Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/31
-
(ACC Blog) Tax Law Is Boosting Chemical Industry Investment in the U.S.
Jan 31, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
Wow, that was fast. Congress’s historic tax reform bill, the ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’ (H.R. 1) took effect earlier this month, and companies are already announcing plans for new U.S. investments made possible in part by the new law. -
(ACC Mentioned) California EPS Food Container Ban Falls Short for Second Year in a Row
Jan 31, 2018 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
SB 705, a bill to ban the use of expanded polystyrene food containers in restaurants, grocery stores and food trucks throughout California, fell short in the State Senate on Jan. 30. -
Pruitt Publicly Bashed Trump. Will It Hurt Him?
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender and Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt might be keeping his head down for a while. -
Pruitt Addresses Legacy Issues, TSCA Implementation in Oversight Hearing
Jan 31, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Susan M. Kirsch and Margaret R. Graham
On January 30, 2018, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) convened an Oversight Hearing to Receive Testimony from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt. -
Update: Almost Three-Fourths of Medi-Cal Toddlers Miss Annual Lead Tests Required by Law
Jan 31, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Susan Little
In September, EWG reported that each year about a third of California toddlers enrolled in Medi-Cal don’t receive lead testing required by law. But the problem is much worse than we estimated. -
Trump on Energy: Mission Accomplished
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King and David Iaconangelo
Ahead of his first State of the Union address, President Trump promised a "forward-looking" discourse. -
BP Expects Gas to Overtake Oil as Main Energy Source in 2040
Jan 31, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Shadia Nasralla
BP expects gas to overtake oil as the world's primary energy source in around 2040 as demand for the least polluting fossil fuel grows, its vice president for strategic planning said on Wednesday. -
Atlantic Coast Opponents Plan Pipeline CSI to Map Violations
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
After years of fighting plans for the Atlantic Coast pipeline to run through Virginia and West Virginia, opponents of the natural gas project are preparing for a new phase of opposition if construction starts this spring: bird-dogging environmental compliance with volunteer observers up and down the route. -
Environmentalists Ask EPA IG to Probe Refinery's Waste Violations
Jan 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are calling on the EPA Inspector General (IG) to investigate an alleged lack of action by the agency to resolve claims of long-term hazardous waste violations at a refinery in California's Los Angeles County, charging that the Trump administration is intentionally ignoring the matter. -
Who's Who in Trump's Infrastructure Push
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump's ballyhooed infrastructure initiative — envisioned as a $1.5 trillion construction push paired with accelerated environmental reviews — rides on some White House officials with deep ties to Capitol Hill and Wall Street. -
Some Conservatives Tout Carbon Tax to Fund Trump's Plan
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
With many questions hovering over how to fund President Trump's much-anticipated infrastructure proposal, the politically divisive option of a carbon tax is gaining some interest and traction. -
D.C. Circuit Grants EPA Bid to Put Haze Rule Update Suit in Abeyance
Jan 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has granted EPA's request to place litigation against its Obama-era regional haze rule revision into abeyance, pending an agency reconsideration of the rule. -
Interim EPA Guidance Details Plan for Deferring to States on Enforcement
Jan 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA has sent interim guidance to its regions that details the agency's plan for deferring to states on enforcement of environmental laws if they have enforcement programs recognized by EPA, part of Administrator Scott Pruitt's “cooperative federalism” push, though it includes exceptions such as for cases of significant noncompliance. -
Green Group Backs Sens. Baldwin, Nelson for Reelection
Jan 31, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A major environmental group’s campaign arm is backing Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.) for reelection this year.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Tax Law Is Boosting Chemical Industry Investment in the U.S.
Jan 31, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
Wow, that was fast. Congress’s historic tax reform bill, the ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’ (H.R. 1) took effect earlier this month, and companies are already announcing plans for new U.S. investments made possible in part by the new law.
On Monday, ExxonMobil shared the news that the company plans to invest $50 billion over the next five years to expand its business in the United States. Darren Woods, Chairman and CEO, pointed to “recent changes to the U.S. corporate tax rate coupled with smarter regulation” as contributing factors in the decision. The capital is on top of the $20 billion over 10 years that ExxonMobil is investing in major chemical, refining, and lubricants projects in the Gulf Coast region.
These are quality investments for our shareholders that are made even better by tax reform.”
–Darren Woods, ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO
The positive effects of tax reform are showing up in corporate earnings announcements. Ecolab expects to see a tax benefit in Q4 2017, and beginning in 2018, the new law could benefit earnings by ten cents per share. Covestro has said that its tax bill will drop from 28% to 24% in 2017 and another one or two percentage points in 2018. And Royal Dutch Shell plc foresees positive economic impacts that are likely to benefit the company’s U.S. operations.
Some companies are using the new law to reinvest in their workers. For example, Honeywell is increasing its 401(k) match: “This is a sustained, annual benefit that will provide a more secure retirement for our employees,” said Darius Adamczyk, Honeywell President and CEO.
There’s a compelling argument for investing in major projects today – a lower tax rate on profits generated from those assets, and the five-year window of full deductibility of CAPEX.”
–Joseph Chang, ICIS News
The final tax reform legislation included a number of provisions long sought by ACC, including a significantly lower corporate rate effective in 2018, a transition to a competitive territorial system, retention of the R&D tax credit and ‘last in, first out’ (LIFO) accounting methods, and a bifurcated rate for repatriated earnings – one with a significantly lower rate for earnings reinvested in plants and equipment than for cash/cash equivalents. These reforms will support a vibrant and competitive U.S. chemical industry and manufacturing sector for the long term.
The final assessment of any policy change often comes down to a question straight from the business world: Does it have tangible, measurable results? With tax reform, seeing is believing.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/01/tax-law-is-boosting-chemical-industry-investment-in-the-u-s/
-
(ACC Mentioned) California EPS Food Container Ban Falls Short for Second Year in a Row
Jan 31, 2018 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Dive Brief:
SB 705, a bill to ban the use of expanded polystyrene food containers in restaurants, grocery stores and food trucks throughout California, fell short in the State Senate on Jan. 30. The votes tallied 18-16, three short of a majority, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.
Known as the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act, the bill would have prohibited food vendors from using EPS containers at the risk of multi-thousand-dollar civil penalties. Language was included for temporary waivers due to economic hardship. This would have taken effect for chain establishments in 2020 and all others in 2022. Hospitals, correctional facilities and K-12 schools would have been exempted.
Support was registered by dozens of municipalities and environmental organizations, including the usual names such as Californians Against Waste, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation and Upstream. Opposition was registered by groups including the American Chemistry Council, California Chamber of Commerce, Dart Container and the Plastics Industry Association.
Dive Insight:
This is the second time that the bill's sponsor, Sen. Benjamin Allen of Santa Monica, has gotten it to the floor for a vote and missed out by a thin margin. SB 705 went down on its first attempt in May 2017 by a 15-19 vote.
More than 100 municipalities in California now have some form of EPS ordinance, from a fee in Oakland to more stringent bans in San Francisco and Santa Monica. As written, Allen's bill would not preempt any of those ordinances.
In addition to the usual food service and packaging industry opposition, at least one state senator who voted against it raised the question of whether the bill was still needed, with food chains such as McDonalds moving toward different packaging material. Supporters of the bill maintain that EPS has become a larger litter problem than plastic bags, in part because the material breaks down and is harder to capture, so a universal policy was still necessary.
Based on California's history with plastic bag policy — which was passed in 2014, challenged by industry and then affirmed via a 2016 ballot referendum — advocates may be in for a similar fight when it comes to EPS. Packaging groups now point to San Diego's decision to include EPS in its curbside recycling program last year and have remained actively opposed to ban efforts in cities such as New York.
Like many materials, EPS is technically recyclable and examples do exist of companies finding ways to do it. However, many feel a convincing case has yet to be made proving the material can be recycled in a way that's both economically and environmentally feasible on a large scale, especially when food contamination is involved.
https://www.wastedive.com/news/california-eps-food-container-ban-falls-short/515981/
-
Pruitt Publicly Bashed Trump. Will It Hurt Him?
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender and Niina Heikkinen
Scott Pruitt might be keeping his head down for a while.
Just as the U.S. EPA administrator began testifying in the Senate yesterday, a radio interview from February 2016 began making waves in the press, with Pruitt forcefully criticizing the future president as a "bully."
"I believe that Donald Trump in the White House would be more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama," said Pruitt, who was the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma at the time.
Pruitt's sharp criticism of Trump went viral, generating headlines in national news outlets and sparking an uproar on social media. The recording's distribution by a watchdog group was timed to coincide with Pruitt's testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he was grilled about working for a president who he believed could cause a constitutional crisis.
Pruitt told lawmakers he didn't remember making those comments. He later recanted. EPA issued a statement by Pruitt saying, "After meeting him, and now having the honor of working for him, it is abundantly clear that President Trump is the most consequential leader of our time."
The EPA boss was spotted at the White House after the hearing yesterday, prompting speculation that he was there to talk about his 2016 remarks. EPA sent out Pruitt's daily schedule to show that he was there for a prescheduled national security meeting about energy and climate change.
Pruitt, who supported Jeb Bush in the Republican primary, is one of many top officials in the administration who publicly criticized Trump preceding the 2016 election. But at the very least, the flap is an embarrassment for the EPA boss and for Trump. It remains to be seen whether the criticisms ultimately lessen the clout Pruitt has with the president or damage his political future.
Pruitt's situation is "awkward at best," said Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA during the George W. Bush administration. "To see this kind of thing be unearthed, it's obviously going to make for uneasy relations for a time," she added. "It's not helpful, no matter what."
Bill Reilly, EPA administrator under George H.W. Bush, called Pruitt's language "pretty strong." But, he added, "there's so many precedents for it," pointing to reports that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a "moron."
On the campaign trail in 2015, then-GOP candidate Rick Perry called Trump's campaign "a cancer on conservatism" that "must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded." Perry is now Trump's Energy secretary.
Andrew Wheeler, Trump's nominee to be EPA's deputy administrator, also publicly criticized Trump in February 2016. Wheeler — who was then a coal lobbyist supporting the campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — called Trump a "bully" in a Facebook post that has since been deleted, The Washington Post reported. Wheeler said Trump "hasn't been that successful" in business and "has more baggage then all of the other Republican candidates combined," according to the Post.
Some former EPA officials expect Pruitt to emerge unscathed.
The 2016 election was "a while ago," said Jeff Holmstead, an industry attorney at Bracewell LLP and a former EPA official during the George W. Bush administration. "During the primaries, a lot of people said nasty things about each other," and there's a sense that "everybody's at war," he said.
As for the Pruitt interview that's getting attention, Holmstead said, "I don't think it's going to have any impact." His impression, he said, is that Trump "is certainly aware of and appreciates and respects Pruitt, and I don't think this will really damage it."
During one of the major policy climate policy fights that have taken place in the Trump White House, Pruitt lobbied heavily to push Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, despite a push from other officials who wanted the United States to stay in. Pruitt and his camp came out victorious, and Pruitt played spokesman for the administration in the aftermath, frequently appearing on cable news and other media outlets to tout the decision.
Former EPA chief Reilly said, "I would imagine he could weather that storm. ... I don't see it, honestly, as something that's likely to cause him to be dismissed or fired."
The White House is likely to notice, Whitman said. "When you criticize the president, not much slips under the radar," she said. But if there were a time when it might not get as much attention, she said, it would be when the president is preoccupied with giving a State of the Union address.
Ultimately, Whitman said, "I'll be surprised if people don't figure out there's nothing that you say that can't come back to bite you."
It's unclear whether the White House knew about Pruitt's remarks prior to their distribution yesterday. It's possible that they came up in Pruitt's vetting, although this administration has been criticized for failing to identify red flags for potential officials.
Meanwhile, critics of Pruitt and the administration are piling on.
"It's sad that Donald Trump is likely more upset about Scott Pruitt's accurate portrayal of him than Pruitt's relentless attacks on clean air, clean water, and the health of the American public," Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said yesterday in a statement. "But Trump prizes his ego above anyone else, so Pruitt should watch his back. Keep your eyes on Trump moving forward — will Pruitt wind up in the dog house like Jeff Sessions, or out of a job like Tom Price?"
Nick Surgey, director of the watchdog group Documented, suggested Pruitt's involvement with the Trump administration was a "marriage of convenience" that allowed him to pay back the support he had received from the fossil fuel industry and could help him seek higher office at a later date. Surgey's group drew attention to the 2016 radio interview yesterday.
Surgey said he happened across the Trump comments by chance. "I was just listening to lots of old Scott Pruitt radio interviews. I wasn't listening to them expecting to hear a critical attack on Donald Trump; I wanted to see if there was an evolution on his views on climate over the years," Surgey said. "Scott Pruitt's views on climate change change like the weather; it depends on what audience he was speaking to."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/31/stories/1060072471
-
Pruitt Addresses Legacy Issues, TSCA Implementation in Oversight Hearing
Jan 31, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Susan M. Kirsch and Margaret R. Graham
On January 30, 2018, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) convened an Oversight Hearing to Receive Testimony from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt. In a written statement submitted in advance of the hearing, Pruitt described implementation of the new Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, or the “new” Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as being of “significant importance” and a “top priority for ensuring the safety of chemicals in the marketplace.” In opening remarks, Senator Tom Carper (Ranking Member of the EPW Committee) (D-DE)) challenged Pruitt’s record on implementing TSCA reform, stating that EPA has not truly used the authority bestowed on it through TSCA to declare that products being sold on the market are safe, therefore, consumers do not have the confidence that they deserve and that Congress intended in passing TSCA. Pruitt did not respond to this comment, and did not go on to address TSCA implementation in his brief opening remarks. Instead, Pruitt devoted the bulk of his opening statement to highlighting specific areas where EPA’s environmental protection goals dovetail well with opportunities for economic growth. These issues/economic opportunities included: investment in infrastructure to eradicate lead from drinking water within a decade; advancing initiatives that incentivize private companies to take on clean-up projects at abandoned mines; and remediation activities at “Superfund” sites -- hazardous waste sites regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) expressed concern that EPA’s chemical reviews under TSCA were only focusing on new “items” (chemicals) being made, but overlooking “legacy” chemicals already in the environment (e.g., asbestos). Merkley cited a report that claimed that review of the ten chemicals on the priority list were being “slow-walked.” In response, Pruitt stated “it is an absolute priority during [EPA’s] first year,” the three TSCA final rules were issued consistent with the implementation schedule in the first year, and the backlog of chemical reviews has been addressed through the addition of resources.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) expressed her concerns regarding the toxic levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that have been found throughout New York State, stating that EPA was not using its TSCA authority to regulate these chemicals, as the implementation final rules “ignored the public’s exposure to the past uses of chemicals called legacy uses” that could still have the potential to contaminate groundwater. She also stated her concern that due to this oversight, EPA will not likely study the health risks of widespread exposure to chemicals such as PFOS/PFOS. She requested of Pruitt to revise the TSCA implementation rules to address legacy issues, so that “all uses of a chemical, including legacy uses, are studied.” Pruitt stated that as PFOA and PFOS have not been manufactured since early 2000, they are in fact legacy uses, and that EPA was “very much going to focus” on this issue. Gillibrand appeared to be content with his answer, as she did not demand a further commitment from him. In regards to the Hudson River, Gillibrand requested that data from the sediment sampling be integrated into EPA’s five year review plan regarding the effectiveness of dredging for removing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) from the Hudson River. Pruitt stated that EPA was reviewing the samples currently and that there is more work to be done to get clarity on this issue. Gillibrand requested Pruitt to personally review the final report to ensure that all issues have been addressed and Pruitt confirmed that he would.
Near the close of the hearing, Senator Carper further stated that EPA has failed to follow through on its proposed ban of three highly toxic chemicals that Congress gave it the authority to ban when it enacted TSCA reform: specifically methylene chloride, tricholoroethylene (TCE), and methylpyrrolidone (NMP), and asked Pruitt to commit to using EPA’s authority to ban them within the next 30 days. Pruitt responded that they are on the priority list and that he will confirm this with the agency (that they are priorities, not that they will be banned in 30 days). EPA’s delay in finalizing the bans was among the failures cited in the Senate EPW Minority Staff report, released January 29, 2018, “Basically Backward: How the Trump Administration is Erasing Decades of Air, Water and Land Protections and Jeopardizing Public Health.”
Several Senators indicated their intention to submit additional questions for the record. Pruitt has until February 13, 2018, to submit written responses, which will be made available on the EPW Committee website. The full hearing is available on the EPW Committee’s website.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pruitt-addresses-legacy-issues-tsca-implementation-oversight-hearing
-
Update: Almost Three-Fourths of Medi-Cal Toddlers Miss Annual Lead Tests Required by Law
Jan 31, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Susan Little
In September, EWG reported that each year about a third of California toddlers enrolled in Medi-Cal don’t receive lead testing required by law. But the problem is much worse than we estimated.
EWG’s new analysis of state records shows that between 2012 and 2016, almost three-fourths of 1- and 2-year-olds enrolled in the state-run low-income health insurance program were not tested for lead in their blood.
This new calculation is especially alarming because Medi-Cal children are seven times more likely to be lead-poisoned than children from higher-income families. If children with high blood lead levels are not identified through testing, they cannot receive treatment.
These figures are culled from Medi-Cal billing data from the California Department of Health Care Services. The previous estimate was based on incomplete data from the Department of Public Health, obtained through an open records request. The Department of Health Care Services released its billing data at the request of Assembly Member Bill Quirk, D-Hayward, co-author of a bill signed into law last fall to expand lead testing.
The new Medi-Cal billing data show that in the fiscal years 2012 to 2016, an annual average of about 529,000 toddlers enrolled in the program did not receive required lead tests. That means that during that time period, an average of only 28 percent of children in the program were tested.
Federal law and federal and state regulations require all children receiving Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, to be tested for lead exposure when they are 12 and 24 months old. EWG’s earlier investigation found that for decades California has fallen short of compliance.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agree that there is no safe level of lead in children. Lead is a carcinogen, harms kidney function, and has been linked to delayed growth.
Lead also damages children’s brains. Even minute amounts of lead in the bodies of very young children cause harm to their central nervous systems. Damages caused by lead carry into adulthood, and recent studies demonstrate that adults who had elevated blood lead levels as children have smaller brains, lower IQs and lower socio-economic status.
Lead poisoning can threaten children of any socioeconomic status, but those from lower-income families are more likely to live in older housing with lead paint or face exposure from other sources, such as factories and freeway traffic. According to the Department of Public Health, 88 percent of California children who are lead poisoned are enrolled in Medi-Cal.
California defines a case of child lead poisoning as when a child has a tested elevated blood lead level of at least 14.5 micrograms per deciliter of blood, or two consecutive tests of an elevated blood lead level of at least 9.5 micrograms per deciliter of blood.
The new data show that the state’s failure to ensure lead testing for toddlers on Medi-Cal is an ongoing crisis that demands urgent attention. EWG is working with lawmakers in Sacramento to determine if more legislation is needed in this year’s session to safeguard children’s health. In addition, the Assembly’s Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, chaired by Quirk, plans to hold an oversight hearing Feb. 13 to examine why California continues to struggle to lead-test its Medi-Cal toddlers.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/01/update-almost-three-fourths-medi-cal-toddlers-risk-lead-exposure#.WnH1PK6Wa6I
-
Trump on Energy: Mission Accomplished
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King and David Iaconangelo
Ahead of his first State of the Union address, President Trump promised a "forward-looking" discourse.
But the president's brief remarks on energy last night offered only a view of the past.
"We have ended the war on American energy, and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal," Trump said. "We are now very proudly an exporter of energy to the world."
Hints of energy priorities were folded into Trump's comments on his administration's deregulatory strategy and infrastructure initiatives.
Trump boasted that on his watch, the federal government has eliminated more regulations in its first year than any previous administration. Among those efforts was the rescission of hydraulic fracturing standards introduced under former President Obama. Although Trump's Interior Department finalized the fracking rule's repeal in December, the regulation — and its ripple effect — is far from finished, according to a research note yesterday from ClearView Energy Partners LLC.
The rollback now faces legal challenges from the state of California and a coalition of environmental groups (Energywire, Jan. 25).
"If that action survives pending legal review, it could shift the balance on pending rollbacks by the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and other energy-relevant agencies," ClearView analysts wrote.
Trump's approach on energy drew applause from his Cabinet.
"Already we have seen the president's policies and tax reform spark greater investments in our energy sector, from the coalmines of Appalachia to the oil fields of the Permian Basin, managed by the Bureau of Land Management," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said in a statement following last night's address. "Interior stands ready to support the president's mission to unite and rebuild our great nation."
Advocacy groups questioned the premise of the president's assertions.
"There has never been a 'war on energy' or on so-called 'beautiful clean coal,'" said World Resources Institute President and CEO Andrew Steer in a statement. "Yet, this administration has failed to take advantage of the growing renewable energy markets, and instead focuses on outdated energy sources."'Gleaming new roads'
On infrastructure, Trump offered broad promises but few details.
"Together, we can reclaim our building heritage," he said in his speech. "We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways and waterways across our land. And we will do it with American heart, American hands and American grit."
A White House press release disseminated during the State of the Union address included a pledge to "build off" infrastructure improvements made during the first year of Trump's presidency. His list of accomplishments included approvals of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.
House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) called Trump's talking points on deregulation and infrastructure "substance-free."
"This isn't a bridge to the future," he said. "It's a tunnel back to the Gilded Age."
Several industry and Republican allies sought to highlight the centrality of pipelines and other energy-oriented types of infrastructure not explicitly mentioned by the president in his speech.
Donald Santa, CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, said that unlike other types of infrastructure, natural gas pipeline projects could often tap ready sources of private capital. Permitting reforms would get them deployed more quickly and more predictably, he added.
Consumer Energy Alliance President David Holt echoed praise of the administration's deregulatory zeal and emphasis on development but added that "more work remains" in the coming year.
Improvements to the grid, streamlined regulatory processes for transmission lines and pipelines, and an expansion of energy storage, as well as offshore and onshore production, should be the administration's energy priorities in 2018, Holt said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/31/stories/1060072469
-
BP Expects Gas to Overtake Oil as Main Energy Source in 2040
Jan 31, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Shadia Nasralla
BP expects gas to overtake oil as the world's primary energy source in around 2040 as demand for the least polluting fossil fuel grows, its vice president for strategic planning said on Wednesday.
"We see it (gas) take over from coal in the early 2030s... We think there is a very good case for gas actually overtaking oil post 2040 or just before 2040," Dominic Emery told a gas conference in Vienna.
Emery highlighted estimates for demand growth for gas in China of around 15 percent year-on-year last year and said BP expects overall gas demand to grow around 1.6 percent a year for years to come, compared with 0.8 percent for oil.
"We do see a very strong chance that (gas) is going to be the largest source of primary energy into the future... By gas we mean natural gas, but also ... we mean biogas, we mean biomethane, we mean power-to-gas..."
In terms of demand for gas from different sectors, Emery singled out industry as especially resilient and transport as fast-growing, albeit from a low base, at annual rates of three to four percent.
BP is due to reveal more details in its next energy outlook on Feb. 20. In its last outlook it said it saw gas overtaking coal's share in the primary energy market to become the second-largest fuel source by 2035.
BP's previous forecast to 2035 forecast oil's share shrinking from around 33 percent to around 30 percent and gas' share grow from the low 20s to the mid 20-percentage range.
Emery said one of the biggest challenges for the gas industry was reducing methane leakages from pipelines, which he said was estimated at around 1.3 to 1.4 percent.
"Once (methane leakage) exceeds 3 percent it means that gas, certainly in the nearer term, over a few decades, is actually worse than coal from a (greenhouse gas) perspective," he said.
"We're getting a lot of pressure..., and rightly so, to get our act together in terms of managing methane in the supply chain. There are not only climate benefits for doing it but also economic benefits from doing it."
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/01/31/business/31reuters-bp-gas.html
-
Atlantic Coast Opponents Plan Pipeline CSI to Map Violations
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
After years of fighting plans for the Atlantic Coast pipeline to run through Virginia and West Virginia, opponents of the natural gas project are preparing for a new phase of opposition if construction starts this spring: bird-dogging environmental compliance with volunteer observers up and down the route.
Last week, the Allegheny-Blue Ridge Alliance announced the Pipeline Compliance Surveillance Initiative (Pipeline CSI) as "a citizen initiative to monitor construction activities of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline."
"Right now, we propose to partner with the agencies" responsible for overseeing construction, said Rick Webb, ABRA's coordinator for the new effort. "We recognize that they don't have the kind of staff and resources that we have as concerned citizens, but we are going to try and fill in the gap."
ABRA aims to organize an army of 100 opponents, on foot and in small planes, to monitor for construction problems and report them to the authorities.
The group, a coalition of more than 50 state, local and regional groups that oppose the Atlantic Coast pipeline, has fought the project in permitting procedures before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and with the state agencies in charge of water quality permits. Their engagement has likely slowed development of the $5.1 billion, 600-mile pipeline, backed by Dominion Energy Inc., Duke Energy Corp. and others. It is designed to carry natural gas from shale fields in the Marcellus and Utica formations from points in West Virginia, through Virginia and into North Carolina.
The pipeline has faced a slew of lawsuits from environmental groups and landowners along its route. Just this week, a coalition of groups filed a lawsuit targeting FERC's October decision to greenlight the pipeline. Other ongoing challenges take aim at state permits, eminent domain processes, the National Park Service's approval of a right of way for the project, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's review of potential impacts to protected species.
As those legal challenges have progressed slowly through the court system, though, the project has racked up approvals from a growing list of federal and state agencies, and has nearly reached the permitting finish line that will allow construction to go forward (Energywire, Jan. 29).
Many of ABRA's members worry that weaknesses they saw in the permitting process will carry forward to construction oversight.
"It's a matter of resources and political will," said Webb. "There's no question that Dominion Energy is the principal political power in the state of Virginia, and the allegiance of our Legislature, up until now, has been to Dominion first and to the citizens and environment second."
Under the program, ABRA will focus on a 225-mile segment of the Atlantic Coast pipeline route that passes through mountainous, geologically challenging terrain in Virginia and West Virginia. Webb believes that there is no precedent in the country for a pipeline as big as the Atlantic Coast project's 42-inch diameter to be laid along a path that offers such challenges from steep slope and a geologic tendency for sinkholes and rock slips.
So far, he says, ABRA has coordinated technical and other support in the permitting fight, providing expertise on stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, geotechnical issues, fisheries, and water quality. Working with allies like Trout Unlimited and the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, it is mapping the route in detail to identify critical areas where they see a likelihood of problems because conditions, in his eyes, exceed the standard in proven control technogies.
ABRA is also working with SouthWings, a regional organization with the tag line "conservation through aviation" that uses volunteer pilots to conduct aerial reconnaissance. SouthWings has worked on Chesapeake Bay imaging and mountaintop-removal mining, and will be helping ABRA with surveillance along the pipeline route that can serve as a baseline for environmental quality pre-construction, as well as assist in identifying what kinds of challenges exist at various points along the route. Webb said some of the work done so far has been foundation-funded, but many of the volunteers are, like himself, retirees with ecological, engineering or other relevant backgrounds. The site survey work they've done goes into more detail than what the regulatory agencies have looked at, he said, and far exceeds what the developers have made public.Not a replacement for regulators
The Atlantic Coast pipeline's developers recently got clearance from FERC to conduct limited tree-felling along the pipeline route that has to be completed before spring to comply with environmental laws, based on the permits they already have.
Lewis Freeman, ABRA's executive director, said that if Dominion is able to complete additional permitting in time, April marks the start of the season when construction could start in earnest.
By then, Freeman expects to have volunteers trained to monitor the company's work crews. Beyond technical data like water and air quality, he expects the project to watch out for problems with road and traffic problems in small communities where work activities are taking place, issues that counties highlighted as a particular concern. Volunteer training will stress the need to avoid trespassing and respect landowner access permission, he added.
"We're not trying to set ourselves up to replace the role that government agencies have, but to supplement that because we do not believe they have the resources required," Freeman said. "And we do not have confidence based on the record so far that led to the decision [to approve the pipeline] that they will do a thorough enough job."
Freeman said ABRA met with officials from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection last week. The state is gearing up for oversight of the Mountain Valley pipeline at the same time as construction on the Atlantic Coast pipeline goes forward, and has several other major pipeline projects in various stages of development, as well. Freeman said the agency has six to eight inspectors who cover a range of issues and plans to hire two additional inspectors just for pipelines, but cannot be sure that will be enough staff.
The DEP officials showed no sign of hostility toward ABRA or its plan to aggressively monitor the pipeline, Freeman said. "They were very positive not only about working with us and receiving our information, but about having a further dialogue" about the project. He said he plans to seek similar meetings with officials in Virginia and the U.S. Forest Service.
A spokesman for Dominion did not respond to questions for this story.Citizen input
A representative of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality said she had just learned of the citizen surveillance program last week, and that it comes at a good time, as the agency is pivoting from a focus on permitting toward construction oversight.
"We haven't moved into establishing any kind of process with citizen groups, and that is on our radar screen because we know that we've got individual citizens as well as environmental groups who are concerned about this phase of the project," said Ann Regn, the agency's manager of public information and outreach.
She said state officials have not fielded a meeting request from ABRA but would be happy to meet with it.
Historically, Regn said, utility projects like the Atlantic Coast pipeline have relied on the developer to self-report environmental problems. "Tt's self-inspection, the utility projects. Whether it's DDOT [the District Department of Transportation] or Dominion or whoever, they have to keep records themselves and then make them available whenever there are complaints," she said.
But the agency knows the coming pipeline projects will be different and expects that it will have to hire inspectors to oversee the work.
Regn said she wasn't aware of a precedent for large-scale involvement by volunteer monitors, but that the agency works with some citizens who've been trained in water-quality monitoring.
"It's a new request, but it seems to make sense that we would want to incorporate their interest into something positive, or as positive as it could be," she said of the new project. "We can use their data as a red flag, or to help identify where there might be potential problems, but as far as real compliance and enforcement, we have to verify that information. So we do have different levels of data when it comes to citizen monitoring."
What the Pipeline CSI program is planning is on a different scale from other efforts by concerned citizens, but Regn said the new program fits into the regulator's responsibilities. "If you were an average citizen and you saw something going on as you drove down the road and you reported it, we'd go investigate it."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/31/stories/1060072441
-
Environmentalists Ask EPA IG to Probe Refinery's Waste Violations
Jan 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are calling on the EPA Inspector General (IG) to investigate an alleged lack of action by the agency to resolve claims of long-term hazardous waste violations at a refinery in California's Los Angeles County, charging that the Trump administration is intentionally ignoring the matter.
“The people of California have a right to know why the Trump Administration decided not to pursue such obvious and well-documented violations of pollution control laws,” said Michelle Kinman, clean energy advocate for Environment California, which along with the Environmental Integrity Project Jan. 30 filed the investigation request letter to the IG and EPA Region 9.
“The environment and public health are put at risk when EPA drops the ball like this, and only the polluters benefit,” she says in a Jan. 30 press release.
The groups cite a Jan. 18 Los Angeles Times story reporting that EPA inspectors visited the PBF Energy Torrance Refining Co. in December 2016 and found nearly 285 tons of hazardous waste that had been sitting illegally at the site for 26 years. In addition, EPA inspectors found thousands of other tons of hazardous waste improperly stored and treated, according to the article.
The environmentalists ask the IG in the letter to “investigate why EPA has taken no enforcement against this facility and report its findings to the public”; direct EPA Region 9 to initiate “formal enforcement against the Torrance Refinery for the ongoing violations described in this letter”; and direct EPA to review the authorization of the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act's (RCRA) hazardous waste program in California “to ensure appropriate implementation, including proper training of inspectors and timely follow up of enforcement referrals to the state from EPA.”
The environmentalists also charge that EPA's decision to forego federal enforcement against the facility “appears inconsistent with EPA’s FY 2016-2017 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance National Program Manager Guidance, which includes a section on critical compliance monitoring and enforcement activities for RCRA.”
“For this reason, we are asking that EPA explain in a transparent manner -- taking into account the state of California’s problematic history with this refinery, as detailed below -- why EPA nonetheless referred the violations to the state for enforcement.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-ask-epa-ig-probe-refinerys-waste-violations
-
Who's Who in Trump's Infrastructure Push
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump's ballyhooed infrastructure initiative — envisioned as a $1.5 trillion construction push paired with accelerated environmental reviews — rides on some White House officials with deep ties to Capitol Hill and Wall Street.
The president's pitch for a bipartisan infrastructure deal during his State of the Union speech last night capped weeks of closed-door meetings and public conferences among industry and environmental groups, mayors and lawmakers, Trump's infrastructure guru David James "D.J." Gribbin and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
While firm details about Trump's plan are scarce, White House officials have been busy behind the scenes vetting ideas that might spur high-level discussions at the Republican policy retreat in West Virginia this week (E&E Daily, Jan. 31). Expected at the retreat are National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who have been meeting with members for months now to pitch and hear ideas.
Gribbin, a former banker working under Cohn on the NEC, has emerged as a key negotiator on infrastructure. He's reportedly shared a beer with the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, to discuss roads and bridges. He's also huddled with anxious mayors this month to discuss a timeline.
Sources say Gribbin is working closely with CEQ — notably with Alex Herrgott, a former staffer for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who has worked closely with Democrats in the past and had a hand in several pieces of infrastructure legislation.
Both Gribbin and Herrgott, who are working in newly created roles specifically focused on pushing Trump's infrastructure package, are likely to pitch the final product to Congress when negotiations wrap up.
While not involved in infrastructure discussions, sources are also watching veteran House energy lawyer Mary Neumayr, who began working as CEQ's chief of staff last March and has stayed on in an acting capacity as Trump's choice to lead CEQ, former Texas regulator Kathleen Hartnett White, remains tied up in the Senate.
Gribbin's work with CEQ is critical, given leaked White House infrastructure drafts focused on narrowing and accelerating reviews under National Environmental Policy Act, a law overseen by CEQ.
While George W. Bush's CEQ chief, Jim Connaughton, said that partnership is logical, since NEPA is the office's "bread and butter," an Obama-era CEQ official, Christy Goldfuss, disagrees.
"It is entirely flipping the role of the CEQ on its head to have them lead the permitting direction, so that's not the role of CEQ," she said. "CEQ has been about the environment. I see this as a big departure."
Here are key players on infrastructure:David James "D.J." Gribbin
As Trump's infrastructure adviser, Gribbin is helping flesh out how an infrastructure bill might be structured and financed.
The 55-year-old former senior Macquarie Group banker has deep expertise in fostering public-private partnerships and is no stranger to the federal government.
For more than six years, he led the government advisory for Macquarie Capital, leading teams structuring public-private partnership transactions for governmental clients. According to his online bio, he left the investment bank three years ago to work as a national director of consulting for Omaha, Neb.-based HDR, a consulting and engineering firm that fosters public-private partnerships on infrastructure projects.
Gribbin also served in the George W. Bush administration as general counsel for the Department of Transportation from 2007 to 2009 and as chief counsel for the Federal Highway Administration from 2003 to 2005.
Prior to that, he worked six years for Koch Industries, a corporation owned by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, as its director of public-sector business development, and as a legislative assistant for former Texas Rep. Larry Combest (R). He has a bachelor's degree in philosophy and a law degree from Georgetown University.
At his confirmation hearing in 2007, Gribbin shared that he was born in Frankfurt, Germany, has seven children and served as a national field director for the Christian Coalition in the 1990s.Alex Herrgott
Herrgott is leading an office focused on speeding regulatory reviews at CEQ.
Described by a Senate Democratic aide as a "good-faith negotiator," Herrgott in recent months has huddled with conservative and transportation groups, pitching the idea of winnowing environmental reviews down to two years or less. One lobbyist said Herrgott appears to have the "drafting pen on a lot of the sort of administrative guidance."
Among many former Inhofe staffers in the administration, Herrgott served as legislative director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee from 2013 to 2014 and had a hand in drafting several pieces of infrastructure legislation, including the Water Resources Development Act and the highway bill (E&E Daily, May 1).
Herrgott was a staff member on the EPW panel from 2004 to 2011 and then joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a director of transportation and infrastructure, according to his online bio. Before that, he was an EPW staffer from 2004 to 2011.
In recent weeks, Herrgott has fielded concerns about the Trump administration possibly gutting environmental laws to fast-track projects (Climatewire, Jan. 24).
"We have no intention of eroding environmental protections," he reportedly said when addressing the Transportation Research Board's annual conference this month, according to The Washington Post.Mary Neumayr
CEQ chief of staff Neumayr is also being eyed as a pivotal player in Trump's bid to speed NEPA reviews.
"If they're going to spend money on infrastructure, the only way they're going to be able to do it is if they streamline the NEPA permitting process," said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who led the Trump transition at U.S. EPA. "Since CEQ is in charge of NEPA, that means Mary and her team will be important."
Neumayr also brings deep Capitol Hill experience, having served as deputy chief counsel on energy and environment for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Before that, Neumayr served in the George W. Bush administration as deputy general counsel for environment and nuclear programs at the Energy Department from 2006 to 2009, and as counsel to the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division from 2003 to 2006.Beyond the White House
While negotiations are in the early stages, a firm infrastructure plan — one that would make its way through Congress — would likely involve key agencies pitching in selling pieces of the package.
Sources said they are watching officials like Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt and R.D. James, the new head of the Army Corps of Engineers. They also pointed to EPA staffers working on NEPA, CEQ staff like Ted Boling focused on NEPA reforms, Andrew Wheeler, Trump's nominee to be EPA's deputy administrator, and Jeffrey Rosen, the Interior Department's deputy secretary.
Some sources questioned whether Trump's infrastructure push could lead to the filling of a vacant slot directing the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, a panel created under the "Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act" focused on improving coordination, transparency and accountability for large infrastructure projects across the federal footprint. Trump has yet to appoint a director of the steering council while Janet Pfleeger, a career staffer, is serving as deputy director.
"If [Trump] really wanted to be streamlining, I think he would have picked someone," said Cynthia Taub with the law firm Steptoe & Johnson.
But Pfleeger told a Senate committee in December the council was working with administration officials to create more predictable permitting for large and complex infrastructure projects and tackle interagency disputes. Pfleeger, who previously worked at Interior for a decade after beginning her career as an economist at the Department of Labor, also said the panel is getting the job done.
"The permitting council of the executive director is positioned to truly change the siloed nature of the permitting process," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/31/stories/1060072527
-
Some Conservatives Tout Carbon Tax to Fund Trump's Plan
Jan 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
With many questions hovering over how to fund President Trump's much-anticipated infrastructure proposal, the politically divisive option of a carbon tax is gaining some interest and traction.
In his first State of the Union address last night, Trump called on Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for new infrastructure investments, $500 billion more than what he proposed last year. The president did not provide details on how that revenue would be generated, other than by saying every federal dollar should be "leveraged" by partnering with state and local governments.
"It's a lot of money," Joseph Majkut, a climate scientist at the libertarian Niskanen Center, told E&E News. "And when you think about where you can get that money, I think a carbon tax is preferable to Chinese debt or a lot of other things."
Almost a year since Trump proposed an infrastructure overhaul for the country's crumbling bridges and pothole-laden highways, funding mechanisms remain elusive. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has started lobbying for a 25-cent-per-gallon increase in the federal gas tax, which — as Majkut put it — has carbon tax advocates on both sides of the aisle rolling their eyes.
"After all, how does an increase in the gas tax (used then for productive spending) differ substantially from a carbon tax?" he wrote in a recent blog post. "A carbon tax levied at $25 per ton of CO2 would also increase gas prices about 25 cents per gallon. It could also raise a lot more money for a similar price increase."
Majkut is not alone with his opinion. Conservative Republicans and libertarians who are pro-market forces and anti-regulation see a carbon tax as an obvious answer for infrastructure reforms.
"A reasonable carbon tax would raise approximately $1.5 trillion over 10 years and is probably one of the most interesting possibilities for an infrastructure package," Alex Flint, a former member of Trump's transition team who previously worked as senior vice president of governmental affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, told E&E News.
"If you do it the way [the Alliance for Market Solutions] proposes, in which it replaces regulations, it results in growth from regulatory relief and investment in infrastructure and provides for a long-term increase in GDP," added Flint, who now leads the Alliance for Market Solutions, which advocates for a carbon tax without stipulating how revenue should be used.
George Frampton, co-founder of the Partnership for Responsible Growth, also said a carbon fee could be the only way to generate enough revenue to pay for a "serious" infrastructure program.
"A carbon fee gives you roughly the same increase in retail gas prices but would produce three times as much money," he said. "If you think a gas tax has some legs, a carbon fee is a much better way to do it."
According to the Congressional Budget Office, pricing carbon at $25 per metric ton, increasing 2 percent a year, would generate $1 trillion. The U.S. Treasury estimated that $49 per metric ton of CO2 would yield $2.2 trillion.
Majkut noted that under a carbon tax, for the same price hike at the gas pump, more revenue could be raised for infrastructure improvements.
"Or alternatively, the same amount of revenue could be raised at a lower rate by switching from a tax on gas to a tax on carbon," he wrote in the blog post.
Either way, a carbon tax would result in high social benefits by reducing carbon emissions in a way a gas tax can't.
But Josiah Neeley, energy policy director for the R Street Institute, said his organization — which supports free markets and limited government — believes a carbon fee should be revenue-neutral.
"It should be used to cut taxes rather than increase spending," he said. "For that reason, I don't think infrastructure would be a great vehicle for that."
Frampton, Flint and Majkut are in talks with Republican lawmakers about a carbon tax for infrastructure but said movement is slow going.
"Do I think we're going to have a really serious conversation about a carbon tax?" Majkut said. "Given the hotly debated nature of carbon taxing, it's probably unlikely."
He added: "But are we going to fund these [infrastructure] packages with 20th-century taxes or 21st-century taxes? I prefer the latter."
Flint agreed the conversation about funding infrastructure through a carbon fee is just beginning but said Republican policymakers "recognize this option."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/31/stories/1060072521
-
D.C. Circuit Grants EPA Bid to Put Haze Rule Update Suit in Abeyance
Jan 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has granted EPA's request to place litigation against its Obama-era regional haze rule revision into abeyance, pending an agency reconsideration of the rule.
The court's Jan. 30 order granting the abeyance request in State of Texas, et al., v. EPA, et al., says that the agency's initial status report on its reconsideration proceedings is due to the court on April 30.
EPA's Jan. 10, 2017, rule updating the regional haze emissions reduction program extended compliance deadlines for states to supply plans for haze reduction by three years, from 2018 until 2021, but also increased the role of federal land managers (FLMs) in states' planning processes, among other provisions. Some states and industry groups objected to the increased role of FLMs in their haze planning, filing suit over the rule.
On Jan. 17, the agency announced that it will reconsider key aspects of the Obama rule, including FLM consultation requirements. EPA then asked the D.C. Circuit to put the case in abeyance pending reconsideration.
The haze program aims to restore visibility to natural conditions in "Class I" national parks and wilderness areas by 2064, but the Trump EPA's commitment to that goal is in doubt, following remarks from EPA air chief William Wehrum expressing concern over the progressively more “acute” impacts of the program on states and industry.
Meanwhile, EPA Jan. 29 announced it had finalized a weaker regional haze plan for Arkansas with the state's cooperation, replacing an Obama-era federal plan imposed on the state and setting a likely precedent for future haze plans.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hailed the agreement with Arkansas that “returns power back to the rightful hands of the state and gives them the necessary flexibility to improve air quality,” part of his quest to restore power to states under the Clean Air Act's “co-operative federalism” that gives states primary responsibility for implementation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-grants-epa-bid-put-haze-rule-update-suit-abeyance
-
Interim EPA Guidance Details Plan for Deferring to States on Enforcement
Jan 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA has sent interim guidance to its regions that details the agency's plan for deferring to states on enforcement of environmental laws if they have enforcement programs recognized by EPA, part of Administrator Scott Pruitt's “cooperative federalism” push, though it includes exceptions such as for cases of significant noncompliance.
“Today's Interim Guidance is being issued in order to immediately begin the movement toward a more
collaborative partnership between the EPA and authorized States,” writes EPA Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Assistant Administrator (OECA) Susan Bodine in the Jan. 22 guidance obtained by Inside EPA.
The guidance, in the form of a memo Bodine sent to EPA assistant administrators, is for “Enhancing Regional-State Planning And Communication on Compliance Assurance Work in Authorized States”-- a policy likely to be further revised after the conclusion of an ongoing EPA-state discussion on enforcement and an upcoming progress report, due at the end of September this year on the policy's implementation, according to the text.
It offers the most detailed to date of Pruitt's pledge to allow states with authorized or delegated programs to take the lead on environmental matters under his push for greater cooperative federalism.
For states with authorized or delegated enforcement programs, “the expectation is that the state would be in the lead,” Bodine said Jan. 30 at an EPA National Executive Leadership Development Conference in Washington, D.C. “But if a state doesn't have the capacity, doesn't have the resources or doesn't have the will to take action, than EPA will,” she added. “It is really all about sharing information . . . we cannot ignore noncompliance.”
At the conference, Bodine also said EPA will launch pilot projects using “informal” enforcement actions that notify a facility of a violation and aim to achieve immediate compliance without waiting for formal litigation steps, saying that while it may cause a drop in total enforcement cases it could speed compliance.
Environmentalists and some Democrats have raised concerns about what they see as a Trump administration effort to reduce enforcement of environmental laws. Some observers have questioned whether states that are already facing tight budgets have adequate resources to also take on more environmental enforcement. Bodine's memo does not explicitly address this issue, instead saying EPA will “generally defer” to authorized state programs.
Bodine in the guidance says that it “applies to all EPA compliance assurance activities, such as inspections and enforcement, in authorized State environmental programs.” But coordination “with other state agencies and Tribal governments is also encouraged.”
More specifically, the new policy states that with respect to inspections and enforcement, “the EPA will generally defer to authorized States as the primary day-to-day implementer of their authorized/delegated programs, except in specific situations. The EPA believes that exceptions to this general practice should be identified through close communication and involvement of upper management of both agencies,” Bodine adds.
EPA Involvement
The policy lists roughly a dozen examples of situations that could warrant EPA involvement in individual inspections and enforcement after “close communication” between EPA and state upper management, adding that scenarios of potentially greater involvement are not limited to these specific examples.
The areas of possible exception to the policy of deferring to states include: Where program audits indicate the need for EPA to “fill a gap” until a deficiency in the state program is remedied; emergency situations or situations where there is significant risk to public health and environment; where there is significant noncompliance that a state has not “ timely or appropriately” addressed; where enforcement activities require specialized EPA equipment and/or expertise, and where a targeted facility is federally or state owned or operated.
Other scenarios where EPA involvement may be needed include where enforcement activity is aimed “ to consistently address widespread noncompliance problems in a sector or program” -- such as under EPA National Enforcement Initiatives -- or addresses companies with facilities in multiple states or cases where there are cross boundary environmental impacts on other states, tribes or nations.
Additionally, EPA involvement may be needed in cases of program oversight inspections; in response to State requests for assistance or under “work-sharing arrangements” where EPA takes the lead in particular areas; and in response to “serious violations that need to be investigated and addressed by the EPA's criminal enforcement program."
Bodine writes that in cases where EPA identifies an enforcement violation but a state wants to take the lead “the Region should defer except where the EPA believes that some EPA involvement is warranted.”
Such matters should be discussed “between upper management of both agencies,” and if senior leadership in the region and state cannot agree the memo instructs that the issue be elevated to Bodine.
“This elevation is important to ensure a consistent national program among states and the EPA and a level playing field for regulated entities.”
Progress Report
The memo notifies regions that OECA headquarters will provide to the EPA regional offices in July 2018 a format to develop a progress report on implementation of the policy, and she accordingly calls for regional offices to provide by Sept. 28 a progress report “including their views on how well it is working on areas for improvement.”
Bodine in the memo says to expect an update to the interim policy “as appropriate” in fiscal year 2019 -- after the completion of EPA-state discussion under the umbrella of a “Compliance Assurance Collaboration Workgroup” that began its efforts last September. Such an update would also occur based on “input from the Regions in their progress reports and recommendations, [and] input from state, federal, tribal and local compliance partners.”
EPA “may revise, replace or discontinue this Interim Guidance at any time,” and the policy is “not intended to supersede any statutory or regulatory requirements or agency policy.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/interim-epa-guidance-details-plan-deferring-states-enforcement
-
Green Group Backs Sens. Baldwin, Nelson for Reelection
Jan 31, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A major environmental group’s campaign arm is backing Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.) for reelection this year.
The NRDC Action Fund, affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Baldwin and Nelson have both proven themselves champions of the environment and strong opponents of President Trump’s environmental agenda.
Both races are expected to be extremely close and could either lead Democrats to take the Senate majority or help Republicans keep the majority.
“From protecting drinking water and the Great Lakes to helping strengthen controls on toxic chemicals, we need fighters like Sen. Baldwin who will stand up to polluters and protect the health of all Wisconsinites,” Kevin Curtis, NRDC Action Fund’s executive director, said in a Wednesday statement.
Businessman Kevin Nicholson and state Sen. Leah Vukmir are running in a Republican primary for the chance to challenge Baldwin.
Baldwin accepted the endorsement, saying in a statement, “With the support of the NRDC Action Fund, I am excited to continue my work to expand clean power, renewable fuels and water efficiency in the U.S. Senate.”
NRDC Action Fund applauded Nelson for opposing fossil fuel priorities, like offshore drilling near Florida.
“Since his first term in office, Sen. Nelson has made it his priority to protect Florida’s economy and environment from the dangers of offshore drilling. Sen. Nelson has a long history of putting the well-being of Florida communities over the interests of powerful corporate polluters and the fossil fuel lobby,” Curtis said.
Nelson is likely to face Gov. Rick Scott (R), though Scott has not declared his candidacy.
“Fighting to protect Florida’s unique environment has, is and always will be one of my top priorities,” Nelson said in a statement. “And it’s an honor to have the support of the NRDC Action Fund and all of its members fighting by my side as we head into 2018.”
It's the second wave of Senate endorsements for NRDC Action Fund. Earlier this month, the group backed a handful of Democratic senators who are nearly certain to have easy elections: Chris Murphy (Conn.), Tom Carper (Del.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Maria Cantwell (Wash.).
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/371602-green-group-backs-sens-baldwin-nelson-for-reelection
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested