of the plan — not the dollar amount.
The takeaway: Key Democrats are calling the plan everything from “fairy dust” to a “bait-and-switch.” They want to know where the money’s going to come from for the $200 billion public down payment and are skeptical that that amount of investment could conjure up anything like $1.8 trillion. “Before the swearing-in, [infrastructure] was the one area of hope Democrats had that we could find some common ground," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). "But I don’t think there are many of us left who labor under that hope any longer.”
WELL, THAT WAS A SHORT WEEKEND: Thanks for tuning in to POLITICO’s Morning Transportation, your daily tipsheet on all things trains, planes, automobiles and ports. Tanya is behind the wheel and welcomes your backseat driving in the form of tips, scoops and song lyrics. Send them to tsnyder@politico.com or @TSnyderDC.
“Everybody speeds in the fast lane truly now / Revving through the cares tryna keep ourselves from stressing out.”
LISTEN HERE: Follow MT’s playlist on Spotify. What better way to start your day than with songs (picked by us and readers) about sailing the sea, driving the open road and riding the rails?
THIS WEEK
Tuesday — The National Transportation Safety Board will meet to determine the probable cause of the Oct. 28, 2016, American Airlines flight 383 uncontained engine failure. The House Transportation Coast Guard Subcommittee holds a hearing to investigate the loss of the S.S. El Faro and 33 crew members, as well as the Coast Guard's electronic health records. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt appearsbefore the Senate EPW Committee for the first time since his confirmation.
Also on Tuesday — The House Judiciary Committee marks up a bill (H.R. 3808 (115)) to preclude absolute liability in any action against a property owner or contractor for projects receiving federal financial assistance for infrastructure and transportation development. Dykema hosts a webinar on legislation and regulation of autonomous and connected vehicles in Michigan and across the nation. Two House Homeland Security subcommittees hold a joint hearing on surface transportation security.
Thursday — NBC News Digital and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health host a forum on current technology, long-term plans and the risks and benefits to the public of self-driving cars. The Japan International Transport Institute holds its 2018 Airport Workshop, focusing on airport redevelopment using public-private partnerships.
A BLOW FOR BOEING: Boeing’s attempt to stave off Canadian rival Bombardier’s supposedly anti-competitive trade behavior failed Friday with a unanimous U.S. International Trade Commission vote to reject Boeing’s petition for relief. The independent, bipartisan trade panel blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to impose a tariff of almost 300 percent on Bombardier C-Series aircraft.
So Delta gets its planes after all: Boeing had filed the suit in April, arguing that, with the help of billions in government subsidies, Bombardier was dumping its jets in the United States at prices far below the cost of production, reports Pro Trade reporter Megan Cassella. “The case was aimed at thwarting Bombardier’s sale of its C-Series aircraft to Delta Air Lines, which had ordered up to 75 of the CS100 model,” Cassella writes. Boeing is weighing its option, which include an appeal at the Court of International Trade.
PRIORITY BOARDING OR BUST: The Senate Commerce Committee’s top Democrat, Florida’s Bill Nelson, has released a report on the restrictions imposed with the Basic Economy fares that major airlines are now offering: Consumers forgo preferred boarding, carry-on bags and sitting with their families, among other things. The report says customer confusion over airfare pricing has grown in the past few years as airlines have introduced new fees for flying standby, preferred seating and priority boarding. Nelson wants to put pressure on DOT to implement passenger protections required by statute and others that the agency killed last month regarding ancillary fees. “Consumers must demand that DOT start standing up for them,” the report declares.
CAN WE TALK? A biometric industry group said it suspects Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) didn’t have all of the facts about DHS’ biometric exit scan program before shooting off a letter last month asking the department stop expanding the program until it addressed several privacy concerns. Members of the International Biometrics and Identity Association told our Stephanie Beasley that they would like to meet with senators to discuss the parameters of the program, noting that the upper chamber has been less active in the area than House lawmakers.
DON’T HACK ME: DOT’s inspector general’s office found information security for the department’s 464 information technology systems to be lacking. All five function areas — identifying risks, protecting data, detecting cybersecurity incidents, responding to those incidents, and recovering impaired services and capabilities — were found to be at the “defined maturity” level, meaning that the department has policies in place but those policies are inconsistently implemented. OIG made eight recommendations, six and a half of which DOT concurred with.
FRIDAY HORN TOOT: @NTSB: "We are honored and proud to be ranked one of the best places to work in government among small federal agencies"
Postscript: NTSB is ranked sixth on that list. The Federal Maritime Commission and the Surface Transportation Board also crack the top 20 for small agencies. Larger agency rankings were announced last month, but smaller agency rankings were announced Friday. DOT is the fourth-best large agency to work at, per the rankings.
SHIFTING GEARS: Spencer Pederson, who was previously a legislative assistant to Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), is starting a new job at the American Chemistry Council on transportation and infrastructure issues.
THE AUTOBAHN:
— "White House plan would reduce environmental requirements for infrastructure projects." The Washington Post.
— "Trump team considers nationalizing 5G network." Axios.
— “TRIP: Road conditions cost New Mexico drivers more than cost to fix them.” AASHTO Journal.
— “'He has to be normal': Trump's State of the Union aims for unity after a polarizing year.” POLITICO.
— Public safety vs. quality of life: Brightline and the great train horn debate. The Palm Beach Post.
— "Amazon seeks patent for autonomous ground vehicle that picks up your packages." GeekWire.
— "Ford files a patent for an autonomous police car." Tech Crunch.
— "Qatar to agree to new financial disclosures for state owned-airline: U.S. officials." Reuters.
— "3 ways self-driving cars will affect the insurance industry." VentureBeat.
THE COUNTDOWN: DOT appropriations run out in 11 days. The FAA reauthorization expires in 62 days. Highway and transit policy is up for renewal in 976 days.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-transportation/2018/01/29/is-trumps-infrastructure-plan-already-doa-085560
-
Ewire: White House Eyes Permitting Overhaul in Infrastructure Bill
Jan 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
The White House is pushing for major changes to environmental permitting requirements in its upcoming attempt to pass a major infrastructure bill, including scrapping a requirement that EPA comment on most agencies' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and changes to other environmental laws' permitting provisions.
The Trump administration plan, obtained by the Washington Post, also would allow more projects to avoid detailed NEPA reviews through the use of “categorical exclusions,” and it would also strip EPA of its ability to make final determinations about which waters are subject to federal regulation under the CWA.
Further, the plan would allow courts to stop construction of a project as a remedy for NEPA review violations only in “exceptional circumstances.”
“The dozens of proposals, many esoteric, are meant to amplify one another so they pack a bigger cumulative punch,” the Post reports.
Among the EPA-related changes is scrapping the agency's authority under Clean Air Act section 309 to review and comment on all aspects of most agencies' NEPA reviews.
This authority is “no longer necessary,” the Trump administration proposal says, because federal agencies have “gained significant NEPA experience since [the air law] was enacted, and given that EPA has other authority to review and comment on matters within its jurisdiction.”
In the past, EPA has used this authority to spur other agencies to develop more rigorous reviews of projects' potential environmental effects, or to bolster mitigation options.
Regarding categorical exclusions -- which exempt certain types of projects from NEPA review if an agency determines they would not have a significant environmental impact -- the White House proposal would allow any agency to use a categorical exclusion that has been approved by another federal agency.
Currently, each agency must establish its own categorical exclusions by developing a record to show that activity would not have a significant impact.
The Trump plan would also strip EPA of two key CWA authorities. First, it would eliminate the agency's power to make final jurisdictional determinations about which waters are subject to the law. Most such determinations are made by the Army Corps of Engineers, however, EPA has the final authority over such decisions. The White House plan would still allow both agencies to jointly develop a rulemaking to define “waters of the United States” under the CWA.
Secondly, the plan would also eliminate EPA's authority to “veto” dredge-and-fill permits under CWA section 404. The plan acknowledges that the agency has used this authority “sparingly” in the past, but says the specter of such a decision “creates significant regulatory uncertainty.”
The plan follows publication of the administration's principles for improving infrastructure, which include expanding the scope of EPA's Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan program to also finance land rehabilitation and Superfund cleanups, expanding the types of water projects that would be eligible for federal funding, and authorizing Superfund sites to be eligible for brownfields grants.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-white-house-eyes-permitting-overhaul-infrastructure-bill
-
'Discussion Draft' Would Make Big Changes to NEPA
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The Trump administration wants to make major changes to permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act as part of its infrastructure plan, according to a draft White House document obtained by The Washington Post.
Talk about streamlining environmental permits has surrounded President Trump's much-anticipated plan for months.
The new document, first published Friday, is the most expansive look yet at how the White House plans to use infrastructure to rewrite some of the nation's landmark environmental laws, and it could serve as a springboard for negotiations with congressional lawmakers. It adds significant detail to a draft summary of the White House plan made public last week (E&E News PM, Jan. 22).
A White House official called it a "jumping-off point" and cautioned that the document is not yet final.
"This document represents a discussion draft at a much earlier stage in the policymaking process than where we are at right now and should not at all be considered as administration policy," the White House official said.
The draft proposes a statutory two-year time limit on the NEPA permitting process — 21 months to complete project reviews and determine the environmental impacts, and three months to make decisions on permits.
It would also require a generational rewrite of NEPA guidance first issued in 1973. Under the draft plan, the White House Council on Environmental Quality would have to revise its regulations with the goal of streamlining permitting and promoting transparency.
The new guidance, or a potential infrastructure bill in Congress, could change how agencies consider project alternatives under NEPA.
"Currently, the heart of the NEPA process lies within its evaluation of alternatives," the document says. "However, the current standard of consideration of all reasonable alternatives requires agencies to consider alternatives that are outside of the agency's authority, incapable of being carried out by an applicant, or not authorized by law."
The plan would instead require that agencies consider only alternatives that are "legally, technically and economically feasible."
Also in flux in the document are U.S. EPA's role in the environmental review process and the Endangered Species Act.
The draft would eliminate a requirement in the Clean Air Act that EPA review environmental impact statements from other agencies. EPA under the Obama administration used that clause to stall projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.
The draft seeks to make changes to ESA, though the Post reported that they have been taken out of the discussion since the draft was written.
Broadly, the stipulations of the draft come as no surprise. It calls for eliminating multiple reviews by multiple agencies — a process critics often call redundant — and it seeks to hand more power over to the states.
Congressional Republicans have been hitting those points for months. In early talks, some Democrats — such as Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Tom Carper of Delaware — have indicated there may be room for negotiation on permitting reform.
Making such large-scale changes to NEPA could be a tough sell. But even as lawmakers await a formal plan set to be released after the president gives his State of the Union speech tomorrow, the White House has indicated it will remain flexible.
In addition to streamlining permitting, Trump has said he wants to spur $1 trillion in total investment in infrastructure over 10 years. The initial plan is to appropriate $200 billion of federal money and get the rest from state and local governments and the private sector, flipping the 80-20 split that has traditionally been used to fund infrastructure.
D.J. Gribbin, special assistant to the president for infrastructure policy, said at the U.S. Conference of Mayors' winter meeting last week that as long as lawmakers hit those two points, the White House would be willing to negotiate.
"We are comfortable changing out any of these methods to get to those two goals," Gribbin said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/29/stories/1060072251
-
D.C. Circuit Won't Revisit Decision Striking Down HFC Rule
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit won't reconsider a recent decision that struck down a key prong of the Obama administration's climate policy.
Last August, the D.C. Circuit found that U.S. EPA had exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act in a 2015 rule that eliminated some uses for hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and approved certain replacements. HFCs are thousands of times more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide.
The court on Friday afternoon issued a pair of orders declining both to rehear the case in front of a three-member panel or in front of the full court.
Phasing out HFCs both at home and abroad had been a major part of President Obama's plan to address climate change. The 2015 rule at issue effectively banned 38 individual HFCs or HFC blends in 25 uses in four industrial sectors: aerosols, air conditioning for new cars, retail food refrigeration and foam blowing. It was the first of two phaseout rules that EPA issued during the Obama administration.
Two manufacturers of HFCs sued EPA over the rule. They challenged EPA's use of the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, a Clean Air Act program geared toward phasing out ozone-depleting substances, to replace HFCs, which do not deplete the ozone layer.
In August, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit sided with the HFC manufacturers in a split 2-1 decision and sent the rule back to EPA.
Much of the majority opinion was focused on a discussion of the word "replace" and whether it connotes a one-time action. By requiring companies to replace non-ozone-depleting substances — such as HFCs — with substitutes based on climate change reasons, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote, EPA stretched the word "beyond its ordinary meaning" in a manner that "borders on the absurd."
"However much we might sympathize or agree with EPA's policy objectives, EPA may act only within the boundaries of its statutory authority. Here, EPA exceeded that authority," wrote Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee.
In a dissent, Obama appointee Judge Robert Wilkins wrote that he would have denied the petitions for review. Wilkins wrote that he disagreed with the court's finding that the SNAP Program unambiguously bars EPA from requiring the replacement of HFCs.
The court received petitions for rehearing from the Natural Resources Defense Council and from two manufacturers of HFC replacements, Honeywell International Inc. and DuPont spinoff Chemours Co., which had intervened on behalf of EPA in the litigation.
To complicate matters, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, the other conservative judge on the panel who joined Kavanaugh, retired at the end of August, just a few weeks after the court released the decision and before the rehearing petitions were filed.
According to the D.C. Circuit orders released Friday, the court considered both the petitions for rehearing as well as amicus briefs submitted by administrative law professors and states.
A majority of the active judges of the court voted against rehearing the case en banc. Judges Patricia Millett and Gregory Katsas, who was confirmed to Brown's seat on the court last year, did not participate.
The remaining two judges on the panel after Brown retired — Kavanaugh and Wilkins — split on whether there should be a panel rehearing. Kavanaugh voted against rehearing, while Wilkins voted in favor. The court's practice is to deny rehearing when there's an even split among judges.'Other ways to skin the cat'
Despite the court decision, the air conditioning industry says it's still committed to phasing out HFCs and continues to push for ratification of an international treaty to phase down the chemicals globally.
With the Obama administration's support, nations in 2016 agreed to an amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer that calls for phasing out HFCs.
Last fall, the Trump administration said it had begun the process of ratifying the Kigali Amendment — named for the Rwandan capital, where it was finalized — in the Senate (Climatewire, Nov. 29, 2017).
"To us, that was a very positive statement," Francis Dietz, vice president of public affairs at the Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute, said today. "Since that time, we've been continuing to talk to them and continuing to talk to people on the Hill. ... I think we're encouraged by the things that the administration has said."
Dietz said that his group, which has members who were on both sides of the court battle, does not believe the D.C. Circuit ruling is a "significant hurdle" to phasing down HFCs.
"We've been researching alternative refrigerants since 2011," Dietz said. "So we will be prepared if and when the U.S. ratifies that agreement."
David Doniger, director of NRDC's Climate and Clean Air program, pointed E&E News to a series of tweets Friday in which he vowed, "This isn't over."
"There's the option to appeal to the [Supreme Court]. And there are other ways to skin the cat," he wrote. "Ratification of the Kigali HFC Amendment, for one. Rest of the world going ahead. American industry doesn't want to fall behind."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/29/stories/1060072231
-
Lawmakers to Announce 'Cap-And-Dividend' Bill Today
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Josh Kurtz
Democrats in the Senate and House plan to introduce "cap-and-dividend" legislation this week, a new entry into the limited debate on Capitol Hill about how to combat climate change.
The "Healthy Climate and Family Security Act," sponsored by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), would set CO2 emissions caps and auction carbon credits to the first sellers of coal, oil and natural gas into the U.S. market. The dividends would be returned to American taxpayers quarterly.
"The Healthy Climate and Family Security Act is a simple, effective, and transparent way to combat climate change while supporting economic growth and a thriving middle class," a summary sheet on the pending legislation argues. "The solution is market based, pro-growth, and is built to last."
Van Hollen and Beyer are scheduled to explain their bill in a press call this afternoon. They will be joined on the teleconference by the Rev. Lennox Yearwood, president and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund are also supporting the legislation, the lawmakers said.
According to the summary provided to E&E News yesterday, the bill would:Use a declining cap to reduce CO2 emissions to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.Auction carbon permits to the first sellers of oil, coal and natural gas into the U.S. market.Return 100 percent of auction proceeds to every American with a valid Social Security number in the form of a "Healthy Climate Dividend."Include border adjustment protections to ensure U.S. companies are not disadvantaged when competing against foreign competitors at home or abroad.Achieve additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions through the Clean Air Act and other relevant authorities.
The Treasury Department would conduct the emissions auctions and distribute the proceeds to taxpayers.
Beginning in 2019, crude oil refineries, petroleum importers, coal mines, coal importers and natural gas suppliers or processors would be required to purchase carbon permits equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by covered fuels. Treasury would auction these permits to those entities.
The bill would provide for the trading or sale of permits between entities and allow banking of permits for future years.
"The approach taken by this legislation will enable the United States to achieve scientifically driven reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while supporting vibrant economic growth and actually increasing incomes for an estimated 80 percent of American households," according to a release announcing today's news conference.
The measure would also require U.S. EPA to regulate within 10 years all sources of greenhouse gases that are anthropogenically emitted. Gases attributable to the production of animals for food would be exempted.
The legislation isn't likely to get much traction in the current Congress, which is overseen by Republican leaders who are largely skeptical of climate science and who have worked to scale back environmental regulations rather than embrace new ones. But it could serve to help frame the climate debate in the upcoming midterm election and would likely be more viable if Democrats were to gain control of one or both chambers in the next Congress. Even then, it would almost certainly be opposed by the Trump administration.
Van Hollen is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and is poised to play an elevated role in climate and environmental policy now that he has joined the Environment and Public Works Committee. Beyer, a member of the House Natural Resources and Science, Space and Technology committees, has been a climate hawk since entering Congress in 2015.
The lawmakers are expected to argue that their bill would benefit both the environment and the economy.
"On an economy-wide level, the price signal placed on carbon pollution will accelerate innovation and incentivize both greater energy efficiency as well as greater use of lower-carbon energy alternatives," the bill summary says.
Democrats in both chambers have introduced carbon tax legislation, the "American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act." The lead sponsors are Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon.
The bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus may also submit carbon tax legislation or other measures to address climate change before the end of this Congress. The caucus grew to 68 members last week with the addition of veteran Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/29/stories/1060072161
-
Trump Says Earth Is 'Too Cold' and Ice Is Expanding
Jan 29, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
President Trump expressed deep skepticism about mainstream climate science in his first international TV interview since taking office, making incorrect statements about global temperatures and Arctic sea ice.
The statements, made in an interview with Piers Morgan during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, are some of the lengthiest Trump has made on climate change since his inauguration more than a year ago.
They suggest that his time in the White House hasn't corrected his views on global warming. Trump has amplified misinformation related to climate science over the years — primarily through Twitter — and he resumed echoing debunked concepts yesterday.
"There is a cooling, and there's a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming," he said in the interview, which aired yesterday on ITV. "That wasn't working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place."
The world, in fact, is getting warmer — not colder.
Global temperatures are steadily rising. NASA and NOAA said that 2017 was the 41st consecutive year of above-average global temperatures and that the pace of warming has accelerated. NASA recently identified last year as the second warmest since record keeping began in 1880, while NOAA said it was the third warmest — a notable feat given the lack of an El Niño, which typically raises temperatures.
This year is likely to be in the top five warmest years ever, if not the top two, according to NASA and NOAA researchers. The warmest years on record are 2016 and 2015.
Trump's comments came as his administration is readying an infrastructure push that will aim to repeal provisions of major environmental laws. The administration also has pursued a deregulatory agenda to boost fossil fuel production, hoping to usher in a period of "energy dominance" that wields energy exports as a geopolitical and economic tool — a message he and his Cabinet took to Davos last week.
"I believe in just having good cleanliness in all" regarding air and water pollution, Trump said in the interview yesterday. He also reiterated his disapproval of the Paris climate accord. But, as he has in the past, Trump said the United States might remain in the global pact under the right terms.
"First of all, it was a terrible deal for the U.S. If they made a good deal, there's always a chance we'd get back. But it was a terrible deal for the U.S. It was unfair to the U.S.," Trump said. "If somebody said, 'Go back into the Paris accord,' it would have to be a completely different deal, because we had a horrible deal."
Trump signaled an intent to withdraw from the Paris deal, but the United States cannot formally exit until November 2020. If Trump fulfills his pledge, the United States will be the only country in the world outside the Paris Agreement. And while Trump has remarked about forcing different terms in the accord, he has not offered any details on what that means, and other nations have said they won't renegotiate the pact.
One reason Trump might consider remaining in the agreement is his relationship with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump said yesterday. Macron has made addressing climate change a priority for his administration, following France's role in establishing the global pact in 2015.
"As usual, they took advantage of the U.S. We were in a terrible deal," Trump said. "Would I go back in? Yeah, I'd go back in. I like, as you know, I like Emmanuel. I would love to, but it's got to be a good deal for the U.S."
Aside from discussing temperatures and the Paris climate accord, Trump also dove into comments on Arctic sea ice. On that, too, he made false statements.
"The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they're setting records," Trump said, suggesting that polar ice overall is expanding. "They're at a record level."
The Arctic and Antarctic saw record lows for sea ice last year.
Many scientists fear that the feedback loop from higher temperatures will continue to diminish sea ice, reducing reflective surfaces on Earth. The reduced albedo effect is believed to be contributing to higher temperatures as darker areas absorb more sunlight.
Scientists expressed dismay at the president's interpretation of climate science.
"This is insane," tweeted Jon Foley, executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, referring to a story about the president's comments in Britain's Independent newspaper. "Trump has access to the best scientists in the world, but he gets his science information from cable tabloid shows and talk radio."
Peter Gleick, co-founder of the Pacific Institute, tweeted: "It's not surprising Trump spouts incorrect, deceptive #climate nonsense: he is scientifically illiterate, has no science advisor, and gets his only information from a talk show with people equally ignorant and intentionally misleading."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/29/stories/1060072163
-
Records Show EPA Chief’s Role in Removing Climate Web Pages
Jan 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt was personally involved in the process to remove sections on climate change from the agency’s website, records obtained by a green group show.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said the records it obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show a high degree of involvement by Pruitt in the April process of removing climate sections and replacing several of them with a section on President Trump’s executive order to roll back the Clean Power Plan.
Environmentalists have been highly critical of the EPA’s decision to remove the pages, some of which still haven’t been replaced and instead forward to a page about the removal process.
In one April email to colleagues in the EPA’s communications office, Lincoln Ferguson, an adviser to Pruitt, asks how close they are to removing and replacing the Clean Power Plan section.
“The Administrator would like it to go up ASAP. He also has several other changes that need to take place,” Ferguson wrote.
J.P. Freire, then the head of communications, responded, “You can tell him we ... are just finishing up.”
Ferguson then asked if the change could happen that day: “Just asking because he is asking.”
In another email change, Susan Fagan in the EPA’s Office of Environmental Information asks another staffer if people searching for the Clean Power Plan can be directed to the section on Trump’s climate executive order, which the staffer obliged.
The EDF said the records further prove the danger in hiding the climate information from the public.
“Obscuring information thwarts meaningful public participation in EPA’s work to protect Americans’ health and safety,” Ben Levitan, an EDF attorney, said in a statement. “It reinforces serious concerns that Pruitt has predetermined that he will repeal the Clean Power Plan, and that the current rulemaking process is a sham.”
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox defended the changes and said that the old information is still available to the public.
“We are constantly updating our website to reflect new initiatives and projects of the agency,” he said. “Of course the site will be reflective of the current administration’s priorities — with that said, all the content from the previous administration is still easily accessible and publicly available-through the banner across the top of our website: www.epa.gov.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/371190-records-show-epa-chiefs-role-in-removing-climate-web-pages
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested