Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 13/02/18
-
Climate Loses in Trump's Plan. Here's Who Wins
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
President Trump's budget proposal would slash funding for the people most vulnerable to climate change while nudging energy companies to extract more fossil fuels from government land. -
White House Preserves Energy Star by Charging Fees
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
In an about-face, the White House is continuing to support U.S. EPA's Energy Star program. -
North Carolina Requiring New Steps to Reduce GenX Emissions
Feb 13, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
North Carolina environmental regulators have ordered a chemical company to take further steps to reduce emissions of chemicals that have questionable health effects. -
Pruitt Talks 'War on Lead,' but Budget Says Little
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has promised Congress he'll wage a "war on lead" in fiscal 2019. -
Echa Consults on Derogation for Endocrine Disrupting Rodenticide
Feb 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has opened a public consultation on whether the rodenticide cholecalciferol should be approved for use, despite meeting the exclusion criteria of the biocidal products Regulation. -
Watchdog: Texas Company Illegally Charged Energy Dept. $2.5 Million in Expenses
Feb 13, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A watchdog has found that a Texas energy company likely charged the Department of Energy $2.5 million in extraneous expenditures ranging from spa services to lobbying costs. -
EPA Moving to Give States Control Over CO2 Storage
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
U.S. EPA is working to give states more authority to regulate the storage of carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial sources, the agency's top groundwater official said yesterday. -
Agency Proposes to Scale Back Obama-Era Methane Rule
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
The Interior Department is proposing a rule to limit methane from oil and gas wells on public lands that's significantly less stringent than the Obama-era plan it seeks to replace. -
Report Reveals Pollution Transparency Problems for Majority of New Mexico’s Energy Companies
Feb 13, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jon Goldstein
Much is known about the methane pollution coming from New Mexico’s oil and gas industry. -
White House Offers Energy-Friendly Proposal
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King, Jenny Mandel and Mike Soraghan
The White House's $4.4 trillion budget request aims to shore up an "energy dominance" policy that in President Trump's first year emphasized oil, gas and coal development and tried to sweep away environmental regulations. -
Cheniere Reaches Long-Term LNG Deal with China
Feb 13, 2018 | San Antonio Express News (In E&E Energywire)
By Katherine Blunt
Houston-based Cheniere Energy will sell some 1.2 million tons of liquefied natural gas annually to China's state oil and gas firm, under the terms of two agreements running through the year 2043. -
Trump Proposal Goes After States' Gas-Pipeline Power
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim, Ellen M. Gilmer and Jenny Mandel
President Trump has asked Congress to rein in a key state power over natural gas pipelines. -
Questions Trail Pruitt's 'Reform Plan'
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Faster contracting and permitting and fewer requests for industry information are all part of U.S. EPA's long-anticipated "reform plan." -
International Climate Programs on Chopping Block — Again
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump's State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budget request for fiscal 2019 doubles down on cuts the administration proposed last year for climate change and environmental programs, but it's unclear whether those proposals will have any weight when Congress moves its own spending legislation.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Climate Loses in Trump's Plan. Here's Who Wins
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
President Trump's budget proposal would slash funding for the people most vulnerable to climate change while nudging energy companies to extract more fossil fuels from government land.
Winning in the Trump administration sometimes means just not losing. Some renewable energy and climate-adjacent programs were spared from proposed cuts, including a few that were targeted last year. But the unifying message of the White House's central planning document is that government should do less, even when Congress boosts budget caps.
The spending blueprint ignores rising temperatures. It doubles down on environmental and diplomatic cuts that lawmakers have already disregarded. And it invites private capital to replace publicly funded research, infrastructure and services.
These proposals matter, even if Congress blows them off, because they signal what the administration values and where officials are directing their attention.
So even if the White House doesn't get all the cuts it wants, here's who's in the limelight and who's in the crosshairs.Losers
People most affected by rising temperatures: The budget only mentions climate change in its list of programs slated for elimination. A closer look reveals that several other cuts would hit especially hard for people grappling with rising sea levels, stronger droughts and other consequences of climate change.
The Delta Regional Authority — serving people in regions especially vulnerable to floods, erosion and storms — would see its funding slashed to $3 million from $25 million as the Trump administration shuts it down. And in Alaska, where temperatures are rising much more quickly than the mainland, the Trump administration wants to cut several programs tailored to the state, like the Denali Commission and grants to Alaska Native villages.
"The rationale for a unique and additional Federal subsidy to Alaska is difficult to justify given that the State of Alaska's oil revenues allow it to pay an annual dividend ($1,884 in 2017) to each of its residents," the budget says.
The Appalachian Regional Commission would be spared, unlike in last year's proposal.
Globally, the story is the same. Along with eliminating the $160 million Global Climate Change Initiative, the budget would slash international food aid from the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development. (The budget addendum restores $1 billion of USAID's $1.6 billion proposed cut.)
The African Development Foundation and Inter-American Foundation would each see most of its funding cut.
Flood mapping: The Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood mapping and risk analysis program would get cut to $100 million from $178 million, with the administration saying states and local governments could pick up the slack.
"Given limited resources and the backlog of flood mapping needs despite regular federal investment, the Budget proposes to reduce flood map funding to preserve resources for the Department of Homeland Security's core missions," the budget says.
Energy efficiency and mass transit programs: Energy Star, slated for elimination in last year's spending plan, could still continue under this budget — but federal funding would end. Instead, EPA would administer the program through revenues from a "modest fee" on participating manufacturers.
DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program would be eliminated.
And Amtrak would see its federal grants cut more than 50 percent, down to $738 million from nearly $1.5 billion, with its long-distance routes targeted specifically.
Research: EPA, DOE, NASA and NOAA would see research money slashed (see related story).
Five NASA Earth science missions would be cut, along with funding to the International Space Station by 2025.
Although the addendum reversed proposed cuts to several DOE programs, one that would remain on the chopping block is the $305 million Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program.
EPA's extramural Science to Achieve Results grants would be eliminated as part of a $229 million cut to the agency's research programs.
The National Science Foundation, originally slated for a $2.2 billion (nearly 30 percent) cut, was spared thanks to the congressional budget agreement. That would provide money for upgrading research facilities in Antarctica.Winners
Scott Pruitt: The EPA administrator's rhetoric of "cooperative federalism" and returning to the agency's "core work" echoes throughout the budget proposal — even if the numbers suggest a more modest impact on his stated priorities.
The budget would cut categorical grants to states by $469 million (nearly 44 percent), while allowing more flexibility for $27 million of the remaining $597 million. And the administration used extra money from Congress' budget deal to keep funding roughly steady for state revolving funds — with the newly restored $397 million going to wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.
Funding for Superfund cleanup, initially proposed for a $327 million cut, will remain flat thanks to the spending hike by Congress.
Overall, the budget calls for cutting EPA by 23 percent to $6.15 billion. That funding is far less than what lawmakers are considering for fiscal 2018 — between $7.5 billion and $7.91 billion.
Coast Guard: The Coasties would finally get $720 million for their first new heavy icebreaker in more than 40 years.
Retreating sea ice is drawing more ships to the Arctic, and Coast Guard leadership has warned that the United States lacks the vessels to patrol the area. Its operational fleet of icebreakers currently consists of one heavy icebreaker near the end of its operational life and a smaller research vessel.
Fossil fuel companies: The budget proposes funding national park maintenance through leases of government land for energy development. The Interior Department has been trying to expand oil and gas drilling, and this would offer another incentive for government officials to look for more opportunities for energy leasing.
DOE would also devote $502 million to fossil energy research — $81 million more than fiscal 2017. At least $200 million would go to "clean coal" research (see related story).
Disaster preparation: FEMA would get a new $522 million grant program aimed at hazard preparation. By comparison, FEMA last year awarded $63 million in pre-disaster mitigation grants and $627 million in post-disaster grants.
Renewable energy: It could've been worse. Despite the cuts to ARPA-E and other research programs, DOE would still put $696 million toward its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. That's $1.3 billion less than fiscal 2017 but $60 million more than what the administration asked for last year.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073713
-
White House Preserves Energy Star by Charging Fees
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
In an about-face, the White House is continuing to support U.S. EPA's Energy Star program.
The decision to retain the popular voluntary partnership program comes after the Trump administration faced fierce backlash from supporters when it proposed slashing funding for Energy Star in its budget blueprint last year.
Climate-change-related programs remained a target for budget cuts at EPA. The fiscal 2019 proposal, which seeks to cut the agency's funding by about 23 percent, would zero out funding for climate research. It would also eliminate EPA's other partnership programs with businesses. These include the Natural Gas STAR and AgSTAR programs, both aimed at cutting methane emissions from the fossil fuel industry and agriculture, respectively.
The White House plan suggested an alternate source of funding to keep Energy Star running.
"The proposed budget shifts the Energy Star program to a fee-funded model, which will provide long term stability for the program," an EPA spokesperson said in an email.
Perhaps best known for certifying high-efficiency appliances, like washing machines, Energy Star also certifies buildings and offers resources to homeowners who want to lower their energy costs.
The budget states that EPA would collect "modest fees" from product manufacturers that seek to gain the Energy Star label for their products.
"Energy Star is a trusted resource for consumers and businesses that want to purchase products that save them money and help protect the environment," the budget states.
Before implementing the new funding structure, EPA would undergo a rulemaking process to figure out what products would be covered by the fees and how big they would be. This process would "ensure that a fee system would not discourage manufacturers from participating in the program or result in a loss of environmental benefits," according to the budget proposal.
The budget plan would keep $46 million available for the Energy Star program until Sept. 30, 2020, provided that the agency collects fees during fiscal 2019 to offset that amount by the time Congress makes a final appropriation from the general fund. Any fee revenue exceeding $46 million would also go into the general fund, according to the document.
Stan Meiburg, who served as a deputy under former Administrator Gina McCarthy, said the proposal to fund Energy Star through fees is not unique to the Trump administration.
"This is something that has been kicked around before. I'd be open to a discussion about it," he said.
Others are more skeptical.
"This is an incredibly successful program, it helps save energy, we don't want to risk its success," said Lowell Ungar, a senior policy adviser for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. "The program is meant to first and foremost serve consumers — if someone else is paying the program, will consumers be able to know that the program is working for them?"
Ungar noted that the question about how to pay for Energy Star came up last year when the administration first proposed cutting it. At the time, there were questions about whether Energy Star could be privatized and funded through user fees.
"The budget again would propose some really major cuts that would harm energy efficiency, consumers and research, and do damage to the very purposes of the budget in terms of job creation and developing the economy and infrastructure. It's making cuts in all those areas, it just doesn't make a lot of sense," he said.
In addition to keeping Energy Star running, EPA will continue to collect data on greenhouse gas emissions, as it's required to do by law. The agency will also implement the renewable fuel standard and address tailpipe emissions.
Overall, the budget proposal was primarily focused on promoting the agency's priorities of improving drinking water and water quality, along with brownfield and Superfund cleanups. The funding falls in line with the agency's finalized 2018-2022 strategic plan, also released yesterday.
In a break from previous administrations and from other members of Trump's Cabinet, Pruitt did not hold a press call to discuss the budget.
The cuts in the fiscal 2019 budget proposal would have been steeper without the additional $724 million that the White House allocated at the last minute to comply with the two-year budget deal passed by Congress on Friday. The administration initially planned to cut EPA's budget by 34 percent from fiscal 2017 enacted levels, slightly more than what was proposed in last year's budget blueprint (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
Meiburg echoed Ungar's concerns about EPA's direction.
"It is disheartening that the core function of the agency with respect to science seems to be under attack. That is very discouraging," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073667
-
North Carolina Requiring New Steps to Reduce GenX Emissions
Feb 13, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
North Carolina environmental regulators have ordered a chemical company to take further steps to reduce emissions of chemicals that have questionable health effects.
The state Department of Environmental Quality issued a notice of violation Monday telling Chemours to take more actions to control emissions of GenX and other compounds at its Bladen County plant. GenX is used to make Teflon and other coatings.
The notice orders the company to do a better job of cutting back on air emissions with particles that can settle and contribute to groundwater contamination.
Delaware-based Chemours didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
State lawmakers and regulators have been taking a closer look at GenX amid concerns that the chemical is present in waterways that supply drinking water to eastern North Carolina communities.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/13/us/ap-us-chemical-river.html
-
Pruitt Talks 'War on Lead,' but Budget Says Little
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has promised Congress he'll wage a "war on lead" in fiscal 2019. But the agency's budget proposal released yesterday offers scant details on the effort.
In fact, while the Trump administration supports funding programs that help local communities pay to improve water infrastructure — including replacing lead pipes — EPA also proposes cuts to programs that have worked on lead contamination issues.
The agency's $84 million request for drinking water programs represents a $15 million decrease from current levels. Those proposed cuts come mostly from environmental programs, where EPA says it is "streamlining activities."
The agency is actually requesting a slight $100,000 increase in funding for science and technology in drinking water programs. Overall, funding for those programs would be spent, in part, to "continue to evaluate and address drinking water risks in 2019," the budget states, including "evaluating recommendations from stakeholders to develop revision" to the Lead and Copper Rule.
EPA says it will "continue to focus on working with states to optimize corrosion control treatment and develop other strategies to minimize exposure to lead."
Also on the chopping block is the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program. The administration is proposing a $38 million cut from current levels to fund the program at $67 million in 2019.
The budget notes researchers from that program are working to develop sampling protocols and exposure risk assessment models for lead in drinking water. Researchers there also recently evaluated lead corrosion control treatment strategies with partner utilities in eight states "to inform implementation" of standards for lead in drinking water.
But the proposal does not mention any lead-related research in a list of "high priority" efforts for the program in fiscal 2019. Instead, that list focuses on stormwater capture, using wetlands to improve drinking water, monitoring of waterborne pathogens, investigating harmful algal blooms and researching water reuse methods.
The administration is also proposing a 33 percent cut to the public water system supervision grant, which provides technical assistance to owners and operators of drinking water systems on how to monitor and sample drinking water and respond to violations.
While EPA emphasized the importance of lead-in-water programs in the budget, it is again proposing to eliminate the Lead Risk Reduction program, which works to reduce the number of children with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher. The program, which aims to reduce disparities in blood lead levels between children of different socioeconomic classes, has often focused on lead paint removal, not drinking water.
EPA is also proposing an $80 million cut to research in the Sustainable and Healthy Communities program, which, among other things, has been researching how various sources of lead poisoning, including water and paint, contribute to blood lead levels in infants.
The budget does emphasize infrastructure improvements, listing infrastructure first on a list of fiscal 2019 funding priorities.
"A top priority for EPA is modernizing the outdated water infrastructure on which the American public depends," the budget states.
Indeed, three grant programs that help state and local governments improve drinking and wastewater infrastructure were some of the only programs for which EPA is requesting increased funding over current levels in a budget that proposes an overall 23 percent cut from fiscal 2017 funding for the agency.
EPA is requesting $2.3 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, as well as $20 million for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.
Those proposed increases come as Congress is considering a similarly sized bump to water infrastructure funding grants.
The agency writes that these grants are crucial to solving the nation's lead-in-water crisis.
"Clean and safe drinking water is critical to the health of communities," the budget states. "While most small systems consistently provide safe and reliable drinking water, many small systems face challenges with aging infrastructure, increasing costs and decreasing rates bases, making the drinking water [state revolving fund] an important source of funding for these communities. This SRF funding also supports efforts across the country to eradicate lead pipes that may leach into the nation's drinking water supply."
The budget mentions its effort to revise standards for lead in drinking water only a handful of times, and EPA officials are similarly mum on the issue.
Peter Grevatt, director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, declined to answer questions about whether EPA is considering requiring utilities to begin replacing lead pipes when approached by E&E News after a speech at the Ground Water Protection Council in Tulsa, Okla., yesterday.
"It's really premature to be able to answer that question," he said.
"It's important to know that EPA hasn't yet issued a proposal, so we're still thinking through these issues," he said of the revised lead standards.
Grevatt noted EPA is in the middle of its "federalism consultation" on lead-in-water regulations, and said the agency's proposed changes to standards would be based on that process, along with recommendations the agency received in 2015 from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and lessons learned from the Flint, Mich., drinking water crisis.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073761
-
Echa Consults on Derogation for Endocrine Disrupting Rodenticide
Feb 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has opened a public consultation on whether the rodenticide cholecalciferol should be approved for use, despite meeting the exclusion criteria of the biocidal products Regulation.
Cholecalciferol has endocrine disrupting properties that affect humans, target and non-target organisms. This would normally exclude it from being authorised for use in the EU, according to BPR rules.
The consultation concerns the substance's use in product-type 14. Professionals and non-professionals use it to control mice and rats.
This is the first consultation on a biocidal active substance with endocrine disrupting properties, since the authorities adopted criteria to identify such chemicals, under the BPR, last year.
Stakeholders are still waiting for a guidance document outlining how these criteria should be applied. But Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) said identifying cholecalciferol as an endocrine disruptor is justified already "because it functions via the endocrine system of vertebrates, and its mode of action is well understood".Derogation criteria
The aim of the public consultation is to help Echa decide whether cholecalciferol should be approved for use despite its endocrine disrupting properties.
The law allows substances that meet the BPR exclusion criteria to be approved for use if:exposure to them is negligible;they are essential to prevent a serious danger to human or animal health or the environment; ornot approving them would have a disproportionate negative impact on society compared with the risks of allowing their use.
The consultation is open until 7 April.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63903/echa-consults-on-derogation-for-endocrine-disrupting-rodenticide
-
Watchdog: Texas Company Illegally Charged Energy Dept. $2.5 Million in Expenses
Feb 13, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A watchdog has found that a Texas energy company likely charged the Department of Energy $2.5 million in extraneous expenditures ranging from spa services to lobbying costs.
The Energy Department's Office of Inspector General identified more than $2.5 million in expenses Summitt Texas Clean Energy charged to project that they considered potentially unallowable, according to an inspector general report released Feb. 8.
Summit was awarded a contract with the Energy Department in 2010 for a $1.7 billion cooperative agreement to work on the department's Clean Coal Power Initiative, described by the report as "a partnership with industry to demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies."
Summit charged the federal government for more than $1.2 million in potential lobbying costs and $1.3 million in potentially prohibited travel expenses, the audit found.
According to the report, Summit charged the Energy Department to employ three lobbying consultants.
The inspector general found that one of the consultants in particular, who was paid the majority of the fee — $1 million — met with law firms working on behalf of the clean coal project. These firms' services had previously been deemed unallowable lobbying costs.
It is illegal to use federal funds to lobby government officials.
In regards to the appearance of lobbying with federal funds, Summit told the inspector general that the activities were "to obtain clarification on an Internal Revenue Service rule regarding the taxability of grant funds, not to change legislation," according to the report.
The inspector general, however, determined this to be untrue calling their interpretation "a legislative fix.”
The audit also found that Summit charged the Energy Department $650,000 for consultant costs, which included charges for first-class travel, a spa service, limousine services and alcohol.
Summit also charged about $325,000 for catering on a private jet, travel expenses to attend a charity event and banquet room rental expenses, all things the inspector general determined "did not appear to be business-related."
The report said officials found the potential unallowable travel charges the most alarming due to the fact that Summit's total travel budget increased from about $713,000 to over $3 million.
The inspector general in part blamed Energy Department's Office of Fossil Energy for failing to consistently exercise "sound project and financial management practices in its oversight of the project."
The department terminated the project with Summit in 2016 citing "significant project delays had occurred due to the Project’s inability to secure private financing."
Following the inspector general's review of Summit's excess charges, the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in October.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/373606-ig-finds-texas-company-illegally-charged-25-million-in-expenses-to
-
EPA Moving to Give States Control Over CO2 Storage
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
U.S. EPA is working to give states more authority to regulate the storage of carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial sources, the agency's top groundwater official said yesterday.
The move to give states more control over Class VI injection wells — the kind used to store CO2 specifically for long-term sequestration — is part of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's larger campaign to push decisionmaking power down to the states, Peter Grevatt, director of the agency's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, said here at a meeting of the Groundwater Protection Council.
"Work is moving forward on Class VI, and we're pretty excited about it," he said.
EPA has already given many states primary permitting authority over other types of injection wells, such as those used to dispose of industrial and oil field waste, or the wells used to pump carbon dioxide into oil fields to increase their output. The Groundwater Protection Council, a consortium of state regulators, was formed in the 1980s to provide input to EPA's injection rules.
EPA has broken a couple of logjams on Class VI injection permits since Pruitt took over.
North Dakota asked for permission to regulate Class VI wells in 2011, and EPA issued a proposal in May to grant that request. The agency is reviewing comments on that proposal, Grevatt said. Wyoming has also applied for primacy over carbon sequestration (Climatewire, May 10, 2017).
Meanwhile, EPA gave final permission in April for the Archer Daniels Midland Co. to begin injecting carbon dioxide at an ethanol plant in Illinois. ADM broke ground on the project in 2011.
Since getting the permit, ADM has injected 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide and qualified for a $10.1 billion tax credit, Grevatt said.
"If you're thinking about it, watching what ADM has done, I would encourage [you] to think seriously about that. I think you'll find a positive reception from EPA," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073649
-
Agency Proposes to Scale Back Obama-Era Methane Rule
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
The Interior Department is proposing a rule to limit methane from oil and gas wells on public lands that's significantly less stringent than the Obama-era plan it seeks to replace.
The proposed rule from the Bureau of Land Management is the Trump administration's response to the 2016 Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, also known as the venting and flaring rule, which was finalized just before President Trump took office. The agency said it expects to post the draft rule to the Federal Register this week.
The Obama administration's rule set requirements for oil and gas operators to adopt best practices and technologies to limit the amount of natural gas that is burned off, also known as flaring, from about 100,000 wells on public lands. Venting, or releasing natural gas into the atmosphere, was prohibited almost entirely.
The main component of natural gas is the greenhouse gas methane, which is about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere. Finalizing BLM's methane rule was a cornerstone of President Obama's now-defunct 2013 Climate Action Plan.
Industry groups immediately sued after the final Obama-era rule was released, and key parts of the rule that would have required operators to upgrade equipment beginning last month have been frozen by the courts.
After the Senate failed to secure enough votes to use the Congressional Review Act to nullify the rule in May 2017, Interior signaled its desire to substantially revise or rescind the overall rule.
Citing President Trump's March "energy independence" executive order that called on federal agencies to review regulations that are "burdens" to energy development, BLM's proposed methane regulations mirror the previous standards, which were created in the 1970s.
"After reconsidering the cost, complexity, and other implications of the 2016 final rule, the BLM is now proposing to revise the 2016 final rule in a manner that reduces unnecessary compliance burdens, is consistent with the BLM's existing statutory authorities, and reestablishes long-standing requirements that the 2016 final rule replaced," says the new proposal. "In addition to requesting public comment on the proposed rule generally, the BLM is also requesting comment on ways that the BLM can reduce the waste of gas by incentivizing the capture, reinjection, or beneficial use of the gas."
Joe Balash, Interior assistant secretary for land and minerals management, said in a statement, "In order to achieve energy dominance through responsible energy production, we need smart regulations not punitive regulations." He added, "We believe this proposed rule strikes that balance and will allow job growth in rural America."
BLM said it identified multiple concerns with the Obama-era rule, including that the previous administration underestimated the economic impact the 2016 rule would have on oil and gas operators. In a 2016 fact sheet, BLM said implementing the final methane rule would cost the industry between $110 million and $279 million but also noted that many operators were already taking steps to reduce methane waste.
It also noted that under conservative assumptions, net benefits from the rule could net $46 million to $204 million per year.
In announcing the new rulemaking, BLM also said a review of existing state and federal regulations found considerable overlap with the 2016 rule.
Alexandra Teitz, a former adviser to BLM Director Neil Kornze under Obama, said that just a little over a year ago, BLM found that oil and gas companies were wasting huge amounts of natural gas. Between 2009 and 2015, producers on public lands flared, vented or leaked enough gas to meet the needs of 6 million households for a year.
"Now, the Trump Administration proposes to repeal the common-sense measures BLM adopted to reduce the waste, increase revenues and avoid pollution that drives climate change and smog," she said. "The administration's proposal denies the reality of the waste problem, while bending over backwards to boost oil company profits at the expense of all Americans. But that's not surprising — denying science and subsidizing fossil fuels are the sum total of the Trump administration's energy policy."
Environmental groups swiftly decried the move.
"Effectively eliminating a policy that reduces natural gas waste, saves taxpayers money, and gives Westerners cleaner air to breathe would normally be unthinkable," said Center for Western Priorities Advocacy Director Jesse Prentice-Dunn in a statement. "Unfortunately, Secretary [Ryan] Zinke has made it clear he will do anything for oil and gas lobbyists, taxpayers be damned."
Once the proposed rule is published, Interior will take public comment on it for 60 days.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073711
-
Report Reveals Pollution Transparency Problems for Majority of New Mexico’s Energy Companies
Feb 13, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jon Goldstein
Much is known about the methane pollution coming from New Mexico’s oil and gas industry. Scientists studying methane emissions have found the nation’s most concentrated cloud of methane shrouding the state’s San Juan Basin. And since methane is the primary components of natural gas, we know the state’s operators are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars per year because of these leaks.
We know much less, however, from New Mexico’s oil and gas companies themselves.
A new report reveals that far too few oil and gas producers are disclosing information about their methane waste problem.
More than 40% of oil and gas companies analyzed in a new EDF analysis fail to report even basic information on methane management. The quality and quantity of methane risk management reporting has increased across industry, with nearly 60% of the companies analyzed showing progress. But the overall improvement on disclosure has not been enough.Report reveals pollution transparency problems for majority of New Mexico’s energy companies
Fortunately, two New Mexico oil and gas producers – Cimarex and WPX — are among the seven companies newly making their gas leak data public. It is time other operators in the state to step up and follow the good example of Cimarex and WPX.
Industry’s methane leaks are negatively impacting New Mexico’s economy. The state’s operators waste up to $244 million of natural gas a year from leaks and inefficient practices.
The International Energy Agency has made it clear that the future of the gas industry rides on how companies are managing methane risk – and yet the vast majority of New Mexico’s companies are providing no assurance to the public or to investors that they are adequately managing, or disclosing information on the wasteful, harmful pollution emitted from their facilities.
Only a tiny handful of the 400+ oil and gas companies in New Mexico report information on methane waste and pollution. This reporting gap indicates a huge lag in accountability. Given the state’s poor regulatory framework on the issue of methane pollution, many New Mexico operators are getting a free pass.
…industry’s overall reporting lag further underscores the need for investors to demand more accountability and for New Mexico leaders to step up industry oversight.
Meanwhile, new data from the Environmental Protection Agency estimates national oil and gas methane emissions have remained far too high.
The small handful of New Mexico producers who are stepping up to report their methane emissions deserve praise. But the industry’s overall reporting lag further underscores the need for investors to demand more accountability and for New Mexico leaders to step up industry oversight.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2018/02/13/report-reveals-pollution-transparency-problems-for-majority-of-new-mexicos-energy-companies/
-
White House Offers Energy-Friendly Proposal
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King, Jenny Mandel and Mike Soraghan
The White House's $4.4 trillion budget request aims to shore up an "energy dominance" policy that in President Trump's first year emphasized oil, gas and coal development and tried to sweep away environmental regulations.
The White House's fiscal 2019 budget request rolled out yesterday slashed dollars for the Interior Department, U.S. EPA and parts of the Energy Department but, like last year, kept funding intact or even expanded it for programs that support expansion of fossil fuels.
"To accompany our efforts to cut spending and implement massive tax cuts and reforms for American families, workers and businesses, we will continue to relentlessly target unnecessary regulations for elimination," the budget blueprint says. "We will also continue driving America toward energy dominance and making the United States a net energy exporter by 2026."
References to renewables were sparsely distributed throughout the document, despite promises by some members of the administration that the federal government is taking an "all of the above" approach to energy development.
Interior's $11.7 billion budget request includes $73 million to go toward permitting renewable energy on public land to "keep pace" with anticipated interest in solar and wind power, according to a department news release. For fiscal 2018, Interior requested $78.1 million to reflect expected demand (Energywire, May 24, 2017).
The White House blueprint also touted the administration's wide-reaching deregulatory strategy, the effects of which will ultimately pack a stronger punch than proposed spending cuts that are unlikely to find traction on Capitol Hill.
"We regard these proposed top-line cuts as largely symbolic (they have little chance of surviving a 51-49 Senate when overriding a filibuster requires 60 votes)," ClearView Energy Partners LLC wrote in a note yesterday. "In any case, Congressional appropriators have yet to finalize their FY 2018 spending packages."
Coupled with the release of a $200 billion infrastructure package yesterday, the White House's budget proposal signaled a new approach to public lands and energy management, including using federal revenue from energy sales for funding Interior's infrastructure projects.
"Both the budget and infrastructure plans include new ideas to address infrastructure and maintenance challenges on public lands," House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said in a statement. "The Committee looks forward to reviewing these proposals, along with other concepts within the budget, to expand access and improve management of federal lands and resources."
Bishop's Democratic counterpart dismissed attempts by the administration to use energy revenues to pay for national park maintenance and other Interior Department priorities.
The proposal marries the "future of national parks to the fate of Trump's unserious 'energy dominance' agenda," according to an email from Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva's office.Interior
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters yesterday that his department is "done" focusing on its energy portfolio and is turning to another top priority: reorganization.
But the numbers and priorities laid out in the White House budget blueprint, which proposes a 16 percent cut for Interior, suggest energy development remains a driver.
The department's offshore permitting and safety bureaus received a collective $51 million bump, which includes a $9 million increase to update the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's five-year plan for energy production on the outer continental shelf. The draft strategy would open more than 90 percent of federal waters to development (Greenwire, Jan. 4).
But the plan goes beyond oil and gas extraction, Zinke said during a conference call yesterday. It's about offshore wind, too.
The administration's budget proposal notes that Interior "will prioritize renewable project permitting consistent with industry demand."
Zinke said he will be relying on local voices to tell him where the ocean's wind energy potential lies. He said he maintains that the best opportunity for solar installations remains "on the roof of a house," rather than on public lands.
Interior also set aside $18 million for a departmentwide reorganization, which could include the recombination of BOEM and its sister agency, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
"We're still looking at it pretty hard," Zinke said yesterday, adding that he and his staff are still assessing the "unintended consequences" of re-merging the offices.
The department should have a decision in 90 days, he said.
As Interior expands onshore and offshore energy development, the department expects to raise $18 billion over a decade to fund a parks infrastructure backlog totaling more than $11 billion, according to the budget document.
Zinke has pointed to BOEM's proposed expansion of its offshore energy program as a critical offset for the shortfall. He often cites offshore drilling revenues from 2008, a banner year for the industry, as an example of an opportunity for Interior to pull in more funding for parks (Climatewire, June 26, 2017).
Yesterday's budget proposal offered a longer-term strategy.
"The framework is a win-win for America," Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, said in a statement yesterday. "Offshore energy is an investment, not an ATM, and this budget recognizes that distinction."DOE
"Energy dominance" prominently features in the Trump administration's descriptions of budget priorities for DOE, which would receive $30.6 billion under the president's budget proposal, on par with its fiscal 2018 funding — although before the congressional budget deal passed last week, the department would have seen a 3 percent haircut under the president's proposal (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
"The United States has among the most abundant and diverse energy resources in the world, including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables," according to the budget proposal. "The ability of entrepreneurs and businesses to commercialize technologies that take full advantage of those resources is paramount to promoting U.S. economic growth, security, and competitiveness."
The proposal is attempting to balance the administration's preference for using federal dollars on basic science and early-stage research with the priorities of U.S. industry and push for U.S. technological advancement.
"The Budget focuses resources on early-stage research and development (R&D) of energy technologies and reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage demonstration and commercialization activities," the White House said in describing that balance. "In so doing, the budget emphasizes energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy independence and domestic job-growth in the near- to mid-term."
The president's budget would significantly boost funding for research and development activities in fossil energy, in part through an injection of $200 million for "clean coal technologies" secured through last week's congressional budget deal. That would bring fiscal 2019 fossil energy R&D to $502 million, up from $425 million in fiscal 2018.
Part of that office's funding goes to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, which works on "the extraction, processing, use, and disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social and environmental costs." Noting that NETL has labs in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Oregon, the budget request "initiates an effort to consolidate NETL's multi-site footprint to the extent beneficial to a single operational complex," the document says.
After two years of funding at $221 million, the president's budget request proposes to trim funding for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to $180 million. Congress last week agreed to sell off 100 million barrels of crude from the SPR, while also laying the groundwork to fund some maintenance and repair needs from oil sales (E&E Daily, Feb. 9).
The president proposed to "disestablish" the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve in fiscal 2019, as it did last year, noting that "the NGSR has not been utilized and has issues surrounding cost efficiency and operational functionality." The NGSR was established in 2014 in response to the chaos that followed Superstorm Sandy, when dozens of ports and refineries that supply New England with gasoline were shut down, leading to prolonged fuel shortages in the region.
The budget also proposes to "reexamine" the need for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which provides short-term emergency supplements to heating oil supplies in the Northeast.EPA
At EPA, the administration is proposing an 18 percent cut in the enforcement division.
But it is proposing to offer "compliance assistance" reviews to chemical and energy companies — for a fee. The budget projects $20 million from chemical companies and $10 million from oil companies.
The idea is to offer on-site walk-throughs of facilities within one year of a request. The agency would offer reports to the facilities to help them comply with regulations.
The budget also proposes a $3.4 million cut to the grants that EPA provides to states to implement the underground injection and control program. The program regulates injection wells, such as oil field wastewater disposal wells, to protect drinking water.
It also proposes a $159,000 cut to a study of the performance of oil dispersants in deep waters and Arctic spills.
"Wealthy polluters win, families lose — that's Trump's budget in a nutshell," Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen said in a statement yesterday. "He has once again thrown down a damaging, backward-looking plan of extreme cuts that threaten the water we drink, the air we breathe, the parks and wildlife we treasure, and the communities where we live and work."
Van Noppen called on lawmakers and governors to resist the White House plan.
Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, is scheduled to appear before the Senate Budget Committee this morning. He will testify in the House tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073697
-
Cheniere Reaches Long-Term LNG Deal with China
Feb 13, 2018 | San Antonio Express News (In E&E Energywire)
By Katherine Blunt
Houston-based Cheniere Energy will sell some 1.2 million tons of liquefied natural gas annually to China's state oil and gas firm, under the terms of two agreements running through the year 2043.
Beginning this year, the shipments will help meet a boom in Chinese demand for LNG as the country executes its planned shift from coal heating to natural gas.
Cheniere is so far the only U.S. company to ship LNG abroad, launching its first tanker last year out of the Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana. At least two other companies expect to begin shipments this year, while Cheniere is in the process of opening a China-oriented terminal in Corpus Christi, Texas.
"We expect these agreements to support the development of Corpus Christi Train 3, and we are now focused on completing the remaining necessary steps to reach a final investment decision later this year," said Cheniere President and CEO Jack Fusco.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073643
-
Trump Proposal Goes After States' Gas-Pipeline Power
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim, Ellen M. Gilmer and Jenny Mandel
President Trump has asked Congress to rein in a key state power over natural gas pipelines.
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a state can deny an interstate gas pipeline if it's deemed not to comply with the state's water laws. One state in particular, New York, has used that power three times in the last two years to stall projects, frustrating a pipeline industry that says the state is abusing its authority.
Trump's proposal strikes directly at New York's technique, asking Congress to change the Clean Water Act with the goal of keeping states on a stricter timeline.
Don Santa, president and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, welcomed the proposal and said no one's trying to reduce state power — they merely want more accountability for how states use it.
"We respect the rights of states in protecting the resources within their borders and support the cooperative federalism of the Clean Water Act," he said in a statement. "However, that concept requires participants to act within the scope of their authority. Actions that abuse this authority trample the rights of other states and disrupt interstate commerce. At the heart of cooperative federalism lies cooperation."
The proposal is emblematic of the far-reaching, and sometimes extraordinary, measures the Trump administration is considering in its mission to deliver a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan kick-started with a proposed $200 billion in federal investment. The White House yesterday issued a "legislative outline" of its infrastructure plans, which largely focus on new spending in areas such as roads, bridges and rail, but also touch on many areas of significance for those who build the plumbing of America's oil and gas system.
Take Section 401, which is a long-standing feature of how interstate gas pipelines get approved.
Under current federal law, it's the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's job to act as the lead approving agency on any such project. States get a role later in the process, when they are empowered — under Section 401 — to decide if the proposed pipeline complies with the state's water laws.
In 2016 and 2017, New York state used its authority to deny three pipeline projects — getting the attention of other state officials who wondered if they, too, could thwart gas pipelines they didn't want.
Pipeline companies have taken New York to court, but they've also pressed the White House for a regulatory trump card. Trump's proposal yesterday nods in their direction. It aims to bookend how long states have to undertake the water review. States, of course, would still have the authority to approve or deny projects.
Trump pulled back from some of the more aggressive changes to Section 401 that were suggested in a leaked White House document last month. That document discussed giving states even less time to act on applications, and it would have also given U.S. EPA power to overrule states in specific cases (Energywire, Feb. 2).
"It's not quite what they had in their wish list that we saw a while back," said Cynthia Taub, a partner with Steptoe & Johnson LLP who has represented pipeline companies. "This one basically says, 'Clarify the time frames,' which doesn't sound like they're really going to restrict the states' authority."NEPA under the microscope
The White House plan also took aim at other pillars of the regulatory infrastructure, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
Under the president's "One Agency, One Decision" environmental review proposal, federal agencies with a role in project reviews under NEPA would work through a single, designated agency to coordinate their work.
Agencies would have a firm deadline of 21 months to complete their environmental reviews to reach either a record of decision (ROD) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and all federal and key state permits would have a firm three-month deadline after that to issue a decision.
"Appropriate enforcement mechanisms would be established to ensure that permit decisions are issued" in a timely manner, according to the document released by the White House.
The upshot, it said, would be that all environmental permitting decisions for infrastructure projects would be completed within two years, reducing inefficiency and cost for major projects.
A key piece of the streamlining plan is a rewrite of the regulations implementing NEPA by the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
"The environmental review process under NEPA as it exists today is lengthy, inefficient, and costly," the White House said in a 55-page overview of its infrastructure plan. "CEQ's regulations were issued in 1978, before the advent of the internet, and have been subject to only one revision since then."
One issue that was unclear in the plan was how the White House envisions agencies issuing decisions if their obligations under existing laws extend the permitting timeline beyond two years. If necessary studies, consultations and other steps take longer than that time and agencies are pressured to approve projects without meeting their obligations under NEPA and other laws, projects could be more vulnerable to legal challenges.
The oil and gas industry praised the president's goal of streamlining regulation, a priority that industry groups have pushed over the past year as they and other potential beneficiaries of an infrastructure package have awaited the president's long-promised plan.
"Promoting our nation's energy infrastructure could help bring more affordable energy to American consumers, more jobs to American workers, and a better environment to communities across the country," Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement. "It's estimated that private investment in our nation's energy infrastructure could amount to a total of $1.3 trillion and support 1 million jobs per year through 2035."
Earlier this year, Gerard said that securing federal funding for pipeline projects was not a key priority for his group but that it hoped to see a streamlining of regulatory requirements.
Environmentalists who have opposed pipeline projects were just as quick to pan the plan.
"This is a bill designed to eliminate environmental protections and fork over billions in taxpayer dollars to big corporations that has been dressed up as an 'infrastructure proposal' to trick the public," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "When the Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress use terms like 'streamlining' and 'permitting reform,' what they are really saying is that they want to eliminate clean air and water safeguards, sidestep worker protections, and cut public participation when important decisions are made."
Brune said it is funding shortfalls, not permitting delays, that are behind infrastructure shortcomings.Constraining the courts?
The White House also targeted another key area where oil and gas infrastructure projects are getting tied up: the courts.
The president's plan sets limits on what courts can do to halt development while NEPA challenges are pending.
Under the proposal's judicial reform section, courts could issue an injunction blocking action on a project only in "exceptional circumstances."
The current bar for injunctive relief is already high, requiring litigants to show irreparable harm and a likelihood of succeeding in a case, among other things. But the president's plan says that standard, applied on a case-by-case basis by individual judges, creates too much uncertainty for project developers.
"Currently, a legal challenge to a project under NEPA can delay the start of a project, due to the uncertainty it creates about whether the project will be able to proceed," the document says. "This creates unpredictability regarding time frames for projects, which at the outset can discourage potential investors, and in the end can postpone the public benefits of needed infrastructure projects."
NEPA challenges have threatened to delay several energy infrastructure projects in recent years, though most court-ordered work freezes have been short-lived or avoided altogether.
For example, a federal court in November halted construction on the Atlantic Sunrise natural gas pipeline for two days before allowing it to proceed. Other projects — including the Sabal Trail gas pipeline and the Dakota Access oil pipeline — have teetered on the possibility of shutdown while awaiting final decisions from courts that have found related NEPA violations.
"Limiting injunctive relief to exceptional circumstances would allow for environmental concerns to be addressed without unduly delaying needed infrastructure projects," the plan says.
Raul Garcia, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice, argued that the proposed standard could backfire on the Trump administration, leading to additional litigation to clarify the meaning of "exceptional circumstances."
Vermont Law School professor Patrick Parenteau agreed.
"I don't know what 'exceptional circumstances' are, but it will take years of litigation to find out," he said.
The White House proposal also directs agencies to establish new guidelines that clarify when government officials should seek to update data for an environmental review. With some reviews lasting several years, data collected at the outset of a review sometimes become stale by the time an agency is ready to issue a final decision.
"While using complete and up-to-date data is necessary to make an informed decision, litigation risk should not be the primary driver in deciding whether to conduct a new study," the plan says.
It would require agencies to clarify the circumstances in which new data would be required and would then preclude courts from "reviewing any claims based on the currentness of data, so long as agencies were in compliance with their established guidelines."
Finally, the plan would curtail the length of time project opponents have to file lawsuits over federal approvals under NEPA. Instead of having six years to challenge a federal approval, opponents would have just 150 days. Congress has already established a similar statute of limitations for surface transportation projects.
Earthjustice's Garcia noted that the shorter time frame could discourage litigation from everyday project critics or result in a run to the courts by those seeking to preserve their right to sue.
"If you think about your everyday person — you have a family, you have a job to take care of, you have all these things you have to worry about — and then you're expected to read these [environmental review] documents and then figure out whether they did them in a competent way or an incompetent way and whether you want to sue or not," he said. "You've got to do that all within 150 days. That's hard for an organization like Earthjustice to do, never mind your everyday person who just wants to have a say as to what projects happen in their backyard."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073693
-
Questions Trail Pruitt's 'Reform Plan'
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Faster contracting and permitting and fewer requests for industry information are all part of U.S. EPA's long-anticipated "reform plan."
Released yesterday along with its strategic plan in its fiscal 2019 budget proposal, EPA's reform plan comes in response to an executive order signed by President Trump last March ordering a vast reorganization of the federal government. The plan offers 11 projects to help streamline EPA operations and makes use of the so-called Lean management system to ensure the agency is hitting its performance marks.
"Together the Strategic Plan and Reform Plan set a roadmap for EPA to better achieve our mission of protecting human health and the environment, while improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our processes and operations," Administrator Scott Pruitt said in an internal email to employees yesterday.
Stan Meiburg, a former acting deputy EPA administrator during the Obama administration, reviewed the reform plan at E&E News' request. He said in an email that some elements "have merit in principle," such as the use of Lean techniques, stronger partnerships with state regulators, laboratory management, streamlined procurement and enhancing shared service centers.
"These should be done in full collaboration with career staff, because though desirable they will involve some hard choices for the organization," said Meiburg, now director of graduate programs in sustainability at Wake Forest University. He also warned faster permitting shouldn't be "a code word for permitting that neglects essential environmental obligations."
He added, "Most permitting is done by states; EPA actually does very little. EPA must not be in the position of pressuring states to streamline bad permits."
EPA also released a set of "organizational efficiencies" with its budget proposal yesterday.
The agency said it was continuing to review its structure, although not a formal part of its reform plan required by Trump's executive order. It noted, "Both small reorganizations and larger ones will result, along with informal internal realignments."
Several of those reorganizations began or were proposed in fiscal 2018, including consolidating the EPA staff that processes Freedom of Information Act requests with the agency's legal oversight staff; adding National Environmental Policy Act work to the Office of Policy>; and transferring environmental justice work to the policy shop, too.
In addition, the agency is considering combining its Office of Environmental Information with the Office of Administration and Resources Management to "create efficiencies through housing much of the infrastructure support for the agency in one entity."
Obama-era EPA officials questioned the wisdom of that move.
In an email, Ann Dunkin, former EPA chief information officer, told E&E News that combining the two offices "makes no sense at all. There are no synergies in that consolidation."
"I just don't see any benefits and I see lots of negatives with not having the CIO have a seat at the table in future administrations. In this administration where the CIO's entire job is going to be to use duct tape and baling wire to keep the agency together through budget cuts, it may not matter," said Dunkin, now chief information officer for the Santa Clara County in California.
Karl Brooks, who was formerly EPA's acting chief of OARM, also saw obstacles to the move.
"The biggest challenge I see for this is going forward is you are trying to combine two different cultures," said Brooks, now a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin.
He wondered whether Pruitt would have the resources to pull off the consolidation and bring in projected savings. Brooks also said no Trump nominees are in place to run either EPA office, although career staff could answer the call of combining the two.
"I don't think it is a silver bullet, but the cultural adaption will be a challenge," Brooks said.
Along with streamlining operations at the agency, another round of buyouts looks likely in EPA's future. Like last year's budget plan, Trump's fiscal 2019 budget proposal for EPA also includes millions of dollars to help with "workforce reshaping" at the agency.
According to its fiscal 2019 budget justification, EPA would take money from different programs to fund the reshaping effort with a total budget authority of $31.54 million — actually less than what the agency proposed the prior fiscal year. The document says EPA "anticipates the need" to offer early out and buyout packages again as well as cover employees' relocation expenses as the agency changes up its workforce.
Hundreds of EPA workers have already left under the buyout program offered last year (Greenwire, Nov. 22, 2017).
EPA planned in its fiscal 2018 budget justification to draw $68.15 million from various program accounts for workforce reshaping, also seeing the need to offer early out and buyout packages to employees.
Fiscal 2018 spending is still not final as of yet, but both House and Senate legislation that would fund EPA for that fiscal year generally agree with the agency's effort to streamline its workforce.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073775
-
International Climate Programs on Chopping Block — Again
Feb 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
President Trump's State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budget request for fiscal 2019 doubles down on cuts the administration proposed last year for climate change and environmental programs, but it's unclear whether those proposals will have any weight when Congress moves its own spending legislation.
The administration's new request calls for $39.3 billion for the State Department and USAID, approximately the same 30 percent cut from enacted levels that was proposed last year. And like the fiscal 2018 budget proposal, the blueprint released yesterday envisions the elimination of the Obama-era Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) and a substantially pared-down budget for the Global Environment Facility, which funds U.S. participation in treaties dealing with issues including mercury pollution, biodiversity and land conservation.
The fiscal 2019 document proposes cutting the GEF from an enacted $146 million to $68 million, down even compared with the $102 million the Trump White House proposed last year.
The Office of Management and Budget touted the GCCI elimination especially, including it in a list of spending items it plans for the scrap heap as part of the new budget request. The umbrella initiative, founded by the Obama administration, once provided funding to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, among other priorities.
"Instead of using such funds to help other countries address climate change, even while many of them plan to increase their emissions, the U.S. should invest in our own economic growth," the White House said.
Obama's fiscal 2017 request to Congress asked for $1.3 billion for the GCCI, which also funded dues for U.N. climate organizations and myriad bilateral climate-related projects. Trump's budget states that fiscal 2019 would begin to "wind down existing State Department and U.S. AID bilateral programs intended primarily to help other countries mitigate the impacts of climate change," though it said funding might continue for resource management, agriculture and electrification programs that the agencies administer abroad and that meet other objectives.
Trump has thus far shown little appetite for multilateral efforts to contain climate change. For example, he announced last year a withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. That accord was denounced in the State Department budget released yesterday for placing the "U.S. at a financial disadvantage."
But yesterday's budget proposal also seems to trumpet multilateral efforts as the way forward, including on climate change.
"By combining resources and expertise provided by nations from every part of the world, international organizations undertake coordinated efforts that may serve as effective alternatives to acting unilaterally or bilaterally, especially in the areas of providing humanitarian assistance ... hunger, poverty, and climate change," it states.
It's unclear what the Trump reductions for GCCI and GEF might mean or whether they'll stick. GCCI was never a formal line item or congressionally mandated initiative, and some of its work has gone forward under Trump — like when the State Department worked with Caribbean nations last year on renewables-based electrification.
Another question is whether Congress will honor Trump's proposed reductions. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bill in September that would fund the State Department and USAID at $11 billion above Trump's fiscal 2018 spending request. It also proposed $136.5 million for the GEF, up from the $102 million the administration requested last May.
And while the president's budget last year would have barred the State Department from paying dues to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and its scientific wing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) crossed party lines to join with Democratic Appropriations Committee members in support of $10 million to pay the United States' dues. The State Department has not yet paid any U.N. climate dues under Trump, but observers hope it will when spending legislation is enacted next month for the remainder of fiscal 2018.
Rachel Licker of the Union of Concerned Scientists said paying IPCC dues is really in the United States' best interest, because the research helps inform U.S. planning. "This information can help protect American lives, infrastructure and investments," she said.
Joe Thwaites, who works on finance issues at the World Resources Institute, said it might take a few years before there is a full accounting of the foreign assistance on climate change the Trump administration has provided.
That's because the State Department missed a Jan. 1 deadline to provide the UNFCCC with a report on 2015 and 2016 climate investments, and a similar report is due in 2020 that would show 2017 and 2018 figures. That report, if the administration provides it, will be of intense interest internationally, said Thwaites, as the developed world moves to deliver on the Paris pledge of $100 billion a year in combined climate finance mobilization.
"Particularly in the U.S. situation, where everyone is eager to know what is happening with all of this, if the U.S. is no longer reporting back on what they have been funding ... without that data, it makes it quite hard to get a sense of progress toward the $100 billion," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/13/stories/1060073705
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested