Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 07/03/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) More Supporters Join $150 Million Marine Debris Project
Mar 7, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
An industry-funded ocean plastics prevention initiative has received support from a number of new partners, including brand owners, a chemicals giant and an intergovernmental group. -
Trump’s Environmental Council is Better Off Without Donald van der Vaart
Mar 7, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By David Kelly
In recent months President Trump suffered the embarrassing failure of having not one, but two of his picks for key federal environmental positions forced to withdraw their nominations. -
US EPA Official Defends Agency Data Collection Plans
Mar 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
The US EPA is still debating how to select chemicals for the prioritisation process that will yield the next group of substances subject to risk evaluation, the agency’s top chemical regulation official has told Chemical Watch. -
EDF Files Opening Brief in Legal Challenge to EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule
Mar 7, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
Late yesterday, EDF filed our Opening Brief in our case challenging EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule. -
EPA Floats Plan for Reducing Animal Testing
Mar 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is proposing a strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate certain animal testing in evaluating chemicals. -
Five Questions for Non-Toxic Living Expert Sophia Ruan Gushée
Mar 7, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
Sophia Ruan Gushée left her successful career in investment management to study our toxic exposures from what we buy and do. -
REACH Review Actions 'Not Enough' for SMEs – Trade Body
Mar 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission's proposed actions in the second REACH Review "will not be enough" for small operators to fully implement the Regulation, European SME trade body Ueapme has said. -
Green Network Joins Call for UK to Remain in REACH
Mar 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Ending the UK’s involvement in REACH "could have serious consequences", a British network of environmental professional bodies promoting environmental sustainability has said. -
Groups Unite to Lobby FERC on Reforms
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
A broad coalition of 10 organizations not usually on the same page when it comes to electricity policy are asking federal regulators to apply five principles to any changes in the rules governing wholesale power markets. -
Zinke Met With Natural Gas Export Boss
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke met with the chairman of a natural gas company that wants to send its fuel abroad, according to Zinke's public calendar. -
The US Must Seize the LNG Opportunity
Mar 7, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Charlie Riedl
In February of 2016, the first large-scale shipment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the lower 48 states departed Cheniere’s Sabine Pass export terminal, opening a new chapter in American energy. -
U.S. Infrastructure Shifts Toward Exports
Mar 7, 2018 | Financial Times (In E&E Energywire)
By Gregory Meyer
A new, export-oriented era for U.S. energy is reshaping the nation's energy infrastructure, with planned or repurposed pipelines pointing toward Gulf Coast ports. -
Court Grills FERC, Enviros on Texas Export Pipeline
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges quizzed regulators and environmentalists yesterday on whether a natural gas pipeline reaching the Texas-Mexico border was properly approved. -
Perry: Trump Hasn't Made Up Mind on Tariffs
Mar 7, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
Energy Secretary Rick Perry sought to ease fears in the energy industry over the impending tariff on steel imports, saying he didn't think President Donald Trump had decided yet on how to implement the trade barrier. -
Exxon Woos Wall St. With Bold Plan to Double Earnings by 2025
Mar 7, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Exxon Mobil Corp, the world's largest publicly traded oil producer, said on Wednesday it expects earnings to more than double by 2025 to $31 billion, with crude pricesat or above current levels. -
Cohn Is Out. Here's What it Means for Climate
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman and Robin Bravender
The globalists are on their way out of the White House, further diminishing the voices close to President Trump that say humans are warming the planet. -
Ewire: Cohn's Exit Marks Another Pro-Paris Departure from White House
Mar 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
The top White House economic adviser, Gary Cohn, announced his resignation yesterday over a deep dispute with President Donald Trump over trade policy, though his departure also continues an exodus of top officials who urged Trump to take a more moderate course on climate policy. -
Dems' Counteroffer Would Invest in Energy, Climate Resilience
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk and Arianna Skibell
Senate Democrats today proposed spending more than $100 billion on grid modernization and climate-resilient infrastructure as part of a broad counteroffer to the plan President Trump put out last month.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) More Supporters Join $150 Million Marine Debris Project
Mar 7, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
An industry-funded ocean plastics prevention initiative has received support from a number of new partners, including brand owners, a chemicals giant and an intergovernmental group.
Closed Loop Partners announced this week that the collaborative Closed Loop Ocean effort has added The Coca-Cola Company, Dow Chemical Company, Kimberly-Clark, and Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) as supporters.
The initiative launched last fall with the goal of raising $150 million to fund waste management and recycling infrastructure in Southeast Asia. The region was targeted because it is the top contributor to marine plastic debris. The group says roughly eight million metric tons of plastic enters the ocean each year from five rapidly growing economies: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam
Closed Loop Ocean is focusing on funding projects to improve collection, sorting and end market development for scrap plastic in the region.
The new partners join a handful of initial supporters, including 3M, the American Chemistry Council, Ocean Conservancy, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, the Trash Free Seas Alliance and the World Plastics Council.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/03/07/more-supporters-join-150-million-marine-debris-project/
-
Trump’s Environmental Council is Better Off Without Donald van der Vaart
Mar 7, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By David Kelly
In recent months President Trump suffered the embarrassing failure of having not one, but two of his picks for key federal environmental positions forced to withdraw their nominations. Both Michael Dourson and Kathleen Harnett White faced stiff opposition in the Senate for standing far outside the mainstream public’s views on protecting American families from air pollution, water pollution, and dangerous chemicals.
But their failure to advance does not appear to be stopping Trump from making the same mistake again.
Trump is now reportedly planning to nominate Donald van der Vaart — a controversial, former lead regulator in North Carolina — to be a top White House environmental official. He is just as wrong for this position as Hartnett White or Dourson were for theirs.
Van der Vaart is not simply a conservative who is skeptical of government environmental rules. He is a crusading ideologue who has shown a willingness to disregard scientific expertise and manipulate conclusions reached by dedicated career staff to serve his pre-determined policy preferences.
While leading the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), van der Vaart appeared bent on putting polluting interests ahead of environmental protection and children’s health. His record in North Carolina is damning.
Indeed, he presided over the systematic weakening of the agency in his charge. This provoked a sharp rebuke from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which cited several alarming trends related to treatment of polluters, including a general decline in the number of enforcement actions brought by North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality, weak enforcement actions that failed to bring violators back into compliance, ineffective deterrence to avoid violations in the first place, and a failure to sufficiently address repeat offenders.
In 2015, van der Vaart’s Department of Environmental Quality proposed new air quality regulations that would weaken or eliminate air pollution protections for nearly 1,500 facilities across North Carolina. Of those, approximately 1,200 were fully exempted from pollution control and reporting requirements. Van der Vaart’s department went out of its way to tout the financial savings these rollbacks were creating for polluting interests, but failed to fully acknowledge the reality that the proposal would deliver more toxic air pollution for children and families living in the communities where these facilities are located.
In 2015, it was also revealed that van der Vaart’s department had been quietly dismantling dozens of air quality monitors across the state, prior to any legislative action requiring the agency to do so. The department’s paper-thin excuses about reallocating resources to focus on other pollution concerns were likely of little comfort to families and communities made more vulnerable to increased levels of air pollution that went undetected.
His attacks on clean air protections continued unabated during his time at the department. After Gov. Pat McCrory lost his reelection bid to Roy Cooper in 2016, van der Vaart took the strange step of demoting himselfto a lesser position at the agency. Then in 2017, safely ensconced in a career staff position that shielded him from being dismissed by the incoming Cooper administration, he co-authored an opinion piece published in Environmental Law Reporter calling for repeal of a core component of the Clean Air Act. His argument seemed far out of the mainstream for an environmental regulator operating at the state level — and a direct contradiction of the new Cooper administration’s stance.
In my view , van der Vaart made North Carolina families less safe from air and water pollution and prioritized protecting polluters over regulatory integrity. It is this precise behavior that has mired EPA’s current administrator, Scott Pruitt, in scandals and deeply undermined the public’s confidence in Trump’s handling of environmental issues.
The country doesn’t need the problems that come with someone like van der Vaart. Frankly, neither does Trump.
David Kelly is the North Carolina political affairs manager for Environmental Defense Fund.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/377060-trumps-environmental-council-is-better-off-without-donald-van-der
-
US EPA Official Defends Agency Data Collection Plans
Mar 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
The US EPA is still debating how to select chemicals for the prioritisation process that will yield the next group of substances subject to risk evaluation, the agency’s top chemical regulation official has told Chemical Watch.
Nevertheless, the EPA plans to make an announcement on the matter soon, said Jeff Morris, director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). He also defended plans to rely substantially on voluntary data submissions.
"We would like to have by June or July an approach mapped out so people understand how we are going to move, how we get to the next 20 low and 20 high priority [chemicals] and beyond that how we go through the chemical space," Dr Morris said in an interview.
However, officials have not decided whether the EPA will commit to a defined scoring rubric, or even if the pre-prioritisation process it settles on will be published as a formal regulation, he added.
Similarly, Dr Morris said he does not know if the agency will give regulatory status to the "framework document" laying out policy for new chemical reviews that was released for public consultation in December.
Data requirements
He acknowledged that carrying out risk evaluations will require a lot of data, but disputed claims that the EPA is planning to rely too much on voluntary cooperation from industry.
The drafting of the "scoping documents", outlining the parameters for the first ten risk evaluations under the new TSCA, was done under a tight deadline. And, Dr Morris said, the experience revealed there was a lot of missing data and "a lot of the information out there in the public domain is out of date or incomplete."
He noted the Lautenberg Act requires that risk evaluation start as soon as a chemical is named a "high priority" substance, and that process is to be completed within three years. "You want to be in a place when you start that three-year clock that you have the information you need," Dr Morris said. "Data needs to be a consideration when you are bringing chemicals into prioritisation."
However, he disagreed with the argument, made by some NGO representatives, that the EPA should issue mandatory data collection regulations early in the process for chemicals it is considering for prioritisation.
"There are a lot of means to get that data," he said. "There are many opportunities to engage with industry or stakeholders about data we don’t have."
"Our experience post-Lautenberg in risk evaluation we have done with several chemicals is that industry will respond," he said.
Dr Morris deflected questions about whether his office has sufficient staff and resources to carry out its responsibilities under the Lautenberg Act, saying only that reassignment of personnel from other programmes should not be interpreted as an act of desperation.
"Since the enactment of Lautenberg, we have detailed staff to various functions to meet the immediate needs of the new legislation. We did this with new chemicals last year. We try to be an agile organisation and deploy people where you need them at a point in time."
https://chemicalwatch.com/64601/us-epa-official-defends-agency-data-collection-plans
-
EDF Files Opening Brief in Legal Challenge to EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule
Mar 7, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
Late yesterday, EDF filed our Opening Brief in our case challenging EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule. The Brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Our Brief argues in favor of the public’s right to know. Among other arguments, it explains that EPA erred by allowing companies to assert “Confidential Business Information” (CBI) claims that do not meet the law’s requirements. As a result, EPA will be concealing information about chemicals, particularly information about specific chemical identities, in violation of the public’s right to know. EDF also filed our two-volume Addendum supporting EDF’s standing to pursue this lawsuit. The Addendum proves that EDF uses this kind of information to study and communicate to the public about chemicals and to advocate for measures to protect public health.
EPA’s response brief in the case is due to the Court on May 21, 2018.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/03/07/edf-files-opening-brief-in-legal-challenge-to-epas-inventory-notification-rule/
-
EPA Floats Plan for Reducing Animal Testing
Mar 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is proposing a strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate certain animal testing in evaluating chemicals.
In a draft document released Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laid out a multi-year process to identify alternative testing methods, push those methods in the chemical industry and start to use them in regulatory decision-making.
Congress told the EPA to develop the strategy in the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
ADVERTISEMENT
“This draft strategy is a first step toward reducing the use of animals and increasing the use of cutting-edge science to ensure chemicals are reviewed for safety with the highest scientific standards,” EPA head Scott Pruitt said in a statement.
“EPA is committed to working with animal welfare groups and other groups to produce a sound, effective plan in line with the law.”
Eventually, the EPA hopes to completely eliminate chemical testing on vertebrate animal species, a group that includes mammals, fish, birds, amphibians and reptiles, it said in the 40-page draft strategy.
“Achieving this goal will require the EPA to maintain a high level of commitment to identifying, developing, and integrating [new testing methods] for implementation under TSCA and to work closely with stakeholders at every step,” the agency said.
The animal testing provisions of the 2016 law were championed largely by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), an outspoken animal rights advocate. Booker and animal rights groups estimated that the EPA could reduce harm or deaths for hundreds of thousands of animals.
“We welcome the draft strategy as a progressive step to reduce and ultimately replace the use of animals to regulate chemicals in the U.S. through the implementation of TSCA reform,” Catherine Willett, director of science policy at the Humane Society of the United States, said in a statement regarding the Wednesday release.
“We have every indication that EPA intends to make good on this unprecedented opportunity to not only reduce animal use, but improve the science used to evaluate chemical safety.”
The EPA will gather public comments on the draft strategy for 45 days.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/377160-epa-floats-plan-for-reducing-animal-testing
-
Five Questions for Non-Toxic Living Expert Sophia Ruan Gushée
Mar 7, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
Sophia Ruan Gushée left her successful career in investment management to study our toxic exposures from what we buy and do. She shares her expertise in her critically-acclaimed book A to Z of D-Toxing, as well as through her multimedia company, Practical Nontoxic Living, which recently launched its D-Tox Academy. We asked her a few questions to learn more about her take on detoxing…1. When did you first learn about toxic chemicals in our homes?
While my parents sometimes mentioned toxic chemicals during my childhood (like, after they saw me drinking from new plastic cups that had not yet been washed), I wasn’t interested or concerned about toxic chemicals until my first child was born in 2007.
After my daughter was born, part of my bedtime routine was to review books about parenting so I could plan my daughter’s daily schedules for the nanny (I worked full-time outside the home). During this routine, which started around midnight, I would accidentally learn about toxic chemicals in children’s products. My first encounter involved BPA (endocrine-disrupting) in plastic baby bottles, then nitrosamines (cancer-causing) in some baby bottle nipples.
This learning approach was highly disruptive to my sleep, which was during a time when parents of newborns already don’t have much opportunity to sleep.2. What motivated you to write your book, A to Z of D-Toxing: The Ultimate Guide to Reducing Our Toxic Exposures?
I hated the way I learned about toxic exposures from what I buy and do: at a timetable that was out of my control (usually when I should have been sleeping); without informed guidance (my trusted physicians were not trained on this topic); and while my three children were particularly vulnerable biologically. I often wished I could have learned about this topic before my first pregnancy.
I decided to self-publish so I had complete control: I wanted it to be an authentic presentation (or argument) to my younger self of why I should embrace toxic exposures as a pillar of health that is as important as diet and exercise. I’m a fact-oriented person so I spent years vetting information to identify the best facts and most credible sources at the time of my research. I cite sources throughout the text so that patients and physicians can collaborate to explore—more holistically—the best healthcare approach. Most physicians don’t know about the thought-provoking science that exists on this topic.
My challenging learning curve motivated to create a book, A to Z of D-Toxing, that would have most likely engaged my skeptical, younger self. I created the book that I wish were given to me at my engagement party, as a wedding gift, or even my baby shower. Also, I needed a book to help inform all those who help me care for my family and home.3. What are three easy things parents can do to protect their children from toxic chemicals?
There are many easy things we can do.
First, avoid using plastic food and beverage containers as much as possible. There are glass options that are durable and safe for the freezer and oven. This will help minimize the amount of toxic chemicals that can leach from plastic containers into children’s diets.
Second, wash hands before touching food and mouths (babies and children are always putting things in their mouths). Dust has been found to harbor dozens of toxic exposures (chemicals and heavy metals), and we collect dust on our fingers. Further, children often have more exposures as they crawl and play on the floor and in dusty corners. Washing their hands often with nontoxic soap is high impact.
Third, have a no-shoes policy at home. The bottom of our shoes can track in pesticides and other toxic exposures. The EPA has found that having a large doormat at your home’s entrance, wiping the bottom of shoes on it, and leaving them near the door can remove lead dust by up to 60%.4. Learning about the myriad toxic chemicals hiding in our homes and everyday products can be stressful and overwhelming. How do you stay sane while researching what you need to know to protect your family?
I am balanced by also learning about how brilliant and resilient our bodies are when we remove burdens, nourish them with nutrients to support what they are designed to do, and provide restorative sleep.
My journey of learning about our toxic exposures has led me to feel more connection to everything: every person, all life-forms, our planet, and the past, present, and future. While that may sound overwhelming, it ends up making me feel extremely grounded in the present: the only thing I really can control. This context helps me realize my small role in the big picture, which highlights to me that my purpose is to contribute to the best of my ability, and the rest is out of my control.5. Since toxic chemicals are all around us, no matter how careful someone is, they’re still going to be exposed. What’s your advice for people who want to be a part of the movement to “detox” the world around them, not just their own shopping habits?
We have endless opportunities to detox our environments so select changes that don’t threaten your joy, honor the pace that’s comfortable and sustainable for you, talk about this topic with anyone who may be interested because we need more people to care and make conscious choices (similar to climate change, our collective effort is critical), sign petitions to let policy-makers know you care, vote with your dollars, and just be curious. Similar to how we’re increasingly becoming more curious about the quality of what we eat, we should become more curious about what we buy for, and keep in, our homes. My online D-Tox Academy is an excellent community to support this. It aims to make practical nontoxic living easier, pleasant, and accessible.
http://saferchemicals.org/2018/03/07/five-questions-for-non-toxic-living-expert-sophia-ruan-gushee/
-
REACH Review Actions 'Not Enough' for SMEs – Trade Body
Mar 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission's proposed actions in the second REACH Review "will not be enough" for small operators to fully implement the Regulation, European SME trade body Ueapme has said.
The Commission published the long-delayed report on Monday, setting out 16 actions it wants to improve implementation of the Regulation.
In one of them, it requests Echa and member states "step up" efforts to develop particular methods to support the needs of SMEs. These, it says, could include collection of best practice texts, generation of sector-specific solutions and publication of documents in national languages.
The measures "sound like a way forward", Ueapme's Marko Susnik told Chemical Watch. However, based on SME experiences over the last ten years, he said he "highly doubts" REACH can be fully implemented by an average SME, as the proposals "presume".
Elsewhere, Ueapme "welcomes" the plan to improve extended safety data sheets, but according to Mr Susnik some elements of this were already part of the first five-year review of REACH and "are still pending" implementation.
Ueapme also draws attention to implementation costs, reiterating some of the concerns it flagged during the Review’s consultation process. Mr Susnik said it "would be interesting" to have a "systematic analysis" of how REACH costs could be reduced for SMEs and the lower volumes of between 1-100 tonnes per year.
The analysis, Ueapme said, should include considerations such as:timely and limited SME exemptions from certain obligations, like registration or authorisation; andless data requirements for the 10-100 tonnage-band.
"Such elements would actually be a good start to make an uneven level playing field a bit more even," Mr Susnik, who is also a policy adviser at the Austrian Economic Chamber, said.
He added that "the REACH universe [...] is not in a stable state".No surprises for Cefic
The Commission did not propose any legislative changes in its second REACH Review – a conclusion the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and the downstream users' trade body Ducc said they agreed with.
Cefic said the report is "generally consistent" with its assessment and none of the actions for improvement come as a surprise to industry.
It is "encouraging", Cefic added, that the Commission wants to simplify the authorisation process "to make it more workable, especially for SMEs".
In addition, it said it "fully supports" the recommendation to expedite assessment of the need for restrictions on imported articles containing substances on Annex XIV – the authorisation list.
And it is "particularly pleased" by the proposed action to ensure that REACH is fully aligned with the EU industrial policy strategy and the circular economy action plan.
For downstream users, Ducc chair Janice Robinson said she agreed with the conclusion that there is currently "no need" to change the legal text of REACH, and that there is scope to improve some aspects of its implementation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64626/reach-review-actions-not-enough-for-smes-trade-body
-
Green Network Joins Call for UK to Remain in REACH
Mar 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Ending the UK’s involvement in REACH "could have serious consequences", a British network of environmental professional bodies promoting environmental sustainability has said.
The Environmental Policy Forum’s (EPF) call comes as an amendment to include REACH in the EU Withdrawal Bill could be discussed and voted on in Parliament’s House of Lords this week.
One of the proposed sub clauses states that the secretary of state must ensure that the standards established by and under REACH "continue to apply on and after exit day". The amendment says that within a month of the Bill being made law, he must publish a review, analysing the options for the regulation of substances in the UK.
This will need to consider:the potential for future participation in REACH processes;the functions currently exercised by Echa, or shared with other member states, that are not currently carried out by an equivalent UK body;the compatibility of new chemicals regulations with achieving a high level of environmental protection;the future validity of registrations of UK chemical companies in the EU; andaccess to the REACH database.
Prime Minister Theresa May said on Friday that the UK is seeking associate membership of Echa. However, a European Council document on draft guidelines for post-Brexit trade – released today – says "the European Council further reiterates that the Union will preserve its autonomy as regards its decision making, which excludes participation of the United Kingdom as a third-country to EU institutions, agencies or bodies".
Despite that, the EPF wants members of the House of Lords to "secure binding commitment" from the government as it discusses chemicals and their regulation.
A separate regulatory system without access to the existing database of chemical safety information, the EPF adds, would be "very expensive to establish and operate", both for government and for the UK chemical industry.
"Not only would the need to generate repeat safety information be expensive, it could also require significant duplication of animal testing, with the associated impact on animal welfare," it says.
In addition, the UK would also lose access to the combined scientific expertise in the EU member states, as well as losing influence on future scientific and policy development in this area.
Chemical Watch’s conference ‘Post-Brexit options for UK chemicals law’ will take place on 17 April in London. Find out more here.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64623/green-network-joins-call-for-uk-to-remain-in-reach
-
Groups Unite to Lobby FERC on Reforms
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
A broad coalition of 10 organizations not usually on the same page when it comes to electricity policy are asking federal regulators to apply five principles to any changes in the rules governing wholesale power markets.
Their common concerns were spelled out in a March 5 letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The letter said this is the time for FERC "to provide a clear vision for how it can best support, rather than interfere with, market-based mechanisms and healthy competition."
It amounts to something akin to a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of filings to FERC due this Friday from the nation's six regional transmission organizations and independent system operators answering a raft of questions on the resilience of their transmission grids, said Randy Elliott, senior director and regulatory counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA).
Elliott said NRECA wanted to submit comments well ahead of the RTOs and ISOs "to kind of remove it, if you will, from the hurly-burly of that process." He was referring to an expected cycle of reaction and counterreaction by industry players and regulators after the RTOs and ISOs answer FERC's questions about the nature of their power markets, changes in the ways they generate electricity and how they address risks to the grid.
FERC initiated the resilience proceeding in January after it rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry to subsidize coal and nuclear power plants in the name of protecting grid resilience during natural and man-made disasters (Energywire, Jan. 9).
In its January order, FERC said it wants information to "examine holistically the resilience of the bulk power system" to develop a common understanding "of what resilience of the bulk power system means and requires."
The FERC proceeding did not apply to grid operators in the Southeast and West that are not part of FERC-regulated power markets. It also did not apply to the Texas power grid, since the state's electricity system is not under FERC's jurisdiction.
The letter from the 10 groups is intended to address the FERC inquiry into resilience as well as a FERC docket opened last year on the intersection of markets and state policies.
"The kettle is getting closer to boiling in terms of FERC taking another raft of actions involving issues around state policies and federal market design," said John Moore, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) who also signed the letter.
"So we wanted to put together a set of principles well before the pot actually boils and make sure everyone's aware of the new reality," Moore said in an interview. The group is concerned, he said, that "RTOs are not catching up to the new reality of the transforming grid."
The letter was signed by the American Council on Renewable Energy, American Public Power Association (APPA), American Wind Energy Association, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Large Public Power Council, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, NRECA, NRDC, Solar Energy Industries Association and Transmission Access Policy Study Group.
The group began discussing a letter to FERC outlining the principles around Feb. 1, Elliott said.
The letter spells out five wholesale electricity market design principles, including that wholesale tariffs and market rules should be technology neutral and that market rules should respect state and locally governed utility policies and resource choices without making customers pay twice for the same service.
It touts the ability of wholesale electricity market customers and suppliers to enter into bilateral contracts without the interference of an RTO or ISO, something that's been a long-sought goal of APPA and NRECA.
And it calls for markets to avoid changes that could increase costs for industrial, commercial and residential customers.
The letter directly addresses the FERC resilience proceeding by advocating for policies that compensate each generating resource for the value that it provide to the grid, Elliott said.
But, "energy markets should not necessarily guarantee recovery of investment costs for particular resources or technologies," the group said.
The group cautioned FERC that "these design principles work together; individual signatories do not necessarily support every principle if other principles are not also honored."
Elliott said that was important to some of the group's members so issues aren't cherry-picked from the letter, without addressing the whole.
"The principles here are going to be at play in the grid resilience docket," he predicted.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/07/stories/1060075643
-
Zinke Met With Natural Gas Export Boss
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke met with the chairman of a natural gas company that wants to send its fuel abroad, according to Zinke's public calendar.
Charif Souki, chairman of Tellurian Inc., met with Zinke on Dec. 14 "to give him a general overview of Tellurian," the company's spokeswoman, Joi Lecznar, said in an email. She said that Tellurian has no present holdings on federal land overseen by Interior and that it's "unlikely that we would" in the future. Vincent DeVito, Zinke's energy counselor, also attended the meeting.
Tellurian, however, noted in a March 2017 Securities and Exchange Commission filing that its proposed $12 billion Driftwood LNG export terminal and adjoining pipeline in Louisiana "may be restricted by requirements" of the Endangered Species Act. It added that the project "will be subject to additional federal permits, orders, approvals and consultations required by other federal agencies," including Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is under Interior's purview.
Zinke has emphasized energy production and has sought to remove environmental regulations that it sees as hindering that mission (Energywire, Oct. 26, 2017). Tellurian proposed two new pipelines four days after its meeting with Zinke.
Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift declined to answer questions about who attended the meeting and what was discussed.
Tellurian is pursuing a national profile by in part tapping political veterans like Amos Hochstein, the State Department's international energy adviser under former President Obama (Greenwire, April 18, 2017). The company potentially stands to benefit from the Trump administration's energy agenda, which includes expanding exports, building pipelines, and opening access to drilling on offshore and onshore federal property.
The Texas-based firm wants to export natural gas to growing overseas markets. The Energy Department granted Tellurian a permit to export fuel from its Driftwood LNG terminal to nations with a free-trade agreement last March, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is reviewing a key pipeline for the project.
The meeting with Zinke occurred just weeks after Tellurian CEO Meg Gentle participated in the Trump administration's panel that promoted fossil fuel and nuclear technology at the United Nations' climate talks in Bonn, Germany (Climatewire, Nov. 14, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/03/07/stories/1060075633
-
The US Must Seize the LNG Opportunity
Mar 7, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Charlie Riedl
In February of 2016, the first large-scale shipment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the lower 48 states departed Cheniere’s Sabine Pass export terminal, opening a new chapter in American energy. Dominion’s Cove Point LNG terminal in Southern Maryland just joined Sabine Pass as the second major terminal to ship U.S. LNG to the global market. These two terminals, and others set to join them, are reshaping the global natural gas calculus right before our very eyes.
U.S. LNG exports are proving to be an engine for economic growth, critically important to global climate efforts and a potent geopolitical tool.
When President Trump visited China last November, U.S. LNG took center stage. LNG has become a key part of China’s plan to reduce its choking reliance on coal. Beijing is now moving swiftly to invest in U.S. export capacity and expand its own import capacity.
In Europe, U.S. LNG is already playing an outsized role in strengthening U.S. foreign policy. More robust LNG trade and access to reliable and affordable U.S. natural gas is helping strengthen the energy security of close allies and loosen Russia’s grip on the European gas market.
But despite strong evidence that U.S. LNG exports are a win for U.S. workers, diplomacy and global climate efforts, there remains a small but vocal minority of politicians and manufacturers that would like the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to restrict exports to non-free trade agreement (NFTA) nations. This misguided stance rests on the argument that U.S. LNG exports – should they reach high enough volumes – would raise domestic natural gas prices, hurting U.S. energy consumers and damaging the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturers. This sentiment relies on dated statistics and cherry-picked soundbites.
The facts tell a far different story. Our natural gas reserves continue to grow and U.S. gas production continues to rise. The shale revolution, still considered in its early stages, is now benefitting from significant leaps forward in process optimization, manufacturing efficiency and the penetration of big data into production. The rub: more prolific wells that are drilled faster and at lower cost. There is more than enough natural gas available to meet the needs of domestic consumers and exporters.
Studies have already shown increased demand for U.S. natural gas from exports will be met almost entirely by additional production, not current production. Exports will drive increased investment and job growth in the shale fields. In the unlikely scenario that the price of U.S. natural gas does rise significantly, so will the price of U.S. LNG and exports will fall. If importers can find lower-cost supply with other exporters, such as Australia, Qatar or Russia, they will. The global LNG market is highly competitive and will determine how much or how little U.S. LNG makes its way overseas.
If we were to artificially restrict exports, falling prey to protectionist impulses, we would undermine our own commitment to fair trade and, according to recent analysis from ICF International, deny ourselves as much as $73 billion in new investment and 452,000 additional jobs by 2040. Government intervention to limit exports would be a painful own goal, with Russia, Australia and Qatar celebrating in the stands.
We should not only reject calls to limit exports to NFTA countries but take steps to streamline our export permitting process. The first six LNG projects approved by DOE each took roughly two and a half years to complete the federal permitting process. We can and should do much better.
There is a clear opportunity to streamline permitting and legislation currently under consideration in Congress would do just that. It deserves our full support. Doing so will provide developers with confidence in the regulatory process and allow them to more quickly challenge international competitors.
LNG exports represent a remarkable, multi-dimensional opportunity for the U.S. to grow our economy, restore our balance of trade, promote the use of a cleaner fuel and strengthen the energy security of partners around the world. Every effort should be made to ensure we seize the opportunity before us.
Charlie Riedl is executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/377088-the-us-must-seize-the-lng-opportunity
-
U.S. Infrastructure Shifts Toward Exports
Mar 7, 2018 | Financial Times (In E&E Energywire)
By Gregory Meyer
A new, export-oriented era for U.S. energy is reshaping the nation's energy infrastructure, with planned or repurposed pipelines pointing toward Gulf Coast ports.
New pipeline systems representing some 2.1 million barrels per day of capacity are either being built or planned, according to research firm RBN Energy.
All in all, the Gulf Coast's crude export capacity is set to go from 1.9 million barrels per day last year to 4.9 million by 2023, according to the International Energy Agency. Three pipelines — the BridgeTex, Permian Express and Cactus — are servicing refineries and ports in Houston and Corpus Christi.
"Everybody wants to get to water," said Corey Prologo, director of North American oil trading at Trafigura, during a CERAWeek event in Houston. "All the current pipelines are getting filled out, which they previously weren't."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/07/stories/1060075589
-
Court Grills FERC, Enviros on Texas Export Pipeline
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges quizzed regulators and environmentalists yesterday on whether a natural gas pipeline reaching the Texas-Mexico border was properly approved.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments in a case pitting the Big Bend Conservation Alliance against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and its approval of the Trans-Pecos pipeline.
The Energy Transfer Partners LP project stretches 148 miles from West Texas to Presidio County, linking to Mexican infrastructure in the middle of the Rio Grande.
Developers proposed the project in two chunks: the 1,093-foot border-crossing section and the length of the pipeline cutting through Texas.
The border-crossing facility triggered FERC review under the Natural Gas Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The commission conducted an environmental analysis that considered cumulative impacts of the broader project but primarily focused on the border crossing, approving it in 2016.
The rest of the pipeline qualified as an intrastate project designed to predominantly carry Texas natural gas. That meant oversight was reserved to Texas regulators, with no federal environmental analysis needed on that section. The project has capacity to move 1.4 billion cubic feet a day of gas.
The Big Bend Conservation Alliance says FERC should have reviewed Trans-Pecos as an interstate pipeline under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, which sets out requirements for gas transport across state lines.
The group says the agency's failure to do that is especially troubling because, while the pipeline was proposed as a intrastate project, it is actually moving out-of-state gas, too.
The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 allows intrastate pipelines — those that haven't undergone federal review — to move some gas across state lines without triggering the level of FERC scrutiny that would have applied if they had been proposed as interstate projects in the first place.
"We know that the pipeline is going to carry interstate gas," said Bricklin & Newman LLP attorney Jacob Brooks, representing the conservation group. "It is going to be built or be used as an interstate facility in the future. This isn't a situation where there's already an existing pipeline and we're trying to flow interstate gas. The intention from the outset is clear."
Trans-Pecos pitched its pipeline as an intrastate project — qualifying most of the line for state-only oversight — but acknowledged that it would eventually add some out-of-state gas to the mix.
FERC attorney Beth Pacella noted that the agency can step in and require extra environmental review if an intrastate pipeline is found to be moving "predominantly" out-of-state gas. She noted that Trans-Pecos repeatedly reassured the commission that Texas gas would make up the bulk of its service.
Indeed, the Trans-Pecos pipeline is already in service and is moving a mix of product. Vinson & Elkins LLP attorney Jeremy Marwell, representing Trans-Pecos, noted that after the pipeline started service a year ago, Texas gas made up 81 percent of what it transported in 2017, while out-of-state gas accounted for the rest.'Wink, wink, intrastate'
Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, said she was troubled with that regulatory setup and asked Pacella why FERC doesn't dig deeper into pipeline operators' assurances that they will "initiate" service using only in-state gas. Does it matter, she asked, if a pipeline is only moving local gas for a couple of months before switching to interstate service?
"What does it take to trigger FERC pushing back hard or going, 'Really, what are your intentions here?'" she said. "That's, at least, for what it's worth, my concern about how this happens.
"You have to make these upfront judgments, and when you're getting mixed signals from the pipeline, does FERC have to wait until something's in its face, or does FERC have an upfront duty to pin them down: 'No, really, when you say initiate, how long is initiate? Is that a couple months or years?'"
Pacella said federal law gives FERC authority to use its discretion in that situation, and the agency depends on the pipeline developer's assurances. After an intrastate project adds interstate service, FERC is able to check quarterly reports to see that it remains predominantly in-state gas.
"But then we're getting to the 'wink, wink, intrastate,'" Millett said.
Trans-Pecos started service with only intrastate gas; after five months, it added the out-of-state product.
Millett and Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, expressed concern that such a project might not receive adequate NEPA review, even if FERC later moved to address a big switch from intrastate to interstate service.
"Where would FERC draw the line?" Tatel asked, adding that NEPA review at that stage would not be as meaningful as early-stage analysis.
Brooks, the attorney for the alliance, said that's exactly the problem.
"There's no review before the agency's made its decision," he said. "The really meaningful analysis and the purpose of NEPA has been subverted there."
In a separate claim raised in the litigation, the Big Bend Conservation Alliance argued yesterday that the permitting breakdown of Trans-Pecos into two projects illegally circumvented NEPA.
Brooks said that under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, which governs exports, FERC is required to treat the entire pipeline as an export facility and then closely review the environmental impacts of all of it.
Tatel and Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, questioned whether the alliance had properly raised that issue when it asked the commission to reconsider the approval. Brooks maintained that even a single sentence in the alliance's petition for rehearing was enough to put FERC on notice.
The panel of judges is expected to issue a decision in the next few months.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/07/stories/1060075629
-
Perry: Trump Hasn't Made Up Mind on Tariffs
Mar 7, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre
Energy Secretary Rick Perry sought to ease fears in the energy industry over the impending tariff on steel imports, saying he didn't think President Donald Trump had decided yet on how to implement the trade barrier.
“The president clearly wants to see manufacturing be brought back to the United States, to protect United State workers in different industries,” Perry told reporters at the CERAWeek conference in Houston. “With that said, I think this is an ongoing conversation, a debate, an internal discussion. I’m not sure that he has made up his mind with clarity with where he wants to go with this. I don’t think the president has made a decision with great specificity about 'here’s exactly what is going to be put in place.'”
Trump proposed tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel, a plan that would hit the U.S. energy industry particularly hard. Much of the pipeline steel used in the country comes from Canada, while parts for drill rigs and other energy infrastructure can come from as far away as South Korea.
The planned tariffs have split Republicans, and contributed to the resignation of White House economic adviser Gary Cohn this week, a topic Perry also addressed.
“I haven’t had a conversation with him about why’s he left,’ Perry said. “Anyone who’s worked at the White House for a year is getting a little burned out. Not just this administration, every administration. It’s hard work. Nobody is irreplaceable.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Exxon Woos Wall St. With Bold Plan to Double Earnings by 2025
Mar 7, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Exxon Mobil Corp, the world's largest publicly traded oil producer, said on Wednesday it expects earnings to more than double by 2025 to $31 billion, with crude prices <CLc1><LCOc1> at or above current levels.
It was the first time Exxon has ever given an earnings forecast so far in advance, highlighting how the Irving, Texas-based company was working to woo Wall Street.
Exxon's shares fell 1.4 percent on Wednesday morning to $75.13 alongside a dip in broader markets and oil prices.
Investors and analysts have bemoaned that the company's returns have sagged below those of rivals Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Chevron Corp in recent years.
Exxon Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods, who took the helm in January 2017 after predecessor Rex Tillerson left to become U.S. secretary of state, said he was committed to being more transparent and improving results.
"There's a lot different today, not just style," Woods said at the company's annual analyst day in New York. "I think that it's my responsibility to make sure this audience and the broader audience understands where we're trying to take the business."
Exxon said exploration projects in Guyana and the Permian Basin as well as refining and chemical plant expansions, should help boost earnings. Exxon reported an adjusted profit of $15 billion in 2017.
Exxon is also spending money to make money, with plans to spend $24 billion on capital projects this year, $28 billion next year and an average of $30 billion from 2023 to 2025. Peers, meanwhile, are cutting spending.Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main storySign up for the all-new DealBook newsletter
Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them.Sign UpYou agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
"If you look across our portfolio today, it's the richest set of opportunities since Exxon and Mobil merged" in 1999, Woods said. "We see the full potential of the organization: significant earnings growth will improving return of capital employed."
Production is expected to grow by about 1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d), to about 5 million boe/d in 2025 as 25 projects come online, Woods said.
Looking only at the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico, the largest U.S. oilfield, Exxon plans to triple production by 2025 as it taps the low-cost acreage. The plans highlight the increasing importance of U.S. shale to the world's largest publicly traded oil producer alongside its global mega-projects.
Several analysts saw the rising spending as problematic, even as they said they appreciated the transparency by a company many have bemoaned for weak disclosures in recent years.
"To us this highlights that there are no easy fixes to rejuvenate Exxon’s portfolio, and it is likely to take time for this investment to flow through into higher earnings, cash flow and returns," said RBC Capital Markets analyst Biraj Borkhataria.
Exxon did not announce a stock buyback program on Wednesday, something analysts had been hoping for.
Chevron said on Tuesday it should be able to raise production between 4 and 7 percent this year and buy back shares for the first time in at least three years even without a substantial rise in oil prices.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/03/07/business/07reuters-exxon-mobil-meeting.html
-
Cohn Is Out. Here's What it Means for Climate
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman and Robin Bravender
The globalists are on their way out of the White House, further diminishing the voices close to President Trump that say humans are warming the planet.
Departures of key personnel have left an energy and environment policy vacuum that many within the White House expect to be filled by nationalist advisers. More exits are likely on the way.
The resignation of National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, announced yesterday at a White House meeting, was the latest blow to those who remain hopeful for climate policy. His departure is seen as a potential dam break, with other aides likely following his path. The former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive supported remaining in the Paris climate accord and convened conversations with carbon tax advocates.
"I think you'll see good people leaving from the White House," said a White House official. "I think that their departure dates, which were sometime in the future, are going to be dramatically sped up."
Peter Navarro, Trump's trade adviser, is seen by some as likely to make a play for Cohn's job. Navarro, known as a nationalist voice in the administration, has curried favor with the president for his defense of tariffs on steel and aluminum that have engendered widespread backlash globally and within the GOP.
Cohn opposed the tariffs, which Trump is expected to formally propose any day. The White House said Cohn would still remain on staff for a few more weeks, even as Trump begins to look for his replacement.
"Will be making a decision soon on the appointment of a new Chief Economic Advisor," Trump tweeted last night. "Many people wanting the job — will choose wisely!"
The NEC had already been weathering turmoil.
George David Banks left last month after failing to get a permanent security clearance. He handled international energy issues and was viewed as a top voice pushing for re-engagement in the Paris climate accord. That, combined with Cohn's exit, weakens the prospects that the United States will remain in the global agreement. Trump has said he'll pull out of the Paris pact, but he can't formally do that until November 2020.
"One thing is for certain, the pro-Paris crowd has certainly been dealt a setback these past few weeks," said Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research.
In fact, several NEC advisers have already headed for the gates. Jeremy Katz, an economic adviser and one of Cohn's top allies, left earlier this year. Grace Koh, who oversaw technology, telecommunications and cybersecurity, announced she was leaving last month.
Beyond that, other changes in the energy and environment staff loom large. Everett Eissenstat, the council's deputy director, who assisted on energy and environment discussions at the Group of 20 summit in Germany, is Cohn's lieutenant on trade. He was on the losing side of the tariff decision. Mike Catanzaro, who leads the energy and environment portfolio, could also be affected by Cohn's absence.
"I imagine that many of the people who worked for him have been preparing their exit for a while," said Mike McKenna, an energy lobbyist who is largely supportive of Trump's policies. "I'd be surprised if there weren't more announcements in the next 30 days or so."
One industry lobbyist close to the administration described Cohn as a leader inside a "pressure cooker." That person said, "I wouldn't be surprised if we see additional folks leave in the somewhat near term."
However, the lobbyist added, "domestic policy advisers are somewhat siloed in the White House. So those working on energy and the environment will not necessarily follow Cohn's lead, nor are they likely to be fired."
Departures could erode the contingent of White House aides with energy and environment experience. Given the administration's broader challenges around staffing key positions, those spots could remain vacant for the time being.
If they do get filled, it's unclear whether new advisers would view the Paris accord and other climate issues favorably. That view is on the wane in the White House, and the credibility of those who remain is being tested. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and adviser, has been dogged by accusations of mingling personal business and political affairs, and it's been widely expected for months that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is on the way out.
Still, Cohn's presence never made a significant difference in the trajectory of environmental policy under Trump, said Ben Beachy, director of the Sierra Club's responsible trade program. Although Cohn was a registered Democrat — a fact his detractors who opposed climate action often raised — Beachy noted that he was also influenced by his roots in investment banking.
"It's still a Cabinet decked out, unfortunately, with corporate polluters," Beachy said. "The guy also was clearly a champion of the Goldman Sachs view of the world."
The industry lobbyist expressed hope that Trump will replace Cohn with a "voice of moderation."
"I don't think that's a promotion from within," the lobbyist said. "More likely, the president will try to recruit another adviser from the business community."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/03/07/stories/1060075635
-
Ewire: Cohn's Exit Marks Another Pro-Paris Departure from White House
Mar 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
The top White House economic adviser, Gary Cohn, announced his resignation yesterday over a deep dispute with President Donald Trump over trade policy, though his departure also continues an exodus of top officials who urged Trump to take a more moderate course on climate policy.
Cohn, a registered Democrat and former Goldman Sachs executive, had unsuccessfully urged Trump to remain in the Paris climate agreement with a weaker national greenhouse gas target.
But the president in a high-profile June speech announced he would leave the Paris deal -- though he is actually waiting the required three years to depart, meaning any exit would not formally take effect until November 2020.
Trump has also often floated vague promises to “re-engage” on Paris, though has never defined the more favorable “terms” that would be required for the United States to stay in the landmark international deal.
Now that Cohn is leaving his slot as chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC), that means that one of the Trump administration's most prominent voices for staying in Paris -- and addressing climate change -- won't have the president's ear.
His departure comes just a few weeks after former Trump international climate and energy adviser George David Banks also left the NEC after he failed to obtain a permanent security clearance.
Banks, who worked under Cohn at the NEC, had similarly urged Trump to remain in Paris with a softer GHG target. And in several interviews since leaving, he has said he will continue to advocate for this course, calling Paris a “good Republican agreement” because it aligns with key principles espoused during the Bush administration.
However, the odds for such a sharp pivot -- both rhetorically and on policy -- from Trump remain mixed at best. One of the administration's biggest proponents of leaving Paris, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, remains very much inside the administration and would likely resist any efforts to moderate Trump's stance on the agreement.
Case in point: Pruitt prominently cites Trump's Paris announcement in his list of “accomplishments” for his first year in office, even though the State Department had played a primary role in negotiating the agreement and the country's stance.
And Politico details the extent to which Trump has filled administration positions with others who share his, and Pruitt's, skepticism of the extent to which human activity drives climate change.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-cohns-exit-marks-another-pro-paris-departure-white-house
-
Dems' Counteroffer Would Invest in Energy, Climate Resilience
Mar 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk and Arianna Skibell
Senate Democrats today proposed spending more than $100 billion on grid modernization and climate-resilient infrastructure as part of a broad counteroffer to the plan President Trump put out last month.
The Democrats' plan released this morning would spend $1 trillion in federal money on everything from conventional surface transportation infrastructure to broadband, water and sewage systems.
An $80 billion slice would go toward grid modernization, including new Department of Energy research programs and investment in transmission lines. Another $25 billion would go to three new climate-resilient grant programs.
"We need to make the investment in the grid and in energy development to protect the growing internet economy," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said at a news conference this morning to announce the plan.
The plan marks the most extensive look yet at Democratic priorities as a push for an infrastructure bill spools up in Congress. Climate change and the power grid are two areas that went largely unmentioned in Trump's proposal, and they will likely be priorities for Democrats — and even some Republicans — if a compromise bill ever gets to the Senate floor.
But it also highlights how the contentious partisan bout over tax reform last year could reverberate into the infrastructure debate.
If Democrats had gotten a bigger say in the tax debate, Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said this morning, they would have worked to make sure revenue remained available to pay for a big federal investment in infrastructure.
Instead, the Democratic plan unveiled today proposes rolling back the GOP tax reform bill to pay for the $1 trillion investment, an idea that will undoubtedly be ignored as Republicans shape an infrastructure bill.
"So you see what happens when you don't have bipartisanship," Nelson said.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), meanwhile, panned the idea of reversing tax reform to pay for infrastructure.
"The Democrats' plan is clearly about raising taxes on American families, not upgrading our roads, bridges, and water systems," Barrasso said in a statement. "We need a robust and fiscally responsible infrastructure plan that will help, not hurt, America's economic growth."
Still, Democrats set the stage for partisan back-and-forth, laying out counterproposals to much of what Trump floated in his plan.
Senate Democrats propose, for instance, spending $15 billion to address the national parks maintenance backlog. That would include $5 billion for high-priority projects and a $4 billion injection for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The administration, on the other hand, has floated the idea of diverting some of the royalty revenue from energy and mineral development on public lands to address the backlog (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
And on energy, while Trump has mostly centered on pipelines and fossil fuel development, the Democratic plan puts the emphasis on renewables.
It would consolidate all the various renewable tax credits into three incentive programs for clean electricity, energy conservation and low-emission transportation fuel.
"The new incentives, based on performance rather than specific technologies, will promote innovation, increase investment and lower costs for consumers," the proposal says.Climate resilience
Though it didn't get much attention at this morning's news conference, the Democratic plan also includes details on an area the Trump administration has not touched: climate change adaptation.
The proposal sets aside $25 billion to fund three climate resilience programs in the face of anticipated increases in extreme weather events, including an infrastructure competition based off the model the Housing and Urban Development Department used after Superstorm Sandy in 2012.
Last year alone, NOAA estimated there were 16 weather and climate disaster events that collectively cost $306 billion, amounting to the most expensive year for natural disasters on record.
"Without strategic investments in housing and public infrastructure that mitigate the risks of future natural disasters, including housing elevation, storm water management, and resilient public facilities, disaster-devastated or disaster-prone areas will continue to degrade, resulting in a reduction in workforce, unstable housing markets, and declining economies," the proposal states.
The Democrats cite a recent study from the National Institute of Building Sciences that found every dollar invested in hazard mitigation can save up to $6 in future disaster costs.
"Certainly if we're going to be investing in projects that need to last 30 to 50 to 100 years, we need to be sure that whatever risks or hazards that infrastructure is going to face are accounted for," Ryan Colker, vice president of NIBS, told E&E News. "Otherwise, we're going to be continually needing funding to address the changing risk."
The Senate Democrats' proposal would establish a competition called the Promoting Resilient Operations for Timely and Efficient, Community Transformation (PROTECT) grant program, which would build off of HUD's National Disaster Resilience Competition, the second of two competitions to fund Sandy recovery.
Colker said, in general, a design competition is a positive way to create "excitement and buzz" around resilient building.
"Thinking about an opportunity to elevate the exposure of being able to address resilience is certainly an important strategy," he said. "Having the opportunity for folks from a state and local level to identify strategies is certainly a beneficial approach and recognizes both local needs and the expertise of various different entities."
After Superstorm Sandy, President Obama tasked HUD with overseeing both the Rebuild by Design and National Disaster Resilience Competition. Years later, many of the projects are still underway and have faced numerous hurdles.
Additionally, the bulk of the staff within HUD who created and managed those grants have since left the agency (E&E Daily, March 2).
"Lots of the plans were incredibly ambitious and may not ultimately receive the funding necessary to execute them fully," Colker said.
He recommended that design competitions be used to set initial priorities and then decide what would be "nice to have."
The proposal includes a revolving loan fund, which would be modeled on U.S. EPA's Drinking Water and Clean Water state revolving funds. It would provide low- and no-interest loans to communities for investment in resilient infrastructure.
The loan fund mirrors a bill introduced earlier this year from Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), John Kennedy (R-La.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also signed on to the measure, S. 1507.
"Revolving loan programs are a time-tested way to mitigate risks associated with flooding, and this bill would especially help low- and middle-income property owners counter disastrous consequences of floods by lowering flood insurance premiums," Reed said last June.
The proposal also includes a National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, through which money would be made available for, among other coastal concerns, habitat restoration and protection, managing coastal development, cooperative fisheries and resource management, and oil spill research and response.Praise from enviros
Environmentalists began heaping praise on the Democratic proposal as soon as it was unveiled this morning.
"With this proposal, Senate Democrats are demonstrating what real leadership on infrastructure looks like: a tangible federal investment that drives us towards a clean energy future, plans for a changing climate, protects our natural resources and makes smart transportation choices," League of Conservation Voters Vice President for Government Affairs Sara Chieffo said in a statement.
Greens were especially pleased the Democratic plan makes little mention of reforming environmental permitting, which was a major feature of Trump's plan.
Republicans see permitting changes as a potential boon for private investors in infrastructure, and they'll likely look to get moderate Democrats on board with permitting changes if a compromise bill ever emerges.
"The president served up a slate of environmental rollbacks with a batch of funding gimmicks and called it an infrastructure plan," Defenders of Wildlife President and CEO Jamie Rappaport Clark said in a statement. "But Americans aren't biting."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/07/stories/1060075701
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested