Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 3/14/2018
-
Pruitt Orders Policy Shop to Review Permit Rules
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg and Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is putting his top policy aide in charge of reviewing regulations and guidance governing the agency's permitting processes. -
Perry Allies Reject Reports of DOE Departure
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Numerous sources close to Energy Secretary Rick Perry are pushing back on reports suggesting the former Texas governor may leave the agency to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs are untrue. -
Industry Trumpeted Tillerson. Then It Found Other Allies
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
When President Trump first nominated Rex Tillerson to lead the State Department, the appointment was widely viewed as a victory for the oil sector as it gained a number of allies in Washington, including Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. -
EU Commission Appoints De Avila as New Head of Chemicals Unit
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has appointed Cristina de Avila as head of the sustainable chemicals unit at the environment directorate-general. -
(ACC Mentioned) Small Business Panel to Consult on TSCA PBT Regulations
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
The US EPA is seeking candidates to serve on a small business advocacy review panel (SBAR) that will weigh in on its expedited regulation of five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances under TSCA. -
US EPA Releases Guidance for CBI Sharing Under TSCA
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is consulting on three draft guidance documents outlining the process by which it will disclose TSCA confidential business information (CBI) to certain parties. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Struggles to Win Bill Setting Criteria for Local Chemical Label Rules
Mar 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Chemical and other industry groups have launched a coalition to push back on what they see as a groundswell of state and local labeling mandates for products containing certain chemicals, but the groups have so far failed to advance legislation... -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks Prioritisation Clarity in California SCP Programme
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups are seeking greater clarity around how chemicals and products will be selected, during the next three years of California’s Safer Consumer Products programme. -
Proposal to Ban Foam Food Boxes Hits Roadblocks
Mar 14, 2018 | Baltimore Sun (In E&E Greenwire)
By Scott Dance
A proposal to make Maryland the first state to ban polystyrene foam faces an uncertain future. -
EU Toxrisk Makes Progress on Predicting Chemical Toxicity
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
After two years, the EU-ToxRisk project is beginning to have evidence that its battery of alternative tests and models may be able to predict chemical toxicity for read-across purposes. -
FERC Says Alaska LNG Project Can Expect Major Delay
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska received a wake-up call from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday on how quickly federal regulators can complete an environmental impact statement on Alaska's $43 billion natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export project. -
Seismic Deniability in ANWR Debate: Fuel for Thought
Mar 14, 2018 | Platts
By Tim Bradner
Alaska wants to update decades-old seismic surveys of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to boost exploration. But in a twist, some officials feel that ignorance in this case may be better for the state’s coffers. -
Ohio Shale E&Ps Kept Driving Production, Innovation Last Year, Says Report
Mar 14, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Production wasn’t the only thing that increased in Ohio’s oil and natural gas fields last year, as permitting bounced back from the lows of the commodities downturn and shale drillers that increasingly control more land continued extending their laterals... -
U.S. Energy Pipeline Developers to Seek Exemptions to Steel Tariff
Mar 13, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Liz Hampton and Ju-min Park
U.S. energy pipeline developers say they intend to pursue exemptions to the Trump Administration's proposed steel tariffs, as concerns grow for those companies and from key exporters to the United States like South Korea. -
Trump’s Tariffs Threaten Domestic Natural Gas Industry and US Energy Goals
Mar 14, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Jamie McInerney
President Donald Trump’s 25 percent tariff on imported steel will create an existential shock in material costs for the domestic natural gas industry, potentially causing multibillion-dollar projects to become uncompetitive and threatening the president’s own goal of U.S. energy dominance. -
Industry Should Comply with the Methane Waste Prevention Rule
Mar 14, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. RaúL M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.),
Before leaving office, President Obama instituted a rule limiting the oil and gas industry’s wasting of natural gas on public and tribal lands. -
Oregon Governor Says Zinke Told Her Offshore Drilling Isn’t ‘Lucrative’ There
Mar 14, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told her that offshore oil and natural gas drilling off her state’s coast wouldn’t likely be cost effective. -
EPA Sends Draft RMP Revision Rule for OMB Review
Mar 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House review its draft proposed rule easing an Obama-era measure that had sought to strengthen the agency's facility accident prevention program, giving the agency less than one year to issue a final regulation by the Trump administration's... -
Washington Must Act on Much Needed Improvements to Freight Rail Policies
Mar 14, 2018 | The Regulatory Review
By Daniel Elliott, III
Now is the time to improve the outdated rules at the Surface Transportation Board to make a fairer economic regulatory framework and strengthen the nation’s freight rail system. -
Pruitt's Climate Clash Was Declared Dead. There's a Plan B
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
In December, top aides to the president huddled in the White House with some of Scott Pruitt's closest staffers.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Pruitt Orders Policy Shop to Review Permit Rules
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg and Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is putting his top policy aide in charge of reviewing regulations and guidance governing the agency's permitting processes.
In a memo obtained by E&E News, Pruitt directs the head of EPA's Office of Policy to coordinate reviews of permitting policies "to ensure consistency and conformance with statutory authority and agency priorities, and to flag policy provisions that contribute to unnecessary processing time delays."
The EPA policy shop will lead "agency-wide efforts to conduct recurring periodic review of permitting policies and guidance governing the processing and issuance of federal environmental permits," according to the March 8 memo that Pruitt signed.
The reviews will be coordinated with the general counsel and appropriate program offices to "identify policy provisions that deviate from statutory authority and that may contribute to unnecessary permit processing delays" as well as work with the relevant staff "that are most directly responsible for the permit program to implement appropriate changes."
In addition, the head of the policy office will "serve as the advocate and central point of contact for all federal agencies on EPA permits."
An EPA spokeswoman told E&E News that shifting duties to the policy shop was part of the agency's reorganization.
"As part of the planned reorganization, EPA is assigning new permitting policy coordination responsibilities and transferring existing [National Environmental Policy Act] related responsibilities to the Office of Policy," the spokeswoman said.
"These moves will directly support Administrator Pruitt's priorities for expediting federal infrastructure projects and streamlining permitting processes, providing stakeholders with more clarity and certainty on their projects without sacrificing environmental results," she said.
Samantha Dravis, the EPA policy chief, worked with Pruitt when he was Oklahoma attorney general as a policy director and general counsel at the Republican Attorneys General Association. She was also president of the Rule of Law Defense Fund and legal counsel at Freedom Partners.
At EPA, Dravis was also picked to lead EPA's task force for targeting regulations for elimination, revision or replacement (Greenwire, April 4, 2017).
One former EPA official told E&E News having Dravis review permitting policies would further empower one of Pruitt's closest aides.
"This gives the Office of Policy and Samantha Dravis a little more scope and a little more power. It creates a more direct line to Administrator Pruitt on some cross-cutting issues like NEPA and permitting," the former official said.
The memo follows the Trump administration's release last month of its infrastructure plan, which includes sweeping changes to NEPA. As part of that plan, the administration is also asking Congress to take EPA out of the Clean Water Act permitting process, which it currently shares with the Army Corps of Engineers (E&E News PM, Feb. 12).
The reviews will include policies affecting federal permits issued by EPA itself, as well as those that are issued by state and tribal governments.
Accelerating permitting-related decisions is one of six agency "priority goals" Pruitt outlined for the agency in fiscal 2018 and 2019 as part of EPA's strategic plan.
"EPA is committing to speeding up approvals of permits and modifications to create certainty for the business community, leading to increased jobs and economic prosperity, and streamlining permit renewals, which incorporate up-to-date information and requirements more quickly, thereby improving environmental protection," the plan says.
EPA has also put forth an agency "reform plan" that emphasizes "speeding up environmental permitting."
Pruitt's memo directs the Office of Policy to implement an online "electronic permitting" system to track permits' status and to facilitate permit authorization and environmental projects covered by Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. That law condenses the National Environmental Policy Act processes for projects costing more than $200 million and involving more than two regulatory agencies for projects from certain sectors like surface transportation and energy transmission.
The memo is just the latest step in the consolidating of many offices within the Office of Policy. In September, Dravis wrote in an email to staff that the Office of Environmental Justice and Office of Federal Activities would become part of the Office of Policy (Greenwire, Sept. 7, 2017).
In his memo, Pruitt clarifies that, with the Office of Federal Activities reorganization, the Office of Policy will now be delegated several responsibilities, including reviewing environmental impact statements for Clean Air Act compliance and checking Department of Energy actions.
The former EPA official said as Trump appointees at the agency try to speed up permitting, they may weaken environmental safeguards.
"The language is neutral. This memo could have been written by any administration, but under this administration, it will likely be used for permitting streamlining and probably relaxing of environmental requirements," the former official said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/14/stories/1060076339
-
Perry Allies Reject Reports of DOE Departure
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Numerous sources close to Energy Secretary Rick Perry are pushing back on reports suggesting the former Texas governor may leave the agency to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs are untrue.
Reports emerged from the Associated Press, CNN and The New York Times last night that President Trump during a Monday lunch with Perry floated the idea of him replacing embattled Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin.
The AP, for example, cited a source familiar with White House discussions unauthorized to discuss internal deliberations. The White House and DOE declined to comment when asked about the reports.
But Marc Palazzo, a consultant who served as a "Sherpa" for Perry during the transition, said the former Texas governor is staying put.
"I know he is happy serving as Energy secretary and looks forward to continuing in that role," said Palazzo, president of Austin, Texas-based SLR Public Affairs.
"Secretary Perry has been effective and very successful leading DOE," he continued, "and I would expect that the president would be excited about him continuing his work on behalf of the administration at the agency."
Other agency watchers close to Perry agreed.
"I don't think Secretary Perry is interested in leaving the DOE," said Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, who led the DOE transition. "He and his people are firmly ensconced there."
Rumors have flared up in the past about Trump potentially tapping Perry to fill other vacancies. Last summer, the administration quashed a report from Bloomberg citing "people familiar with the deliberations" that Perry was being eyed to replace John Kelly as head of the Department of Homeland Security (Greenwire, Aug. 2, 2017).
Perry has indeed built up an extensive network of political staffers and advisers — many from the Lone Star State — at DOE while managing to avoid the bulk of the controversy that's plagued other agencies.
The news of a possible Perry departure appeared to puzzle top bipartisan lawmakers at a renewables conference in Washington this morning.
The news also fueled a top Republican's concerns about a growing backlog of confirmations as the Trump administration sheds top officials.
"Has there been anything confirmed today to make it more than a rumor?" asked Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"What I have heard was that things within the VA were not good," said the senator. "But no, the word about Perry was out of the blue for me."
Murkowski said the thought of going through additional confirmations for Cabinet secretaries made her "weary" and expressed frustration about the amount of floor time spent on personnel.
The senator also noted the upper chamber is waiting on the White House to name a host of Interior nominees and pointed to other departments across the government that are "somewhat vacant."
"We're going to spend all of our time just going through the personnel side of the shop," Murkowski said. "I just don't ever remember it being so drawn out."
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the committee's ranking Democrat, said she felt like Perry came to the agency with some energy know-how given his state's track record and said she would be concerned by a more political pick to lead DOE.
"I would be concerned if they had the CEO of Perdue move over or something like that," said Cantwell.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/14/stories/1060076335
-
Industry Trumpeted Tillerson. Then It Found Other Allies
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
When President Trump first nominated Rex Tillerson to lead the State Department, the appointment was widely viewed as a victory for the oil sector as it gained a number of allies in Washington, including Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
Tillerson carried with him to the State Department a wealth of experience in forging partnerships with foreign leaders. He was seen as an ideal pick to potentially improve U.S.-Russia relations, a goal Trump iterated on the campaign trail (Energywire, Dec. 12, 2016).
But though he was the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp., Tillerson has played almost no significant role in the Trump administration's efforts to enhance the oil and gas industry's clout. Zinke has led the push to expand drillers' access to federal onshore and offshore lands, while Perry has championed fossil fuels and further DOE support for fossil energy research.
When Trump fired Tillerson yesterday via Twitter, industry offered no comment, and some officials even saw an upside. Tillerson's time at State was marked by staffing issues that, if resolved, could be good for the U.S. oil sector internationally.
"If anything, his time at State injected a lot of uncertainty in diplomatic circles, and that of course ripples out into international investment opportunities, particularly in the oil space and others as well," said Kenneth Medlock, director of the Center for Energy Studies at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. "He actually had a lot of deputy positions that were left unfilled, and that created consternation among the diplomatic corps around the world, and when that sort of stuff is happening, it means that things kind of grind to a halt."
The shortages also impacted the State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources, the department's liaison with the oil industry, Medlock said. "Various initiatives either never get off the ground or don't really make much progress, which effectively means for the last year you've had somebody who was a figurehead but not been able to really do much," he said.
Tillerson's departure marks the latest example of more centrist-thinking, internationally oriented members of the Trump administration being ousted from this administration in favor of those taking harder-line views of international relations and trade (Greenwire, March 13).
Trump told reporters in Washington that Tillerson's removal has been in the works for a while.
"Rex and I have been talking about this for a long time," Trump said, according to a pool report. "We got along, actually, quite well, but we disagreed on things. When you look at the Iran deal, I think it's terrible, I guess he thought it was OK. I wanted to either break it or do something, and he felt a little bit differently.
"So we were not really thinking the same. With Mike, [CIA Director] Mike Pompeo, [who will replace Tillerson], we have a very similar thought process," Trump added.
Russia
Tillerson had long been considered an advocate of Russia and of its president, Vladimir Putin. It was CEO Tillerson who in 2012 signed a historic agreement between Exxon Mobil and Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft to jointly develop Russian shale and oil and gas resources in Siberia. In 2013, Tillerson was awarded the Russian Federation's Order of Friendship by Putin in response. U.S. sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine essentially froze all of Exxon Mobil's ambitious plans.
Exxon recently announced its withdrawal from the Rosneft deal, citing sanctions on Russia's oil industry enacted after the Ukraine invasion.
In a note to clients, analysts at ClearView Energy Partners LLC argued that Pompeo's appointment as secretary of State could prove better for Russia than if Tillerson were to remain.
"The changes could also reinforce a light U.S. sanctions touch on Russia and accelerate Venezuelan crude sanctions," they wrote. "Escalating Trump Administration trade nationalism may also presage a shift from globalism to isolationism on sanctions issues. Tillerson's departure seems likely to intensify this effect, as well."
During his tenure as secretary of State, Tillerson maintained a hard line on Russia and gave no indications that sanctions on Moscow would be relaxed or enforced only lightly. He worked to quell talk of potentially barring Venezuela from selling crude oil to the U.S., an idea opposed by U.S. oil refineries.
Medlock said the sanctions are minimally affecting Russia's ability to sell its oil and natural gas to customers. He offered as an example Russia-sourced liquefied natural gas ending up in New England markets. But Russia faces longer-term challenges with its oil production if it remains locked off from Western capital and technology, unless Chinese investors fill the gap, he said.
Though Russian LNG slipped past the sanctions regime to land in Boston Harbor, "that's not necessarily, though, an indication of his role as secretary of State and the effectiveness of the sanctions, it's more an issue of this is how markets work," Medlock said. "The question of sanctions on Russia really isn't fundamentally of their effectiveness, or really fundamentally of who the secretary of State is. It's really an issue of how well the U.S. can establish relations with other countries that could actually matter in terms of whether those sanctions survive in the long term."
Political reaction
Now that he's out, politicians and political actors in Washington have lined up to react to Tillerson's departure from State. The oil and gas industry wishes to remain silent, however. The industry's more effective allies at the top of Interior and DOE remain in power for the time being.
"TXOGA does not have a comment on this," said Gretchen Fox, a spokesperson for the Texas Oil and Gas Association.
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said in a statement that the U.S. government was losing a key asset.
"Rex Tillerson has served our country with great energy and determination," he said. "He is a good man, a thoughtful leader and a business titan. Thanks to his diplomatic efforts, we have charted a new course to counter the full range of threats from Iran and apply maximum pressure on Kim Jong Un."
Naturally, not every lawmaker agreed.
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) of the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee was more critical, saying, "Rex Tillerson's tenure as secretary of State was obviously unsuccessful." Lowey alluded to the discord that Medlock noted, adding that Tillerson's "misguided so-called reorganization of the State Department has plunged our diplomatic and development corps into crisis."
Environmentalists were livid when the news first came that the head of Exxon Mobil would be running State. Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, issued approving remarks on Tillerson's exit. "America's premier oil and gas booster should have no role in U.S. diplomacy at a time when we urgently need to transition off of fossil fuels."
Tillerson remains a multimillionaire from his time leading the U.S.'s largest vertically integrated oil and gas company. If he re-enters the oil industry, it could be in an advisory role on a company board.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/14/stories/1060076237
-
EU Commission Appoints De Avila as New Head of Chemicals Unit
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has appointed Cristina de Avila as head of the sustainable chemicals unit at the environment directorate-general.
She replaces Björn Hansen who became Echa's new executive director in January.
Prior to her appointment on 1 March, Ms de Avila has been deputy head of the unit at DG Environment since 2013 and led its work on REACH and CLP, the Commission said in a statement. She became acting head on 1 January, following Mr Hansen's move to Echa.
Ms de Avila has worked on EU chemicals policy since 2004 and has been involved in the negotiations and the implementation of REACH since its adoption, the Commission said.
Before joining the EU executive, she worked for over five years in the private sector – in Spain with an NGO and in Brussels. Her main area of expertise is EU environment policy, in particular relating to waste and products.
Ms de Avila has a law degree from the Complutense University of Madrid and worked as a lawyer for over two years, before specialising in EU law and community environment policy.
She also has a post-graduate diploma in international relations from the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague and a masters of law degree in European business law from the University of Amsterdam.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64906/eu-commission-appoints-de-avila-as-new-head-of-chemicals-unit
-
(ACC Mentioned) Small Business Panel to Consult on TSCA PBT Regulations
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
The US EPA is seeking candidates to serve on a small business advocacy review panel (SBAR) that will weigh in on its expedited regulation of five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances under TSCA.
The 2016 Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to take such action on certain PBTs, by skipping their risk evaluation and proceeding directly to regulation.
Proposed TSCA risk management rules for the five substances – announced in October 2016 – are due by next June. These are:
· decaBDE, a flame retardant;
· hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used as a solvent and as a hydraulic, heat transfer or transformer fluid;
· pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP), used to make rubber more pliable;
· tris(4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate (IPTPP), used as a flame retardant in consumer products and as a lubricant and hydraulic fluid; and
· 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl) phenol, an additive in fuels and lubricants.
Federal law requires consultation with an SBAR panel when a regulation under development will have a "significant economic impact" on small entities.
The panel will comprise representatives from the EPA, the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration. And the former is recruiting "small entity representatives" (SERs) to provide comments and "advise the panel about the potential impacts of the proposed rule on" them.
The agency will characterise the exposures to humans and the environment posed by each of the five PBTs under its conditions of use. Once peer-reviewed and released for public comment, this information will inform regulations that will reduce these exposures "to the extent practicable".
The American Chemistry Council argued, in comments published in December, that the EPA should update "outdated" PBT criteria before taking action, an idea NGOs strongly disagree with.
Small entities
The EPA says it prefers SERs to be owners or operators of small businesses, small organisation or small government officials, according to its announcement. But representatives of organisations, such as trade groups, that represent "potentially regulated small entities" will also be considered.
The SBA defines a small business by setting a maximum amount of annual receipts, or number of employees, varying by business sector. In different types of chemical manufacturing, this ranges from 500 to 1,500 employees.
A small government is defined as serving a jurisdiction with 50,000 or fewer residents. A small organisation is defined as any "not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."
Anyone interested in serving as an SER must contact the EPA by 22 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64836/small-business-panel-to-consult-on-tsca-pbt-regulations
-
US EPA Releases Guidance for CBI Sharing Under TSCA
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is consulting on three draft guidance documents outlining the process by which it will disclose TSCA confidential business information (CBI) to certain parties.
In a win for public advocacy groups, the 2016 Lautenberg Act expanded the categories of people who may access information claimed as confidential under TSCA. These are:
· state, tribal and local governments;
· environmental, health and medical professionals; and
· emergency responders.
The draft documents outline the conditions that must be met for CBI to be disclosed, and how individuals may submit requests. One covers access requests from governmental bodies, while the other two address those in emergency and non-emergency situations.
The conditions vary in each situation, but generally require that:
· the requester demonstrate need;
· the information not be disclosed to those not authorised to receive it; and
· the request be made at least 15 days prior to disclosure, except in emergency situations.
Requesters may also be required to submit a statement of need and sign an agreement with the EPA.
Writing last month in the CW Global Business Briefing, Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the EPA, said this action will "give the public more access to chemical information potentially needed by their communities".
Comments on the proposals will be accepted for 30 days following notice in the Federal Register.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64927/us-epa-releases-guidance-for-cbi-sharing-under-tsca
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Struggles to Win Bill Setting Criteria for Local Chemical Label Rules
Mar 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Chemical and other industry groups have launched a coalition to push back on what they see as a groundswell of state and local labeling mandates for products containing certain chemicals, but the groups have so far failed to advance legislation it is seeking that would set minimum federal criteria for local rules' chemical evaluations and provide a waiver for small exposures.
In addition, any legislation is likely to face stiff opposition from Democrats, especially those from California, whose Proposition 65 law would be a target for the legislation but has long been a model for state and local labeling requirements.
Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), one of the coalition's key members, acknowledged recently that Congress is unlikely to act on such a bill this session, pointing to an acrimonious political environment that he decried.
But he suggested the coalition is planning a long-term effort. "We're pretty optimistic we're going to be seeing some progress on that in this Congress. It'll be difficult to see it pass I think with the political environment, but we're really committed to trying to build broad support in Congress to set the stage for future action on this," he told the GlobalChem industry conference earlier this month.
The coalition, known as the Coalition for Accurate Product Labels, already has more than 50 members and continues to grow, a spokeswoman said in a statement. Members so far include ACC, American Coatings Association, CropLife America, National Retail Federation, American Apparel and Footwear Association, American Beverage Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association and others.
The coalition began forming after seeing that "[a] growing number of states and localities are considering requirements for new disclosures or warning labels about specific ingredients on consumer product packaging," the spokeswoman said.
"The criteria and rationale for these initiatives is not consistent, threatening to leave consumers and retailers even more confused about what is and is not safe," the statement adds.
According to Dooley, there are currently 29 labeling proposals pending in 12 different states.
But industry groups are increasingly challenging labeling requirements. For example, a federal court in California recently blocked a Prop. 65 rule that required warning labels on products containing the widely used pesticide ingredient glyphosate.
The coalition cited the ruling, as well as a similar decision that blocked a San Francisco ordinance requiring safety labels on soda, as further underscoring the legislation.
"The need for action is reinforced by the recent U.S. District Court decision halting the State of California from requiring warning labels under [Proposition] 65 on Roundup [pesticide] products, a 9th Circuit decision last September blocking deceptive soda labels and a Los Angeles Times editorial warning that Prop. 65 labels that aren't supported by research can be counterproductive and dangerous."
Proposed Legislation
The coalition appears to have launched late last year, when it began sending letters to lawmakers seeking sponsors for federal legislation to impose the new federal criteria.
Dooley told reporters after his speech that there is precedent for the kind of legislation the industry coalition is proposing in the Fair Labeling and Packaging Act. He added that he anticipates "lots of input from EPA" and other federal agencies on the legislation, particularly on exposure information.
Such legislation "will ensure that consumers will have appropriate, meaningful information based on a credible, scientific standard when making purchasing decisions," the coalition wrote in a Dec. 18 letter to Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND).
"We think you will agree this is an important issue that needs a timely solution before a patchwork of labeling schemes causes additional burdens for North Dakota farmers and businesses alike. For this reason, we urge you to be the lead Democratic cosponsor on a bill that will establish a federal standard for labeling and disclosure requirements," the letter adds.
But so far, no legislation has yet been introduced in Congress though it is not clear what commitments if any the group has received from potential sponsors.
During his speech at the GlobalChem industry conference earlier this month, Dooley renewed calls for the legislation. "One of the things we're very concerned with is that we're seeing now an increasing proliferation of attention focused in warning labels, and labeling regimes, that are being introduced at the state and even at the local level," he said.
"If the state's going to put labeling requirements in, you gotta use some of the same methodology that EPA uses, that [the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)] uses, in making that determination," Dooley said.
"And you gotta set a de minimis standard, so that there's a safe harbor. Let us acknowledge there is some threshold below which a chemical will not cause a risk."
Dooley compared the situation to past industry concerns over Prop. 65, which requires warning labels on products sold in the state that contain carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. Industry has long challenged that program, and state decisions about listed chemicals, fearing the possibility such labels drive product de-selection and that chemical listing can lead to costly litigation.
Dooley noted that such warning label requirements are based on a state or locality's hazard assessment. "Some of these are not based on sound scientific methodologies."
Dooley said ACC has developed a "strong coalition," whose members agree that they "do not want to preempt the ability of state or local governments to impose a labeling standard, but we want to put some federal criteria to this."
State Patchwork
Other industry officials, including Owen Caine of the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA), echoed concerns that companies face a growing patchwork of state ingredient disclosure laws and that a federal standard to preempt state and local requirements will eventually be necessary.
In a presentation to the conference, Caine said several states have begun weighing disclosure requirements similar to California's SB 258, ingredient disclosure law, enacted in October.
"There is absolutely a need for a federal law to ensure we don't end up like we did before TSCA," Caine said, noting that June 2016 revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act bolstered EPA's authority to regulate chemicals and preempted state rules following federal action.
"The only way you can stop that is to pass a federal law that creates one standard and creates the consistency that all businesses want," he said of a potential patchwork of state disclosure laws.
Caine said that New York and Maryland have both begun weighing chemical ingredient disclosure laws or rules. While some state officials have suggested duplicating California's law, which would reduce burdens on interstate commerce, Caine said that in practice states often craft rules that are unique to their circumstances.
While arguing that a single federal standard for ingredient disclosure will be needed in the future, Caine said that it is too early to know which federal agency should take the lead. He told Inside EPA on the sidelines of the conference that while EPA toxics officials may have the requisite expertise for such a standard they also have a lot on their plate.
Other agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission could take the lead, Caine said. Whether HCPA would support any specific agency standard would depend on the future proposal.
Dooley said that ACC is moving forward with its push for federal legislation that would impose chemical evaluation requirements on state and local governments seeking to require chemical disclosure.
He added that there must also be an alternative means of complying with the labeling requirements, because manufacturers cannot make products for each jurisdiction that has its own labeling requirements.
Mike Walls, ACC's vice president of regulatory and technical affairs, added that the goal of the legislation is to ensure that a federal assessment standard ensures that such labeling is based on consistent analyses, "so that an American consumer gets consistent information." Consumers "ought to be fully informed around the health risks but also offset with information on the benefits" of a product, he added.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-struggles-win-bill-setting-criteria-local-chemical-label-rules
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks Prioritisation Clarity in California SCP Programme
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups are seeking greater clarity around how chemicals and products will be selected, during the next three years of California’s Safer Consumer Products programme.
This is according to comments submitted in response to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s release of the draft 2018-2020 priority product work plan last month. The plan names seven broad product categories – five of which were carried over from the inaugural 2015-17 document – from which it may select 'priority products'.
Once these product-chemical combinations are designated, a manufacturer must undertake an alternatives analysis.
The Green Chemistry Alliance – representing an array of major state and national industry groups, including the American Cleaning Institute, American Chemistry Council and Grocery Manufacturers Association – advocated a prioritisation process for selecting priority products that allows quantitative comparison of hazard and exposure. It criticised the DTSC’s use of a ‘narrative standard’ that allows for a "subjective regulatory selection of a chemical-product combination based on perception rather than a combination that truly poses the greatest potential for harm."
"An objective, step-by-step process should be constructed, based on credible, scientifically valid criteria that clearly outline the process by which DTSC will identify priority products," said the GCA.
The Household & Commercial Products Association said that further information on product selection would "improve clarity and confidence in the selection process and ... ensure the regulatory implementation is based on best available and reliable science."
And the American Chemistry Council advocated a risk-based process, such as that used under the Canadian Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) or amended TSCA, to "[allow] the agency to focus its resources where they will have the greatest potential public health impact, adding credibility and trust to the programme."
Product categories
Other comments called for a clearer rationale behind the addition, removal, or modification of product categories since the 2015-17 work plan.
The ACC asked the DTSC to disclose its criteria, weighting and logic for making category selections. In particular it sought the "regulatory rationale" behind the agency’s removing two of them – clothing and fishing and angling equipment – since the last plan.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – a coalition of automotive companies like Toyota, Ford and BMW – protested against the rollover of product categories across multiple years’ work plans.
"DTSC should not be able to place a cloud of uncertainty over a category of products indefinitely," it said. The automotive coalition said without greater clarity on its reasoning, the department "risks appearing arbitrary".
And the ACC’s Center for the Polyurethanes Industry was among industry respondents which said that the product categories are "overly broad", and fail to provide affected stakeholders adequate information upon which to provide input.
More than half a dozen industry comments focused on the "candidate chemicals", named in the draft work plan. These included concerns regarding:
· the listing of broad classes of chemicals, such a VOCs or phthalates, rather than specific substances;
· the inclusion of ‘hazard’ information that may be "confusing or misleading", according to the ACC; and
· whether specific substances are used and/or carry the hazards specified in the draft.
The ACC also requested the agency provide more details on its future plans, workshops and general timelines for naming priority products.
The DTSC did not provide a comment by the time of publishing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64783/industry-seeks-prioritisation-clarity-in-california-scp-programme
-
Proposal to Ban Foam Food Boxes Hits Roadblocks
Mar 14, 2018 | Baltimore Sun (In E&E Greenwire)
By Scott Dance
A proposal to make Maryland the first state to ban polystyrene foam faces an uncertain future.
The General Assembly bill would ban the material, trademarked as Styrofoam, from all restaurants and schools.
But a House of Delegates committee voted it down last week, and a state Senate panel expressed concerns about it yesterday.
Once a bill is voted down in committee, it is generally considered dead. But state Del. Brooke Lierman (D), a sponsor of the legislation, called on another House committee and another Senate committee to take it up.
"Like in baseball, it ain't over till it's over," Lierman said.
House lawmakers who voted against the bill raised concerns that it would cut into businesses' profits or inadvertently send more material to landfills, potentially increasing methane emissions.
"In my opinion, you can't pile on too heavily with something that would be devastating to the businesses," said Del. Cheryl Glenn (D) .
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/14/stories/1060076317
-
EU Toxrisk Makes Progress on Predicting Chemical Toxicity
Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
After two years, the EU-ToxRisk project is beginning to have evidence that its battery of alternative tests and models may be able to predict chemical toxicity for read-across purposes.
Although some of the case studies still await key data, early results suggest that predictions broadly match existing in vivo data for selected sets of chemicals.
These were among the main conclusions of a February stakeholder meeting in the Netherlands on the project, reported in this month’s Global Business Briefing. A new regulatory advisory board, with the remit of holding it to its promise of delivering tools that regulators need, also met for the first time, during the event.
EU-ToxRisk, which involves 39 partners in 13 countries, focuses on using new approach methodologies for repeated-dose systemic toxicity, with test systems for the lungs, kidneys, liver and nervous system, plus developmental and reproductive toxicity.
AOPs
Alternative tests and computer models are pinned to adverse outcome pathways (AOPs), which describe the key events in the body that lead to an adverse effect following chemical exposure.
The project as a whole is built on a set of case studies, each with AOPs, some of which are being identified during it. Most so far have focused on read-across, where chemicals are grouped so that information on target chemicals can be predicted, using test data from reference or source compounds.
EU-Tox Risk should shortly begin work on an ab initio case study and is discussing a collaboration with the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. Echa could propose substances for this, according to Mike Rasenberg, the agency’s head of computational assessment. Based on the case study results, Echa could use ab initio tools for prioritisation and/or compliance checks.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64853/eu-toxrisk-makes-progress-on-predicting-chemical-toxicity
-
FERC Says Alaska LNG Project Can Expect Major Delay
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The state of Alaska received a wake-up call from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday on how quickly federal regulators can complete an environmental impact statement on Alaska's $43 billion natural gas pipeline and liquefied natural gas export project.
In a notice filed online, FERC said it won't wrap up its final environmental review of the Alaska LNG project until December 2019, with the federal authorization decision expected in March 2020.
That completion date is more than a year later than the state-owned corporation has been predicting since it filed its initial application with FERC in November of last year.
Alaska Gasline Development Corp. (AGDC) has been pushing regulators to wrap up the final EIS by the end of this year. Under that schedule, the state predicted it could start building the megaproject in 2019 and shipping gas in 2024.
The Alaska LNG project would ship gas from the state's North Slope fields down an 800-mile pipeline to a liquefaction and export facility in Nikiski on the state's southern shore. The project is expected to produce up to 20 million tons of LNG per year for shipment to Asia.
Alaska officials have included their optimistic timetable in presentations to potential natural gas customers and investors for the LNG project, including three major Chinese companies that signed a joint development agreement with Alaska in November.
Under the nonbinding agreement, the Chinese companies would work with Alaska in designing, financing, construction and operation of the Alaska LNG project.
But last month FERC sent a blunt letter accusing AGDC of repeatedly ignoring federal requests for more data on the Alaska LNG project. FERC stressed that until the state answers its questions and submits additional studies, regulators would not be able to move forward on the state project.
Last week, FERC scheduled a March 22 technical conference in Washington to hammer out questions that remain between AGDC and commission staffers.'Simply not enough time'
In statements issued yesterday, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) and AGDC President Keith Meyer downplayed the importance of FERC's announcement that the final EIS won't be completed until the end of 2019.
Walker lauded FERC's timetable as "a major step forward that establishes clarity and predictability in the federal permitting process, which is critical for investors."
Meanwhile, Meyer insisted that the state will still be on track to begin shipping gas in the 2024-2025 time frame.
But Larry Persily, the former U.S. coordinator for Alaska natural gas projects, dismissed Meyer's prediction that the new FERC timeline won't delay completion of the gas project.
"I do not believe the Alaska LNG project could load its first cargo in 2024-2025 if it does not receive FERC authorization until March 2020," Persily said.
"That is simply not enough time to order and manufacture all the steel pipe, production modules, compressors and equipment that will be needed for this megaproject, and then construct all the pieces in the field — particularly where year-round work is not possible for much of the pipeline route," he said.
Persily also warned that AGDC could face a serious funding crunch as it seeks to answer FERC's technical questions.
"AGDC talks about needing $500 million to $700 million to finish the regulatory design, permitting and all the rest of the work on the project," he said. "Clearly they do not have enough state funds to get them through to a final EIS in 2019, two years away."
"So to get there, they need either an investor or investors, or they need the state to put more money into it," Persily said.
Thus far, Walker has insisted that he won't ask the state Legislature to provide more cash for the state-owned corporation for fiscal 2019.
Instead, the governor has petitioned the Legislature to authorize AGDC to receive third-party funding from outside investors to cover any new costs beyond the June 30 ending of fiscal 2018.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/14/stories/1060076263
-
Seismic Deniability in ANWR Debate: Fuel for Thought
Mar 14, 2018 | Platts
By Tim Bradner
Alaska wants to update decades-old seismic surveys of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to boost exploration. But in a twist, some officials feel that ignorance in this case may be better for the state’s coffers.
Alaska officials hope to jump-start exploration in ANWR with $10 million in “seed money” toward the cost of a 3-D seismic program to gather new information on oil and gas prospects.
ANWR is estimated to hold as much as 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But that estimate, compiled by the US Geological Survey, is years old and based mainly on results shared from one group-sponsored seismic survey in the 1980s that relied on older 2-D geophysical profiling.
The new plan involves modern 3-D seismic that would present a much more detailed picture of potential reservoirs, says Andy Mack, the state’s Commissioner of Natural Resources.
Some 3-D seismic can even indicate the presence of fluids in reservoir rock, although exploration drilling is still needed. If the Legislature approves the appropriation, the state will solicit partners who will share in the information, Mack said. A seismic operator would be contracted to do the project.
‘MOOSE PASTURE’ LEASE SALE
Although Alaska has been a gung-ho supporter of ANWR exploration for decades, and the recent decision by Congress to open the refuge was spearheaded by the state’s congressional delegation, some Alaska legislators question the state’s investment in seismic.
State Senator Peter Micciche, Republican from Kenai, in southcentral Alaska, thinks the venture could backfire.
“There is a risk that you could chill interest if the seismic results devalue certain prospects,” in the refuge’s coastal plain, Micciche said.
Sometimes it’s better to hype the lease sale but leave companies without the data, so they bid blind. Just this happened in one of the earliest North Slope lease sales. Right after the 1969 Prudhoe Bay oil discovery, the state, which badly needed money, decided to auction unleased lands around the discovery. The sale
was held in a matter of months, deliberately timed so no company had time to do seismic.Tom Kelly, the state resources commissioner, became the state’s chief huckster and talked up the sale at industry forums. The result was $900 million in bonus bids, an astounding amount at the time.
As it turned out, most of the leases sold in the sale turned out to be unproductive — “moose pasture,” as Alaskans put it. Kelly said later that if companies had had time to do seismic the state would have received a fraction of what it got.
CREATING ‘HAVES AND HAVE-NOTS’
Roger Herrera, a retired BP geologist who has done extensive work on ANWR, said the state’s proposal is a risk like anything in the oil business. But he cautions that if only the participants in a state-led consortium have the data, it creates a split among prospective bidders, with “haves and have-nots,” which will definitely discourage the have-nots from taking a gamble.
“My suggestion is for the state to use its limited funds to do 3-D seismic only on the most prospective areas and then sell the information at very low cost to as many people as possible,” Herrera said. That strategy disseminates the information broadly, rather than having it be held by only a few, he said.
However, there’s already a have and have-not situation in ANWR, Herrera said. Two companies who drilled an exploration well in the early 1980s, Chevron and BP, still have those test results as well as lease rights in a private land holding in the refuge.
Arctic Slope Regional Corp., an Alaska Native development corporation, owns a 92,000-acre private enclave in ANWR and has agreements with Chevron and BP. Herrera said this has always created a split in the industry because of the perception that BP and Chevron have the upper hand. Because of that, the bidding could be depressed anyway, he said.
FEDERAL ANWR SALE
The total price for a single winter “group shoot” in ANWR is unknown. But when Alaska proposed a similar project three years ago that would have been paid for completely by the state, a cost of $50 million was estimated.
Then US Interior Secretary Sally Jewell shot the plan down. Mack said he doesn’t think Ryan Zinke, the current Secretary, will have a problem.
“It’s our belief that having newer and better data on ANWR will generate more interest in two lease sales the Department of the Interior will conduct,” Mack told legislators in a recent hearing. “This is based on our experience in making seismic data we have obtained through its exploration tax credit program available to
companies.”The state has been able to stoke industry interest in new plays in the Colville River area west of Prudhoe Bay by making data available to explorers.
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/03/14/seismic-deniability-anwr-debate/
-
Ohio Shale E&Ps Kept Driving Production, Innovation Last Year, Says Report
Mar 14, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Production wasn’t the only thing that increased in Ohio’s oil and natural gas fields last year, as permitting bounced back from the lows of the commodities downturn and shale drillers that increasingly control more land continued extending their laterals, according to the Ohio Oil and Gas Association’s (OOGA) annual Debrosse Memorial Report.
The report, presented last week at OOGA’s 71st winter meeting in Columbus, offers an annual comprehensive analysis of the industry’s operations in the state. It’s compiled using publicly available information.
The report showed that the state issued 931 permits last year, up from 561 in 2016, when permits dropped elsewhere in the Appalachian Basin, as exploration and production (E&P) companies were still grappling with the steep decline in oil and natural gas prices.
Martin Shumway, technical officer at Locus Bio-Energy Solutions LLC, who presented the report, said most of the permits were issued in southeast Ohio, where 672 were secured for Utica/Point Pleasant wells. Another 165 permits that Shumway said would likely be Utica Shale wells were for the deeper Trenton Limestone. Thirty-six permits were issued for the Clinton Sandstone, 31 for the Knox Group and the rest for a variety of other formations.
Combined conventional and unconventional natural gas production in Ohio increased 23% year/year in 2017 to about 1.8 Tcf. Nearly all of the total, about 1.7 Tcf, largely came from Utica wells. Combined oil production declined about 6% to 19.5 million bbl, as the state’s dominant unconventional producers focused on their drier acreage. The Utica primarily accounted for 16.4 million bbl of oil.
“Taking a look back, historically, in 1990, the conventional wells in Ohio produced about 121 Bcf per year,” Shumway told the crowd. “Moving forward, there was a pretty steady decline on the conventional wells, and then, in about 2012, when the horizontal [Utica] wells started to come online, there’s been absolutely phenomenal production growth.”
The state’s unconventional wells continue to get longer, as they have across the basin. “The average footage per well is increasing, so we’re drilling longer laterals in the same formations,” Shumway said. Last year, the average footage per well in Ohio was 16,263 feet. That’s compared to 14,206 feet in 2016 and only 4,192 feet in 2011, when producers reportedthe first commercial Utica Shale production. Average footage/well includes the total drilled from surface to total depth and factors in both vertical and horizontal wells.
Timothy Knobloch, president of James Knobloch Petroleum Consultants Inc., separately provided research indicating average lateral lengths have increased across the basin to average 9,013 feet last year from 3,629 feet in 2011.
Operators across the country have been targeting their core acreage in recent years, focused on optimizing development with longer laterals and shorter stage spacing. Eclipse Resources Corp., for example, which was an Ohio pure-play until late last year when it acquired Utica assets in north-central Pennsylvania, has touted its “super lateral” program. The company’s lateral lengths averaged 13,600 feet in 2017, with eight stretching beyond 19,000 feet.
On the drilling and completion (D&C) side, Ascent Resources LLC overtook Chesapeake Energy Corp. to lead Ohio with the 79 wells it finished last year, according to the Debrosse report. Ascent was a Chesapeake spinoff. Chesapeake completed 58 wells and Gulfport Energy Corp. rounded out the top three for D&C activity with 47 wells.
Ascent is the largest firm capacity holder on the Rover pipeline, with 1.1 Bcf/d committed to the 3.25 Bcf/d project. It was scrambling last year to fill that capacity. Rover entered partial service at the end of 2017 and is expected to enter full-service in the second quarter.
Belmont, Monroe, Jefferson, Harrison and Guernsey counties led the state in completions last year and also had the most active wells.
There were 45 upstream operators working in Ohio during 2017, compared to 121 in 2011 as Utica development was ramping-up.
Larger shale producers such as EQT, Antero Resources Corp. and Southwestern Energy Co., among others, have consolidated their positions across the basin in recent years, blocking up more acreage for longer laterals.
Knobloch said 14 companies, working in 16 counties across the basin, currently account for 75% of all the producing unconventional wells. Washington County in southwest Pennsylvania led the way with 1,405, followed by Susquehanna County in northeast Pennsylvania with 1,206 and nearby Bradford County with 1,129.
Knobloch added that there are 11,600 producing wells across the basin. Not surprisingly, he said, the Marcellus Shale accounts for about 73% of those, according to his firm’s research.
“I don’t know that that ratio is going to change a lot in the future, but I do believe we’ll continue to see more activity in other formations.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113682-ohio-shale-eps-kept-driving-production-innovation-last-year-says-report
-
U.S. Energy Pipeline Developers to Seek Exemptions to Steel Tariff
Mar 13, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Liz Hampton and Ju-min Park
U.S. energy pipeline developers say they intend to pursue exemptions to the Trump Administration's proposed steel tariffs, as concerns grow for those companies and from key exporters to the United States like South Korea.
"We have a number of pipeline projects that would be impacted significantly by this cost increase," said Adam Bedard, chief executive of Arb Midstream, an energy transportation and marketing company. If exemptions become available, "we'd certainly try and qualify for it."
He was referring to the U.S. Commerce Department's effort to devise a procedure for companies to apply to avoid paying a 25 percent tariff on imported steel or 10 percent on imported aluminum.
Commerce has 10 days to come up with the procedure to apply for exemptions from the steel and aluminum tariff declaration issued last week. There is a national security exemption for U.S. companies to buy steel items that domestic manufacturers do not produce in the volumes or quality required. The president also said exemptions would be available to certain countries.
Imports account for 77 percent of the steel used in U.S. pipelines, according to a 2017 study conducted for the pipeline industry. Some manufacturers already have customers waiting two years for pipeline to construct lines to carry shale oil and gas from West Texas fields to U.S. Gulf Coast export hubs.Continue reading the main story
Energy trade associations fought for a way around the tariff. They argued that U.S. manufacturers either do not offer key metal grades or diameters, or have long production times that would impede development of shale oil and gas pipelines.
NAmerico Partners LP, which is proposing a multibillion dollar pipeline to move natural gas from west Texas to the U.S. Gulf Coast, estimates the steel tariff would raise the cost to its customers by between 2 percent and 4 percent.
"We will do everything we are capable of to limit the impact to our shippers," said Jeff Welch, the company's managing partner. NAmerico has not yet made the final decision to begin construction of the 468-mile (753 kilometer) pipeline, he said.
Even with exemptions, tariffs could still raise costs and slow down projects, said Nicolas Adrian McTyre, an Austin, Texas attorney and former trial attorney for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
"You are looking at a new regulatory hurdle potentially and there are a lot of unknowns to that process currently."
SOUTH KOREA LOOKS ELSEWHERE
One of the primary providers of steel for pipeline companies is South Korea. Manufacturers there have said they are considering sending exports to other parts of the world due to difficulties with shipping to the United States, even before the tariffs go into effect.
John Stoody, a spokesman for the U.S. Association of Oil Pipe Lines, said at least one member firm, which he did not name, tried to buy steel from South Korea in recent days, but was rebuffed due to tariff uncertainty.
"Foreign pipe sellers are hesitant to sell pipe," he said.
Executives at steel companies in South Korea say the move is nudging them toward non-U.S. markets. Seah Steel, whose sales to the United States account for 20 percent of total revenue, is exploring other markets, a company official said.
Trump's tariff “will inevitably impact our exports, and make it necessary for us to find a new channel for exports,” the Seah official said. He declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.
Seah acquired two U.S. plants in 2016 to reduce any tariff burden, according to the company, but still has to rely on its Korean manufacturing lines for U.S. sales.
The U.S. Commerce Department said in April 2017 that it had found that Korean steel producers had been unfairly dumping OCTG in the U.S. market.
Imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from South Korea - which includes drill pipes, casing and tubings - were valued at about $1.1 billion for the mid-2014 to mid-2015 period it examined. That accounted for nearly 25 percent of all OCTG U.S. imports, ahead of all other countries, Commerce said at the time.
Commerce responded by raising duties as high as 24.9 percent from a previous range of about 4 percent to 6.5 percent.
"The best case is to get exempted but there’s nothing else we can say," said Park Hoon, CEO of Husteel, on the sidelines of a meeting between Korean government officials and industry executives to discuss the tariffs.
He said nearly 80 percent of the company's business relies on U.S. sales, and the company also is looking to other export markets.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/03/14/business/14reuters-usa-trade-pipeline.html
-
Trump’s Tariffs Threaten Domestic Natural Gas Industry and US Energy Goals
Mar 14, 2018 | The Hill - Opinion
By Jamie McInerney
President Donald Trump’s 25 percent tariff on imported steel will create an existential shock in material costs for the domestic natural gas industry, potentially causing multibillion-dollar projects to become uncompetitive and threatening the president’s own goal of U.S. energy dominance.
Citing national security concerns, the president surprised policymakers and the business community by announcing on March 1 that he would impose a 25 percent tariff on imports of steel and a 10 percent tariff on imports of aluminum. One week later he signed proclamations implementing the policy, though temporarily exempting Canada and Mexico.
For the natural gas industry, steel is a critical material in all phases of the business. Whether it be for gas gathering, transmission or distribution, U.S. energy companies require significant quantities of steel pipe. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. pipeline network has nearly 3 million miles of mainline and other pipelines that connect production areas and storage facilities to approximately 74 million consumers. And, this number only represents active pipelines; there are many more miles of natural gas pipeline projects that are in various stages of planning, approval and construction.
Dramatically increasing the cost of steel by applying a tariff, or import tax, to this material could cause planned and ongoing projects to simply become financially unfeasible. The impact of such a tariff is even more troubling when you consider that many of the steel products that are essential to natural gas projects are not even produced in the United States.
For Plains All American Pipeline, this is an unfortunate reality: 26-inch steel pipes are a key component in its approximately $1.5 billion worth of ongoing projects. However, as Greg Armstrong, chairman and CEO of Plains All American Pipeline, revealed to attendees of this year’s CERAWeek energy conference, there are only three places in the world that manufacture 26-inch steel pipe and none of them are in the United States. Placing a tariff on critical products that are not produced domestically fails to protect our national security or our domestic industry.
A 25 percent tariff on steel imports is, in reality, a massive tax on the natural gas industry, and it could cause President Trump’s goal of “energy dominance” to completely derail.
Another segment of the natural gas economy under real threat from these tariffs is the nascent U.S. LNG export industry. LNG projects are highly capital intensive and relatively low margin economic endeavors. Increasing the cost of key inputs because of tariffs on steel will have an outsized impact on their underlying economics.
For example, take Freeport LNG on the Gulf Coast of Texas. If there had been a 25 percent tariff on imported steel when the company began construction on its first three LNG trains, costs for the nearly $13 billion project would have increased by several hundred million dollars. Adding hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs would have threatened the economics of the project as Michael Smith, chairman and CEO of Freeport LNG Development, explained at the 2018 CERAWeek energy conference in Houston:
“This thing [Freeport LNG’s 3 export trains] would cost a few hundred million dollars more if we had to pay 25 percent more than what we did. But when you’re in development, all of a sudden, it’s one more externality you can’t control. And banks want to know if you have plenty of coverage with plenty of contingency money.”
In the United States, there are currently six LNG terminals slated to be online by 2020. However, there are also more than a dozen U.S. LNG terminals either waiting for final investment decisions or approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). For the projects in the queue, developers believe that President Trump’s tariffs could be a fatal blow.
Ernie Megginson, the former vice president of development for the Magnolia LNG project, recently said: "The existing off-take agreements will likely be OK for the projects already under construction. However, the projects that have not yet started construction will be in some trouble."
LNG export facilities and foreign markets are critical for relieving the natural gas glut in the United States. If LNG facilities cannot be built because of rising costs, or if countries that import U.S. LNG decide to look elsewhere for diplomatic reasons, the United States will not achieve its energy export potential.
In the final analysis, tariffs on steel and aluminum harm far more industries than they help, as we saw with President Bush’s tariffs in 2002. The U.S. natural gas industry is at the beginning of a critical growth phase. Both pipelines and LNG facilities are needed to support this growth, and steel tariffs will put many of these critical infrastructure projects in jeopardy.
Jamie McInerney is executive director of the Trade Leadership Coalition, anonprofit organization providing public information and educational resources to explain the benefits of the United States engaging in international trade.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/378052-trumps-tariffs-threaten-domestic-natural-gas-industry-and-us
-
Industry Should Comply with the Methane Waste Prevention Rule
Mar 14, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. RaúL M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.),
Before leaving office, President Obama instituted a rule limiting the oil and gas industry’s wasting of natural gas on public and tribal lands. The standard, formally known as the Methane Waste Prevention Rule, was a set of commonsense updates – such as requiring companies to detect and fix leaky equipment – projected to bring in an additional $23 million annually in royalties to states, tribes and federal taxpayers, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 950,000 cars off the road.
Setting an upper limit on how much gas producers can leak into the air as part of the extraction process was long overdue. The Mineral Leasing Act requires the Bureau of Land Management to ensure that operators “use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil or gas.” Federal officials were relying on 35-year-old rules to enforce that mandate.
Leaked natural gas worsens climate change – methane has about 25 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide – and costs taxpayers money because in most cases companies don’t pay royalties on wasted gas. Once leaked, this valuable public resource is lost forever. Continuing to rely on weak, outdated rules made no sense.
Although the Obama standard was practical and had benefits that clearly outweighed the costs, industry figures protested so bitterly that the Trump administration vowed to cancel it. So far, those attempts have been amateurish. The rushed efforts to let industry off the hook by delaying compliance dates for the rule were recently struck down by a district court in California, which described the White House proposal as “untethered to evidence.”
The industry’s response to that ruling has been telling. Rather than complying with the standard by installing available technology and limiting their wasteful habits, drillers on Feb. 28 simply asked the courts to make the rule disappear. The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, an industry lobbying group, petitioned a judge in Wyoming to put the Obama rule on hold again because private companies aren’t prepared to follow it.
The argument is essentially that Trump swore to make the rule go away, businesses built their investment and compliance strategies on that promise, and now that Trump’s words proved hollow they’re in no position to comply with the law as it stands.
This is the private sector equivalent of claiming the dog ate your homework. Republicans in Congress and the administration have no excuse for letting the industry get away with it, and in similar circumstances would have no trouble cracking down on less politically friendly actors. Unfortunately, they’re encouraging this behavior every step of the way.
We saw how politically unwise this course is for Republicans when they attempted to use the Congressional Review Act – a slash-and-burn deregulatory tool used to destroy other Obama-era standards – to repeal the Methane Waste Prevention Rule in 2017. As the idea gained steam in March 2017, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, falsely claimed the rule “will create higher economic costs, reduce jobs and revenues, and weaken our energy security.”
This argument failed to win the day. Voices across the country, including those in the West, objected to the move and spoke out about the rule’s public benefits. The vote to rescind the standard failed in the Senate, marking the only unsuccessful vote to repeal a rule in this Congress.
But Republicans seem to have learned nothing from the experience. On Feb. 12, the day the Trump administration announced it would undo the rule, my colleague Rep. Rob Bishop, a Utah Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, claimed the rollback was necessary because the Obama administration “scorned domestic energy development and crafted the prior rule to deliberately stifle it.”
These signals and others like them told the industry it has nothing to fear in terms of congressional oversight. Indeed, Republicans in Congress – whose duties, let’s not forget, include oversight of the economy and compliance with federal regulations – have accepted or encouraged the industry’s strategy. Thanks to the Republican stranglehold on Capitol Hill, neither the House nor Senate has held a single hearing on industry’s refusal to comply with the Methane Waste Prevention Rule since it was first adopted.
As a political talking point, it’s fine to disagree with the Obama methane standard. The rule’s fiscal, environmental, and health benefits are well-documented, but as a philosophical matter one can always give priority to preventing industry costs over generating wider public benefits.
It’s another thing to use this talking point as a business or governing strategy. Industry should comply with the Methane Waste Prevention Rule or Republicans should ask them why they’re not bothering. Otherwise we’ll find out what happens when the industry runs out of judges to petition.
Grijalva is ranking member on the Natural Resource Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/378247-industry-should-comply-with-the-methane-waste
-
Oregon Governor Says Zinke Told Her Offshore Drilling Isn’t ‘Lucrative’ There
Mar 14, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told her that offshore oil and natural gas drilling off her state’s coast wouldn’t likely be cost effective.
Brown relayed the conversation to HuffPost, saying it happened during an in-person meeting regarding Zinke’s proposal to allow drilling along the entire Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
“He told me that the return on investment is not very lucrative for offshore drilling, off of Oregon and Washington coasts,” Brown told the news outlet.
“The return on investment is not good. We know that.”
Brown said Zinke also told her that offshore drilling near Oregon is made riskier by the location of the nearby Cascadia subduction zone fault, where earthquakes could occur.
“That’s what’s different about the western coast,” she said.
Zinke did not promise to take Oregon’s waters out of the Trump administration’s extensive offshore drilling plan, the governor said. But the conversation is nonetheless likely to increase the hopes of opponents in the state, including Brown.
Zinke gave a similar comment in an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing Tuesday when Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the panel's top Democrat, asked about taking Washington state out of the plan.
“You should know off the coast of Oregon, Washington, most of California, there are no known resources of any weight,” he said
“And again I put everything on so we could have a dialogue and then take what's appropriate off. I think I'm going to mark down Washington as opposed to oil and gas drilling,” he continued, again declining to commit to taking any area out of the plan.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/378341-oregon-governor-says-says-zinke-told-her-offshore-drilling-isnt
-
EPA Sends Draft RMP Revision Rule for OMB Review
Mar 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House review its draft proposed rule easing an Obama-era measure that had sought to strengthen the agency's facility accident prevention program, giving the agency less than one year to issue a final regulation by the Trump administration's self-imposed February 2019 deadline.
The administration's effort to rewrite the regulation also faces legal uncertainty as a federal appeals court is slated to hear oral argument this week on environmentalists' challenge to the Trump administration's delay of the Obama final rule.
On March 12, EPA sent for White House Office of Management Budget (OMB) review the proposal that is widely expected to significantly scale back the Obama-era update to the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule.
OMB review generally takes 90 days but can take more or less time.
In response to petitions from the chemical sector and Republican-led states, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last June delayed the effective date of the Obama-era RMP update rule nearly two years from June 19, 2017, to Feb. 19, 2019, to allow time for the agency to issue a new regulation revising the controversial rule.
But some industry officials are said to have been “anxious” about EPA's slow pace in developing a proposal in light of the looming deadline, though it is not clear if the agency's submission of the draft is likely to ease their concerns.
The rulemaking also faces legal uncertainty as environmental, labor and some Democratic-led states have challenged the delay, arguing it violates a Clean Air Act limit on delaying rules for purposes of revision and worsens the risk of disasters.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is slated to hear oral argument in the delay case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, March 16 at 9:30 a.m.
The Obama EPA's Jan. 12 final RMP rule brought new requirements for certain facilities to conduct independent audits and analyze safer alternatives, and included provisions aimed at streamlining disclosure of facility data.
A host of industry groups, Republican-led states and Pruitt during his tenure as Oklahoma's attorney general, faulted the Obama RMP rule as an unnecessary update to the agency's accident prevention rule and argued that provisions could increase facility security risks.
EPA issued the rule after a fertilizer facility in West, TX, exploded in April 2013 killing 15 people, including first responders.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-sends-draft-rmp-revision-rule-omb-review
-
Washington Must Act on Much Needed Improvements to Freight Rail Policies
Mar 14, 2018 | The Regulatory Review
By Daniel Elliott, III
Now is the time to improve the outdated rules at the Surface Transportation Board to make a fairer economic regulatory framework and strengthen the nation’s freight rail system.
For decades, the railroads have vehemently opposed any manner of change proposed by this independent regulatory body in charge of both the well-being of the rail industry and protection for its customers. What the railroads fail to mention in their torrent of op-ed pieces against change is they have monopoly power over their customers in many circumstances, and the Board serves as the only backstop to protect these customers from this monopoly power. Consequently, if the Board’s rules do not work, there is nowhere else to turn.
The changes proposed by the Board are not as ominous as the railroads make them out to be. The reciprocal switching proposal is a long-needed cure to a policy that has completely failed over the last 30 years. Under reciprocal switching, an incumbent carrier transports a shipper’s traffic to an interchange point, where it switches the cars over to the competing carrier. The competing carrier pays the incumbent carrier a switching fee for bringing or taking the cars from the shipper’s facility to the interchange point, or vice versa. This reciprocal switching proposal allows the competing carrier to offer its own single-line rate to compete with the incumbent carrier, even when the competing carrier’s lines do not reach the shipper’s facility.
In 1985, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Board’s predecessor, adopted new regulations based on the reciprocal switching provision enacted in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which severely narrowed this remedy by requiring a rail shipper to demonstrate competitive harm to obtain this arrangement. Since the adoption of these regulations, there has not been a single case where reciprocal switching was awarded, and no cases have been filed since 1996 because of this insurmountable standard.
The railroads have cried “re-regulation” and “backdoor rate regulation” in response to the Board’s reciprocal switching proposal. Both of these terms are complete misnomers when one actually looks at the statute this regulatory proposal is based on. The statute provides that “the Board may require rail carriers to enter into reciprocal switching agreements where it finds such agreements to be practicable and in the public interest, or where such agreements are necessary to provide competitive rail service.” If one compares this language to the language in the proposed reciprocal switching regulations, it is identical. As such, it seems to be a far cry to say this proposal is re-regulation when the Board is merely applying the statutory language verbatim. It is not only the correct application of Congress’s reciprocal switching provisions, but also a fairer application, because rail shippers actually would have a chance to obtain access to competitive rail service as Congress intended when it passed the Staggers Act.
Moreover, this statute provides that “the rail carriers entering into such an agreement shall establish the conditions and compensation applicable to such agreement.” In other words, the Board would not be asked to set the conditions and compensation unless the railroads could not reach an agreement on their own. This provision puts the most important part of the process in the control of the railroads. It is unfair to label this process as backdoor rate regulation when, in fact, it allows the customer to choose between competing service providers.
Another pending proposal before the Board would revoke various commodity exemptions that have been in place for decades. Although the railroads attempt to characterize this change as some form of re-regulation, the true effect is just to allow these commodities, like steel and cement, to be on the same playing field with nonexempt commodities. Now, if a railroad abuses its monopoly power against a rail shipper of one of these exempt commodities, it has little recourse except to file a partial exemption revocation request limited to the specific case before the Board can act. The Board is just trying to remove this burdensome, additional step and allow its regulatory process to be applied in an equal manner to all commodities. Not only is this proposal a fairer way to regulate, it still keeps matters in the hands of the railroads because without some type of abuse of their monopoly power, there would not even be a case for the Board to hear.
The railroads also complain about the revenue adequacy proceeding that is pending before the Board. Here, the Board is actually dealing with a rate case remedy that has been brought before the Board on a couple of occasions but has never run its course to a decision. This proceeding is simply trying to explore the best way to apply this rate remedy. Although the railroads claim the best way to move forward is to find a more efficient and accurate way to handle rate cases, they do not seem to want to find new ways to do so. Here, the Board is just exploring the possibility of another way to deal with rate proceedings, which have become incredibly complex and burdensome to all involved.
When these reasonable proposed reforms are viewed in a not-so-slanted light, it becomes clear that the intention of the Board is not to re-regulate the rail industry with burdensome new rules. The intention is simply to streamline the Board’s operations and give the Board better tools that reflect today’s economic realities so it can fulfill its congressional mandate for shippers and railroads. The rules that the Board uses currently were created when the rail industry was in dire straits and in need of protection. Now the rail industry is “revenue adequate” and vibrant. Circumstances have changed dramatically but the rules have not. As a result, there has never been a better time to review the existing regulatory scheme to evaluate its fairness and effectiveness.
Daniel Elliott, III is former Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board. He is legal counsel to the Private Railcar Food and Beverage Association, Inc.
https://www.theregreview.org/2018/03/14/elliott-much-needed-improvements-freight-rail/
-
Pruitt's Climate Clash Was Declared Dead. There's a Plan B
Mar 14, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
In December, top aides to the president huddled in the White House with some of Scott Pruitt's closest staffers.
The message conveyed by the White House: The EPA administrator's idea to hold a public debate on mainstream climate science wasn't going to happen, according to a person who attended the meeting.
But that might not be the case. Despite reports from E&E News in December that Pruitt's plan for a "red team" was "on hold," followed by a New York Times report last week that Trump chief of staff John Kelly considered the idea "dead," EPA officials have continued to suggest otherwise.
Asked yesterday whether the White House had killed his "red team" plans, Pruitt told Bloomberg, "It's very important that I think the American people have a transparent, objective discussion about this issue.
"The vehicle by which we achieve that is something yet to be determined," he added.
That came after Pruitt disputed an E&E News story in January that the White House had told his agency not to go forward with the red team climate science debate.
"That's untrue," Pruitt told Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) at a Senate hearing. "It's under consideration, senator."
So did the White House kill Pruitt's red team idea for good? Not exactly, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
While White House aides put the brakes on Pruitt's plan, they also suggested an alternative, according to the person in the meeting.
Option B: Take public comments on petitions asking EPA to revisit the Obama administration's endangerment finding, the agency's underlying authority to regulate greenhouse gases in cars, power plants and other sources. That would allow EPA to determine "where the arguments are supporting and rejecting the science," said the person at the meeting.
It's possible that Pruitt and his aides see that as a way to meet the objectives of a climate "red team," even if it's not the high-profile exercise he touted publicly. Pruitt may also believe the president will support a broader effort despite dissent from his aides.
Late last year, Pruitt was frequently pitching the idea of a military-style climate science debate in which a red team comprising critics of mainstream climate scientists squared off against a blue team of researchers. It could even air on television, he suggested. Some conservatives were hopeful that the exercise could be used as a vehicle to challenge EPA's endangerment finding. Trump privately told Pruitt ahead of that meeting that he supported the idea (Climatewire, Dec. 11, 2017).
Those plans sparked pushback from the West Wing.
"It could not have been more clear" that the red team as envisioned by Pruitt wasn't going to happen, said the person who attended the meeting. And "it was made abundantly clear that General Kelly opposed 'red team, blue team' 100 percent." There were concerns by others in the administration that "Pruitt's concept for red team, blue team would have exposed the administration to litigation risk."
The "White House made clear not to use red team as a label," that person said.
The mid-December meeting was attended by Trump energy aide Mike Catanzaro; deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn; EPA air chief Bill Wehrum; Pruitt's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson; and others (Climatewire, Dec. 15, 2017).
EPA declined to comment.
Middle ground?
Moving on the petitions to look at the endangerment finding might be a win-win for Pruitt and White House staffers.
The petitions fall within EPA's jurisdiction, and acting on them could appease some conservatives who are pushing the administration to upend the Obama-era finding.
Pruitt and his top aides haven't ruled out revisiting the determination, although many on the right and left contend that unraveling it would be a massive undertaking that could expose the administration to legal vulnerabilities.
"I think it's extremely unlikely that they will try to reverse the endangerment finding," said Jeff Holmstead, an industry attorney at Bracewell LLP who was EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration. "It would be an extremely heavy lift and could easily be put back in place by the next administration."
Taking comment on the petitions would be much easier. A group of homeowners filed one petition the day of Trump's inauguration. Another petition was filed last February by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and board members of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (Greenwire, April 10, 2017).
To open a public debate, the agency could simply issue a notice asking for public comment on the petition. The move wouldn't create any obligation for EPA to take regulatory action, and it could score the administration some political points on the right.
"We would be happy if the EPA took our petition and the other petitions for reopening or reconsidering the endangerment finding and if they decided to consider those petitions in a public way," said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ebell led Trump's EPA transition team.
"Essentially, a red team could be a part of that process, a red team analysis of current climate science could be part of that process, and that would then allow them to make a better-informed decision about whether reopening the endangerment finding is a good idea or not," Ebell added.
Conservatives may push for more.
"CEI's petition is a good petition, but just opening it up for comments I don't think is enough," said H. Sterling Burnett, a research fellow at the Heartland Institute, which has pushed for the unraveling of the endangerment finding. Burnett said such a move might constitute an "opening salvo" in a process to roll back the finding. "You start somewhere, and if the comments come in strong enough, you move forward with a bigger project."
Taking comment on the petitions would open the floodgates to anyone who wanted to participate.
"They're going to get an earful from the legitimate scientific community," said David Doniger, director of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Doniger called an attack on the endangerment finding a "fool's errand." If EPA attempts to do so, he said, "they'll get blown away if they do this both in the court of public opinion and in the court of appeals in Washington." If EPA ultimately seeks to undo the finding, it would have to issue a new regulation, which would certainly be challenged in court.
Taking comment on the petitions and issuing a new rule to undo the finding could potentially take years, and some see it as a way for the administration to effectively punt on the issue. EPA could accept comment on the petitions and then let the issue languish. The petitioners could take EPA to court, contending that the agency's inaction constitutes an "unreasonable delay," but lawyers say that would be a tough case to make.
Longtime EPA observers point to another climate petition filed during the Clinton administration.
In 1999, environmental groups asked then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner to regulate greenhouse gases from autombiles under the Clean Air Act.
The Clinton administration sat on the petition for more than a year before opening a 90-day public comment period shortly before Clinton left office in January 2001. The George W. Bush administration rejected the petition in 2003 (Greenwire, Sept. 2, 2003).
That rejection prompted lawsuits that led to the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which said that EPA has the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles under the Clean Air Act. The endangerment finding has its roots in that legal decision.
If EPA opens comments on the endangerment finding, it would be a "paper process" that won't get much attention, Doniger said.
"It's just dog whistling to the climate deniers," he said. "It's not going to be a high-profile thing."c
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/03/14/stories/1060076249
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested